HomeMy WebLinkAbout48- Development Services INo '- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
CITY OF SAN BERNARD
From: Michael E. Hays, Director Subject: Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of CUP
No. 98-06 and Variance No. 98-02 - A proposal to establish an
indoor storage facility in an existing 11,500 square foot building,
Dept: Development Services an outdoor vehicle impound yard, and a request for variances-for
setbacks and fence/wall heights at 197 S. "D" Street.
Date: September 24, 1998 MCC Date: October 5, 1998
Synopsis of Previous Council Action: None
Recommended Motion:
That the Mayor and Common Council close the public hearing; deny the appeal and uphold the
Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 98-06 and Variance No. 98-02, based
on the Findings of Fact, subject to the Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements.
Miclfael E. Hays
Contact person: Michael E Hays Phone: 384-5357
Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward(s): 3
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A
Source: (Acct No ) N/A -
(Acct Description)
Finance:
Council Notes:
Agenda Item No. _
�0%���
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-06 AND VARIANCE NO. 98-02
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 5, 1998
APPELLANT APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER
John Jensen Brenda & Michael Allen
444 Athol Street 206 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92401 San Bernardino, CA 92401
(909) 889-6066 (909) 825-8545
APPEAL, PROTECT PROPOSAL, AND LOCATION
The City has received an appeal on the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use
Permit No. 98-06 and Variance No. 98-02. The project is a proposal to establish a storage
facility in an existing 11,500 square foot building with an outdoor vehicle impound yard. Items
to be stored in the building include automobiles, miscellaneous furniture and appliances and
office equipment. The proposed outdoor vehicle impound yard will be located at the north end
of the site.
The applicant also requests approval to vary from Development Code standards, as follows:
1. To reduce the 10 foot front and street side setbacks (along "D" and Athol Streets) to 5
feet and 4 feet, respectively;
2. To .reduce the 10 foot interior side and rear setbacks to zero to accommodate the
establishment of an outdoor vehicle impound yard (with a 6 foot screening wall along a
portion of "D" Street); and,
3. To increase the maximum allowable fence and wall heights in the front and street side
setbacks from 6 feet to 8 feet (along "D" and Athol Streets).
The 0.73 acre project site is located at 197 South "D" Street, on the northeast corner of Athol
and "D" Streets in the IL, Industrial Light General Plan land use designation (see Exhibit 1, Site
Location Map; and, Exhibit 2, Site Plan/Floor Plan). The Planning Commission Staff Report
(Exhibit 5) contains detailed background information and staff s analysis of the project proposal.
KEY ISSUES
The Appeal is of the Planning Commission's approval of the outdoor vehicle impound yard, and
the variance requests to reduce setbacks. Other related issues are outlined in the Application for
Appeal (see Exhibit 3). These issues were considered by the Planning Commission before action
was taken on the project.
Appeal - CUP No. 98-06 & VAR No. 98-02
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
October 5, 1998
Page 2
RELATED PROJECT INFORMATION
At the August. 4, 1998 Planning Commission meeting, several Commissioners and members of
the public were concerned that the applicants would defer constructing the on-site and off-site
improvements for the project. As a result, the Planning Commission continued the project to
August 18, 1998 so that staff could meet with the project applicants and bring back information
on potential financial assurance mechanisms, and a revised perimeter wall elevation. Staff's
meeting with the applicants occurred on August 12, 1998. A summary of the meeting is
contained in Exhibit 4.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERNIINATION
Staff determined that the project proposal will not result in any significant environmental impacts
to the site or surrounding area. Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines states such
activities are covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the
potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty
that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the
environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.
PLANNING CONUMSSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 98-06 and Variance No. 98-02
to establish a storage facility in an existing 11,500 square foot building, and the proposed
outdoor vehicle impound yard at the north end of the site in the front and side setbacks, and all
variance requests as proposed by the applicants (see Exhibit 6, Planning Commission Action).
Planning Commission Vote: Ayes - Durr, Garcia, Hendrix, and Suarez
Nays - Schuiling and Thrasher
Abstain - None
Absent - Enciso and Lockett
STAFF RECO END MON
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council:
1. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's p t
Permit No. 98-06, to establish an outdoor vhic eimPo undyard and storage facility n
an existing 11,500 square foot manufacturing building based on the Findings of Fact and
subject to the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit 6)and Standard Requirements (Exhibit 6);
and,
Appeal - CUP No. 98-06 & VAR No. 98-02
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
October 5, 1998
Page 3
2. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of Variance No. 98-02,
as follows: 1.) to reduce the 10 foot front and street side landscape setbacks to 5 feet and
4 feet, respectively; 2.) the to reduce the 10 foot interior side and rear setbacks; 3.) to
reduce the front setback to accommodate the establishment of an outdoor vehicle
impound yard; and, 4.) to increase the maximum fence and wall heights from 6 feet to
8 feet along the "D" and Athol Street frontages based on the Findings of Fact and subject
to the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit 6) and Standard Requirements (Exhibit 6).
Prepared by: Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner
for Michael E. Hays, Director of
Development Services
EXHIBITS
1 Site Location Map
2 Site Plan/Floor Plan
3 Application for Appeal (September 9, 1998)
4 Memorandum to the Planning Commission (August 13, 1998)
5 Planning Commission Staff Report (August 4, 1998)
Attachments: A Site Location Map *
B Site Plan/Floor Plan
C Development Code/General Plan Conformance Table
D Conditions of Approval (Not included - see Exhibit 6)
E Standard Requirements (Not included - see Exhibit 6)
F Applicant's Variance Findings
6 Planning Commission Action
* Included in Items 1 and 2, above
EXHIBIT 'T'
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO CUP No. 98-06 & VAR No. 98-02
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION Adopted 6-2-89
Date f-z1 -�� Site Location Map Panel No.
J Li l�i -
ca- L
eouNTY' 1
1 GCgI T[R
ST
YARDS CENTRAL
CITY1 +
IT-
KOO
m AVE. 0
C1 t r
LIL\LL I
Am
J
N •T. i y
s
O IL
T �
. if��v�RFif^ A ICK
TM
IRE
MLT1 -ft
I LN
Lu
S
�J
Ly
Z L.L
OF oAx - { _
,` OAK W `
IL
` . ? I
• a
rfr—Y�I / M
i
�;� ; '✓ �� ' ORANi
1111 -Au
EXHIBIT 112"
V L -L -
Sa. �
Y
r
r-
mm
`✓ �,{ 5 - - 1 0 X
r = O
G)
s
Y �
} , y
iv, ! 1 a o
Sri ` s
s a s a Z
lit Iff
fit ;c
O
ml
v 1
9 Aft DMCACO COST _
RICnflRD Q flSSOCifl1fS
R ' TYPEI DEVeLONT
PERMFT UM PLAN Spl CL 9240t ,art�scect aacn�rtcruot ucoan�tsi�n
EXHIBIT 113"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
300 North 'D'Sbwa, 3rd Floor,Sm 2--d—, CA 92418
Phone (9109)384-5057 Fat (9099)384-5080
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
OF A DIRECTOR DETERMINATION, DEVELOPMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
COMMITTEE DETERMINATION OR PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION
Appellant's Name, Address & JJ o L je'.' 1'3� v
Phone
&X,&ti.A44Ai'.1;o L'.4 c1o2y0�
Contact Person, Address & S A1n't— 4 S A 6 c y&
Phone
( 2M 885 - 6066
Pursuant to Section 19.52.100 of the Development (Municipal) Code, all appeal must be filed on a
City application form within 15 days following the final date of action, accompanied by the
appropriate fee.
Appeals are normally scheduled for a determination by the Planning Commission or Mayor and
Common Council within 30 days of the filing date of the appeal. You will be notified, in writing,
of the specific date and time.
Date Appeal Filed Received by
Receipt No. Receipt Amount :2�1 2 T, OO
PL 9 � oy�
Appeal Application
Page F 2
The following information must be completed:
Specific action being appealed and date of that action
COP Av,. 93 -0& 4"; ��k'iA�:c-�- /LIP.
C.:,
Specific grounds for the appeal
^ 1
Src rf " tac �� f�# '� � r SzPft'.u ��'� !�/ b' /�nle
� x G.
Action sought
c le.S aR e
Additional information
gigpedre of ApoeiLaae Date
September 1, 1998
To: City Council and Mayor
From: John L. Jensen — Property Owner, 444 Athol Street, San Bernardino
Application for Appeal: CUP No. 98-06 and Variance No. 98-02
197 So. "D" Street, San Bernardino, CA 92401
Specific Grounds for the Appeal and Additional information
1. Please see Exhibit "A" dated July 31, 1998. (9) Nine pages, William J. Ward-Attorney.
2. Excessive storage of vehicles on property will create a fire hazard and added liability to
surrounding businesses. Increased fire and liability hazard created by this type of use
will result in increased premiums for surrounding businesses. See attached Exhibit "B"
dated August 25, 1998, (2) pages C. R. Cooper Insurance.
3. ADA handicap access to offices will be impaired or blocked by stored vehicles per
operation description and plans submitted by Aliens.
4. Allen's have been operating their business at this location for approximately two years
without a Certificate of Occupancy and have created a "Public Nuisance". See attached
report, Exhibit "C", dated 12-02-96, (1) one page.
5. Allen's current and future usage of utilizing city streets for their business operation was
brought up by Joe Suarez, Planning Commissioner, at the August 18, 1998 hearing. Bill
LeMann, attorney-representing Aliens, verified that the Allen's intended to continue to use
the city streets for loading and unloading of repossessed vehicles. Plans submitted verify
this since they do not show any designated loading and unloading zones on premises.
6. Allen's have completed work inside the building without permits. See attached Stop-
Work Notice, Exhibit "D", dated 2-26-98, (2) two pages.
7. Allen's have a 20-year history of non-compliance and refusal to co-operate with City of
San Bernardino personnel. See Exhibit "E" dated May 7, 1997, (2) two pages regarding
letter from Margaret Park to Tim Sabo.
8. The granting of setback reductions is not consistent with surrounding business that have
larger setbacks in place.
Page 1 of 2
9. Approving variances to create over-intensification of properties usage in a light industrial
zone will cause surrounding property values to be devalued and difficult to sell.
10. City Attorney, James F. Penman, has declared a conflict of interest and has actively
participated in pressuring Planning Staff to allow the Allens to develop property. See
Exhibit "F" dated February 26, 1997.
11. Planning Commission did not follow Planning Staffs "Recommended Motion" when
approving CUP No. 98-06 and Variance No. 98-02. See attached August 18, 1998,
Planning commission Agenda, Exhibit °G', (3) three pages.
12. Planning Commission had two members absent (Enciso and Lockett) when vote was
taken at August 18, 1998 meeting. Votes for Ayes would have changed outcome of
action.
13. Building permit #102790 taken out by Allens' for improvements had expired on 9-19-97
with no completion or finals. Planning should have made Commissioners aware of this at
August 18, 1998 hearing, and failed to do so.
14. Planning Commission Chairperson Thrasher's prudent urging that this matter be
continued to see if the Allen's completed the requirements of CUP No. 97-17 and
Variance No. 97-10 by October 21, 1998 was not taken into account. The Planning
Commission granted the Allen's (6) six months to complete requirements of CUP 98-06
and Variance No. 98-02. A written history of long delays and noncompliance should have
been considered and this matter should have been continued until Allen's showed they
were in compliance without further delays. See Exhibits "H", (1) one page.
15. Allen's have misrepresented their business operation. "Temporary Storage" was
described by Mike Allen in terms of ONLY DAYS! See attached letter dated February 2,
1978 from Michael P. Allen to City of San Bernardino, Exhibit "1", (2) pages.
Page 2 of 2
WARD 685 TWO CARN EGIE CENTRE
EAST CARNEG IE DRIVE
@ WARD SUITE 1a0
SAN BERNARDINO. CA 92408
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
TELEP-ONE (909) 381-8350
ALEXANDRA 5. WARD
WILLIAM J. WARD FACSIMILE. (909).381-8356
July 31, 1998
CiR FILE NUMBER
X by T
J0005-001
Planning Commission Members,
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino City Hall
300 N. "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Re: Applications for Conditional Use Permit No. 98-06 and Variance No. 98-
0'2; 197 S. "D"Street, San Bernardino
Dear Commission Members:
I represent Western Door and John Jensen in connection with their objections to
the above-referenced project.
