No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout36-Plannning c #~ CITY OF. SAN BERNARDINO ~J(";--:.;..-;_ :-,~':')' ~o/: ~\: . . !- ....?~~/\~~.:~; -..:" \ 1":.'/ o o :) 1.J POST OFFICE BOX 131B. SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 92402 December 9, 1986 SHAUNA CLARK CITY CLERK Frank Del'Andrae 5560 Mission Blvd. Riverside, CA 92509 Dear Mr. Del'Andrae: At the meeting of the Mayor and Common Council held December 8, 1986, your appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of appeal on Review of Plans No. 86-43, for the construction of a 48 unit, three story apartment complex located on the south side of Mill Street, west of Rancho Avenue, was continued. The hearing on the appeal was continued to December 22, 1986, at 2:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. Sincerely, ~t"/?~,0 "'5HAUNA CLARK City Clerk SC:dc cc: Mayor Wilcox Councilman Ralph Hernandez Planning Henry & Alice Stiel , . .. <" < '. .jPRICE IN PPOGFESS '.. . I' .-1 \",-.. ..-"" ;-................- /, ~- ';;';"';"', I 300 NORTH "0" STREET. SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 9241B'()121 PHONE 17141 3B3-5oo2/3B3.51 02 .<1. Cln ,OF SAN BERNARDICO - REQU~~T FOR COUNCIL ACGoN"j Frank A. Schuma Appeal of Denial of Appeal From: Planning Director Subject: on Review of Plans No. 86-43 Dept: Planning Mayor and Council Meeting of Date: November 18, 1986 December 8, 1986, 2:00 p.m. Synopsis of Previous Council action: Previous Planning Commission action: At the meeting of the Planning Commission on November 5, 1986, the following action was taken: The appeal of Review of Plans No. 86-43 was reviewed and it was the determination of the Commission that the appeal was not filed in a timely and appropriate manner, and, therefore, no further action could be taken by the Planning Commission. Vote: 5-2, 2 absent. Recommen1ed motion: That the hearing on the appeal be closed and the decision of the Planning Commission be affirmed, modified or rejected. Q p - - Signature Frank A. Schuma Frank A. Schuma 383-5057 Contact person: Phone: Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: 3 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Sou rce: Finance: Council Notes: C~ITY OF SAN BEF(;IARDINO C- MEMORANDU~') To MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL From RALPH H. PRINCE City Attorney December 5, 1986 Subject Item 53, Agenda of December 8, 1986 Appeal of Review of Plans 86-43 Date Approved Date Review of Plans 86-43 was approved by the Development Review Committee on August 7, 1986; a letter advising the applicant that the application had been approved and enclosing copies of the requirements and conditions was mailed to the applicant on August 25, 1986. At the Council meeting of August 18, 1986, Councilman Hernandez orally indicated his desire to appeal Review of Plans 86-43. Planning Director, Frank Schuma, concurs that a verbal request was made at the Council meeting, but it was not included in the Minutes, nor was it located on the recording of the meeting. At the Council meeting of September 8, 1986, Councilman Hernandez reaffirmed his desire to appeal Review of Plans 86- 43, and the architect was subsequently informed by letter on September 25, 1986 that an appeal had been made. No appeal was ever submitted in writing. The Planning Commission heard the question of the timeliness of the appeal on November 5, 1986. Resolution No. 86-361r which set forth procedures for administrative appeals of Development Review Commission decisions to the Planning Commission, was adopted on September 9, 1986, subsequent to the events above described. At the time that Councilman Hernandez' a eal was orally made, there was no t1me 11mit n re irem wr1 1n . //' 1.. J"'. l' ) Therefore, absent any specific appeal procedure in the Code, or adopted policYr fundamental principles of due process require that administrative appeals of staff decisions be entertained by the Planning Commission. Absent a specific time requirement, the time for appeal was a reasonable time. The appeal of Review of Plans 86-43 should be referred to the Planning Commission for a hearing on the merits. Interested parties should be notified. ~hY2~-c:~/ RALPH H. PRINCE city Attorney Attachment: Resolution No. 86-361 () C. c 'QltQp, -. '-' o -e"D _~. I . -Hf.N. (Wlf: 1986 ClEc - 5 D.R,~m.nt: ~I'f f(): 04 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR December 4, 1986 , I ,;,~. Phon. No.: ^ '. UJ .. \ ~ ~t'O"J ~,,~.r ~~ '~-. (714) 370-5061 The Honorable Evlyn Wilcox and Members of the City Council City of San Bernardino 300 North "0" Street San Bernardino, California 92418 Re: Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of Appeal of Review of Plans No. 86-43 - December 8, 1986 Dear Mayor Wilcox and Members of the City Council: The City of Colton has been made aware of the above-referenced appeal by a local resident. I have been briefed as to the type of project which is being considered for the area and am very much concerned. As you know, the proposed apartments are to be located in an area adjacent to our City limits. While I would never attempt to dictate to the City of San Bernardino what develop- ment should be approved or denied, I believe that the two cities'share common concerns about approving proper development. Therefore, I wish to share with you some of my concerns regarding the proposed development: 1, ~have police and fire statistics for the area that are overwhelming. The cost to the City to police and protect the existing apartment develop- ment is extremely high and proportionately the highest in the City. 2. The proposed development has a density of thirty-six units per acre. As you know, higher density projects tend to provide higher amounts of aberrant behavior and thereby higher need for police, paramedic, and fire services. 3. The schools. in the area are already heavily impacted. I am aware of the fees being collected to alleviate this type of situation. However, there is a lag-time involved in provi~ng new classrooms which will exacerbate the impaction on our classrooms. The City of Colton has been concerned enough regarding the above that our new General Plan draft proposal would change all R-3 zoning in the area to R-1. The City has also had long and numerous conversations with the apartment owners on the northeast corner of Mill and Rancho and finally succeeded in having them build a ten-foot high fence around their project and hire security guards. Unfortunately, this came too late to save some of the lives of those people murdered in the area, and it was too late to keep the businesses across the :U' SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION.JTEM ~ /:J.t!'-IT,t CITY OF COLTON CIVIC CENTER . 850 N. LA CADENA DRIVE . COLTON, CALIFORNIA 82324 c .- \.of - v Mayor Wilcox and City Council Page Two December 4, 1986 street from leaving due to continuous robberies, thefts, and harassment of customers. I feel confident you will make the right and proper decision regarding this matter, and I look forward to working together toward quality development in the areas of mutual concern as we have in the past, Sincerely yours, ~./4.