No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout38-Planning ,-.: "" CIl'" OF SAN BERNARDI,.O r\ " - REQUl.~T FOR COUNCIL AC'f~ON From: Frank A, Schuma, Planning Director Dept: Planning Date: December 3 , 1986 Subject: Appeal of Revocation of Conditional Use Permit No, 84-47 Hayor and Council Heeting of December 22, 1986 @ 2:00 p,m. ! Synopsis of Previous Council action: Previous Planning Commission Action: At the meeting of the Planning Commission on Septe~ber 2, 1986, the following action was taken: Conditional Use Permit No. 84-47 was unanimously non-compliance with conditions of approval. I revoked based upon I Recommended motion: That the hearing on the appeal be Planning Commission be affirmed, closed and the djcision modified or rejected, of the ~~- Signat1ure FRANK A. SCHUMA , I 383-5057 I 5 Source: I I Finance: ' I I Phone: Contact person: Frank A, Schuma Supporting data attached: Staff Report, Letter of ~p.vocattoa & Letters of Appeal FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Ward: Council No:es: "'l'l'; n.,t:., ^"''''...."I... l....~ 1'1.'_ ....5 ?', - -- '- - .. - '-' - ~ .:> ABRAHIM'S MOBIL SERVICE 847 W. Highland Ave. San BernarC:lno, CA 9240S (7141883.9740 5.vpA.I\;I1'\(, City of' San Bernardino. The Mayor and Common Council Dear Madame.and Gentelemen . , The planing commilssion reviewed the conditio- nal use'permit No. 84 - 47 . which established a snack shop , and replecement of new pumps for an existing service station on 847 west Highland . The planing commissilon revoked thJ conditional, use permit No . 84-47 . by claiming upon non comlia- nse with the condition approval. I , Mobil Oil spent over two hundred thousand dollars. for remo~elilng this gas station byading snack shop . and ,new pumps, and plantilng around all the: station. The planing commission had changed1their milnd once by ordering us by planting grass, then by changing the order to plant flowers, then giving orders by puting white striped parking on the Eastern side of the station, we had done that ,then the planing comm ission changed their mind about th~ Easternparkilng by giving an order to cancil the Eastern parking and puting new striped parking in the rear of the building.We had done that. Madame,Gentelemen, the planing commision had made a big mistake by taking an action against this establishment which served the ci~ and the puplic for more than thirty years,and six big famililes are living from this establishement. I Since we have applied all the conditlans and all the rules Iask your hounar to reject the decisioN, \ of the planing commossion. Thank You .. ::::l on n on .::= ;; ":' :'., -2 n ," ":--; r--.. " '2" ,,, I .. ,:::, ; f:.i _. ;; ",'; ..., ,"'-:-:'-:~~ ,'- G'~; r' .." '; j i::: I , -, c C 0 ATTORNEY AT LAW : -"'! ;.1'.: .u _ I W, R. HOLCOMB SUI -;: ......:- ;,: 2:) 1986 .._ t 'S0'5 ..l.R~OVV"'~:...l.~ ol.yE"'\.il:: SAN 8f;RNAROINO, CALI"-ORN'A 9Z40r[T~' 1"14, sa':)-!!.,..., ...;.... . .....- I , November 24, 1986 j . ," : I I I -.. - \."-"- Planning Commission City of San Bernardino, 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino,Ca 92401 Attn: Frank Schuma Re: Conditional Use Permit #84-47 Dear Mr. Schuma, At the meeting held in your office on November 19, 1986, you requested that my client, Mr. Ibri~am Abu Judeh sign a written statement to the affect that he will accept responsibility for all of the conditions attached to Conditional Use Permit #84-47, including the maintainsnce of the landscaped area on the north side of 21st. Street. Enclosed herewith, you will find such a statement dated November 24, 1986, which has been signed by Mr. Abu Judeh. I trust that this statement is satisfactory for your purposes, and that you will be in a position to advise the Council that Mr. Abu Judeh is in compliance with all of the conditions and terms of the use permit. If I am wrong in this respect, would you please notify me at your earliest opportunity. .. On behalf of myself and thanks for you courtesy Mr. Abu Judeh, I wish to express and cooperation in this matter. I our your , cc: James Green lbrihar.. Abu Judeh ,I' ,'"- c - 't",J J W, R. HOLCOM B ATTOr=:lNE:V AT LAW SUIT!'; 407 '505 A,~"'OWl-<CAO AVE:NUE:: SAN ElE~NARO'NO. CALIl"'ORNIA 9Z401 (7'41 aeg-IO..1 November 24, 1986 Planning Commission Cicy of San Bernardino 300 N. "0" Street San Bernardino,Ca 92401 Atcn: Frank Schuma Re: Conditional Use Permit 684-47 Dear Mr. Schuma My actorney, has explained to me that even though I was not a party to the application for the Conditional Use Permit, 84-47, that I, as leasee of Mobil Oil Co, must see to it that all of the conditions of said permit are complied with including the condition of che maintainance of che area south of my station along 21st. streeC. This area, along 21st. is not included in my lease with Mobil, but is subject to the condition that it be properly maintai~ed by Mobil. By this letter, I