REQUESTED ACTION
Western Door requests that the Commission deny these applications outright or, in
the alternative, table the matters to a continued date for the purpose of evaluating
additional conditions for the granting of these applications.
SUMMARY OF POSITION
Western Door's position can be summarized as follows: the applicants continue to
store vehicles for years on their properties, even though such storage is a violation of
City requirements. Attached hereto are two sets of photographs. The first set of
photographs are pictures taken on February 19, 1997, of both the 197 S. "D" storage yard
and the 206/208 S. "D" storage yard which are part of the business owned by Michael
and Brenda Allen. Among other things, a truck can be seen in the upper right hand
corner of the 206/208 S. "D" yard, and a red Camaro can be seen in the 197 S. "D"
storage yard.
WARD
@ WARD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Planning Commission Members,
City of San Bernardino
• July 31, 1998
• Page 2
The second set of photographs, taken on July 20, 1998 (a year-and-a-half later)
show the same: white truck in the upper right-hand corner of the storage yard, and the
same Camaro shown in the 197 S. "D" storage yard. i b is
the Aliens ample of the
continued, long-term storage operations being con y
The fact that the Aliens persist in storing vehicles for years clouds the distinction
between an auto repossessiorrbusiness (a permitted use), and a salvage yard or long-term
storage business (not a permitted use).
The applications before the Commission are essentially a business expansion of
the operation. currently located at 206/208 D Street. These two properties are
inextricably intertwined in that they both have the same operation,taln requirements storage
vehicles, are part of the same liance of these properties with financial
zoning ordinances and the
directly bear upon the comp
City's general plan.
The representation that the Aliens' business would be for temporary storage only
is a promise that has been repeatedly made and broken.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-06
A. PROPOSED USE IS NOT PERMITTED AND WOULD IMPAIR INTEGRITY OF SUBJECT
PLANNED USE DISTRICT
The history of the Aliens' business, including what is being conducted on 197 S.
"D" Street, is the long-term, outdoor storage of vehicles. This i Aliens are violation
.representing
the zoning requirements of a IL district standard. Certainly, the
that storage is only temporary; however, in fact, they persist in storing vehicles for years,
including the Camaro which presently sits on 197 S. "D" Street.
5
2 o�
WARD
& WARD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Planning Commission Members,
City of San Bernardino
• July 31, 1998
• Page 3
The same misrepresentations were made by the Allens in connection with 206/208
S. "D" Street. In the summary provided by your planning staff in connection with
revocation of Conditional Development Permit No. 866 (hearing date July 8, 1997), your
staff sets forth a chronology demonstrating the Allens' persistent refusal to comply with
City requirements. In 1978, the Allens were allowed to use the yard for temporary
storage of repossessed or broken-down vehicles. As your staff accurately states: "This
type of use stores vehicles that will be released to the legal owner within a few days and
not stored so long as to have tires go flat, to have wheels removed, and to have
registration tags expire." (Summary of Revocation of CDP No. 866. p. 2 [emphasis
added].) At that time, as noted, the Allens' 1978 CDP application states that the
temporary storage "usually is accomplished within a few days after the vehicle is
recovered." Since that time, however, the Allens have persisted in storing vehicles for
years.
Based upon the Allens' course of conduct, it is clear that the actual use to which
they will put 197 S. "D" is for long-term storage of vehicles which is a zoning violation.
When the City staff noted that the Allens had been storing vehicles with
registration tags that expired as long as 15 years ago, the staff cited Section 8.36.010 of
the Municipal Code. This section states, in pertinent part: "The accumulation of storage
and abandoned, wrecked, dismantled, or inoperative vehicles or parts thereof on private
or public property . . . is a public nuisance which may be abated . . .."
The public nuisance which will be created should the Conditional Use Permit be
approved for 1.97 S. "D" Street is something that the City should avoid.
B. PROPOSED USE NOT CONSISTENT WITH GENERAL PLAN.
General Plan Objection 1.32 states: "Retain, enhance, and intensify existing and
provide for the new development of light industrial uses along major vehicular . . . routes
serving the City of San Bernardino."
There are several businesses along South "D" Street in addition to Western Door
which epitomize this objective. The long-term storage of inoperable vehicles
substantially detracts from this objective.
3 o�
J
WARD
& WARD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Planning Commission Members,
City of San Bernardino
® July 31, 1998
Page 4
When the Allens requested that they be allowed to enclose or build-out portions of
206/208 S "D" Street, this General Plan Objective was quoted by the planning staff.
However, with regard to this permit application, 98-06, there is no mention of this
particular portion of the General Plan. Instead, General Plan Policy 1.32.10 is quoted as
identifying outdoor display and storage is a permitted use in the IL district. However, no
one disputes the fact that long-term storage of vehicles is not a permitted use in an IL
district.
C. LOCATION, SIZE, DESIGN, AND OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS ARE NOT
COMPATIBLE.
The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are not
compatible with the existing and future land uses within the general area in which the
proposed use is to be located. As stated, the existing area is for light industrial. Because
the Aliens persist in long-term storage of vehicles, their use is not consistent. Further, the
proposed development at 197 S. "D" Street does not provide for adequate area in which
to load or unload vehicles. The loading and unloading of vehicles may take place on the
public thoroughfare. This is an adverse condition which must be considered by the
Commission.
D. THE SUBJECT SITE IS NOT PHYSICALLY SUITABLE.
As your staff has accurately noted, the 197 S. "D" Street is not physically suitable
for the outdoor vehicle impound yard as proposed. Given the setback variances which
are requested by the applicant, your staff has noted that there will be a "over-
intensification of the site." This means that there will again be a great many cars stored
outdoors, and the property will look horrible. This detracts from the City's overall goal
of eliminating blight.
Further, the applicant is proposing to have vehicles enter on Athol Street, instead
of"D" Street. The applicant should be made to reconfigure this site so that vehicles can
be brought in and loaded and unloaded off of"D" Street, making a zero setback
unnecessary. Thus, as the site is currently configured, it is not suitable for the proposed
use, and the Conditional Use Permit should be denied as proposed.
4F- 7 of
5
WARD
@ WARD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Planning Commission Members,
City of San Bernardino
• July 31, 1998
• Page 5
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE NO. 98-02
A. PURPORTED SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT JUSTIFY VARIANCE.
One factor in allowing for the issue of a variance would be that there are special
circumstances applicable to a certain property which would deprive that property of the
privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity under identical land use district
classification. This factor does-not apply here. The other properties in this district are
light manufacturing. The Aliens wish to come into this district and have long-term
outside storage of vehicles. This is at odds of the general nature of the neighborhood.
Moreover, the Aliens could reconfigure their property so that circulation would
come from where the "D" Street side of the property. Granted, not as many cars could be
stored; however, the Aliens should not be storing all of these vehicles outside for
extended periods of time.
B. GRANTING OF VARIANCES NECESSARY FOR PRESERVATION OF SUBSTANTIAL
PROPERTY RIGHT.
The Aliens went in and began business operations on 197 S. "D" Street without a
certificate of occupancy. Further, they began doing construction in the building without
permits. The Aliens now are attempting to say that they have some type of property right
because they bought property, knowing the requirements in the area, and began to occupy
and commence construction without entitlements.
This property can be used for a great number of things other than on-site storage
of vehicles. There is not significant property right at issue; rather, the Aliens wish to
have long-term storage of vehicles, which is not a permitted use, in an area where there
shouldn't be such a use. Other appropriate uses can be made of this property, and the
variance should be denied. The Aliens purchased this property knowing the
requirements, now they wish to have yet another exemption from what is required.
C. GRANTING OF VARIANCE HARMS ESTHETICS.
The City of San Bernardino, to its credit, has required landscaping setbacks
throughout the City. These landscaping setbacks have enhanced the properties in the
e S o
WARD
@ WARD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Planning Commission Members,
City of San Bernardino
• July 31, 1998
• Page 6
areas in which they exist. The City should consistently apply its goal of having landscape
setbacks throughout commercial zones in the City.
Other properties, including that owned by Western Door, have adhered to the
landscaping setbacks in this area. Even the casual observer can note the difference
between the legitimate business operations in this district and the long-term storage
operations currently conducted on both properties owned by the Aliens. The City should
consistently apply its rules, and should further its goal of having adequate landscape
setbacks.
D. GRANTING OF VARIANCE CONSTITUTES A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE.
Again, all the other businesses in the area have landscaping setbacks. To grant the
variances requested by the Aliens would be to accord them a special privilege which is
not appropriate.
E. VARIANCE WOULD FACILITATE AN UNAUTHORIZED USE.
The history of the Aliens' business demonstrates that they persist in storing
inoperable vehicles for extended periods of time in violation of the City's zoning
ordinances. This conduct should not be encouraged by providing variances which would
allow the long-term storage of vehicles into setback areas.
The Aliens should be made to reconfigure their property to allow for ingress and
egress off of"D" Street where a small or zero setback on Athol Street would not be
required. As to the application for a variance for the landscape setback on "D" street, the
Aliens should be made to have a 10-foot setback, so they are consistent with the other
properties in the area.
F. VARIANCE NOT CONSISTENT WITH GENERAL PLAN.
The General Plan provides that this district is for light industrial uses. To grant a
variance to allow storage of vehicles in a setback area without adequate landscaping,
would be to highlight the fact that there is long-term storage of inoperable vehicles in a
light industrial area.
WARD
@ WARD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Planning Commission Members,
City of San Bernardino
• July 31, 1998
• Page 7
CONCLUSION
Western Door submits that the applications should both be denied in their entirety.
However, as an alternative, the following should be considered: (1)before ruling on this
application, determine whether the Allens are actually going to comply with the
requirements Conditional Use Permit 97-17, as specifically the completion of
construction of certain buildings at 206/208 S. "D" Street by October 21, 1998 (only 90
days from now); (2) require that the Allens reconfigure their proposed plan for 197 S.
"D" Street so that the setback variances are not needed; and (3) provide for adequate
restrictions on how long vehicles can be stored on the outside of these buildings.
DATED: July 31, 1998 Respectfully Submitted,
WARD & WARD
By:
William J. Ward
Attorneys for Western Door and John
Jensen
1/J0005-00 1/PlanningC.ommissionMembersLetter200
copy: John Jensen
Photos taken 2119/9
206 0i South
g♦ Kird
1 I
Storage Yard
� I �
PHOTOS TAKEN 7-20-1998
206/208 SOUTH "D"
STORAGE YARD
Ll
mill
_ � �• � .'mss
.,�"��• - yaw.
r ;
"-1
197 SOUTH "D"
STORAGE YARD
� • n
c
�._`^�.�� a.
1� 1 Tnlil`P..
o�
C. R. Cooper Insurance Brokerage
Calif.Lic.:0A79W
215 North"D"Street, Suite 101
San Bernardino, California 92401-1701
Ph:909-384-1216 • Fay 909-384-1632
8-25- 98 "FX (
Ed English
San Bernardino Glass and Mirror
167 South "D" street
San Bernardino, CA 92401
RE : property and liability insurance
Dear Ed;
Pursuant to our last conversation this letter will confirm the
potential negative impact to your property and liability insurance
rates and ability to -obtain insurance caused by a change of the
occupancy of adjacent properties to your building. Building fire
rates are based on the city' s protection class, building age ,
construction, occupancy, housekeeping, frequency of losses, and
adjacent building occupancies . Currently San Bernardino Glass has
very low rates based on the above parameters of fire rating. We
have control of all the above factors except frequency of outside
loss and adjacent building occupancies .
Frequency of outside loss is hard to monitor and the insurance
companies adjust their rates and desire to provide insurance based
on a building' s surrounding properties . When a good business
suffers numerous outside losses insurance companies will raise the
rates and in some cases decline to offer coverage . During business
hours an owner is able to monitor activities inside and outside
their business and therefore prevent and minimize losses .
Historically businesses that are adjacent to a 24 hour operation
suffer more vandalism and malicious mischief do to public access .
Further to the above, adjacent business occupancies with higher
fire danger will effect the fire rates and availability of
insurance for lower fire risks . San Bernardino Glass has a low
fire rate do the type of business and lower fire hazard. Insurance
carriers look at surrounding building occupancies to determine
fires rates and obviously a building with a higher fire rating will
effect the rates of others as fires do spread from one building to
another.