~ FRANK A. GONZALES Mayor FG:bg :lo4r- 'L ~ c , - . , ] 2 3 4 5 6 i 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 , ,€ff . ,.a 30 'I -~i -;"C 0 0 o o RESOLUTION NO. ,p ~ - 3 :.; RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 83-48 ENTITLED IN PART "RESOLUTION . . . ESTABLISHING A PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF PLANS", AND ADOING PROVISIONS WHICH ESTABLISH A PROCEDURE FOR THE APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Resolution No. 83-48 Section 9 is amended to read: "Section 9. Appeal - Public Hearina. A. The Planning Department shall approve or reject the plans submitted for review, and the decision shall be final unless an appeal to the Planning Commission is filed, in writing, within ten days of the decision. B. Upon receipt of an appeal from the decision of the Planning Department, the Planning Commission shall fix a time and place of public hearing thereon not less than fifteen days nor more than forty days thereafter. Notice of time and place of the hearing, including a general description of the matter to be I considered and a general description. of the property fOr which I the appeal is proposed, shall be given at least ten days before I I 1. Tbe notice shall be published at least once in a I newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the I I 2. The notice shall be mailed 0) delivered to all persons, including businesses, corporatioJs, or other public or I private entities, shown on the last equalized assessment roll as I owning real property within five hundred feet of the property the hearing in the following manner: City. which is the subject of the proposed appeal. 9/9/86 c 1 c --. \.J o 3. Forms and procedures for processing an appeal to the 2 Planning Commission shall be prescribed by the Director of 3 Planning. Th~ appellant shall pay a fee to cover administrative costs as set forth by resolution. 4 5 this section shall not invalidate any action taken. 6 C. Failure of any person to receive the notice required by 7 D. The Chairman of the Planning Commission, or the acting 8 Chairman, shall administer oaths and all witnesses shall be sworn.- 9 10 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San 11 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly 12 Bernardino at a 13 the 1M day of 4 '"' 7;:.../u < '/ 14 to wit: 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 meeting thereof, held" on , 1986, by the following vote, AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: City Clerk 4'i~ 22 ~e fategoing iesolution is hereby approved this '.. 23 24 25 26 Approved as to form: /'., ,,'-/l- 27' . . ......." 28 City Attorney day of , 1986. Mayor of the City of San Bernardino 2 9/9/86 CCITY OF SAN BE~~ARDINOO- MEMORANDUQ To Shauna Clark, City Clerk From Council Office Subject Appeal/Project 86-43 Date November 13, 1986 Approved Date I herewith appeal the decision Ccommission to not hear my appeal of opinion is that my appeal was filed in a manner and that the Planning Commission the authority. to review the Developmental recommendations. of the Planning Project 86-43. My timely and correct and Council have Review Committee's tt..-eI;- RALPH HERNANDEZ Councilman, Third Ward RH:sr cc: Planning Department 3300 7Ctl ~ . C 1 2 3 .. 5 6 7 8 9 10 !:- 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 APPEAL " -V o J SUBJECT: REVIEW OF PLANS NO. 86-43 p~ope~ty !ocat~on; ~ubject p~ope~ty ~~ 1.3 ac~e~ hav~ng app~o . 498' on the South ~~de 06 Mil! and be~ng !ocated app~ox. 200' we~t 06 the cente~!~ne 06 Rancho Avenue TO. CITY CLERK CITY 06 SAN BERNARDINO CITY HALL SAN BERNARDINO, CA. :.:~ -;-1 I Aie unde~~~gned pa~t~e~ do he~eby appea! the above ~ ment~oned pian b 'o~e the P!anning COmm~~~~on at th~~ t~me, ". oJ _ The ~eUOn6 6M the appea! (p~ote.ltl Me i~~ted a~ 60!E~~: '. 1. D<.n6.<.ty 06 the a~ea----- the~e a~e ~eve~ct! comp!exe~ ~n the a~ea at th~~ t~me, ..... ._. one comp!ex ha~ 184 un.<.t~ the next one ha~ 156 un~t~ In1 next, 204 unt~~ (w~th a vacancy 60~ thL~ one ~aione 06 62%1, anothe~, ha~ 10 un~t~...the~e a~e two mobi!e home pa~~~-------one w~th 103, annthe~ 93.... .th~~ ~~ ~n the ~mmed~ate CITY PLMJi(il.!;j t,;TiUl1MENT Mea.... !eH than a b!oc~ d~~tance 6~om the SAN BERNARDINO. CA p~opo~ed ~ite.. ... ....the~e a~e ohe~ pa~~~ and comp!exe~, a!~o, ~n the ~u~~oJnding a~ea. , 00 m@m~~7~ NOV 07 1986 2. C~ime ac.tivitY_h_-thue i~ a high Mime a~ea...... d~ug~, bu~g!a~y, petty the6t....a!! within thi~ immed~ate a~ea,.... .one ~hopping cente~ ha~ bec.ome iI "wa~t!and" 06 empty bU~~neHe~.... due to the c.~~me ~n the a~ea. .....~t ~~ adjacent to Coiton, and the~e60~e, ~u66e~~ the ove~6!ow 6~om thei~ c.~ime ~tati~tic~. 3. Schoo!~.. ..the p~ope~ty i~ w~thin the Ria!to Sc.hoo! D~~t~~c.t~....th.<.~ ~c.hoo! ~~ a!~eady at ~ max- ~mum pea~ toad 6o~ the~~ popu!ation !im~t, .. . c 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 c ~ PLAN 86-43 ~ont. ~ / 4. Involvement 06 the 60Itmelt"...Bob Hol~omb u- Mayolt, hah taken it upon himhe!6 to be~ome involved ....thih ih totally out 06 line, ...hih uhing hih in6luen~e in 066i~eh whelte he ih no longelt in autholtity, but tltying to Uhe what in6luen~e he hah Itemaining. ..to en~oultage molte ~ltime a~tivity -....molte tlta66i~ pltoblemh...molte pltoblemh with an allteady bultdened h~hool hyhtem....,we 6eel ih a dilte~t inhult to the ~ultltent Mayolt....the Honoltable Evlyn [fJ.u~o", A petition hah been ~iIt~ulated, and hignatulteh gathelted...... in a VeAY hholtt length 06 tlme...,.lettelth welte hubmitted to the Planning COmmihhion, the Mayolt'h 066l~e, the Coun~.u 066i~e..,.all 601t Iteview 06 hih deli~ate hituation. Thlh planning lh hultely not in the beht inteAeht 06 the ~ommunity ., ...it ~ould only exaheAbate the a~lteady exihting pltoblemh. VA TE:Lf1 fJi) . '7,'ff'~." , ALlCE STIEL . S, f'I"K bll ST ~Q€:,\LE. ~RK. ~::tSo w. \'{\\LL S\'. *l\lo Co L"\' 0 (\j) C. f\ C\ ~ ~ ~ '1 <6~~-~"?>S\o \ ~<g~-\.o\OS . JEl~L ~i, Q . CCITY OF SAN-dEhNARDINO'J- "YlEMORANDU~ To The Planning commission From Frank A. Schuma Planning Director Su~~t Appeal of Review of Plans No. 86-43, Ward 3 Date November 5, 1986 Approved Agenda Item No. 11 Date Owner: Mr. Darwin Reinglass 1901 East Fourth Street Santa Ana, CA 92705 App lican t: Mr. Frank Del'Andrae 5560 Mission Boulevard Riversider CA 92509 t., Review of Plans No. .;86-43 is a proposal to construct a 48 unitr three-story apartment complex on approximately 1.3 acres on land located on the south side of Mill street, west of Rancho Avenue and in the R-3-1200 Multiple Family Residen- tial zone. This item was originally presented to the Devel- opment Review Committee for the review and approval at their meeting of May 16r 1986. At the request of the Planning Department staff, the development proposal, which was ulti- mately . approved by the Development Review Committee at their August 7, 1986 meeting, was altered several times to insure compatibility with the surrounding area. One of the issues concerning staff was the issue of story structUres in an area where the predominance of opment is single story with some two-story development immediate area. three- devel- in the The letter advising the applicant that the application had been approved was dated August 25, 1986. The letter con- tained the approval along with the appropriate standard requirements and conditions applicable to the