HomeMy WebLinkAbout15-Planning
.
CloQ- OF SAN BERNARD()o - REQUI()T FOR COUNCIL ACOoN
Frank A. Schuma
From: Pl anni ng Di rector
Dept:
Planning
Subject: Appeal of Variance No. 84-34
Mayor and Council Meeting of
April 15, 1985, 2:00 p.m.
Date: Apri 1 5, 1985
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
Previous Planning Commission action:
At the meeting of the Planning Commission on February 5, 1985, the following
action was taken:
The application for Variance No. 84-34 was unanimously denied based upon
findings of fact contained in the staff report dated February 5, 1985.
Recommended motion:
That the hearing on the appeal be closed and the decision of the Planning
Commission be affirmed, modified or rejected.
~^- .
Signature
-
Frank A. Schuma
Supporting data attached:
Yes, Staff Report
Ward:
383-5057
3
Contact person:
Frank A. Schuma
Phone:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Source:
Finance:
Council Notes:
"U: n....,...
-
Aaenda Item Nn/3 .
,.
'.
()
o
o
(
o
".. -oJ:; ;-YWC~T"" ",CI'i.&.i:L':'.:= S'l'C
,.:_~,_"'~: s:.-',~,~,-.i__',S'E.'. r:t';::"1"'~:; .:;::; :'55
_ ;.....,N l..S:'.::.
!.a.=,:... :.:;.:..-.. A'TO""A S. AtlN::::r
:-""':.1:5 C.;- !.:: .. ..I':"Ct w,"-[::l.~.:t
;:;.......!. ;.5.!::";::= .. jol"=:..!:Y 1..s...::>.LAN;:)
i~~lg-"~-~"~;:};:~=~LR" ~~t:~N~~!!~.i!~:~ER
.:::..... ::. ";'_."O' \/'.:;TO::r L.....:)L..
...:C.....!:;.. j. -"=='5" O...."IEI. E.O:,.lVIER
w.e;,.=_~ ["':..' .. "1f:!L Pl::~=t C"!.O.'lNE
-...C...... $.~.:-.t..'t.. 0..1'01[:" J.wiolUGi-I
.:1"''' [. 511l:........ CAq:. F. Ht"lSOlO. JR.
~!to...:..O... 0(:-.- GR!G::;q~ t........AOIl,E
)00;:'-":::".. ~:::::'L" Kt\ll"1 S......:..$
,..[=<Ii::..... "..J_;:;'".. STt~I'l...'l't ~. i>1AA!.AH
...,:.....t_ Cp:;"..- MJ.qC E.CV"!Y
r"'--'''''~lS ~.=':'.'" ..I0-lN J:!:.A~SCH..E,.E.A
.....~[ ,., ;..:....L~.. V!"lSIi'll1A ....J':HNSON
-.......=-.... :0....--:=:=11'.. U:-'T'''' [.=::::.~E;:j
GE::;=S! ....=-;::.::5 M",qTIN .......:Ji:LLc:PJ
....~_L'~'" .... 1':,.::":::..101. J. "'le"At~ SUMMEROUR
LAW O<"CES or REC'O.-AOMI/i. OFF
BEST. BEST & KRIEGER PA:"M SPRINGS OFFICE
.. .....n..J:.."'. ,..:;.....~...;; .":;'r~"Q""~ CQ"PO,""o"~/985 MAR ~o ,..:-v:. ltHOUITZ ~ MSCALLUM WAY
4200 OR,c,"\;GE STREET -6 rl'i q. u ,..O.BOX 2710
P. O. eox 1028 PALM SPAIMGS.CALI'ORNI" ~2263
RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92502 (610)325-7264
TELEPHONE {714} 6a6~14S0 TELEX. 752735
JAMES ..CORISON.OP' COUNseL
March 5, 1985
IItATHONO BEST (1...-,.a7)
.lAMES H. "'''I~GEA ('.1.)-''''.)
EUGENE IlE.TeIB..)-I.B.)
..... 11= ::P'ESSIO"'''L COlilPO;:u.~'ON
'.