Along with fire safety concerns, insurance carriers also are
concerned with premises liability. Businesses with a 24 hour
operation traditionally have more losses do to increased "traffic"
Obviously adjacent business have the same increase in losses .
pg 1 of 2
In summary, I am concerned about the changes in adjacent building
occupancies . Your current insurance carrier has provided and rated.
your insurance based on a location without an increased fire risk .
Your future rates and insurance availability will be placed in
jeopardy by a change in adjacent building occupancies .
Cordially Yours;
C.Roger Coope
C.R Cooper Insurance Brokerage
Calif.Lie.#OA79680
City of San Bernardino 12-02-96
Resident Service Request
Public Information Office
300 North D Street - San Bernardino, Ca. 92418
(714) 384-5211
equest Number: 50303
Mailer YIN: No
.equest Type: 122 Property Nuisance Unsightly Pr Projected Resolution
,.eferral Dept: 181 Building & Safety Date: 11-22-96
'ontact Name: Debra Daniels Ext: 5205 Municipal Code:
8. 33 . O1OK/100
.ocation: 197 S "D" STREET
'omplainant: PLANNING - MARGARET
address:
:ity, State, Zip:
'hone:
.ard: 3/BB
'aken By: G FRANSKE Date: 11-07-96 Time: 12: 18PM
)escription:
')E-837 STORING JUNK/DAMAGED VEHICLES (BOATS, TRACTORS, TRAILERS)
'HEN PERMIT WAS ISSUED FOR VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY (IN JUNE)
tEQUIREMENT WAS FOR SUMBMITTAL & APPROVAL OF A DPI. STORAGE IS
:XTERIOR.
,ction Taken:
'losed Date: By:
STOP WORK NOTICE
(u.ac. 202)
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES
300 North 'D' Street, San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001
(909) 384-5071 - FAX(909) 384-5463
LOUTION: ate: a
OWNER: � /C(�.!/?y/ '/ ✓l/
AOORESS: ,mil'. zlcx Ty/
rnY: I O MTATE: aP cooCOOL
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO STOP WORK. YOU ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE FOLLOWING
SECTIONS OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE. 15,04.020:
[1 PERMIT REQUIRED FO CONSTRUCTION and/or ALTERATIO (U.aC. 301(x))
Description of Work: - < L✓' �/ �'
r S N L l T i
�' , rY►�T�L STS 0 Liz L_<7 [.v �!N 1� r�cr!afA� 1r S
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION AND FEE REQUIRED (U.aC. 304(d))
PLANS REQUIRED
] GATHER
The listed violations must be corrected within / D days.
Pi, use notify an inspector of the Department of Planning and Building Services when corrections have been completed.
/� If you have any questions, please call this Department. Thank You.
/ fj , Phone: ?� `1 ' �'-
6 NG INSPECTORS SIGNATURE
If you object to the determination concerning this STOP-WORK NOTICE,you must file s written protestto the
JARD OF BUILDING COMMISSIONERS no later than 'C !ten) days from the date of this notice, however, no
_)rk may proceed until the board has acted upon the appeal.
Failure to correct the listed violations may result in the City placing a Notice of
Pendancy upon this property until the violations are corrected.
Compliance with this notice, before, on, or after the above compliance date, does not prevent prosecution by
e City Attorney's Office on any of the above violations of the San Bernardino Municipal Code.
Violators may be punished by a fine of up to$500 or by imprisonment In the County Jail for a period
six (6) months or by both fine and imprisonment.
�TRIUUTWN:MM.MA L TO OWNER / CANARY•INMCTOR / HNK•ME / NANO COPY.POMT PLAN•16115 110-!3)
It's�
a:
fr� jj
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Department of Planning and Building Services
Memorandum
TO: Tim Sabo, Sabo and Green
FROM: Margaret Park, Associate Planner
RE: Chronology of events on Michael Allen project
DATE: May 7, 1997
COPIES: Mike Hays, Director
Valerie Ross, Principal Planner
208 S. "D" File
This chronology is based on information in the high density file for 208 South "D" Street and
the file for CDP #866. -
1/6/78 Letter re: Minor Variance
2/2/78* Letter re: description of CDP project
2/13/78 Minor Variance application date
3/1/78 Initial Study checklist prepared, Negative Declaration recommended
3/18/78 Letter of objection from Frisone
3/20/78 Letter of objection from Pollock
4/18/78 Letter of objection from Martin Business Machines
4/18/78 Letter of objection from Di-Line Corp.
4/19/78 P.C. approval
5/1/78* M.C.C. approval
1978 Date unknown-written note of compliant about business
8 YEAR VOID
8/18/86* Memo to file from Planner Norton documenting that he was refused entry to
the property by the owner.
1986 Date unknown-written note to file re: complaint
5 YEAR VOID
1990? Date unknown-Ross met with Allen, then item was pulled from BBC agenda
8/21/91* Letter to Allen from Al Williams re: compliance with Code and CDP
11/4/91 Note in Code Compliance file that Allens failed to respond to the correction
notice (8/21/91 letter)
11/15/91 Notice of Pendency of Administrative Proceeding/Correction Notice-10 day
P4
compliance request
3/23/92* Letter to Allen from Boughey/Nolfo re: hearing date before BBC
3/24/92* Letter to BBC from Allen re: request for continuance
4/3/92 BBC: request for continuance denied, abatement costs imposed ($373)
4 YEAR VOID
6/11/96* Letter'of complaint from Jensen
7/10/96* Memo to Donaghe/Paulsen from Ross re: status of Di-Line Bldg.
7/10/96* Memo to Ross from Donaghe re: applicant aware of requirement for DPI
12/17/96* Letter to Allen re: compliance with the CDP; states that site must be cleaned up
by January 21, 1997.
1/21/97 No clean-up done at site.
2/6/97 Meeting with Aliens, J. Thompson, S. Paulsen; Mr. Allen agrees to submit
a Development Permit by March 8, 1997.
2/11/97* Memo to Hays re: summary of 2/6/97 meeting - DPII required in lieu of CDP
conditions fulfillment
318/97 No Development Permit application submitted as agreed.
3/25/97* Letter to Allen from Hays re: revocation of CDP
O��tNARp��
C I T Y O F
5an bernardino G�
O F F I C E O F T H E C I T Y A T T 0 R N E Y j
J A M E S F P E N M A N
CITY ATTORNEY
26 February 1997
Mr. John Jensen
Western Door & Window
444 Athol Street
San Bernardino, CA 92401
RE : Your letter of 25 February 1997
Dear Mr . Jensen:
Thank you for your letter of 25 February 1997 regarding "the
Allens" .
This office declared a conflict some time ago when the matter of
City of San Bernardino vs Michael Allen was brought to my attention
by Code Enforcement . I referred the matter to the Mayor at that
time and I would encourage you to contact his office in regard to
your complaint .
Once a conflict has been declared it is impermissible for the
department_ declaring the conflict to even inquire, yet alone
intervene or attempt to influence any city action, investigation or
decision on the matter in any way.
PA 9f 2,
PRIDE
IN PROGRESS
0 0 N O R T H D S T R E E T S A N B E R N A R D I N. 0
C A L I F 0 R N I A 9 2 4 1 8 . 0 0 0 1 ( $ 0 9 ) 3 8 4 - 3 3 8 5
Mr. John Jensen
26 February 1997
Page Two
I have forwarded your letter with its enclosures to the Mayor.
Yours Very Truly,
James F. Penman
City Attorney
cc : Mayor ' s Office
Councilwoman Rita Arias
San Bernardino Glass
Dixon Wheel Service
Ralph Affaitati
Truitt Westbrook
Sanborn Fire Protection
Circle-North American
Steuart Goodwin Pipe Organs
Courtney Motors
Page Electric Company
United Moving and Storage
�O�StNARp�� COMMISS/ONERS
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California 92418 ENCISOK fredo
Phone 909.384.5057, Fax 909.384.5080 GARGM Ernest
J is a� RENDRIX, Wayne
LOCKET!; Evelyn
OG'�DfD IN�9` SCRUILING, Walter
PLANNING COMMSSION AGENDA 7MUSI ,
TIiRASI�R, Carol
FINAL
AUGUST 18, 1998
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
THE CITY OF SAN BERNARD INO RECOGNIZES ITS OBLIGATION TO
PROVIDE EQUAL ACCESS TO PUBLIC SERVICES TO THOSE
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES. PLEASE CONTACT THE DIRECTOR
OF FACILITIES MANAGEMENT (3845244) 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE
MEETING WIT11 ANY REQUESTS FOR REASONABLE
ACCOMMODATION, TO INCLUDE SIGN INTERPRETERS.
Decisions of the Planning Commission are final concerning Conditional Use Permits,
Development Permits, Tentative Tract Maps and Variances, unless appealed to the Mayor and
Council. Appeals to the Mayor and Council must be made in writing, stating the grounds of the
appeal, and must be submitted to the Planning and Building Services Department along with the
appropriate fee within fifteen days of the decision.
General Plan Amendments and Amendments to the Municipal (Development) Code will
automatically be forwarded to the Mayor and Common Council-for final action.
If you challenge the resultant action of the Planning Commission in court, you may be limited
to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Planning Division at, or prior to, the
public hearing.
Individual testimony on agenda items will be strictly limited to five minutes uer person.
•CALL TO ORDER
•SALUTE TO THE FLAG
•PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
On each item before the Planning Commission, we will first hear a report from staff and then
the public hearing will be opened. Commissioners may ask questions of any speaker.
3
Anyone in the audience wishing to speak must be sworn in and also fill out a request to speak
form. The forms are located on the table near the door. When your name is called, come
forward and speak into the microphone giving your name and address for the taped record.
The applicant will present his or her case. Next, members of the public will be allowed five
minutes to speak. After all have spoken, the applicant will be allowed to summarize. The
public hearing will then be closed.
The Planning Commission is anxious to hear the concerns and views of all persons wishing to
give testimony. However, it is requested that each speaker try to add new information and not
repeat points which previous speakers have made.
•ADMINISTRATION OF OATH
•PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
•PLANTING COMMISSION COMMENTS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
•CONSENT AGENDA --
Planning Commission Minutes of June 3, 1998 and July 7, 1998.
CONTINUED ITEMS:
1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 98-06 AND VARIANCE NO 98-02 (Continued
from 7/7/98. 7/21/98 and 8/4/98) - To establish a storage facility in an existing 11,500 square
foot building in the IL, Industrial Light, land use district, under authority of Code Section
19.08.020, Table 08.01(1'6). Items to be stored in the building include automobiles
miscellaneous furniture and appliances and office equent. o pro sed is an outside)_ ipm
vehicle impound yard located at the north end of th_ e_ site in the front and side_ and The
applicant also requests approval of a variance of Code Section 19.08.030, Table 08.02 and
19.20.030(8)(A), Table 20.01(2), to reduce the 10 foot front and side yard setbacks to zero to
accommodate placement of the outside vehicle impound yard; reduce the 10 foot front yard
setback to 5 feet along "D" Street, reduce the 10 foot side yard setback to zero along Athol
Street; and increase the maximum allowable fence/wall height from 6 feet to 8 feet in the front
and side street setback areas. The subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of about 0.73 acres located at the northeast corner of Athol and "D" Streets, having
a frontage of about 225 feet on the east side of "D" Street and a frontage of 142 feet on the
north side of Athol Street and further described as being located at 197 South "D" Street.
Environmental �Y'
'k Ae)`J a °a
Determination: Exempt from CEQA, Section 15061(b)(3)
Owner: Michael & Brenda Allen
Applicant: Paul Toomey, Toomey & Associates
Ward: 3
Planner: Deborah Woldruff
• le ech,c4-� .�u Wit-rye-�`.e` �L"..a� ,f �£��laa-,.
-� RE MMENDED MOTION: That the he�g be closed an d that the Planning Commissii
approve Conditional Use Permit No. 98-06 and Variance No. 98-02 to reduce the 10 foot front
and street side setbacks to 5 feet and 4 feet, respectively, and the 10 foot interior side and rear
setbacks, based on the Findings of Fact, subject to the Conditions of Approval (Attachment "D")
and Standard Requirements (Attachment "E"); and deny the variance requests to reduce the front
setback to accommodate the establishment of an outdoor vehicle impound yard and to increase
2 l tlftia.s
of 8/18/98-Final
T
/ /�.L cir-..( ��-( i._� •.l rj1 .c-z'i �C:� _�(.0..� ��(--Ci-Cyii.:.cw,�J �-
y
the maximum fence and wall heights from 6 feet to 8 feet along the "D" and Athol Street
frontages, based on the Findings of Fact.