project. The letter further stated that the approval of Review of Plans No. 86-43 was final unless appealed within 10 days of the date of the approval letter. .. Councilman Hernandez, at a meeting of the Mayor and Council on August 18, 1986, indicated to me his desire to appeal Review of Plans No. 86-43 on the basis of incompatibility because of the three-story structures. This was a verbal request made a the Council meeting, however, it was not included in the minutes of the Mayor and Council nOr was it picked up on the recording of the meeting. Councilman Hernandez, at the Council meeting of september 8,1986, reaffirmed his appeal of Review of Plans No. 86-43 because of the three-story aspect of the project. Staff then, on September 25r 1986, informed Mr. Frank Del'Andrae, architect for the applicant, Mr. Darwin Reinglass, that the item had been appealed and the date on which the appeal hearing would c.ry ON rHI=MiOv. c ---- o ~ ~ '-- ~ Memorandum to the Planning Commission November 5r 1986 Page 2 . be held. No appeal was ever submitted in writing by myself or Councilman Hernandez. Before the Planning Commission can act on this appealr it must determine that the appeal that was requested by Council- man Hernandez was acted on in a timely manner and in a manner consistent with the purpose and intent of the appeal process. If the Commission can make such a determinationr it then can proceed with the appeal of the application to determine its compatibility with the surrounding properties. Recommended Motions: That the appeal of Councilman Hernandez was filed in a timely manner and that the Planning Commission can act upon the appeal. or That the appeal of Councilman Hernandez was not timely manner andr therefore, no further action by the Planning Commission. filed in a can be taken Respectfully submittedr SCHUMA Director . ~f . c;lTY OF SAN ]EP~IARDINOC- ,~1EMORANDUr6 . To Planning Cornrnission Subject Review of Plans No. 86-43 From Planning Department Date October 21. 1986 Approved rTEM NO. 11 WARD ND. 3 Dale . Owner: Darwin Reinglass 1901 East 4th Streetl Santa Ana, CA 92705 Applicant: Frank Del Andre 5560 Mission Blvd., Riverside, CA 92509 Review of Plans No. 86-43 is a proposal to construct unit apartment complex on 1.3 acres ~f land located on Street, approximately 200 feet west of Rancho in the MUltiple-Family Residential zone. a 48 Mill R-3r This item initially was presented to the Development Review Committee on May l5r 1986, The applicant requested maxin,uln dens i ty at the site. Comments at that point in time were that three stories, maximum density and the commercial appearance of the elevations would be incompatible to the area, The developer resubmitted the proposal on three subsequent dates, each time making small concessions but still maintaining three stories and maximum ~ensity in his proposal. At the Development Review Committee meeting of August 7 r 1986, it was determined . that every minimum requirement of the San Dernardino 11unicipai Code had been ~,e\. and that the project was still three stories and maxi.mum density, but was passed through the committee for further action. A letter of approval was sent to the developer on August 25, 1986. At the City Counc i 1 meet ing of Septembe l 8, 1986, Counc iJman Ralph Hernandez appealed the decision of the Development Review Committee. A letter indicating such was sent to the owner on September 25, 1986. The appeal was based on the three stories which requires a massive structure on the parcel and the incompatibility of the structure and resulting density with the surrounding uses. Density at the site is proposed at 36 units per acre. Surrounding land uses include: a single family tract to the northr directly across Hi 11 Street; two story apartments to the south; and commercial uses to the east. Respectfully Submitted, FRAHrZ A. SClIUHA. Planning Director S~N Associate Planner rHI~~'V. KEV I .w OOF"--t-:t_.c~-JS. ~~-4"3 5 v (" r c> "M. V\. d...i. n. a-- \ t:L V\.. ol 'V\. S es c ;:.,' ;j{," <13 . /o-IJ-i" ~ _ "u.f.e(...t (W.-cel (4r7rr' -!To"/" 6.., ,till -red d,UI') -;l. Sj'-Df'lf ~ I ;tor,/ H-f'K 1"- kl:.:ft'~u."ct!' '5\,e ,"J"",' . :'j:;.," .^i I;', ~ NOf..-rn J . ~..' ,J f!.f r",-f(3' , '. IO-13-f~, - "S11l.:Jle fa,yu./'1 -I:.re(,c.t;,,- e;cf,;{- ~m.es dilnll; (kcross-!n,."\ tee J , NO~:TH . ,-;rr-_.-- u___ -.- ..--. ~...... '_'_" 1 ...~,.' ."'--. :-":t~ .... . --...-..._. (~'.'; ~T .-__~_ '.' , I . __ ::..:'~:.~_:.'T.'.~.-.-:C, . on (U~V",-l/3 . /0-/3-['t- _ Vie,.,; tiP Para' I -PCIf! Si~(~ -f,l..... -H-",,{, yard. /-Sf"'1 a.r.s- i~ -fl,..e 5'"o.<-f-1-. SiTE , S~\A,TH /,' )/__ ,Ii, KE.V I E.\J - &r -PL.A."Q~ ,-<gG::,-4~ ~(" r OV--~A..7r Ia:..~ xses . c r::.p ~/7"43 51llflc. 9Ior';j jO-/3-n M~ 7lJ ~ tL-f( 5ouX-h. ~,.""""""",~, I:<!'j . lrn'l"r}i"~' '"'~ ./ . ':'I.;~A'J.~",r";",,.:.~:x:,. ~..l,(.~J:!:"','.r:-....,. ~~_,:,:,,,,,,.<.:.,:.1' ':..1'Y'-~ . .... ,- 'il ,,-., ',' .'. ,-'. -". . . ",'" ,'l- :t'\;,. ~ "j,; \ :U,?~.'~I,~.:"~~':l\r;Ai,-':\!~~. ;.. :,:,';.:';'..;\"if~K~:',::~~~~ .'.....\'. 1M'"' t~. ,;1~ ""'"'l..,."."."..'l"",~'f"1.. .....'~.~.. IffU"!" ........f ':"'l '{ '~"""f""""~':"'" ~: ",,':' ~ ":~Y:./:~.!f :~;~ /: ~~':"if;~i~'i,;,,~':.i:;'~'r~f'r;' ~;'<;1 ....... " .' ~ c. -.2. .......-;e ;<;' f,,-l,!3 -tv #<2 f/i!;{ /0-/3- f ~.A<'I o (?.fJ '6&-'13 /0-1'3-81:, '])~fJc. rulCe. te-/z..;ee,~ :/..- s./o"iJ "(''4- (," o7'-t)a..,...{. /.;{",,'! tr.f-l~' {611 (eR) S ou..-rH ~ w c57 Itr g~-43 J- $/fory MTS TO 10-13-8 LJer.t ,\t-\ t:=.~"I I , _./' :i /_ ..: - (. I,. o o o ~ J CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM # LOCATION CASE REVIEW OF PLANS 36-43 11 HEARING DATE OCT. Zl, 1:l1lb '" !H f-;:,-j "-2 \ ~]f 1 ~'~ ~C ' k:J R.I R-I C-3A C-y, R-I RIA T R-Z R-I C-3A R -I R-I R-Z ... u R-I .-, R-3 M-I R -I .. R-3 - ~ 2000 R-I R-2 c , 0;- or- .-\ a: a: a: -- '" ",1 R- Z ~ R-Z ~ R - 2 R-I R-I R-I R-I ~ )ll O\..~O Cl ~ ~ -I R-I I . R - I R -I I I 1 -- I ...., I .-.. R -I ", : .-- .'M'T! .' . \. . --~!":~":I""''':<: - I~I --, ,----, UIIIIIII. II I , I)' .';, .j/- ct - c o o o ~-~~"", /_ .,_~ ..-.,;........ 1,J ,'-. / -. ". .",. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO POST OFFICE BOX 131B. SAN BERNAROINO. CALIFORNIA 92402 I::J;"-<:- ':':\'~I')61 \: ~":., .......~.~. '"". .' =; '\. ,";. " ~ ,/' ,....:. . ," '-. ~ '_..~ ',/ December 9, 1986 SHAUNA CLARK CITY CLERK Darlene B. Fischer Hill, Farrer & Burrill 445 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90071 Dear Ms. Fischer: At the meeting of the Mayor and Common Council held December 8, 1986, the matter relative to the extension of time on the Grand- father Clause for the Mountain Shadows Villas Project, was continued. This matter will be heard at 2:0~ p.m., December 22, 1986, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernar- dino, California. Sincerely, .1fva' /.'t1~t- -'SliAUNA CLARK City Clerk SC:dc cc: City Attorney Planning Stubblefield Enterprises, Inc. Peter B. Brekhus Jim Smith i 'cC::'C:: IN .c,C,?~p=SS -- 300 NORTH "0" STREET. SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 9241B'()121 PHONE 17141 3B3-50021383-5102 .::?'7 c - \",I - v o Council Member Hernandez made a motion. seconded by Council Member Estrada and unanimously carried, that the maintenance contract between Gibson Bros., the Central City Mall and the City. be continued to the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Common Council to be held December 8. 