Yne Honorable Mayor W. R. Holcomb
Members of the City Council
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Re: Appeal of Denial of Variance No. 84-34:
Talat Radwan, 994 South Washington
Avenue, San Bernardino; Response to
Order of Demolition of Building
Dear Mayor Holcomb and Members
,o~ the City Council:
Ynis law firm represents Mr. Talat Radwan, the
record owner of property located at 994 South Washington
Avenue, San Bernardino. Mr. Radwan is appealing the denial
of his request for a variance to Code Section 19.66.040 to
refurbish and occupy an existing non-conforming four-plex
apartment building in the M-l Light Industrial Zone. The
Planning Commission denied this variance on February 2, 1985.
The applicant filed a request for an appeal within the
statutory period and I have been asked to amplify the
reasons for the request for the variance and those findings
of the Planning Commission which we believe to have been in
error. This letter is in response to that request.
Mr. Radwan is the owner of an apartment building
at 994 South Washington Avenue. Although this portion of
South Washington Street has a general plan designation of
general industrial and zoning of M-l, the primary use in
the area is residential. Some lots are empty, but towards
the northern end of the street, a few commercial or light
..'
" L....w OF"F1CES OF" (
~EST. BEST & KRIEGER
o
o
(
o
industrial uses appear to have begun. The area in which
the apartQent house is located is surrounded by extremely
deteriorated and dilapidated single-family housing. This
is a very low-income, predominantly minority, neighborhood.
Even though the area has been general planned and zoned for
M-l, the Planning Department staff recently estimated that
the property is unlikely to be used for industrial purposes
for another 10 years, or perhaps even 15 years.
Although ~rr. Radwan has been the owner of record
of the property for several years, he did not have posses-
sion of tha building, that having been transferred to the
equitable owners. Mr. Radwan began to receive notices from
the Building Department requesting him to make corrections
on the property because the building was in a state of dis-
repair. These notices were passed on to the persons in
control of the building, but little or nothing was done.
Thereafter. ~rr. Radwan, pursuant to the owners' remedies,
regained control of the building and began attempts to
repair it and put it back to an economic use. Mr. Radwan
has indicated that he is prepared to bring the building up
to current Code conditions, but must first determine what
use he will be permitted to have in the structure at least
for the interim period until the area becomes industrially
viable. The Planning Department has indicated that, in fact,
there will be no use of this building and that it should be
de~lished. Mr. Radwan's engineer has informed him that
the building has a remaining economic life and that it is
structurally sound, although, of course, in need of repair.
Mr. Radwan applied for a conditional use permit
in October 1984 to convert the apartment building to a M-l
use. That request was denied by the Planning Commission be-
cause it indicated. among other reasons, that introducing
an industrial use into a residential area at this time would
be premature and detrimental to surrounding land uses.
Following the rejection of the conditional use
permit, Mr. Radwan applied for a variance to continue the
residential use until the area becomes industrially viable.
The variance was denied, among others, on the grounds that
because of the cessation of use for more than six months,
the nonconforming use ceased and could not be reinstated.
The denial of the conditional use permit to con-
vert the building to an industrial use, together with the
denial of a variance to permit the building to be used for
-2-
~ .
" LAW ...>F"F"ICE$ OF' (
~ST. BEST & KRIEGER
o
o
(
o
residential use, leaves Mr. Radwan with no economic use for
his'property. Although his engineers inform him that the
building is. structurally sound and can be repaired and brought
back to Code, the Planning Depart~~nt and the Building Depart-
ment have indicated that they wish to have the building
demolished. Nevertheless, this will not solve the problem
that Mr. Radwan will not be allowed to demolish the building
and replace it with a new residential structure which is in
accord with the existing neighborhood, nor evidently will
he be permitted to replace it with an industrial use since
the indication is that such a use would be premature and
detrimental to the neighborhood. Therefore, it would appear
that unless this variance is granted, Mr. Radwan will not be
able to have any economic use of his property at all.