2. TENTATIVE TRACT NO 15743 (Continued from 8/4/98) - To establish a 38 lot
single family residential subdivision with a minimum lot size of 10,800 square feet in the RL,
Residential Low, land use district. The subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of about 14.45 acres located at the southwest corner of Palm Avenue and Washington
Avenue, having a frontage of about 1,386 feet on the south side of Washington Avenue and a
frontage of 708 feet on the west side of Palm Avenue.
Environmental
Determination: Negative Declaration
Owner: Verdemont Ranch, L.L.C.
Applicant: David E. Mlynarski, MAPCO
Ward: 5
Planner: Joe Bellandi
RECOMI U LADED MOTION: That the hearing be closed and that the Planning Commission
adopt the Negative Declaration and approve Tentative Tract No. 15743,•based on the Findings .
of Fact, subject to the Conditions of Approval (Attachment "D") and Standard Requirements
(Attachment "E").
NEW ITEMS:
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 97-18-To permit a private preschool and outdoor
playground at an existing church, in the RU-2, Residential Urban, land use district, under
authority of Code Section 19.04.020(6)(C). The subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel
of land consisting of about 1.4 acres located at the northeast corner of Arrowhead Avenue and
10th Street, having a frontage of about 275 feet on the east side of Arrowhead Avenue and a
frontage of 272 feet on the north side of 10th Street, and further described as being located at
1001 N. Arrowhead Avenue.
Environmental
Determination: Exempt from CEQA, Section 15301(e)(2)
Owner: First Christian Church
Applicant: Cothran Management
Ward: 2
Planner: Margaret Park
RECOMN FENDED MOTION: That the hearing be closed and that the Planning Commission
approve Conditional Use Permit No. 97-18, based on the Findings of Fact, subject to the
Conditions of Approval (Attachment "D") and Standard Requirements (Attachment "E").
4. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO, 98-03 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO, 98-14- To amend the General Plan land use plan from the PF, Public Facilities designation
on the north side to the PCR, Public/Commercial Recreation designation; and on the south side
from the PF, Public Facilities designation to the CG-1, Commercial General designation; and
a request for a conditional use permit to permit a golf course, hotel, conference center, retail
center, restaurants, driving range, and sports bar, under authority of Code Sections
14'114J Z 3 04 3 8/18/98-Final
L 1 Z ntS
tl
delay in
blight �Case
■ San Bernardino delays SAN BERNARDINO
action against company
operating in violation of a interest and could not advise the
conditional use permit. group because he had received
Political campaign contributions
By LYNN ANDERSON from the Allen family.
SUNDAY. July 13, 1997 Thompson's defense of the
SAN BERNARDINO — The company angered Jensen.
view from John Jensen's down- "1 feel like what she did was
town warehouse is hardly attrac- totally inappropriate, totally un-
tive. ethical," he said. I feel like I'm
When the president of West- caught up in a political situation.
ern Door surveys his surround- I plan to take it to the (chamber
ings. he sees junk, a whole lot of of commerce)board."
it — an asphalt plot of battered, For their part. city officials
ar
busted old cars. e embarrassed.
"Some of those cars have been "Yes, it just seems that this
there at least seven years," Jen- one just fell through the cracks,"
sen said Friday. "They have Do- said J. Lorraine Velarde, the
bermans in there that hit the mayor's executive assistant.
fence and send your hair flying." Of all the conditional use per-
Sick of the trouble at 208 mits distributed throughout the
South D St., a car-storage lot city, the planning department
owned and operated by Michael cant check on all of them, Hays
P. Allen and Associates, Jensen said. "We have to go by the honor
and 10 other downtown business system. Businesses say they will
Mowners petitioned city officials abide by the permit and 99 per-
to follow to clean up the place. through."
When Planning_ Department When Jensen brought the is-
stat however, sue to the planning department
1� �q97 �_ ound the busine« had last fall.Hays sought resolution.
4,C been nnPrating illggally since The planning director wrote
Y Fti.�prtvG about 1978. when the Planning to lot owner Michael P. Allen in
pF S TyCF aWyN�NG 3 ommmission approved a condi- business December, notifying n com that
ace.
N Rv'G tional development permit al- P
,p,R?ME1NG 5E E lowing temporary vehicle stor- Certain changes, including re-
age P moval of some of the cars and
age only. in were re
"I think it looks like a junk fresh landscaping. quest-
yard." Planning Director Mike ed.
Hays said of the Allen and Asso- "It is estimated that there are
ciates car lot. "There are cars approximately 150 cars and
there that have registration trucks stored in the yard." Hays
stickers from the late'80s.'• wrote. 'This is more than twice
At a Planning Commission the number authorized. (Also)
meeting last w•cek. members con• there are stacks of old tires, a
templated revoking the Allen junked storage shed. a jacuzzi
and Associates permit but and other assorted items visible
agreed to a 45-day extension from the street.-
after an attorney and a represen- Still. major improvements to
tative of the San Bernardino the site didn't happen,said Hays.
Area Chamber of Commerce re- who visits the car lot at least
quested a 90-day reprieve. twice a month."They have re-
"(The Allen and Associates moved some of the cars but they
property) looks more like a used haven't done enough."
car lot without the lot boy wash If by the end of the 45-day ex-
ing the cars every day." said Judi tension. Allen and Associates
Thump;on. ch;imber of com• still hasn't cleaned up the lot.
nierce executive director. Hays said he w:ll push for permit
Thompson s husband. City At- revocation.
toracy Jrnr Penman. cold the "Forty five drys is ample
curtunissron he had a conflict of time." he ;aid.
4r--X4 6, .f P ''
t,'-'AS e,
ATTACHM ENT "C"
�. zo T
MICHAEL P. ALLEN i ASSOCIATES a
p .
February 2, 1978
DEVELOPHENT PLAN AND DESCRIPTION OF OPERATION:
We intend to develop the property that is located on Athol Street, South side,
between the streets of "D" and Stoddard in a method that agrees with all re-
quirements of the City of San Bernardino. The property is to be used for -the
TEITQ= STORAGE of repossessed motor vehicles. Our clients range from local
Credit Union's to the largest bank in the world * Bank of America. After the
motor vehicles are recovered, it is necessary to secure the unit's within a
protected compound until the personal effects are removed, paper work is com-
pleted and a decision is reached is regards to the collateral property's dis-
position. This usua11Y is accomplished within a few days after the vehicle in
recovered. The development of this property is required since our current loca-
tion at 1320 East Baseline Street, San Bernardino, California is no longer large
enought to secure the amount of vehicles that are being repossessed by our agency.
The volume of our buisness has grown over 100% since the summer of 1977. We intend
to develop the westerly portion of the property initially. We are following this
procedure since our office building will be built on the easterly portion facing
"D" Street. We have intentions of establishing our numerical address as 200 South
"D" Street, San Bernardino, California. The office building will hopefully be
completed in approzimently, one year. We will temporarily establish as office within
a standard type office lease trailer. We also have intentions of building a storage
and garage type building to store equipment and personal effects that have been
removed from the repossessed automobiles. Such a building is necessary until the
debtors contact our office to redeem their per effects. We have not deceided
at this point whether the buildings will be metal or block. Rest assured, the build-
ings will be developed with"the general area in mind. The area will be secured with
a chain link fence and several mercury type lights. The area will be paved with
asphalt and concrete will be installed in appropriate areas. ALSO, after the property
is developed the area will be maintained in a clean and organized manner. As stated
T /o7cZ
F P.0. BOX 5411, SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 91412 • TELEPHONE (714) 886.3136
P.O. BOX 1414, RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92502
TELEPHONE (714) 6834205 =
a CONlom94&M LkMW NwnDa F-el �j?.
February 2, 1978
Page Two
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESCRIPTION OF OPERATION CONTINUED:
above the building should be completed-vithin one year from the date of our
occupancy..
Yary truly yours,
�L 4-s-L-1
Hichael P. Allen
EXMIT 11411
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
! PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Memorandum
TO: Planning Commissio
FROM: Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: CUP No. 98-06 and VAR No. 98-02 - Financial Assurances Information
and Revised, Colored Elevations
DATE: August 13, 1998
COPIES: Michael E. Hays, Director; and, Project Files
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
This project was continued by the Planning Commission on August 4, 1998 to the August 18,
1998 meeting, and staff was directed to bring back information on potential financial assurance
mechanisms and a revised wall elevation.
On Wednesday, August 12, 1998, Planning and Public Works staff met with the Allens to
review the draft cost estimates of the project's on-site and off-site improvements that were
prepared by applicants' consultant, Mr. Paul Toomey. A cooperative discussion between staff
and the applicants resulted in the inclusion of some off-site improvement costs that had been
overlooked. The estimated improvement costs and types of financial assurances are outlined
below.
FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
Financial Assurance Methods
Development Code §19.30.220 allows applicant's to use any approved types of financial
assurances. Three most commonly used types of financial assurances are described below:
1. Escrow Account - requires that the applicant deposit the full cost of improvements. The
money sits in the account until the improvements are completed by the applicant or the
money is withdrawn by the City to complete the improvements.
2. Performance Bond- requires that the applicant pay a percentage of the face value of the
improvement costs each year that the bond is active.
Planning Commission Memorandum
RE: CUP No. 98-06 and VAR No. 98-02
August 13, 1998
Page 2
3. Letter of Credit - requires that a lending company guarantee the full cost of
improvements to the City. If the applicant does not complete the improvements, the
lender must pay the City and pursue reimbursement from the applicant.
The Allens have indicated that if a financial assurance is required, they will most likely provide
a Letter of Credit to cover the improvement costs.
Project Improvements Costs
If the Planning Commission requires a financial assurance from the applicants, it will need to
cover the construction/material costs of the following project improvements:
1. landscaping and irrigation system;
2. ornamental wrought iron fencing (with gates);
3. concrete block pilasters;
4. decorative concrete block wall (with gate);
5. modify driveway approaches on "D" and Athol Streets; and,
6. removal of existing driveway approach on "D" Street (replace with sidewalk, curb and
gutter).
The total cost of the improvements is estimated at $26,100. A listing of the individual costs is
shown on Attachment A.
REVISED, COLORED ELEVATIONS
The applicant submitted a revised, colored elevation of the proposed wall and fence. The
Planning Commission had requested that the wall be constructed from masonry block materials
that match the building construction. They also requested that the fence pilasters be spaced 16
feet on center. Both of the changes have been made and the proposed wall, fence and
landscaping meets the Design Guidelines in the Development Code. It is important to note that
the proposed height and location of the wall and fence still do not meet Code.
ATTACHMENT: A. Construction Cost Estimate
ATTACHMENT "A"
i .
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SCREEMCrI.ANDSCAPE VdPROVE1ViF.M-CUP 98.06
IVMwlBmda AHen,Owners
Deserngtioe Unit Cost Ouai tv Cost
landscape and lrrigation System $2.75/s.f 2,464 s.f $6,775
per cky Andards
pramcutal Iron Fencing $16/Lf. 245 LE 3,920
6"x8"x16" Concrete Block Wall per plain. 5MAE 73 If 2,555
8"x16"x16"Conc..Block Pbstem $600 ea. 17 10,200
DrWcway mwdificatiaas,parking lot striping. .Limp sum
Total Construction Cost $26,100
Improvements within pxblk rigPub-of-way:
LmdscapIDg and n $2.75/s.f. 1,000 31 $2,750
EXHIBIT "5"
StJMI. 4"Y CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION
CASE: Conditional Use Permit No. 98-06 and Variance No. 98-02
AGENDA ITEM: 2
HEARING DATE: July 7, 1998
WARD: 3
APPLICANT: OWNER:.
Paul Toomey Michael and Brenda Allen
Toomey & Associates 206 South "D" Street
34590 County Line Road #5 San Bernardino, CA 92401
Yucaipa, CA 92399 (909) 825-8545
(909) 795-1899
REQUEST / LOCATION - A request to establish a storage facility in an existing 11,500 square foot
building with an outdoor vehicle impound yard. Items proposed to be stored in the building include
automobiles and recreational vehicles, miscellaneous furniture and appliances, and office equipment.