1986. in the Council Chambers of City Hall. 300 North "0" Strt!et, San Bernardino: that staff be directed to present a final resolution in writing, stating what each side will agree upon. NEW FIRE STATION - TRI-CITY CORPORATE COMPLEX - STATUS REPORT In a memorandum dated November 5. 1980. City Engineer Hardgrave provided an Engineer's Report on the use of assessment district funds to construct a new fire station in the Tei-City Corporate Complex. and stated that based upon present estimates, the project is currently $165,000 over budget. (42) Council Member StriCkler made a motion, seconded by Council Member Reilly and unanimously carried, that the status report on construction of a new fire station in the Tri-City corporate complex be referred to the Ways and Means Committee for a recommendation on the overrun in estimated construction costs. STUBBLEFIELD ENTERPRISES - MOUNTAIN SHADOWS VILLAS - DISCUSSION RE EXTENSION OF TIME ON GRANDFATHER CLAUSE - NEW R-3 ORDINANCE CONTINUED FROM EARLIER IN MEETING The Mayor and Common Council discussed an ordinance on the Council Agenda granting an extension of time on the grandfather clause concerning the Mountain Shadows Villas project by StUbblefield Enterprises. (See page 42) (48) ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ESTABLISHING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR PROJECTS PERTAINING TO MULTIPLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS APPEALED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION &~D THEN TO THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL; AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF. On November 17, 1986, the Mayor and Common Council closed the hearing on the appeal of the Planning Commis- sian's decision to issue a Negative Declaration for the Mountain Shadows Villas located between the northern ter- minus of 1a praix Avenue and Citrus Street, and ordered the preparation of a focused environmental impact report. On November 7, 1986, by Council action, Stubblefield Enterprises was granted an extension of two weeKS to get their application before the Development Review Committee in order to meet the grand fathering provisions under the transition ordinance for the new R-3 standards. The ordinance on the agenda finalizes the action of November 7, 1986. The Mayor and Council debated as to whether or not the grand fathering of the project 3hould be discussed at this time. On November 17,1986, a number of Council Members had agreed that if any further discussions on the Stubblefield Mountain Shadows Villas project was held, that the public would be notified. 5U lL/17/86 c - v o o The Mayor and Council discussed the three-story is- sue. Under the existing R-3 ordinance, three story units are acceptable. But. they are not acceptable under the new ordinance. which will become effective in December 19Bo. The Mayor and Council also discussed the environ- mental review process and the use of this process to look at the three story issue. Arnold Stubblefield pointed out that all projects over 24 units are required to obtain a conditional use permit, so if their project is not grandfathered, they will have to start back at the beginning of the process. Frank Schuma, Planning Director, answered questions regarding the EIR process and the ability of the Mayor and Common Council to override the findings in the consul- tant's report by way of a statement of overriding consi- derations. Council Member Ouiel made a motion. seconded by Council Member Strickler. that with regard to the Stub- blefield project and their proposed three story units, which would require a conditional use permit under the new ordinance, if in fact the ElR study comes back and indi- cates that those three story units will not have a signif- icant impact on the surrounding community, that we will accept that and allow for the development of three-story units: this will allow for an independent analysis with respect to the three-story. The Mayor and Common Council discussed the motion. Arnold Stubblefield expressed his concern that the Council was singling out this project to impose the stric- ter standards. After further discussion, Council Members Quiel and StriCkler withdrew their motion. COUNCIL MEMBER ESTRADA EXCUSED Council Member Estrada left the Council Meeting. Council Member Quiel made a substitute motion, seconded by Council Member Marks and unanimously carried, that this matter be referred to the legislative Review Committee and continued to the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Common Council to be held at 2:00 p.m., Monday, December 8, 1986, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino. COUNCIL MEMBER ESTRADA RETURNED Council Member Estrada returned to the Council Meet- ing and took her place at the Council Table. COUNCIL MEMBER FRAZIER EXCUSED Council Member Frazier left the Council Meeting. APPROVAL - CHANGE ORDER NO. ONE - CONTRACT VALLEY CREST LANDSCAPING, INC. - SECCOMBE LAJ<E STATE URBAN RECREATION AREA In a memorandum dated November 12, 1986, City Engi- neer Hardgrave stated that during work on the old AdObe Building in the Seccombe Lake State Urban Recreation Area, portions of the north and east walls collapsed, and that a potential liability was created. Authority needs to be given to the Valley Crest landscaping, Inc., the contrac- tor, to proceed with the demolition in order to abate any possible liability exposure. (5-1) 51 11/17/86 -- ---. ----~ CCITY OF SAN BE':::~ARDINOO- MEMORANDU':> To MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL From RALPH H. PRINCE City Attorney Date December 18, 1986 Subject Review of Plans No. 86-43; Appeal of, Approved Opn. No. 86-54, 10.85 DUe 700.30, 700.1 Backqround The appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of appeal of Review of Plans No. 86-43 was continued from the City Council meeting of December 8, 1986 to December 22, 1986, for further legal advice concerning the timeliness and form of the appeal. Facts Review of Plans No. 86-43 was tentatively approved by the Development Review Committee on August 7, 1986; a letter advising applicant that the application had been approved and enclosing the conditions and requirements was mailed to the applicant on August 25, 1986. At that time, Resolution No. 83-48 Section 9 limited an appeal to the Planning Commission from the decision of the Planning Department to the applicant. At the Council meeting of August 18, 1986, Councilman Hernandez talked with a neighbor of the proposed development who was attempting to appeal the decision to the Planning Commission. At the meeting, Councilman Hernandez orally indicated his desire to appeal Review of Plans No. 86-43. Mrs. Alice stiel the neighbor, contends that she was advised on August 18, 1986 by the Planning Department that it was too late to file an appeal. Frank Schuma, Planning Directorr concurs that the oral request was made at the Council meeting, and that the request by Councilman Hernandez was reaffirmed at the Council meeting of September 8, 1986. On September 25r 1986, the applicant was advised that an appeal had