The grounds, therefore, for this appeal are as
follows:
"
1. Special circumstances applicable to this
property which do not apply generally to other
property in the same zoning district and neigh-
borhood are: the loss of nonconforming use status
for residential purposes and the denial of a con-
ditional use permit for light industrial pur-
poses have caused this property, unlike all other
properties in the area, to be unusable. All
other nearby structures are designed for and
used as residential properties. This property's
highest and best use at this time is for residen-
tial purposes. The street design and construc-
tion is also best suited for residential use at
this time.
2. The denial of a variance appears to be
based, in part, upon the fact that the property
is located within Norton Air Force Base's Air
Installation Compatible Use Zone Study Area and
will be impacted by the activities of Norton
Air Force Base. Norton Air Force Base has not
offered to purchase the property or to purchase
its air rights. The other residential uses
surrounding the property stand in like relation-
ship to the same air impacts, but the uses are
allowed to continue. If there are serious health
and safety factors involved, the City or Norton
Air Force Base should purchase the residential
property in the area and relocate the inhabi-
tants. Otherwise, this property should be
allowed the same privileges as other similarly
located properties in the area.
-3-
'\';"~
. .
(
o
o
o
o
lAW OFFICES c"F
BEST. BEST &. KRIEGER
Because of the nature of the neighborhood,
it is economically infeasible to demolish this
structure and replace it with new industrial
structure which will have, at best estimate, ~o
economic return to the owner for at least a
decade. the compatible use with the neighbor-
hood is to permit a nonconforffiing apartment resi-
dential use until the area changes in accordance
with the general plan designation of the City.
The applicant's property has been caught in a
planning/zoning time lag. Because of this, unless relief
is granted, Mr. Radwan will be denied a reasonable use of
the property for many years. It is an apartment building
which can be restored to effective residential use. This
use is compatible with the neighborhood's existing uses
and will not be detrimental to the neighborhood if the
building is restored. The applicant has engaged an engi-
neering firm to direct restoration of the building. The
Planning Department of the City of San Bernardino has
already indicated that an industrial use at that location
is undesirable and will not be approved. Therefore, this
variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a substantial property right of the applicant and will be
in furtherance of health, safety and general welfare. It
is the proper way to restore parity in this property since
the strict application of the zoning law will deprive this
property owner of the privilege of using his property in
any reasonable manner.
If the applicant is permitted to use the property
for residential purposes, he will bring the existing struc-
ture up to present Code standards and will provide housing
for some of the citizens of San Bernardino who are most in
need of adequate housing at an affordable rental. This is
certainly in the best interests of the City, the neighborhood
and the owner, and, therefore, the variance should be granted.
Very truly yours,
~7'.~
Anne T. Thomas of
Best, Best & Krieger
ATT:jr
cc: Mr. Talat Radwan
-4-
.
()
'.....\'.'!:'iC
. , '2/.....
. ,".."" I.
" .
(
o
o
(
o
-.0'-',( .>. '"',
.- .. ~
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 300 NORTH "0" STREET. SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 9241B
'.j
" 'I
'. .;~:;t0.>>~~~~
'HE ;-"
W.R. "BOB" HOLCOMB
Mayor
MemD.rs of the Common Council
Robert A. Castaneda. . . . . . . . . First Ward
Jack Reilly.. . .. . ... . .. . . Second W.rd
Ralph Hernandez. . . . . . . . . . . Third Ward
Steve Marks. . . . . .. . . . . . . . Fourth Ward
Gordon Qulel ..... . ... .. '.' Fifth Ward
ta.n Frnler . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . Sixth W..rd
JKk Strickler . . . . . . . . . . . .seventh Ward
February 11, 1985
Mr. Talat Radwan
26371 Avery Parkway
Mission Viejo. CA 98692
Dear Mr. Radwan:
At the meeting of the Planning Commission on February 5, 1985, the
following action was taken:
The application for Variance No. 84-34, to permit refurbishment and
occupation of an existing nonconforming four-plex in the M-l Light
Industrial zone on property consisting of approximately .92 acres
located at 994 South Washington Avenue, was' denied based upon findings
of fact contained in the staff report dated February 5, 1985.