agree that if Mobil fails to properly maintain that area, I will take it upon myself to do so. In this respect, I have hired a landscape gardener to do whatever is necessary to keep this area porperly maintained, even though it is Mobil's primary responsibility to do so. By this letter, I further agree to comply with all of the other terms and conditions of said Conditional Use Permit, and I will do everyching in my power to cooperate with all of my neighbors to see that this station is a positive asset to the community. In the future,.should you have any problems or complaints regarding operation of the station, or the maintainance of the landscape area along 21st. street, I would appreciate your contacting me direct. Very truly yours, r4'1- ?M r. Ibriham Abu Judeh . - - . \.... c ~ ~J - Mobil 011 Corporation SUITE 104 - CENTRE BUILDING October 30, 19t~ m;m'~,:W:W:~ OCT 311986 San Bernardino Planning Commission . 300 North "0" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 CITY PlANNING lJEi'AllTMENT SAN 8ERNARDlNO. CA Re: Conditional Use Permit No. 84-47 Dear Sirs: This letter is in reference to the memorandum submitted by the staff of the Planning Department to the Planning Commission dated October 21, 1986, concerning Conditional Use Permit No. 84-47 applicable to the Mobil, service station at 847 West Highland Avenue, San Bernardino. While the Planning Department staff obviously did its best to accurately summarize the events which have recently unfolded concerning that Conditional Use Permit, Mobil's position was, inadvertently, not correctly presented. We thus take this opportunity to both advise the Commission in greater detail of events occurring subsequent 'to September 17,1986, which bear upon the request for reconsideration which Mobil made on that date concerning the revocation of Conditional Use Permit No. 84-47, and Mobil's position thereon. On September 2, 1986, this Commission revoked Conditional Use Permit No. 84-47, finding that the Mobil service station operator, Mr. Abujudeh, refused to comply with the Permit conditions. Thereafter, on September 17, 1986, Mobil took action to terminate Mr. Abujudeh's lease pursuant to the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 2801, et S~q.). At the same time, Mobil's representative wrote to the Planning Departmen of the City of San Bernardino advising that "a significant change of facts" existed concerning the Planning Canmission's action of revocation. This "significant change" referred to was, of course, the termination of the offending Mobil dealer, Mr. Abujudeh. Subsequent to September 17, 1986, however, Mr. Abujudeh brought a lawsuit against Mobil in federal court in Los Angeles to enjoin Mobil from terminating his lease. ln this lawsuit, Mr. Abujudeh alleged that he was in fact in compliance with the requirements of the Conditional Use Permit, had not knowingly violated the same, and thus no grounds existed for termination. Mr. Abujudeh's request for a preliminary injunction to restrain Mobil from terminating him as its dealer pending a trial of his complaint came on for hearing before Judge Tashima of the United States District Court, on October 8, 1986. Mr. Abujudeh claimed at this hearing that he had not known of the . Conditional Use Permit until late August of 1986 and, at that time, brought his station into complete compliance. Judge Tashima found at the hearing that these claims made by Mr. Abujudeh were false, that he had known of the requirements of the Conditional use Permit for many months and had been in " - ,~ - - r San Bernardino Planning Commission October 30, 1986 Page 2 "knowing violation" of that Permit. However, Judge Tashima also concluded that, due to the fact that Mobil had petitioned for reconsideration of the Planning Commission's revocation of the Permit and because this petition for reconsideration had the legal effect of staying the revocation, no harm would be presented to Mobil until and unless its petition for reconsideration was denied by the Planning Commission. Thus, Judge Tashima entered his order preliminarily enjoining,Mobil from terminating Mr. Abujudeh as its dealer, but expressly indicated that should the Planning Commission not reinstate the Conditional Use Permit, then that would be grounds for the Court to reconsider whether Mobil's termination of Mr. Abujudeh ought to be enjoined. After the hearing in federal court on October 8, 1986, Mobil was asked by the Planning Department staff to indicate in what respects the facts to date had changed from those which existed on September 2, 1986. Mobil has responded that, regrettably, notwithstanding Mobil's efforts, the facts remain sustantially the same. Specifically, Mr. Abujudeh remains the dealer at the 847 Welt Highland Avenue station and Mobil's effort to terminate him has been preliminarily enjoined by the federal court. Mobil further advised the Planning Department