The variance requests are to: reduce the front and street side yard setbacks; reduce the interior side
and rear setbacks to accommodate the establishment of an outdoor vehicle impound yard; and, increase
the maximum fence and wall height requirements in front and street side setback areas.
CONSTRAINTS/OVERLAYS
N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS:
• Not Applicable
• Exempt, Section 15061(b)(3) general rule
• No Significant Effects
• Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Plan
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
■ APPROVAL ■ CONDITIONS
❑ DENIAL
❑ CONTINUANCE TO:
t
CUP No. 98-06 & VAR No. 98-02
Hearing Date: 07/07/98
Page 2
REQUEST. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit to establish an storage facility in an
existing 11,500 square foot building with an outdoor vehicle impound yard. Items to be stored
in the building include automobiles, miscellaneous furniture and appliances and office equipment.
The proposed outdoor vehicle impound yard will be located at the north end of the site.
The applicant also requests approval to vary from Development Code standards, as follows:
1. To reduce the 10 foot front and street side setbacks (along "D" and Athol Streets) to 5
feet and 4 feet, respectively;
2. To reduce the 10 foot interior side and rear setbacks to zero to accommodate the
establishment of an outdoor vehicle impound yard (with a 6 foot screening wall along a
portion of "D" Street); and,
3. To increase the maximum allowable fence and wall heights in the front and street side
setbacks from 6 feet to 8 feet (along "D" and Athol Streets).
The 0.73 acre project site is located at 197 South "D" Street, on the northeast corner of Athol
and "D" Streets in the IL, Industrial Light General Plan land use designation. (See Attachment
A, Site Location Map; and, Attachment B, Site Plan and Floor Plan)
SETTING/SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The site is developed with an 11,500 square foot industrial building and associated site
improvements. The is relatively flat and rectangularly-shaped. It is surrounded by a mix of
light industrial uses and commercial services in the middle of an IL district that is bounded by
Mayfield Avenue on the east, Mill Street on the south, Stoddard Avenue on the west, and Rialto
Avenue on the north.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (C OA) STATUS
The proposed conversion of the 11,500 square foot manufacturing building and site to a storage
facility with an outdoor vehicle impound yard will not result in any significant environmental
impacts to the site or surrounding area. Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines states such
activities are covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the
potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty
f
CUP No. 98-06 & VAR No. 98-02
Hearing Date: 07/07/98
Page 3
that there is no .possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the
environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.
BACKGROUND
In April 1997, Michael and Brenda Allen were cited for establishing an illegal vehicle storage
use at 197 South "D" Street. The Allens' filed a Development Permit Type I (DPI,No. 97-34)
to establish the use on May 22, 1997. A Variance Application to reduce required setbacks and
increase allowable fencing heights was submitted on November 4; 1997. DPI No. 97-34 and
VAR No. 97-20 were deemed abandoned by the City on December 21, 1997.
On February 13, 1998, the Allens' submitted Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 98-06 for the
storage use with an outdoor vehicle impound yard, and VAR No. 98-02 to address setback and
fence/wall height issues. The original proposal for DPI No. 97-34 was for indoor storage of
vehicles, and office equipment and furniture, only.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
Outdoor Vehicle Impound Yard and Storage Use
1. The proposed use is conditionally permitted within, and would not impair the integrity
and character of the subject land use district and complies with all of the applicable
provisions of the Development Code.
The proposed storage facility with an outdoor vehicle impound yard is conditionally permitted
in the IL, Industrial Light land use designation. Other than the request to vary from specified
Development Code standards, the site plan is in conformance with the IL district standards and
requirements. (See Attachment C, Development Code/General Plan Conformance Table)
2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan.
General Plan Policy 1.32.10 identifies outdoor display and storage as a use permitted in the IL
district. The policy also states that similar uses, characterized by the location of their
predominant activities in enclosed buildings, are permitted in the IL. The outdoor vehicle
impound yard can be categorized as a similar use.
3. The approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed use is in compliance with
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Section
19.20.030(6) of the Development Code.
CUP No. 98-06 & VAR No. 98-02
Hearing Date: 07/07/98.
Page 4
Planning staff conducted a preliminary review (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15060) to
determine the presence and extent of any environmental issues. that could result from
implementation of the project. The project proposes indoor storage of vehicles and office
equipment and furniture, and outdoor storage vehicle storage. Neither vehicle repair or
dismantling are proposed for this project. And in fact, vehicle dismantling is not permitted as
an outdoor use in the IL district. Based on the project description, site and surrounding area,
staff's review did not identify any significant environmental impacts. The CEQA Guidelines
§15061(c)(3)(b) states that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a
significant effect on the environment. This project is covered by the general rule and, as such,
is not subject to CEQA.
4. There will be no potentially significant negative impacts upon environmental quality and
natural resources that could not be properly mitigated and monitored.
The project is not anticipated to result in any potentially significant negative environmental
impacts.
5. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are
compatible with the existing and future land uses within the general area in which the
proposed use is to be located and will not create significant noise, traffic or other
conditions or situations that may be objectionable or detrimental to other permitted uses
in the vicinity or adverse to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare
of the City.
The operational characteristics of the proposed use have been evaluated for compatibility with
the existing and future land uses in the area. The site and building design are similar to the
existing light industrial and commercial service facilities located on "D" Street in proximity to
the project. And, the proposed use is similar to other uses in the area. Based on staff's
evaluation, the project will not be objectionable or detrimental to other permitted uses in the area
or adverse to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.
6. The subject site is not physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being
proposed.
The site is not physically suitable for the outdoor vehicle impound yard, as proposed. The
encroachment of the outdoor vehicle impound yard into the front setback area appears to be an
over-intensification of the site. Development Code §19.08.030(2)(3)requires that outside storage
be confined to the rear of the principal structure or the rear two-thirds of the site, whichever is
more restrictive. The existing development on the site precludes placement of the outdoor
storage in the rear yard. As a solution, staff recommends that the outdoor vehicle storage yard
1
CUP No. 98-06 & VAR No. 98-02
Hearing Date: 07/07/98
Page 5
be limited to behind the front elevation of the building. The required screening would extend
north of the front building elevation to the north property line.
7. There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities
and services to ensure that the proposed use would not be detrimental to public health
and safety.
The project was reviewed by the Development Review Committee to ensure that the site design
includes adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and
services. (See Attachment D, Conditions of Approval; and, Attachment E, Standard
Requirements)
Front and Street Side Setbacks
The subject property is developed with the building placed in the ten foot rear setback (along
the east property line), and with the parking and circulation areas in the ten foot front and street
side setback areas along "D" and Athol Streets. The existing improvements along "D" Street
include a ten foot planter of which five feet are located in the public right-of-way.
1. There are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape,
topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this Development Code
deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under
identical land use district classification.
Due to the existing site layout, the requirement for 10 foot setbacks along the street frontages
would eliminate required parking and on-site circulation. Adequate on-site parking and
circulation are necessary to ensure that the use and site are functional.
2. The granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and land use
district and denied to the property for which the variance is sought.
Strict application of the Development Code requirement for ten foot landscape setbacks along
"D" and Athol Streets would remove required parking and circulation and render the site
unusable.
3. The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in the such vicinity and land use
district in which the property is located.
CUP No. 98-06 & VAR No. 98-02
Hearing Date: 07/07/98
Page 6
A reduction of the 10 foot front and street side landscape setbacks will not pose any threat to
the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of San Bernardino.
4. The granting of the Variance does not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and land use district in which such
property is located.
The project site is located in an older area wherein many buildings and sites do not conform to
current Code requirements. While the landscape planters (both existing and proposed) along
"D" and Athol Streets do not meet Code requirements, they will still provide enhancement to
a site that is largely bereft of any design features.
S. The granting of the Variance will not allow a use or activity which is not otherwise
expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject parcel.
The reduction of the front and street side setback areas will not affect the nature and/or intensity
of the proposed use which is conditionally permitted by Development Code §19.08.020, Table
08.01(16) in the IL, Industrial Light district. Storage facilities are permitted by Development
Code §19.08.020, Table 08.01(39) in the IL district.
6. The granting of the Variance will not be inconsistent with the General Plan.
The reduction of the front and street side setback areas does not change the industrial character
of the property, or the nature and/or intensity of the proposed use. Therefore, the granting of
this variance would not be inconsistent with the provisions in the General Plan for the IL land
use designation.
Other Setback Issues
The project proposes to establish the outdoor vehicle impound yard in the 10 foot front, interior
side, and rear setback area at the north end of the site.
1. There are no special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape,
topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this Development Code
deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under
identical land use district classification.
There are no special circumstances relating to the property that can be applied in this instance
other than the applicant would like to establish the outdoor use in this area of the site. Staff
does not support the encroachment of the outdoor use into the front setback along a 72 foot
stretch of"D" street because of the screening requirement. The Development Code requires that
i
CUP No. 98-06 & VAR No. 98-02
Hearing Date: 07/07/98
Page 7
outdoor uses be screened to a minimum height of 6 feet. The applicant proposes to screen the
impound yard with an 8 foot block wall placed behind the landscape planter. This would place
the wall only 5 feet from the public right-of-way which is not appropriate along "D" Street.
Staff does support the encroachment of the outdoor use into the interior side and rear setback
areas, behind the front face of the building. Given the existing development, the site does not
have a rear yard in which outdoor uses could be established.
2. The granting of the Variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and land use
district and denied to the property for which the variance is sought.
The majority of industrial properties in the area do not have outdoor uses that encroach into the
front setback along a major street frontage.
3. The granting of the Variance will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare,
or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and land use district in
which the property 'is located.
The granting of the variance may be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare in that
it will result in a negative visual impact along "D" Street. Staff would support establishment
of the use behind the front face of the building.
4. The granting of the Variance does constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and land use district in which such
property is located.
Approval of the variance would constitute a special privilege in that other properties in the
vicinity do not have outdoor uses in front yard areas. The side yard area, located behind the
front face of the building, has over 6,000 square feet available for the outdoor use. It should
be noted that the subject property is located in a blighted area. The implementation of the
Development Code standards, particularly along its major corridors, would greatly benefit the
area.
Staff supports the request to reduce the 10 foot interior side and rear setbacks with the outdoor
use located behind the front face of the building.
S. The granting of the Variance will allow a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly
authorized by the regulations governing the subject parcel.
CUP No. 98-06 & VAR No. 98-02
Hearing Date: 07/07/98
Page 8
The IL district does conditionally allow the outdoor vehicle impound yard but only in the rear
yard. Given the configuration of the existing site, placement of the outdoor use in the interior
side yard, behind the front of the building face, is a reasonable alternative.
6. The granting of the Variance will be inconsistent with the General Plan.
General Plan Policy 1.32.10 stipulates that the manufacturing and warehousing uses permitted
in the IL, Industrial Light land use designation be characterized by the location of their
predominant activities in enclosed buildings. This policy is implemented through the
Development Code which requires that outdoor storage and other uses be placed behind the rear
face of the building or the rear two-thirds of the site, whichever is more restrictive. Based on
the preceding, placement of the outdoor vehicle impound yard in the front setback area is
inconsistent with the General Plan. However, staff does support placement of the yard behind
the front face of the building and in the interior side and rear setback area.
Fence and Wall Heights
1. There are no special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape,
topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this Development Code
deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under
identical land use district classification.
The Development Code allows open work fencing up to a maximum height of 6 feet in front and
street side setback areas in industrial districts. The project proposes an 8 foot fence along the
"D" Street and Athol Street frontages. Also proposed is an 8 foot screen wall for the outdoor
vehicle impound yard along the northern 72 feet of the "D" Street frontage. The applicant feels
that the additional height is needed to provide adequate security for the site. Staff does not
support the variance requests for the additional fence and wall height, or for the solid screen
wall adjacent to D Street. A 6 foot open work fence along the entire length of both street
frontages would provide adequate security given that the building and the outdoor yard can be
secured behind the perimeter fence.
2. The granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and land use
district and denied to the property for which the variance is sought.
As previously discussed, the building and outdoor yard area can be secured independent of the
perimeter fencing. Typical security measures for the building and yard (i.e., building alarm
system, security lighting, and locks for doors, windows and gates) combined with a 6 foot
perimeter fence should provide adequate security for the site. The visual impacts of an 8 foot
CUP No. 98-06 & VAR No. 98-02
I Hearing Date: 07/07/98
Page 9
fence and/or wall must be weighed against any additional security benefits the structures might
provide.