According to the San Bernardino Municipal Code, Chapter 19.74.080.,
the following applies to the above variance:
"The decision of the Commission shall be final unless an appeal there-
from is taken to the Common Council as provided for in this section.
Such decision shall not become effective for ten days from the date
that the written decision has been made and notice thereof mailed to
the Council by the applicant or any other person aggrieved by such
decision. The Council may. upon its own motion, cause any Commission
decision to be appealed."
,..~ectfullY. cc: Building and Safety Dept.
\ ~_,,~ cc: Ms. Sharon Zuscar
~ -----. P .0. Box 2609 .
RANK A. SCHUMA Mission Viejo, CA 92692
Planning Director
mf
.
o
, CITY OF
SAN
( ..--0
BERNARDINO
o (
PLANNING
~
DEPARTMENT ""I
SUI\1MARY
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
WARD
13
2-~-1l~
3
""
I
',..-... "
APPLICANT Talat Radwan
26371 Avery Parkway
W Mission Viejo, CA 98692
(/) Variance No. 84-34
<t OWNER Same
0
~
t; Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
W approximately ,92 acres located at 994 South Washington Avenue.
=> The applicant requests a variance of Code Section 19.66.040 to refurbish
0
1&1 and occupy an existing non-conformin9 4-plex in the M-l, Light Industrial
0:: zone.
....
<t
W
0::
<t
'----' .
/ EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
PROPERTY LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION
Subject Vacant, 4-plex and M-l General Industrial
Single-Family Residence
North Vacant M-l General Industri~l
South Single-Family Residence M-l General Industrial
East Single-Family ~esidence M-l Gene ra 1 Industrial
~Jest Vacant M-l General Industrial
\.
CEOLOGIC / SEISMIC gYES I ( FLOOO HAZARO DYES OZONE A ( DYES )
HAZARO ZONE NO ZONE LiJ(NO OZONE B SEWERS )(] NO
( HIGH FIRE DYES ) ( AIRPORT NOISE / IllYES ( REDEVELOPMENT DYES
HAZARD ZONE rnNO DNO J PROJECT AREA 00<N0
'- CRASH ZONE
...J o NOT D POTENTIAL SIGNI FICANT Z /0 APPROVAL
<t APPLICABLE EFFECTS 0
I- WITH MITIGATING ~ 0 CONDITIONS
Zen MEASURES NO E.I.R
We!) o EXEMPT DEI R REQUIREO BUT NO ILO I[J
:t: IL~ DENIAL
Z~ SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
00 WITH MITIGATING ~:E D CONTINUANCE TO
a::Z MEASURES en::E
>ii: n SIGNIFICANT 0
Z ONO EFFECTS 0
W SIGNIFICANT SEE ATTACHED E R c. W
a::
"- ~ "- EFFECTS MINUTES
\... 'J
NOV. 1981 REVISED JULY 19.2
SKY
(-0 0 (
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE Variance 84-34
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
13
Z-:H:lJ
Z
1. The applicant is requesting approval to waive Section 19.36.020
to allow the restoration of an existing vacant apartment complex
in the M-l, Light Industrial zone, located at 994 S. Washington
Avenue. .
2. Hi story:
The building in question has been vacant for approximately four
years. I nformati on obtai ned from County Bui ldi ng and Safety
Department, dated September 18, 1980 indicates that the County
had surveyed the property and recommended demolition of the
building. The building was subsequently boarded up, however,
demolition did not occur. The City of San Bernardino annexed
said property on June 25, 1981.
On April 30, 1984, the City Building and Safety Department made
an inspection and found the building to be in deteriorating con-
dition. A letter, notifying the owner of the deteriorating con-
dition and recommendation of demolition was sent on May 10, 1984.
On May 15, 1984, a Notice of Pendency was filed. At the Board of
Building Commissioners meetin9 on June 1, 1984, the owner asked
for a delay to get approval from the Planning Department to con-
tinue to use the building for apartments, to Which the Board
granted a 60-day continuance.