staff of the judge's findings that Mr. Abujudeh had in fact been in knowing violation of the City of San Bernardino's Conditional Use Permit and was indeed in violation of that Permit on the very day that he was in court claiming to be in compliance. A transcript of the hearing before the Court on October 8, 1986, has been provided to the Planning Department staff. Paragraph 4 of the Planning Department staff's memorandum of October 21, 1986, to this Commission indicates that trial will be held within 30 to 60 days. Unfortunately, because of the Court's calendar, this is not accurate. We will not be able to get a trial date this fast. Paragraph 6 of the staff's memorandum indicates that Mobil now requests this Commission to reaffirm its prior decision of revocation. In fact, Mobil does not make such a request to this Commission. Rather, Mobil views its role as the party petitioning for reconsideration as restricted to advising this Commission as to whether or not the facts today are any different from those which existed on September 2, 1986, when the Commission revoked Conditional Use Permit No. 84-47. That is, indeed, the only position Mobil takes. We have indicated that the facts have not substantially changed. Mr. Abujudeh remains the dealer at the subject service station and Mobil shares with the Planning Department staff serious reservations as to whether any credibility whatsoever can be placed in Mr. Abujudeh's claims of compliance with the Permit. Indeed, the federal judge found that Mr. Abujudeh's claim of present or future compliance, made in Court under oath, were false. Judge Tashima repeatedly stated that he gave "no credibility" to statements made by Mr. Abujudeh. - -- . \.,. - '-' - v :> San Bernardino Planning Commission October 30, 1986 Page 3 In summary, Mobil views its role at this hearing for reconsideration as simply being one of reporting to this Commission upon whether or not any facts have changed from those existing on September 2, 1986, when the Conditional Use Permit was revoked. Having reported that, in its view, the facts unfortunately remain substantially the same, Mobil believes that the decision as to whether to reinstate Conditional Use Permit No. 84-47 is a decision solely in the sound discretion of the Commission. We hope this letter helps to both inform this Commission as to the factual background of the matter and clarify the role which Mobil perceives itself having upon this petition for reconsideration and the position it takes. Sincerely, E. L0 ~ I )--n'r>.-J E. W. Thompson District Sales Manager So. California/Arizona District EWT/tb 8374A , . c t" ...., - 'oJ :> .I ERN ARDIN 0 JOO NORTH "0" STREET. SAN BERNAROINO, CALIFORNIA 92416 EVL YN WILCOX M.vor Member, ot the Common Council EsUu~r Estrldl. . . . . . ", . . . . . . First W.rd Jack Reilly. . . . . . . . . . . . . . SecOnd W.rd RaiD" He'",nalll . . . . . . . . . . . Tt'I'rd Ward Steve M.rIcS . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fourth Ward Gordon Qui.' . . . . . . . . . . . . . Finn Ward O,n Frul., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sheth Werd JoIck Strick I., . . . . . . . . . . . .Seventh W.rd ~ September 9, 1986 Mobil Oil Corporation P.O. Box 2211 Tustin, CA 92680 Dear Sir or Madame: At the meeting of the Planning Commission on September 2, 1986, the following action was taken: The Planning Commission reviewed Conditional Use Permit No. 84-47, which established a snack shop, an expanded service area and replacement of dispensing pumps for an existing service station on .47 acre located at the southeast corner of Highland Avenue and the 1-215 Freeway and further described as 847 West Highland Avenue. Based upon non- compliance with conditions of approval, the Planning Commis- sion revoked Conditional Use Permit No. 84-47. According to the San Bernardino Municipal Code, 19.78.070., the following applies to the filing of a tional use permit: "The decision of the Commission shall be final unless appeal- ed in writing to the Mayor and Common Council. The written appeal shall be submitted to the office of the City Clerk within ten days from the date of the Commission's decision. The Common Council, after receipt of the appeal, shall conduct a public hearing and may either approve, modify or reject the decision of the Planning Commission." Section condi- ,~ ( &' ;'-:') ,r . c ( c Mobil Oil Corporation September 9, 1986 Page 2 - .....,J { ~ If no appeal is filed pursuant to the previously mentioned provisions of the San Bernardino Municipal Code, the action of the Commission shall be final. Respectfully, C~LQ ~ l FRANK A. SCHUMA Planning Director . mkf cc: Abrahim's Mobil Service 847 West Highland Avenue San Bernardino, CA 9240Smentioned City Attorney's Office , !I (CITY OF SA~_3EMAROINO~- - JlEMORANOlC1 To Planning Commission From P 1 anni ng Department Subject Revocation of Condi tional Use Permi t No. 84-47 Date September 2. 