3. The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in the such vicinity and land use
district in which the property is located.
The proposed fence and wall will be constructed in conformance with all applicable City
requirements and as such, will not pose any threat to the public health, safety and welfare of the
citizens of San Bernardino.
4. The granting of the Variance does 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 uses in the City are able to comply with the fencing standard which calls for a 6 foot open
work fences in front and street side setbacks. The proposed 8 foot fence is excessive along "D"
and Athol Streets. Security fencing that high might be needed along rear and interior side
property lines that are obscured from public view and vulnerable to intruders. However, the
frontages along "D" Street and Athol Street have adequate street lighting and high visibility. The
proposed 8 foot wall along a portion of the "D" Street frontage is to provide adequate screening
for a storage use that is not appropriate or permitted in the front yard. Therefore the variance
request for additional fence and wall heights does constitute a special privilege.
S. The granting of the Variance does allow a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly
authorized by the regulations governing the subject parcel.
The approval of the 8 foot screen wall would permit an outdoor use (outdoor vehicle impound
yard) that is not permitted in the front setback. The purpose of the proposed 8 foot open work
fence is to provide security for the site, only. Therefore, the approval would not result in the
establishment of a land use that is not permitted in the district.
6. The granting of the Variance will be inconsistent with the General Plan.
The request for additional fence and wall height is inconsistent with the General Plan. Policies
1.32.30 and 1.32.32 call for buildings and sites to be designed to convey visual interest and
character, and to provide extensive landscape setbacks along principal street frontages. An 8 foot
fence would make the site look like a compound.
CUP No. 98-06 & VAR No. 98-02
Hearing Date: 07/07/98
Page 10
i
CONCLUSION
The proposed outdoor vehicle impound yard and storage facility are conditionally permitted in
the IL district. The applicant has included several variance requests in the project proposal. Staff
supports the proposed reduction of the front and street side landscape setbacks because 'the
reductions are necessary for the provision of adequate on-site parking and circulation. Staff does
not support the variance requests to reduce a portion of the front setback to accommodate the
placement of the outdoor use in the front yard area. However, placement of the outdoor use in
the interior side and rear setback areas behind the front face of the building is appropriate given
the physical constraints of the site. Finally, the proposal for additional fence and wall height
along "D" and Athol Streets will give the site a compound-like appearance. For this reason, staff
does not support this element of the variance request.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff proposes that the Planning Commission take the following actions:
1. Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 98-06, to establish an outdoor vehicle impound
yard and storage facility in an existing 11,500 square foot manufacturing building based
on the Findings of Fact and subject to the Conditions of Approval (Attachment D) and
Standard Requirements (Attachment E); and,
2. Approve Variance No. 98-02, to reduce the 10 foot front and street side setbacks to 5
feet and 4 feet, respectively, and the 10 foot interior side and rear setbacks based on the
Findings of Fact and subject to the Conditions of Approval (Attachment D) and Standard
Requirements (Attachment E);
3. Deny the following variance requests based on the Findings of Fact: 1.) to reduce the
front setback to accommodate the establishment of an outdoor vehicle impound yard;
and, 2.) to increase the maximum fence and wall heights from 6 feet to 8 feet along the
"D" and Athol Street frontages.
Respectfully submitted,
MICHAEL E. HAYS
Director of Planning and Building Services
BORAH WOLDRUFF
Associate Planner
CUP No. 98-06 & VAR No. 98-02
Hearing Date: 07/07/98.
Page 11
ATTACHMENTS
A Site Location Map
B Site Plan/Floor Plan
C Development Code/General Plan Conformance Table
D Conditions of Approval
E Standard Requirements
F Applicant's Variance Findings
! Attachment C
(CUP No. 98-06 & VAR No. 98-02)
DEVELOPMENT CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Category Proposal Development Code General Plan
Proposed Outdoor Vehicle Conditionally Permitted
Use Impound Yard & Permitted (Similar Use)
Storage Facility
Building
Setbacks:
Front 5 Feet Min. 10 Feet N/A
Side (Street) 4 Feet Min. 10 Feet N/A
Side (Interior) 0 Feet Min. 10 Feet N/A
Rear 0 Feet Min. 10 Feet N/A
Landscaping 16 Percent Min. 15 Percent N/A
Parking 11 Spaces Min. 11 Spaces N/A
(1 HC Space) (Min. 1 HC Space)
Variance Findings ATTACHMENT "F" AUen DP-1
VARIANCE FIlYDINGS
i
1. There are special circumstances applicable to -the property, including
size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of
this Code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in
the vicinity and under identical land use district classification;
The project site has a Land Use designation of IL and is located on the
northeast comer of 'D' Street and Athol Street. With two sides of the site
bounded by public streets, where front and side street yard setbacks are
required, and an existing building occupying over one-third of the site, there
would be special circumstances applicable to the property. In addition, there
are limitations created by site design. To satisfy site operational needs the drive
aisles and space in front of the roll-up doors must accommodate the tow-truck
maneuvering for building access. Any further reduction in the building or drive
aisles by landscape planters would impact the site circulation and facility
operations. This is most obvious at the south roll-up door and gate access from
Athol Street. With only 26 feet of space between the building and property
lineifence this entire distance is required for the maneuvering of towed vehicles
upon entering the Athol Street gate.
There are examples of light industrial buildings in the immediate vicinity and
same land use with fencing within 5 feet of the property line. The first is a
similar building located directly across `D' with a 5 foot setback provided on
Athol Street; the second is located on the northwest comer of 'D' and Athol
Streets where a chain link fence is apparently located on the property line
adjoining Stoddard Street. Although it is most likely that these buildings were
constructed prior to the adoption of the current City Development Code, these
properties provide examples of the relative minor impact to adjacent properties
caused by the setback reduction.
2. That granting the Variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the
same vicinity and land use district and denied to the property for which the
Variance is sought;
It is the development standards of the district, not a particular land use, to which
the Variance request is related. Other industrial properties have been permitted
I
Variance Findings Allen DP-I
to reduce the setbacks along the public ways where limited space is available
i
for efficient operation of the business. The setback reduction will permit an
existing building to house vehicles that are currently stored outside on another
site, which will improve an existing, successful business.
3. That granting the Variance will not 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 which the property is
located;
Although the front setback is 50% of the required distance, the amount of
landscaping provided in the parking area exceeds the minimum amount
required by the city. Total landscaping (proposed and existing) amounts to
1,610 feet, which is 16% of the parking and circulation area. The Development
Code requires the percentage of landscaping in the parking area to be 15%.
The distance available for vehicles stopped in the driveways along 'D' Street
(between curb and gate) is 16 feet which is generally sufficient to permit
vehicles to clear the traffic lanes in the street. The reduction/elimination in the
setback does not restrict access to the building nor do they create a hazardous
design.
4. That granting the Variance does not constitute a special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and
land use district in which such property is located;
The reduction in the front yard setback is the minimum necessary to meet the
operational requirements of the auto impound facility and efficient site design. In
addition, where a new, similar business is proposed and given the size of the
parcels in the immediate area vicinity, other properties are subject to similar
constraints and would need the same remedy to achieve a viable development
under the current standards.
5. That granting the Variance does not allow a use or activity which is not
otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject
parcel;
Granting this variance only provides for the reduction on setback area, a
development standard issue, not permitting additional uses in the IL district. An
Variance Findings Allen DP-1
indoor storage use is permitted in this district by approval of a development
permit and no additional unpermitted land uses are considered pert of this
project.
6. That granting of the Variance will not be inconsistent with the General
Plan.
Goal 1 H states:
Continue existing and establish new residential, commercial, industrial,
open space, and public districts which are uniquely characterized by their
functional role, permitted uses, densiVintensity, and physical form.
Under this goal, Objective 1.32 of the light Industrial section includes language
to retain, enhance, and provide for new existing light industrial uses. In
addition, the proposed project is consistent with all the implementation policies,
including the Design and Development Guidelines sections 1.32.10, 1.32.30,
and 1.32.31. Through consistency with these goals, policies, and objectives,
the proposed variance can be found consistent with the General Plan. As a
result, the granting of the Variance does not violate, directly or indirectly, the
goals, objectives or policies of the General Plan.
Pre e
TOOMEY & A SOCIATES
Paul Toomey
Planner
3
City of San Bernardino EXHIBIT "6"
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
PROTECT
Number: Conditional Use Permit No. 98-06 and Variance No. 98-02
Address: 197 S. "D" Street
Applicant: Paul Toomey, Toomey & Associates
Owner: Michael and Brenda Allen
Description: To establish a storage facility in an existing 11,500 square foot building. Items to be
stored in the building include automobiles, miscellaneous furniture and appliances and
office equipment. Also proposed is an outside vehicle impound yard located at the north
end of the site in the front and side yards. Variance requests are to: reduce the 10 foot
front and street side yard setbacks along "D" and Athol Streets to 5 feet and 4 feet,
respectively; reduce the 10 foot interior side and rear setbacks to 0 to accommodate the
establishment of an outdoor vehicle impound yard (with a 6 foot screening wall along a
portion of "D" Street; and, increase the maximum allowable fence and wall heights in the
front and street side setbacks from 6 feet to 8 feet along "b" and Athol Streets. The 0.73
acre site is located on the northeast corner of Athol and "D" Streets in the IL, Industrial
Light, land use district.
ACTION: APPROVED
Meeting Date: August 18, 1998
The Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 98-06 and Variance No. 98-02, based on
the Findings of Fact, subject to the Conditions of Approval (Attachment "D") and Standard Requirements
(Attachment "E"), to include a financial assurance llh times the estimated value of the total construction
cost, posted with the City within 15 days of the Commission's action, and that work shall be completer)
within 6 months.
VOTE
Ayes: Durr, Garcia, Hendrix and Suarez
Nays: Schuiling and Thrasher
Abstain: None
Absent: Enciso and Lockett
The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless a written appeal is filed, with the appropriate fee,
within 15 days of the Planning Commission's action, pursuant to Section 19.52.100 of the Municipal
(Development) Code.
I hereby certify that this Statement of Official Action accurately reflects the final determination of the
Planning Commission of the City of San Bernardino.
Valerie C. Ross, Principal Planner Dateu
Enclosures
cc: Applicant/Owner, Plan Check, Public Works/Engineering, Case Files, Department File, Address File
ATTACHMENT D
CUP No.98-06 & VAR No. 98-02
Hearing Date: 07/07/98
Page 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-06 & VARIANCE NO. 98-02
*1. Within six months of this development approval, establishment of the use shall have
occurred or the permit/approval shall become null and void. The applicant shall submit
a financial assurance IIA times the cost of the on- and off-site improvements
($26,100 x 11/2 = $39.1501 within fifteen (15) days of this approval.. Construction of
all required improvements shall be completed within 6 months of project approval. In
addition, if after commencement of construction, work is discontinued for a period of 6
months, then the permit/approval shall become null and void.
Project: CUP NO. 98-06 & VAR NO. 98-02
Expiration Date: FEBRUARY 18, 1999
2. The review authority may, upon application being filed 30 days prior to the expiration
date and for good cause, grant a one time extension of time not to exceed 12 calendar
months. The review authority shall ensure that the project complies with all current
Development Code provisions.
3. In the event that this approval is legally challenged, the City will promptly notify the
applicant of any claim or action and will cooperate fully in defense of the matter. Once
notified, the applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its
officers, agents, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City
of San Bernardino. The applicant further agrees to reimburse the City of any costs and
attorney's fees which the City may be required by the Court to pay as a result of such
action, but such participation shall not relieve the applicant of his or her obligation under
this condition.
4. Construction shall be in substantial conformance with the plan(s) approved by the
Planning Commission or Mayor and Common Council. Minor modification to the
plan(s) shall be subject to approval by the Director through a minor modification permit
process. Any modification which exceeds 10% of the following allowable measurable
design/site considerations shall require the refiling of the original application and a
subsequent hearing by the appropriate hearing review authority if applicable.
a. On-site circulation and parking, loading and landscaping;
b. Placement and/or height of walls, fences and structures;
*Amended per Planning Commission on 8/18/98.