On June 12, 1984, the Planning Department denied the application
for the building to be used as apartments, since it was located
in a Light Industrial zone and is not a permitted use in said
zone.
On August 3, 1984, the Board of Building Commissioners ordered
the building to be demolished. The same day, a letter of appeal
was filed with the City Clerk and the application for a con-
ditional use permit for the conversion of the apartment building
into a small tool rental shop was fi led with the Planning
Department. From September 18, 1980, no known repairs, permits
or inspections have been made by the County or City Building
Departments.
On October 2, 1984, Conditional Use Permit No. 84-49,'to permit
the conversion of subject apartment building to a small tool
equipment rental shop was denied by the Planning Commission.
On October 15, 1984, the appeal of the Board of Building
Commissioners' decision regarding demolition was continued by the
Mayor and Common Council.
. ( (
,CITY OF SAN BERNi>RDINO PLA~NING DEPARTMENT
CASE Variance No. 84-34
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
P
:>-~)
.:l
"'"
At the meeting of the Mayor and Common Council, held on November
8, 1984, the decision relative to the demolition of the subject
building was closed. However, an appeal was reconsidered at the
meeting of the Mayor and Common Council on November 19, 1984.
This matter is scheduled to be heard at the meeting of the Mayor
and Common Council on February 18, 1985.
The applicant has since filed the subject variance to allow an
unpermitted use (apartment complex) ~thin a General Industrial
land use zone.
3. Analysis:
There are several health and safety concerns Staff has with per-
mitting the vacant 4-plex to be renovated and occupied. The
first and foremost concern is the location of the site within
Norton A.F.B.'s Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ)
study area. This property is located directly under the extended
centerline of runway 06, the primary landing runway. (See letter
from Department of the Air Force).
Norton has indicated in their letter that the sujbect property is
directly affected by the following aircraft operations:
a. "Aircraft flying 1,300 feet above ground level (AGLl and as
low as 800 feet AGL under unusual atmospheric conditions.
Aircraft operating in the VFR circle may fly as low as 300
feet AGL.
b. Departing aircraft on runway 06 have their tail pipes
pointing in the direction of subject property. During
takeoffs, jet engines are run up to maximum power gene-
rating high noise levels to their rear.
c. Heavily loaded cargo aircraft must use runway 06 due to
takeoff weight and terrain considerations. These aircraft
overfly the property at approximately 2,000 feet AGL at
high power settings."
Norton's airfield is open 24 hours a day, seven days per week.
Aircraft departures and arrivals are conducted during the hours
of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
""
.
-0 0 (
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE Variance No. 84-34
OBSERVATIOf\JS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
U
2-5-B5
4
"'"
Additionally, the site lies within Conditional Use District (CUD)
9 of Accident Potential (APZ) 11 and within the 75 dB Ldn con-
tour. The AICUZ Study specifically recol1ll1ends excluding residen-
tial land uses from CUD 9. Also, the City of San Bernardino's
noise element considers residential developments as noise sen-
sitive land uses.
Finally, because of the site's location, directly under the pri-
mary approach corridor to Norton AFB, tenants wi 11 be subject to
repetitive high noise impacts and can expect to have interference
of COl1ll1unication on a regular basis.
4. The applicant has indicated that the building would be brought up
to 1979 Uniform Building Code and State energy requirements,
however, in the letter dated November 30, 1984 from Kamal S.
Iskander & Associates, Inc., consulting engineers, states that
the building will be brought up to conformance with the building
code in force at the time it was oriqinal1b built. It is esti-
mated that the building is approximately 4 + years old. The
building codes in force at that time are unacceptable to ioday's
health, safety and noise standards, and would not be permitted.
5. The submitted site plan and elevations indicate that the subject
structure is a two-story, four-plex apartment building with a
si ngl e-fami ly resi dence approxi mately 10 feet north of the .sub-
ject complex. Both buildings are located on the same parcel
encompassing approximately 40,000 square feet.