been made. The appeal was not in writing. / Analvsis Resolution No. 83-48 Section 9 provided on August 18, 1986 and September 8r 1986 that the "decision shall be final unless an appeal" is made to the Planning Commission in writing, "by the applicant within ten days of the decision." On the following daYr September 9, 1986, Section 9 was amended to permit an appeal by any interested party, not just the applicant. The Planning Commission is now required to give notice of the time and place of the hearing on the appeal by publication in a newspaper and by mail to all 1 @ .C cz;rM o - '....; o persons owning real property within five hundred feet of the subject property. The amendment of Section 9 by the Common Council indicated its awareness that neighboring property owners, as well as the applicant, were entitled to notice and the same right as the applicant to the appeal process. The most fundamental right available to property owners is the right of due process; namely, notice and an opportunity to be heard. They are entitled to present evidence that the development will not "occur in a manner which complements the character and quality of surrounding developments . . . " or be . . . "harmonious with their sites and with surrounding sites and structures . . . " as set forth in Resolution No. 83-48 Section 3. Therefore, in the absence of notice and the appeal right being afforded to surrounding property owners, fundamental principles of due process require an implied right of appeal of the property owners and tenants from decisions to the Planning Commission. Since the surrounding property owners, who could be adversely effee~ed by the proposed project, were not provided written notice of the DRC meeting or the decision or its conditions, a requirement that the appeal had to be made in writing would be inequitable at this time. The timeliness of the appeal is evident from the attempt by at least one neighboring property owner to file an appeal on August 18r 1986, and then request her Councilman to assist in filing the appeal. The cases of Horn v. citv of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605r 156 Cal.Rptr. 718; and Mead v. Citv Council. citv of Redlands (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 199, 205 Cal.Rptr. 443 are ample authority for the proposition that procedural due process requires notice and hearing to surrounding property owners, and that the failure to give notice and an opportunity to be heard constitutes a denial of due process, and could render the decision void. Attached for your perusal is a copy of a legal opinion pr7P~red by Deputy City Attorney Cynthia Grace; in her op~n~on, she concluded that the appeal of DRC 86-48 which was made by Councilman Hernandez on behalf of the stiels should be heard. 2 ~-- ~- ,.C - v - v ~ ,., Conclusion The appeal of Review of Plans No. 86-43 should be referred to the Planning Commission for a hearing on the merits. Interes- ted parties should be notified. il2h;-I.. )~;V ~L;r;;~- PRINCE City Attorney RHP: pmm cc: Mayor City Administrator Planning Director Attach: Legal Opinion 3 G'ITY OF SAN BER~jARDINO -.- \ t - MEMORANDUM;> To RALPH H. PRINCE City Attorney Subject Review of Plans 86-43, Appeal of, From CYNTHIA GRACE Date Deputy City Attorney December 19, 1986 Approved Opn. No. 86-52 Ode 10.47. 700.30 Ouestion Was the appeal of Review of Plans 86-43 to the Planning Commission filed timely and in the appropriate form? Facts Review of Plans 86-43 was tentatively approved by the Development Review Committee on August 7, 1986, subject to the finalization of conditions of approval; a letter advising the applicant that the application for the project had been approved and enclosing copies of the conditions and requirements was mailed to the applicant on August 25, 1986. At the Council meeting of August 18, 1986, Councilman Hernandez talked with a neighbor of the project, Alice stiel, and orally indicated his desire to appeal Review of Plans 86- 43. Planning Directorr Frank Schuma, concurs that an oral request was made at the Council meeting, but it was not included in the minutes of the meetingr nor was it found on the recording of the meeting. At the Council meeting of September 8r 1986r Councilman Hernandez reaffirmed his appeal of Review of Plans 86-43, and the architect was subsequently informed by letter on September 25r 1986 that an appeal had been made. The Planning Commission heard the question of the timeliness of the appeal on November 5, 1986. Resolution No. 86-361, which set forth procedures for administrative appeals of Development Review Commission decisions to the Planning Commission, by an interested party, was adopted on september 9, 1986r subsequent to the events above described. At the time Councilman Hernandez' appeal was orally made on August 18, 1986 and September 9, 1986, there was no resolution or ordinance requiring interested parties (other than applicant) to appeal in writing to the Planning commission within a time limit. Resolution No. 83-48 Section 9 was in effect but only permitted the applicant (developer) to appeal in writing within ten days of the decision. It provided as follows: 1 3? -- --- c - v .... :> - "The Planning Department shall approve or reject the plans submitted for review, and the decision shall be final unless an appeal to the Planning Commission is filedr in writing, by the applicant within ten days of the decision." On December 11, 1986, Ms. Alice stiel telephoned the city Attorney's office and stated that she had attempted to appeal Review of Plans 86-43, and to that end spoke to Planner Sandra Paulsen. She first spoke with Sandra Paulsen on August 18r and was told by Mrs. Paulsen that it was too late to file an appeal. She subsequently spoke with Mrs. Paulsen again in Septemberr and was again told that it was too late. Sandra Paulsen advised that she remembered talking with Mrs. stiel on two occasions, although she could not remember the dates. The first time they spoke she explained to Mrs. Stiel the procedures for filing an appeal. On the second occasion, Mrs. Stiel came into the Planning Department accompanied by her daughter, and was advised that she should write a letter stating the grounds for appeal and suggested the wording for such a letter. Mrs. Paulsen stated that she did not advise Mrs. stiel that the time period to appeal had elapsed, Analvsis A line of cases holds that where a statute is vague or silent on the right to administrative appeal, then an administrative hearing should be granted if there is no express language to the contrary in the statute. The right of appeal derives from the procedural due process clause and the courts will imply a right of appeal where none is expressly stated, or construe a vague statute broadly in favor of a right of appeal. One such case is Chavez v. Sacramento Countv Civil Service commission (1977) 137 Cal.Rptr. 228. A probationary employee had been fired from the Sheriff's Department, and he demanded a hearing; he alleged that his appeal involved a claim of discrimination. The employerr which was the County Sheriff, argued that a probationary employee is not entitled to a hearing prior to dismissal. The court said: "The Commission's rules do not specifically provide for a