ATTACHMENT D
CUP No.98-06 & VAR No. 98-02
Hearing Date: 07/07/98
Page 2
C. Reconfiguration of architectural features, including colors, and/or modification
of finished materials that do not alter or compromise the previously approve
theme; and,
d. A reduction in density or intensity of a development project.
5. No vacant, relocated, altered, repaired or hereafter erected structure shall be occupied
or no change of use of land or structure(s) shall be inaugurated, or no new business
commenced as authorized by this permit until a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued
by the Department. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued by the
Department subject to the conditions imposed on the use; provided that a deposit is filed
with the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of the Certificate of
Occupancy. The deposit or security shall guarantee the faithful performance and
completion of all terms, conditions and performance standards imposed on the intended
use by this permit.
6. This permit or approval is subject to all the applicable provisions of the Development
Code in effect at the time of approval. This includes Chapter 19.20 (Property
Development Standards), and includes: dust and dirt control during construction and
grading activities; emission control of fumes, vapors, gases and other forms of air
pollution; glare control; exterior lighting design and control; noise control; odor control;
screening; signs, off-street parking and off-street loading; and, vibration control.
Screening and sign regulations compliance are important considerations to the developer
because they will delay the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy until compliance is
obtained. Any exterior structural equipment, or utility transformers, boxes, ducts, or
meter cabinets shall be architecturally screened by a wall or structural element, blending
with the building design and include landscaping when on the ground. A sign program
for all new commercial, office and industrial centers of three or more tenant spaces shall
be approved by the Department prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
7. This development shall be required to maintain a minimum of 11 standard off-street
parking spaces (which includes 1 HC van space) as shown on the approved plan(s) on
file.
8. This Conditional Use Permit is for the storage facility with an outdoor vehicle impound
yard which is used in conjunction with the existing auto/collateral property repossession
business located at 206 South "D" Street. The property at 197 South "D" Street shall be
used for the TE;t1PORARY STORAGE of repossessed motor vehicles, and office
equipment and furniture, only. Any motor vehicle, other than those used in the
transaction of business, shall be "turned over" as soon as is legally possible.
ATTACHMENT D
CUP No.98-06 & VAR No. 98-02
Hearing Date: 07/07/98
Page 3
9. Only vehicles or other property required to be licensed by the Department of Motor
Vehicles or related agency may be stored outside. All other collateral property shall be
stored within an enclosed building. Outside storage shall be limited to repossessed
vehicles (as described above) in the process of being liquidated.
10. This facility shall not be used as a dismanteling yard or repair facility, either as a
primary and/or accessory use.
11. The applicant is responsible for ensuring that the project complies with all applicable
requirements of federal, State and County agencies.
12. This permit or approval is subject to the attached conditions or standard requirements of
the following City Departments or Divisions:
XX Public Works/Engineering Department
XX Development Services Division
XX Water Department
XX Fire Department
XX Parks, Recreation & Community Services Department
ATTACHMENT "E"
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
CASE NO: CUP 98-06 & VAR DESCRIPTION: ESTABLISH STORAGE FACILITY /N
98-02 AN DOSTING 11.500 SF BUILDING
APPLICANT: TOOMEY&
ASSOCIATES. LOCATION: VS "D"STREET NIS ATHOL STREET
• NOTE TO APPLICANT: Where separate Engineering plans are required, the applicant is
responsible for submitting the Engineering plans directly to the Engineering Division. They
may be submitted prior to submittal of Building Plans
1. Drainage and Flood Control
a) All drainage from the development shall be directed to an approved public
drainage facility. If not feasible, proper drainage facilities and easements
shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
b) Applicant shall mitigate on-site storm water discharge sufficiently to
maintain compliance with the City's NPDES Storm Water Discharge
Permit Requirements.
2. Grading and Landscapinq
a) If more than 1' of fill or 2' of cut is proposed, the site/plot/grading and
drainage plan shall be signed by a Registered Civil Engineer and a
grading permit will be required. The grading plan shall be prepared in
strict accordance with the City's "Grading Policies and Procedures" and
the City's "Standard Drawings", unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
b) An on-site Improvement Plan is required for this project. Where feasible,
this plan shall be incorporated with the grading plan and shall conform to
all requirements of Section 15.04-167 of the Municipal Code (See
"Grading Policies and Procedures").
Page 1 of 5 Pages April 16, 1998
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
CASE NO: CUP 98-06 & VAR DESCRIPTION: ESTABLISH STORAGE FAC/UTY IN
98-02 AN EXISTING 11,500 SF BUILDING
APPLICANT: TOOMEY&
ASSOCIATES. LOCATION: EIS "D"STREET NIS ATHOL STREET
c) A refuse enclosure constructed in accordance with City Standard Drawing
No. 508. The minimum size of the refuse enclosure shall be 8 feet x 15
feet, unless the Public Services Department, Refuse Division, approves a
smaller size, in writing.
d) Retaining walls, block walls and all on-site fencing shall be designed and
detailed on the On-site Improvement Plan. This work shall be part of the
On-site Improvement permit issued by the Department of Public
Works/City Engineer.
e) The on-site improvement plan shall include details of on-site lighting,
including light location, type of poles and fixtures, foundation design,
conduit location and size, and the number and size of conductors.
Photometry calculations shall be provided which show that the proposed
on-site lighting design will provide 1 foot-candle of illumination uniformly
distributed over the surface of the parking lot during hours of operation
and 0.25 foot-candles security lighting during all other hours.
f) The design of on-site improvements shall also comply with all
requirements of The California Building Code, Title 24, relating to
handicap parking and accessibility, including retrofitting of existing
building access points for handicap accessibility, if applicable.
g) A handicap accessible path of travel shall be provided from the public
way to the building entrance. All pathways shall be paved and shall
provide a minimum clear width of 4 feet. Where parking overhangs the
pathway, the minimum paved width shall be 6 feet.
Page 2 of 5 Pages April 16, 1998
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSIENGINEERING
CASE NO: CUP 98-06 & VAR DESCRIPTION: ESTABLISH STORAGE FACILITY IN
98-02 AN EXISTING 11.500 SF BUILDING
APPLICANT: TOOMEY&
ASSOCIATES. LOCATION: EIS "D"STREET AYS ATHOL STREET
h) The project Landscape Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. Submit 5 copies to the
Engineering Division for Checking.
i) An easement and covenant shall be executed- on behalf of the City to
allow the City to enter and maintain any required landscaping in case of
owner neglect. The Real Property Section for execution by the property
owner and shall ensure that, if the property owner or subsequent owner(s)
fail to properly maintain the landscaping, the City will be able to file
appropriate liens against the property in order to accomplish the required
landscape maintenance. A document processing fee in the amount of
$200.00 shall be paid to the Real Property Section to cover processing
costs. This easement and covenant shall be executed by the property
owner prior to plan approval unless otherwise allowed by the Director of
Public Works/City Engineer.
3. Utilities
a) Design and construct all public utilities to serve the site in accordance
with City Code, City Standards and requirements of the serving utility,
including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer and cable TV (Cable TV
optional for commercial, industrial, or institutional uses).
b) Utility services shall be placed underground and easements provided as
required.
c) A street cut permit, from the Director of Public Works/City Engineer, will
be required for utility cuts into existing streets where the street is not
being repaved as part of the required improvements.
Page 3 of 5 Pages Alxi116, 1998
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
CASE NO: CUP 98-06 & VAR DESCRIPTION: ESTABLISH STORAGE FACILITY /N
98-02 AN EXISTING 11.500 SF BUILDING
APPLICANT: TOOMEY&
ASSOCIATES. LOCATION: EIS "D"STREET NIS ATHOL STREET
d) Existing Utilities, which interfere with new construction, shall be relocated
at the Developers expense as directed by the City Engineer.
4. Street Imurovement and Dedications
a) Construct Handicap Ramps in accordance with City Standard No. 205 at
the northeast corner of "D" Street and Athol Street. Dedicate sufficient
right-of-way at the corner to accommodate the ramp.
b) Modify existing drive approaches per City Standard No. 204 to include
Handicap by-pass. Remove existing driveway approaches that are not
part of the approved plan and replace with full height curb & gutter and
sidewalk.
5. Required Engineering Permits
a) Grading permit (If applicable.).
b) On-site improvements construction permit (except buildings - see
Planning and Building Services), including landscaping.
c) Off-site improvements construction permit.
Page 4 of 5 Pages Apn716, 1998
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSIENGINEERING
CASE NO: CUP 98-06 b VAR DESCRIPTION: ESTABLISH STORAGE FACILITY IN
98-02 AN EXISTING 11.500 SF BUILDING
APPLICANT: TOOMEY b
ASSOCIATES. LOCATION: EIS "D"STREET NIS ATHOL STREET
6. Applicable Engineering Fees'
a) Plan check and inspection fees for off-site improvements - 4% and 4%,
respectively, of the estimated construction cost of the off-site
improvements.
b) Plan check and inspection fees for on-site improvements (except
buildings - See Planning and Building Services) - 2% and 3%,
respectively, of the estimated construction cost' of the on-site
improvements, including landscaping.
All Fees are subject to change without notice.
2Estlmated Construction Cost for Off-site Improvements is based on a list of standard unit prices on rile with
the Department of Public Works/City Engineer.
3 Est/mated Construction Cost for on-site Improvements is based on a list of standard unit prices on rile with
the Department of Public Works/City Engineer.
Page 5 of 5 Pages April 16, 1998
CITY OF SAN BERNARD NOO
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS IREMENTS Case No.: CUP No. 98-061VAR No. 98-02
Hearing Date: July 7, 1998
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION Page 1
1. Submit plans prepared by a Registered Building Architect.or Civil or Structural Engineer.
2. Submit State of California Title 24 Energy Calculation Forms for non-residential
buildings including a signed compliance statement.
3. Submit floor plan of existing structure. Label all uses and existing materials of
construction.
4. Submit four (4) complete sets of construction plans including:
(Five (5) complete sets for expeditious review).
a. Copy of conditions. (3)
b. Energy Calculations. (3)
5. Submit a plan of the heating, ventilating or air conditioning system. (Clearly identify the
location and rating of the equipment and the sizes and material of all ducts, registers and
the location of all fire dampers.) Show means of providing mechanical ventilation as
required by the Uniform Building Code.
6. Show compliance with Title 24 for disabled access.
7. City of San Bernardino named as certificate holder for Worker's Compensation
Insurance.
8. Assessor's Parcel Number: 0136-122-67.
9. Contractor's City license.
10. Contractor's State license.
11. Other: Plan Check time is approximately 3 weeks. Expeditious Plan Check time is
approximately 10 working days. Contact Development Services at (909) 384-5071 for
possible expeditious plan check.
12. If applicable, submit plans for sprinkler T.I.
13. Contact Development Services for Plan Check fee prior to submittal of plans.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS Case No.: CUP No. 98-06NAR No. 98-02
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION Hearing Date: July 7, 1998
Page 2
14. Additional 25% Plan Check fee required for expeditious review.
15. If project has more than 4 employees, 2 restrooms required for each sex.
16. Ventilation required for storage of vehicles.
06/17/98
i��iM A5 ec5 uv'rl 0 Y`
SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL WATER DEPARTMENT
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
CUP No. 98-06 & VAR No. 98-02
%;e 4:4 .� Cdr— ;Z L
Review of Plans: / 22 ���� ' ��� / Date Compiled: /��
Owner/Developer: I C I''!AO" ; /&wbA4 A[�£� Compiled By: 7V
Type of Project: (J ` t�(i s j I�IC} ,D/ —(./,�/� XL. -T 01^ E Number of Ututs:
Location:
kJ 15 Ct�dK"D" 9�A-n-*PL 2 19 La. ST
WATER DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING:
Contact: 31u— zw*, c 6 Phone: ?84 7-39{ Fax:
Note: All Water Services are Subject to the Rules &Regulations of the Water Department.
C3 Size of Main Adjacent the Project: ot C A
E3 Approximate Water Pressure: evation of Water Storage: IOWOJCr Hydrant Flow 0 20 psi:
❑ Type, Size, Location, and Distance to Nearest Fire Hydrant: �A ZLJ�L1 �i4G�r S �' 01J /V w
3 �A �`` A"tea✓
*Pressure Regulator Required on Customer's Side on the Meter.
❑ Off-site Water Facilities Required.
❑ Area Not Served by San Bernardino Municipal Water Department.