6. The submitted site ~lan indicates that 10 standard parking spaces
will be provided. According to the San Bernardino Municipal
Parking Ordinance, 8 parking spaces are required, 4 of which must
be covered and enclosed on three sides. In addition, a two-car
garage is required for the single-family dwelling. If the
variance is approved, four spaces will be required to be covered
and enclosed and a two-car garage will be required. All dri-
veways and drive aisles are required to be paved with 2 inches
A/C.
.
7. The submitted site plan indicates that there will be no struc-
tural changes to the four-plex or to the single-family residence.
The four-plex will be required to meet Uniform Building Code
requirements, however, the Building and Safety Department has
indicated that to do so would be economically unfeasible. (For
list of defects and violations, see attached sheets). The
building is in need of architectural upgrading including painting
the exterior walls, replacing boarded up windows and providing
vi sua1 relief such as wood siding.
.
.
(-0 0 (
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE Variance No. 84-34
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
u
;'!-:Hl:>
:>
8. The subject site and surrounding properties are zoned M-l,
General Industrial with a General Plan designation of General
Industrial land uses.
,.
The area is in the early stage of transition, in that it is basi-
cally an existing, nonconforming, single-family residential
neighborhood with one impound yard approximately one block north
of the site that has been in existence for several years. There
are also scattered vacant fields throughout the neighborhood.
A multiple-family residential use at the subject site may adver-
sely affect the public health, safety and general welfare.
Although the building was constructed for multiple-family resi-
dential use, at the time that the building was built, Airport
Districts did not exist and would not exclude such uses around
airports. Today, all development intended for human occupancy
are prohibited in ADI and ADII zones. An industrial use would be
compatible with the zoning and AD zone, however, the bui lding in
question was not constructed or intended for an industrial use
nor does the appearance of the building make it a suitable
conversion.
I
9. At the Environmental Review Committee meeting on January 17,
1985, it was recommended by the Committee to deny the requested
Variance No. 84-34 based upon the overwhelming serious health and
safety problems with the existing building itself, high noise and
crash potenti al.
The Committee rec0mmended that if the Planning Commission elects
to approve the requested variance, a focused Environmental Impact
Report to examine the health and safety issues present and to
determi ne the appropri ate mi ti gati on measure requi red to all e-
viate those issues will be required for review by the Committee.
10. Section 19.66.040 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code requi res
that "any part of a building occupied by a nonconforming use
which is discontinued for a period of one hundred eighty days or
more shall thereafter be used in conformity with the provisions
of the district in which it is located." A multiple-family resi-
dential use is not a permitted use in the M-l zone thereby
requiring the requested variance. The following are the four
requi red Fi ndi ngs of F act for Vari ance No. 84-34 wi th the app 1 i-
cant's and staff's response to each:
.
CITY OF SAN
( (
BE~DINO PLA~ING DEPARTMENT
CASE Variance No. 84-34
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
13
Z-:J-llJ
b
r
'"
A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or con-
ditions applicable to the property involved, or to the intended
use of the property, which do not apply generally to other pro-
perty in the same zoning district and neighborhood.
Applicant's Response:
There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or con-
diti on s app 1 i cab 1 e to the property i nvo 1 ved. The surroundi ng .
uses of the property are all residential, with the only indus-
trial located west, approximately 1/4 mile on Waterman Avenue.
The zoning is predominantly industrial zoned. The land use is
predominantly residential.
Staff's Response:
A variance, from the terms of the zoning ordinance, shall be
granted only because of special circumstances applicable to the
property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroun-
dings. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
or conditions applicable to the property involved including size,
shape topography, location or surroundings that would warrant the
granting of the requested variance. The property is relatively
level, rectangular in shape, adequate in size, encompassing
approximately .92 acres and zoned M-l to accommodate an
industrial use.
.
B. That such vari ance i.; necessary for the preservati on and
enjoyment of a sub5tantial property right of the applicant.
Applicant's Response:
The variance is necessary because the surrounding areas are
completely residential. Industrial introduction at this time
would be premature. We wish to utilize existing structure and
land use.