hearing and evidence when a probationary employee has been released because of race, etc. But where there is no 2 c ,... '-" - o ..." specific prOV1S1on for a hearing, a hearing requirement is to be implied, absent a contrary intent expressed in the provisions creating the right of appeal." McCullouqh v. Terzian (1970) 2 Cal.3d 647, at 657, 87 Cal.Rptr. 195, 470 P.2d 4; Ratliff v. Lamoton (1948) 32 Cal.2d 226, 195 P.2d 792; Deerinq California Administrative Mandamus (CEB 1966) section 2.5. There is an interesting sidelight of this case in that the civil service Commission had lost the tape wherein the appellant had attempted to perfect his right to appeal. The court ruled at page 233 that he had a right to have a new hearing solely to reconstruct the evidence and provide an adequate record. "Where a full record has not been kept, the parties may reconstruct the record; if unable to do so, a new hearing must be held so as to provide an adequate record." Chavez at page 233. (citations omitted). Chavez and the cases which it relies upon, notably the cases of McCullouqh v. Terzian and Ratliff v. Lamoton, do not involve adversary proceedings. These are all situations where an employee was fired, welfare benefits suspendedr or license or permit denied or revoked. The courts have implied procedural due process protectionr even when there was no specific statute on point, in these kinds of cases for many years. One of the first cases to apply procedural due process principles in the land use context was Horn v. citv of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 156 Cal.Rptr. 718. In this case, a tentative subdivision was approved by the County and a neighbor objected and attempted to appeal. He was told by the county staff and Board of Supervisors that he did not have standing to appeal an administrative decision. The court held in inter alia that the approval of the tentative subdivision was an adjudicatory action which did require notice and hearing, and the notice provisions pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, which required posting at certain locations, publication, and mailing of notice to persons who specifically requested it, were inadequate to apprise concerned landowners of governmental actions affecting their property interests in connection with approval of the subdivision, and thus violated the procedural due process rights of the neighboring property owners. 3 c.. - "'" - "-' ~ The Horn case is particularly significant because the right to notice and hearing was extended to neighboring property owners (as opposed to just the applicant for development) and more importantlYr because the right to notice was based upon the procedural due process clause of the constitutionr rather than the provisions in the Government Code, which requires notice and hearing in connection with certain zoning and subdivision actions. In fact, the court did not even refer to these provisions in the Government Code. Its argument was based solely and entirely upon due process. "Due process principles require reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard before governmental deprivation of a significant property interest." (citations omitted), at page 721. "The general application of due process principles is flexibler depending on the nature of the competing interests involved. (E.g'r Goss v. Looez, supra, 419 U.S. 565, 583, 95 S.ct. 729, 42 L.Ed.2d 725; Boddie v. Connecticutr supra, 401 U.S. 371, 378, 89 S.ct. 2138r 23 L.Ed.2d 763; Skellv v. State Personnel Bd., supra, 15 Cal.3d 194r 209, 124 Cal.Rptr. 14, 539 P.2d 774; Beaudreau v. Suoerior Court, supra, 14 Cal.3d 448, 458, 121 Cal.Rptr. 585r 535 P.2d 713.) The extent of administrative burden is one of the factors to be considered in determining the nature of an appropriate notice. Hannah v. Larche (1960) 363 U.S. 420, 442, 80 S.ct. 1502, 4 L.Ed.2d 1307; In Re Tucker (1971) 5 Cal.3d 171r 179, 95 Cal.Rptr. 761, 486 P.2d 657.) However, where, as here, prior notice of a potentially adverse decision is constitutionally required, that notice must, at a minimum, be reasonably calculated to afford affected persons the realistic oportunity to protect their interests. (See Mullane v. Central Hanover Tr. Co., supra, 339 U.S. 306, 313, 70 s.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed 865; Beaudreau v. Suoerior Court, supra; Scott v. citv of Indian Wells, suprar 6 Cal.3d 541, 549r 99 Cal.Rptr. 745, 492 P.2d 1137.) Horn at page 724 and 725. On the basis of the Horn case, it is now well-established in 4 c " ~ ~ '-' ~ ~ California law that procedural due process requires notice and hearing to not only surrounding property owners, but surrounding tenants as well. The case even more closely on point which implies a right to notice and hearing absent specific statutory authority is Mead v. Citv Council. citv of Redlands (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 199, 205 Cal.Rptr. 443. The city of Redlands granted a conditional use permit which allowed a historic mansion to be opened to civic and community groups, to be used as a site for limited fund-raising events for the maintenancer restoration and preservation of the site. viewers objected on the grounds that this was a commercial encroachment into a heretofore residential neighborhood. The procedure used by the city of Redlands was different than the procedure used by this jurisdiction. The action of the Planning Commission was not a decision, but merely a recommendation which was automatically referred to the city Council. The court held that the city's failure to give notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the granting the permit constituted a denial of due process and rendered the decision void. The Plaintiff was entitled to attorney's fees. The municipal code had no prov1s10ns for notice and hearing, and no provisions for appeal. The court said in a footnote that: "The Government Code provisions relied upon by Mead do require some type of appeal from an administrative decision where the council has delegated its authority to grant conditional use permits to another decision making body. Here the council has not created a board of zoning adjustment nor a zoning administrator with authority to grant or deny CUP's. The Commission serves only as an advisory body on conditional use permits. It has no power to grant or deny the application, it merely recommends appropriate action by the Council. Such power to hear and recommend may be validly delegated by the Council to the Commission." (citations omitted). The Government Code provisions relied upon by Mead were Government Code Sections 65903 and 65904, which provide that: 5 c ..... - '-' :> '-' "section 65903. Board of appeals; duties; procedure A board of appealsr if one has been created and established by local ordinance, shall hear and determine appeals from the decisions of the board of zoning adjustment or the zoning administrator, as the case may be. Procedures for such appeals shall be as provided by local ordinance. Such board may reverse or affirmr wholly or partly, or may modify the orderr requirement, decision or determination appealed from, and may make such order, requirement, decision, or determination as should be made, and such action