❑ Comments: ` PI/-0, .ETC ? APJ /3io '/3Z — D/, ZS (SL,J Co4,6e a� Ai?V0
40o 16Y ALLG1 7 y, 97•/0
WATER QUALITY CONTROL:
Contact: T;r::-01 Phone: .1� 7 J 3Q Fax:
* Rnt/P.P. 3c7T�j�j�Z
Backflow Device Required at Service Connection.-i �S'Tr
( 'Double Check Backflow Device Required at Service Connection. ZO (,47 01J
VBackflow Device to be Inspected Before Water Service can be Activated. 1F 410PL4 4¢SL6-
❑ No Backtlow Device Required at This Time.
ENVIRONN ENTAL CONTROL/IN'DUSTRiAL. WASTE:
Contact: �DIQ,.) Phone: '584 S.S07 Fax: 87
Note: No Brine Regenerative Water Softeners May be Installed, Unless Holding and Hauling is Provided for the Brine. All Interceptors
ill be a 1200 Gallon Capacity with a Sample Box Included.
*Oclls'trial Waste Peniut Required.
❑ Grease Intercelxor Required. ❑ Sand/Oil Interco Ix or Required. Gi o Issues at thus Time.
�
❑ Pre-treatment Required.
SEWER CAPACITY IYFORIIATION:
Contact: Phone: ? 509
061L, r Fax: '534 i jz, _
Note- Proof of Payment Must be Subnutted to the Building & Safety Department Prior to Issuance of the Building Permit.
Ce1�10 Sewer Capacity Fee Applicable at This Tune.
• Sewer Capacity Fee Must Be Paid to the Water Department for Gallons Per Day, Equivalent Dwelling Units: _
• Subject to Recalculation of Fee Prior to the Issuance of Building Pentut.
Breakdown of Estimated Gallons Per Day:
MRBQU17 FRN i_.v?i
or
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO FIRE DEPARTMENT
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS Case: vv r 1
Date: Q ••�k _
Reviewed By:
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:
i Provide one additional set of construction plans to Building and Safety for Fire Department use at time of plan check.
Contact the City of San Bernardino Fire Department at (909) 384-5388 for specific detailed requirements.
❑ The developer shall provide for adequate fire flow as computed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. Minimum fire flow requirements shall be based
on square footage, construction features, and exposure information supplied by the developer and must be available odor to placing combustible
materials on site.
WATER PURVEYOR FOR FIRE PROTECTION:
it The fire protection water service for the area of this project is provided by:
it San Bernardino Munic•ral 3. .- 7--.P-t - Engin-=rini (--09l 384-53-51
East valley Water District- Engineering (909) 888-8986
❑ Other Water Purveyor: Phone:
PUBLIC FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES:
6 Public fire hydrants are required along streets at intervals not to exceed 300 feet for commercial and multi-residential areas and at intervals not
to exceed 500 feet for residential areas.
11 Fire hydrant minimum flow rates of 1,500 gpm at a 20 psi minimum residual pressure are required for commercial and multi-residential areas.
Minimum fire hydrant flow rates of 1,000 gpm at a 20 psi minimum residual pressure are required for residential areas.
• Fire flow requirements may be met from the combined flow of two adjacent fire hydrants. Fire flow requirements may be adjusted, as deemed
appropriate by the Fire Department, based on individual site specific conditions and available mitigations.
• Fire hydrant type and specific location shall be jointly determined by the City of San Bernardino Fire Department in conjunction with the water
purveyor. Fire hydrant materials and installation shall conform to the standards and specifications of the water purveyor.
• Public fire hydrants, fire services, and public water facilities necessary to meet Fire Department requirements are the developer's financial
responsibility and shall be installed by the water purveyor or by the developer at the water purveyor's discretion. Contact the water purveyor
indicated above for additional information.
ACCESS:
• Provide two separate, dedicated routes of ingress/egress to the property entrance. The routes shall be paved, all weather.
❑ Provide an access road to each building nor fire apparatus. Access roadway shall have an all-weather driving surface of not less than 20 feet
of unobstructed width.
❑ Extend roadway to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior wall of all single story buildings.
❑ Extend roadway to within 50 feet of the exterior wall of all multiple-story buildings.
❑ Provide "NO PARKING" signs whenever oarking of vehicles would possibly reduce the clearance of access roadways to less than the required
width. Signs are to read "FIRE LANE - NO PARKING -M.C. See 15.16".
❑ Dead-end streets shall not exceed 500 feet in length and shall have a minimum 40 foot radius turnaround.
❑ The names of any new streets (public cr private) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval.
SITE:
❑ All access roads and streets are to be constructed and usable prior to combustible construction.
❑ Private fire hydrants shall be rstalled to protect each building located more than 150 feet from the curb line. No fire hydrants should be within
40 feet of any exterior wall. -he hydrants shall be Wet Barrel type, with one 2'/t inch and 4 inch outlet, and approved by the Fire Department.
Fire hydrants snap be des grated as a "NO PARKING" zone by painting an 8 inch wide, red stripe for 15 feet in each direction in front of the
hydrant in such a manner that t will not be blocked by parked vehicles. j
BUILDINGS: I
• Address numerals shall be installed on the building at the front or other approved location in such a manner as to be visible from the frontage
street. Commercial and multi family address numerals shall be 6 inches tall, single family address numerals shall be 4 inches tall. The color
of the numerals shall contrast with the color of the background.
❑ Identify each gas and electric meter with the number of the unit it serves.
■ Fire Extinguishers must be installed prior to the building being occupied. The minimum rating for any fire extinguisher is 2A 106/C. Minimum
distribution of fire extinguishers must be such that no interior part of the building is over 75 feet travel distance from a fire extinguisher.
❑ Apartment houses with 16 or more units. hotels(motels) with 20 or more units, or apartments or hotels(motels) three stories or more in height
shall be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers designed to NFPA standards.
! All buildings, other than residential, over 5,000 square feet, shall be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system designed to NFPA
standards. This includes exist ng buildings vacant over 365 days.
• Submit plans for the fire protection system to the Fire Department prior to beginning construction of the system.
• Tenant improvements in all scr nklered cuildings are to be approved by the Fire Department prior to start of construction.
0 Provide fire alarm (required throughout). Plan must be approved by the Fire Department prior to start of installation.
❑ Fire Department connection-o )sprinkler system/standpipe system) shall be required at Fire Department approved location.
Note: The applicant must request, in writing, any changes to Fire Department requirements.
v
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Ih S 3 cona
LW,S t vJ b�S2_3
FPS 170-11 941
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PARRS, RECREATION 4 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
Case•G� M -aa
Data: 5 G�
Reviewed By: (' ' •�I
GENERAL REQUIREMffidTS:
IV] Conmercial Industrial and Multi-Unit
[ ]] Assessment District
] Residential
( ] Purpose, Guidelines and submittal procedure
[ Irrigation and Landscaping Plans.
( ] Contact the City of San Bernardino Parks,Recreation and Community Services
Department at (909) 384-5317 or 384-5314 for specific detailed
requirements.
SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS:
( ] Maintenance of landscape areas
( Planter Areas
( Interior Planter Areas
[')(] Irrigation Systems
(/ ] Setback Areas
[ ] Slope Areas
[ ] Ground Cover and Bedding Material
( ] Erosion Control
[ ] Heed Control
PLANT MATERIALS
( ] Plant list and climatic conditions
Street Trees
( Plant Material Size Requirements and Ratios
INSPECTION AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS
(�(] Irrigation System
Landscaping
( ] Hardccape Items
P( ] Street tree Specifications
] Arborist Report
( ] Removal or destruction of trees
[ ] Screening Requirement (City, Dev.Cods)
Note: The applicant must request, in writing, any changes to the Parks, Recreation and
Coasnuaity Services r quirements. Additional information
XS:jj
FntFrerl into Record at
i,p: wlhi:nwOevCnts Mtg:
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
INTEROFFICE MEMORANPVM
re 4u, ItF[tf �T t�
TO: Mayor and Common Council
FROM: James F. Penman City ClerkICDC Secy
City Attorney City of San Bernardino
DATE: October 1, 1998
SUBJECT: Appeal of CUP 98-06 and Variance 98-02; 197 South "D" Street.
In 1996-97, (I'm unsure of the exact date) I was contacted by Code Compliance Officers for legal
advice regarding a potential case they were working, hereinafter referred to as the potential City of
San Bernardino v. Michael Allen case. Although no legal conflict existed, Mr. Allen had supported
my re-election in 1995, and, to avoid the appearance of a conflict, I advised Mayor Tom Minor that
he should arrange for another attorney to provide legal advice to Code Compliance. Mayor Minor
then arranged for attorney Timothy Sabo to do so.
In February of 1997, I sent a letter to Mr. John Jensen, the complainant, in response to his request
that I take action against Michael Allen based on Mr. Jensen's allegations. My letter to Mr. Jensen
clearly states that the conflict I declared was in the matter of City of San Bernardino v. Michael
Allen, (involving property located at 206 and 208 South"D" Street). I later learned that Planning
was seeking a revocation of Mr. Allen's 1978 Conditional Development Permit. (In 1978, what we
now call a CUP was termed a CDP.) This revocation was still, in my opinion, an action against
Michael Allen. Therefore,our office continued to abstain throughout this process. This matter was
never filed in court because, I was informed later, Code Compliance, Planning and the conflict
attorney, Timothy Sabo, resolved the matter by having Michael Allen apply for a new Conditional
Use Permit and Variance. In 1997, Mr. Allen's new CUP application and variance were approved.
That application and variance, having received final approval, are not on the October 5 Council
agenda.
An entirely different matter, not involving the property at 206 and 208 South "D", will be on the
Council agenda for Monday, October 5, 1998. This application, now before the City Council,
involves property located on the other side of the street, 197 South"D".
As I have previously discussed with the Mayor and Council on several occasions throughout my
years as City Attorney, I routinely abstain on matters where the appearance of a conflict might exist
provided my abstention does not result in significant cost to the City. Since there is no legal
requirement that I abstain on matters similar to the then-potential City v. Allen case, I decided years
ago to do so only in situations where it would not work a financial hardship on the City. I did not
Mayor and Common Council Memo
Appeal of CUP 98-06 and Variance 98-02
October 1, 1998
Page two
believe, based on what the code officers had told me, that a significant amount of legal time would
be needed on the Allen investigation.
After Code Compliance and Mr. Sabo determined there was no need to file a complaint, Mayor
Minor contacted me and advised me that Michael Allen was now going to submit an application
for a new CUP and variance (at 206 and 208 South "D"Street). Mayor Minor asked that my
office handle the legal advice at this point because there was not going to be a prosecution of Mr.
Allen and because Mr. Sabo's time spent on the matter was far greater than anticipated and his
bill had become significant.
I agreed, as I believe I was legally bound to agree, to the Mayor's request. I then took two actions:
First, I met with Mr. Sabo and asked him to withdraw his previously submitted bill to the City and
to consider that work a donation to the City of San Bernardino. Mr. Sabo agreed, and, to the best
of my knowledge, his firm never received remuneration for his legal services on that matter.
Second, I advised Deputy City Attorney Henry Empeno, who was, and is, the regularly assigned
attorney for the then Department of Planning and Building Services (now the Development Services
Department), of the Mayor's request. I instructed him to proceed to advise the Department and the
Planning Commission on the 1997 action involving 206 and 208 South "D" Street by Mr. Allen.
At the same time, I made the determination that if the matter reached the Mayor and Common
Council for a final decision, I would ask Mr. Sabo to again step in. Since the Council has the
authority to override the Planning Commission and the Department, any appearance of a conflict that
might otherwise exist, would be nullified by Mr. Sabo being the attorney to advise the Council on
Michael Allen's application for a new CUP and variance at 206 and 208 South "D" Street.
However, neither Mr. Jensen nor anyone else appealed that matter to the Mayor and Council.
There is no legal conflict by the City Attorney's Office in the matter now before the City Council
which involves different property at 197 South "D" Street and is not a possible prosecution of a
former campaign supporter as the initial issue potentially was.
Once again, to avoid even the appearance of a conflict, at this final decision level in the review
process, I have asked Mr. Sabo to step in to advise the Mayor and Council, which he has again
agreed to do at no additional charge to the City.
R—C&Spectfully submitted,
J es F. Penman
City Attorney