Staff's Reponse:
Substantial property right refers to the right to use the pro-
perty in a manner which is not on a par with uses allowed to
other property owners which are in the vicinity and have a like
zoning. The purpose of the variance is to restore parity where
the strict application of the zoning law deprives such property
owners of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity
~
.
'---0 0 (
,CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE Variance No. 84-34
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
13
2-5-85
7
and under identical zoning classification. The strict applica-
tion of the zoning ordinance does not deprive the property of
privilages enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under
identical zoning classification. Although the surrounding pro-
perties are single-family residential uses, because they are
existing non-conforming they would not be permitted to expand in
any way and would be subject to the same rules and regulations
for non-conforming uses vacated for more than 180 days.
Additionally, Section 19.64.080 of the San Bernardino Municipal
Ordinance prohibits any use intended for human occupancy. Any
application to permit a residential use would also require a
vari ance.
C. That the 9ranting of the variance will not be materially detri-
mental to the public welfare or injurious to property and impro-
vements in the zoning district and neighborhood in which the
property is located.
Applicant's Response:
The variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare because of the surrounding land uses at this time. We
intend to invest our time and money into the project to bring up
the value and compliance.
Staff's Response:
In determining the application for a variance, the best interest
of the entire community is the controlling factor, rather than
the suitability or adaptability of the property in question for a
particular use.
The variance will constitute a grant of special privileges incon-
si stent wi th the 1 i mitati on upon other properti es in the vi ci ni ty
and zone in which the property is located.
The granting of the variance may be materially detrimental to the'
public welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the
zoning district and neighborhood in which the property is
located.
The surrounding zoning is M-l, developed with single-family resi-
dences and vacant fields. Granting the variance would establish
a precedence in the area with regard to non-conforming uses and
would encourage future requests for similar situations.
.
~ ~ ( .
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLA NING DEPARTMENT
CASE Variance No. 84-34
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
13
2-5-85
8
D. That the granting of such a variance will not be contrary to the
objectives of the Master Plan.
Applicant's Response:
The granti ng of such a vari ance wi 11 not be contrary to the
Master Plan because of the current land uses. Industrial would
be premature at this time. The upgrading would be an asset, not
an eve- sore.
Staff's Response:
The comprehensive General Plan of the City of San Bernardino pro-
jects the property to be developed as industrial, and the appro-
val of said application is contrary to the goals and objectives
and policies established within said plan.
The granting of the variance would authorize a use or activity
which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zone regula-
tion governing the parcel of property. Zoning is used to imple-
ment the General Plan and would therefore, be contrary to the
objectives of the Master Plan.
Additionally, the City of San Bernardino's noise element con-
siders residential developments as noise sensitive land uses.
The 75 dB Ldn ambient noise environment is clearly incompatible
with noise sensitive land uses.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the observations and negative findings of fact, Staff
recommends denial of Variance No. 84-34.
Respectfully submitted,
FRANK A. SCHUMA
Planning Director
~, ~AA1~
Ii. N LARSON
Assistant Planner
..
( DEPA~MENT OF THE AI.QORCE (
HEADQUARTERS 63d AIR BASE GROUP (MAC)
NORTON AIR FORCe: B,ASE. C.... 924og,
'.(fJ" r2 riD f.G II tin [~
p !~ l~1J !E U 'L1 i.S
U
JAN - 4 1::[,5
\1:9
L~:J
R(PlV TO
'''.Of 63 CES/DEEV (Mr Disparte, (714) 382-3909)
..::ny r):J.I'~..~ . I::'. ,;',: ,',il.iit
Elj lJL~ ~BEH\\:}BL'Ni). CA
su."" Var i ance Number 84-34, Apartment Renovat i on (Your L tr, Undated)
TO City of San Bernardino Planning Department
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino CA 92418
t- _. .:;"~---:~:.-\
\" ...... !
I ." '.' ", \
-. .-.,.
~ .;".