1 986 Approved Ap.enda I tem No. 12. Ward No. 5 Date OWNER: Mobile Oil Corporation P.O. Box 2211 Tustin, CA 92680 APPU CANT: (Ori gi na 1 ) Don Robbins P .0. Box 2211 Tustin, CA 92680 LOCA Tl ON: A.P.N.: 847 West Highland Avenue 145-011-05,29,30 ( Back9round: I. At the Planning Commission meeting of September 4. 1984, approval was granted for Conditional Use Permit No. 84-47; subject to conditions and standard requirements. The request waS to permit a mini-market in con- junction wi th an exi sting service station, and to replace the exi sti ng gasoline dispensers with multiple product dispensers. 2. The conditions and standard requirements imposed included, but were not limited to the following: A. That the development maintain a according to the approved plan. the rear of the building front. B. Landscaping be installed to the rear of the six foot block wall. \Oot1ich fronts onto 21st Street. This landscaping was to be ground cover, excluding lawn. The ground cover was to be installed and maintained in a weed free manner. minimum of 19 parking spaces striped This included all parking spaces to C. A security light was to be installed in the above mentioned landscaped ~ area and to be lit from dusk to dawn. 3. The above referenced conditions were included for aesthetic value. as well as to discourage transient use of the landscaped area, which was to act as a transition/buffer for the residential uses on 21st Street. The proxi- mi ty of the site to a freeway offramp makes it attractive as a resting place for transients. CITY' ON TH.=*~~ c - - v o "-" Planning Commission Revocation of Conditional Use Permit No. 84-47 September 2, 1986 Page 2 4. Complaints from neighboring residents on 21st Street began arriving City in late 1984. The nature of the complaints included that lawn been installed as ,groundcover and that there was no security light. result of these two combined was that transient use of the area for resting was disrUPting the peace and welfare of the neighborhood. S. Repeated attempts by the City to obtain satisfaction of the imposed con- di tions fai led. at th e had The 6. 8y May, 1986, Mobi Ie Oil Company representatives had sought Cooperation of the local dealer to resolve the problems. The result of the parent com- pany involvement was that the conditions had been met as follows: A. Landscaping had been reinstalled, that being a bed of ivy. ( B. The security light had been installed. C. Parking places had been striped, but not according to plan. In addi- tion, the dealer has fai led to follow through with the necessary main- tenance inorder to insure compliance ~th the conditions of approval .,,;,ich has included: 1. Neglect of ivy bed, resulting in a field of weeds. 2. Failed to utilize the security light, allowing the area to be sub- ject to overnight use by transients. 3. Used parking in the front of his bui lding creating blockage of cir- culation around his bui lding and an unattractive environment which included tow-trucks, cars awaiting repair, etc., parking along a block wall in front, sometimes hi tti ng the wall and causi ng damage to it. . 7. The Ci ty agai n contacted Mobile Oi I Corporation regardi ng the problems. Through repeated efforts on the part of the City and corporate officials, the following results have occured: .. A. The weeds were killed in the landscape area, that area now being dirt. B. The security light was found to be in working order; and it was agreed that three (3) "NO LOITERING" signs would be placed in the area. . c - ....., c ~ ( Planning Commission Revocation of Conditional Use Permit No. 84-47 September 2, 1986 P ag e 3 C. The parki ng lot was restri ped. However, the responsi ble dealer has stated: I. He wi 11 not maintain any landscaping that may be installed. 2. Wi 11 not put the securi ty li gh t on a ti mer and see that it is operati ng. 3. Does not use the parking lot as striped but continues to park along the front wall blocking circulation and creating unsightliness. 4. Did not post "NO lOITERING" signs. RECOMMENDATION , \ Given the history of repeated efforts by both the City and the parent cor- poration, Moible Oil, to obtain compliance from the local dealer; 'and given the continual disregard by this dealer to cooperate in resolving this matter by meeting the conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 84-47, staff recommends revocation of said conditional use permit. Respectfully submitted, FRANK A. SCHUMA Planning Director . .. \.. .. c C" o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT AGENDA ?.EC0]SIDERATION OF ITEM # LOCATION CASE C';:VOCATION OF COTT:1ITIONAL USE PERMIT 84- 12 HEARING DATE OCTOBER 21,1986 ....-..; - ROUTE 30 ColA a; IT ff ~O' I' '0' .' . 8! :a! 11-] . Iii! II. @ 1! .. - II-I E!kl T - -;:-' II'] [[ c.... :: ~B . .- ... CI ~~: ... ~nl InrTl........ II-I 11'1 II-I II-I 11'1 II-I II-I II-I 11-] II" 11-1 .