shall be final." "Section 65904. Conditional function of local legislative body If a board of appeals has not been created and established the local legislative body shall exercise all of the functions and duties of the board of appeals in the same manner and to the same effect as provided in Section 65903." While the court in Mead seemed to agree that these prov~s~ons in the Government Code do require some sort of appeal process, the case did not turn on this point. The case turned on the fact that the surrounding property owners had not been given notice and an opportunity to be heardr neither at the Planning Commission or the Council meeting, with respect to the permit at issue. After having decided that the surrounding property owners were entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard, the court went on to elaborate on what due process was. The court said: "Due process does not have a fixed content unrelated to time, place and circumstances. (citations omitted). Instead, it is a flexible concept requiring such procedural protections as the particular situation demands. (citations omitted). As the United Supreme Court emphasized: 'The function of legal processr as that concept is embodied in the Constitution, and in 6 c -. ....... c ~ the realm of factfinding, is to minimize the risk of erroneous decisions. Because of the broad spectrum of concerns to which the term must apply, flexibility is necessary to gear the process to the particular need; the quantum and quality of the process due in a particular situation depend upon the need to serve the purpose of minimizing the risk of error.'" (citations omitted) Mead, suprar 205 Cal.Rptr. 443, at page 453. Application Evidently, attempts were made by Alice stiel to appeal the decision of the Development Review Committee with respect to the approval of Review of Plans 86-48. For whatever reason, she was unable to do this, and Councilman Hernandez appealed orally at the Council meeting on her behalf. The Stiels are neighboring property owners and are entitled to notice and a right to be heard under the procedural due process clause of the Constitution. They never received notice of the hearing or notice of the decision. Consequently, they cannot be reasonably penalized for filing late when they had no way of knowing when the appeal period began. The cases consistently hold that a right of appeal is implied by the procedural due process clause, even when there is no express statutory requirementr and further, that the application of due process principles is to be flexible and is to take into account individual circumstances in any particular situation. Due process is not to be applied in a mechanical or hyper-technical way if the effect would be to deny process to those to whom it is due. Furthermore, even if ten days were determined to be "a reasonable time" to appeal, since that was the period granted to applicants to appeal under Resolution 83-48, the Council could waive the ten day appeal period and allow the late appeal. 7 .- '-' ----- - v ,J - v Conclusion The appeal of DRC 86-48 which was made by Councilman Hernandez on behalf of the stiels should be heard. 'I . (~J1~;:u ~~ CYNTHIA GRACE Deputy city Attorney CG:pmm 8 - Iv 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S 26 27 28 - - '-' V RESOLUTION NO. .:) 83-4R RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ESTABLISHING A PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF PLANS. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Review of Plans Required. Prio~ to any development or improvement of any parcel of land intended for commercial, industrial or multi-family residential development intended for occupancy by more than two families, a formal review of plans shall be instituted, and approval of such plans shall be required. SECTION 2. Planning Department to Conduct. The review of plans shall be conducted by the Planning Department in conjunction with other departments to determine whether the plans and proposals comply with the affected department's provisions and development standards prescribed in the San Bernardino Municipal Code, the provisions of this and other resolutions of the Mayor and Common Council, and standard procedures established by the department with the approval of the Mayor and Common Council. SECTION 3. Intent and Purpose. Procedures for the review and approval of plans are established in order to implement the intent and purposes of zoning and planning regulations and ordinances of the City by providing the Planning Department with a visual, factual document which may be used to ~etermine and control the proposed physical layout, design, and use of a lot or parcel of land, buildings or structures to achieve the following goals: A. Development proposals shall comply with all codes, \ ,- " 1 2 3 4 , 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 --. - V ordinances and standard ~ :) requirements established by the City; B. New developments or the alteration or enlargement of existing developments shall occur in a manner which complements the character and quality of surrounding developments in the area where a proposed project is located; C. The location and configuration of structures shall be harmonious with their sites and with surrounding sites and structures; D. The landscaping of open spaces shall conform to the requirements of the San Bernardino Municipal Code; and E. The design and location of signs shall be consistent with Chapter 19.60 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code. SECTION 4. Contents. Submittals shall include an application form, site plans, typical elevations, and may include diagrams, pictures, and other pertinent data as appropriate. SECTION 5. Application - Submittal. A. Form. Applications for review and approval of plans , shall be made on forms furnished by the Planning Department. Such application shall be required for any land use, development or building construction, or use thereof, and for any variation from the standards established in this resolution, or in the San Bernardino Municipal Code, as to developments subject to the provisions of this resolution. When deemed necessary, the Planning Department may require correction or alteration of any site plan offered for approval to conform with the intent and purpose of the zoning provisions of the San Bernardino Municipal Code and the comprehensive General Plan of the City. B. Information Required. Site plans shall be dral-ln to 2 C. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ---~ o .- 'V .~ scale with complete dimensions, and shall furnish information with regard to: 1. Property lines. 2. Buildings and structures, existing and proposed. 3. Yards and spaces between buildings or between property lines and buildings. 4. Location, height and composition of walls, fences and utility poles. 5. Off-street parking and driving aisles. 6. Pedestrian, vehicular and utility service access with points of ingress and egress indicated. 7. Location and method of lighting including hooding devices, if any. 8. Street dedications and improvements (existing and proposed) . 9. Photographs showing the exterior of any building or structure proposed to be relocated. 10. Dimensions and nature of easements. 11. Landscaping (schematic). 12. Location of refuse storage areas, together with wall or fence heights and materials. 13. Outside storage areas. 14. Location of proposed fire hydrants (on site) as required. 15. Preliminary grading plan with existing and finish grades. 16. Such other data as may be required by the Planning Department. 3 C 1 2 3 4 .5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1.5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - ~ ~- SECTION 6. () Fee. o ~ as set by the Mayor and Common A fee, Council, shall accompany each application for review of plans. SECTION 7. Approval - Basis. Review and approval of plans shall be based upon: A. Compliance of every use and development of the land with applicable provisions of the San Bernardino Municipal Code for the specific zone for which intended. B. Suitability of the site for the proposed use or development with the General Plan. Consideration shall be given to the effect of proposed developments on neighboring properties and traffic circulation, in order to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. C. Compliance of the proposed development with each of the findiqngs required under this resolution. SECTION 8. Approval - Findings. In order to approve plans submitted for review, the Planning Department must find: A. That the development plans comply with all provisions of the San Bernardino Municipal Code, the Uniform Codes incorporated into the San Bernardino Municipal Code, and the Standard Requirements established by the City. B. That the buildings, structures and development, and use thereof, shall be compatible with and not detrimental to each other, and shall likewise be compatible with and not detricental to the zone within which such project shall be established, so that property values may be preserved and orderly development of land in the surrounding areas may be assured. C. That neighboring uses and structures will be protected against noise, vibration and other offensive, objectionable 4 ~ ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~ ~ conditions by generally ~ " ~ ~ accepted methods. D. That lighting is arranged so that light is reflected away from adjoining properties. E. That all proposed signs are in conformance with Cahpter 19.60 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code. F. That the overall development is designed in such a way as to assure pedestrian safety and provide for efficient and safe traffic flow. SECTION 9. Action - Appeal. The Planning Department shall approve or reject the plans submitted for review, and the decision shall be final unless an appeal to the Planning Commission is filed, in writing, by the applicant within ten days of the decision. SECTION 10. Signing and Dating. Approved plans with the standards attached thereto, if any, shall be dated and signed on behalf of the Planning Department of the City by an authorized official thereof. SECTION 11. Completion - Time Limit - Extension. . Where work on the development is not begun and diligently pursued within one year after approval of the site plan pertaining thereto, or within eighteen months when approval is made in connection with a tentative subdivision, the approval of plans shall expire, unless the Planning Commission grants an extension of time. SECTION 12. Approval of Standard Requirements. Standard Requirements proposed oy the Planning Department and set forth on Exhibits A, B, C and D, incorporated herein by reference, are hereby approved. A copy of such standard requirements, conformed 5 C. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 o o o to the particular circumstances of each development subject to such approval, shall be provided at the time of approval of plans. The Standard Requirements hereby approved are as follows: Exhibit A Standard Requirements for Residential Deve lopments, Exhibit B Standard Requirements for Commercial, Industrial Development, Exhibit C Standard Requirements for San Bernardino City Unified School District Review, and Exhibit D Standard Requirements for Southern California Edison Company Review - Coordination With Other Utilities. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 21st day of February , 1983, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Castaneda. Reillv. Hernandez. Marks. Cuie}. Hobbs. Strickler NAYS: None ABSENT: None ~ . /}/'. ~:.Y."'/".'/-J~/~":.t1 ;/. / .city Clerk day of The foregoing Fehr\la ry resolution is hereby appro'(ed-This ,;:i._":/ ,...~9~~: ,7 __ / _ ,/;?-'//" Z', ,,' "."." ,,"'. ",..- //'.:.-- _1,........-""""'--.---.-- . /' AlzYor/of /the" Ci ty of San< Bernard ino . / / III I I I I I I I I I 6 c. o " v ~ 1 Approved as to form: 4 .5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1.5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 c , ~ . , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 . ;iltr" .u 3'0 'I -~) -~"'C ~ ..." o - - RESOLUTION NO. Yh '3{./ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 83-48 ENTITLED IN PART "RESOLUTION . .. ESTABLISHING A PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF PLANS", AND ADDING PROVISIONS WHICH ESTABLISH A PROCEDURE FOR THE APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Resolution No. 83-48 Section 9 is amended to read: 'Section 9. Appeal - Public Hearinq. A. The Planning Department shall approve or reject the plans submitted for review, and the decision shall be final unless an appeal to the Planning Commission is filed, in writing, within ten days of the decision. B. Upon receipt of an appeal from the decision of the Planning Department, the Planning Commission shall fix a time and place of public hearing thereon not less than fifteen days nor more than forty days thereafter. Notice of time and place of the hearing, including a general description of the matter to be considered and a general description of the property for which the appeal is proposed, shall be given at least ten days before the hearing in the following manner: 1. The notice shall be published at least once in a newspaper 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 assessment roll as owning real property within five hundred feet of the property which is the subject of the proposed appeal. C' 1 o - ...., J 3. Forms and procedures for processing an appeal to the 2 Planning Commission shall be prescribed by the Director of 3 Planning. Th~ appellant shall pay a fee to cover administrative costs as set forth by resolution. 4 5 C. Failure of any person to receive the notice required by this section shall not invalidate any action taken. 6 7 D. The Chairman of the Planning Commission, or the acting 8 Chairman, shall administer oaths and all witnesses shall be sworn." 9 10 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly 11 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San meeting thereof, he1aon 12 Bernardino at a 13 the iM day of 0(, " ~ju < '/ 14 to wit: 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 '"' ..~ , 1986, by the following vote, AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: City Clerk 22 ~.. fot-.golnq tesolution is hereby approved this ',< 23 24 25 26 Approved /' 27 day of , 1986. Mayor of the City of San Bernardino as to form: . .... -./) . - '.",tf~ 28 City Attorney 2