I
1. Thank you for theoppor tun i ty to respond to th.i s proposa I .to rehab i 1 i ta~e'.'~: .
. .-. .w__.. .. t
and use an apartment bui Iding located at 994 South Washington Avenue. ! ,..'.~.._ ..,
Because of the high noise environment and crash hazard, the Department i ': " -...... \
t ..... .
of the Air Force and Norton AFB are very strongly opposed to this project. ','" ...-... ;
. \~. :. _ _~.. l
. i._._ I
2. The indicated property I ies within Norton AFB's Air Installation Com- \ :,~;: ~~::::: i
patible Use Zone (AICUZ) study area. This property is located approximately.\ 0.:';. ....-- 'I
one and one/half mi les southwest of the base and directly under the extended\ ~.h ....-
centerl ine of runway 06, the primary landing runway. ~._.-
3. A review of base traffic patterns reveals that this property is directly; _~ ==:
affected by the following aircraft operations:
a. All aircraft conducting straight-in, full-stop landings and touch-and-
go (T&G) operations on runway 06 directly overfly the property. These
aircraft overfly the property at approximately 1,300 feet above ground
level (AGL). However, under unusual atmospheric conditions, they may be
as low as 800 feet AGL.
b. Arrivals on runway 24 are conducted as an alternate to landings
on runway 06. Runway 24 is located at the exact opposite end of runway
06. Aircraft in this pat~ern overfly the property at altitudes between
1,300 feet and 800 feet AGL in the runway 06 approach corridor. They then
divert to the runway 24 approach corridor before reaching the base.
c. Aircraft operatin9 in the VFR circle approaches to the base will,
at times, overfly the property. The extended centerline of this corridor
lies approximately one-fourth mi Ie to the west of the property. However,
aircraft operate within a one-half mile radius of the centerline. Depending
on atmospheric conditions, aircraft in this corridor may fly as low as
300 feet AGL.
d. Departing aircraft on runway 06 have their tail pipes pointed in
the direction of the property. Note that aircraft operating on runway
06 approach the base from the west and depart toward the east. During
takeoffs, jet engines are run up to maximum power generating high noise
levels to their rear.
e. Oeparting aircraft from runway 24 climb straight out directly over
the property. Heavily loaded cargo aircraft must use this runway due to
takeoff weight and terrain considerations. These aircraft overfly the
property at approximately 2,000 feet AGL at high power settings.
".
Global in Mi ssion _ P-~fessiona1 in Acrion
..
o
o
o
(
o
4. Norton AFB's airfield is open 24-hours per day, 7 days per week. While
routine training missions such as T&G operations are curtailed between
the hours of 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM, aircraft departures and arrivals are
conducted during these hours.
5. According to the Norton AFB AICUZ study, the tract lies within Condi-
tional Use District (CUD) 9 of Accident Potential Zone (APZ) 11. Addi-
tionally, it lies within the 75 dB Ldn contour.
6. The AICUZ specifically recommends excluding residential land uses from
CUD 9. Land uses considered clearly compatible for CUD 9 include industrial/
manufacturing with some noise attenuation. Also, the City of San Bernardino's
noise element considers residential developments as noise sensitive land
uses. The 75.dB Ldn ambient noise environment is clearly incompatible
with noise sensitive land uses. To illustrate the severity of this incom-
p~tibi'ity, the ferlpr~l ~ovprnment, through it5 VHA anrl FHA loan programs
prohibit loans to residential developments within the 65 dB Ldn contour.
7. Because of the site's location, directly under the primary approach
corridor to Norton AFB, tenants will be subject to repetitive high noise
impacts. Tenants can expect to have interference of certain activities
such as communications on a regular basis.
t
8. Other activities within the proposed project could interfere with air-
craft operations from Norton AFB. Hazards to aviation safety must be iden-
tified and prevented or mitigation measures implemented. The most common
areas of potential hazard are as follows:
a. Substances released in the air which would impair the visibi lity
or otherwise interfere with the operations of aircraft such as but not
limited to steam, dust, and smoke.
b. Light emissions, either direct or indirect (reflective), which
might interfere with pilot vision.
c.
such as
tive to
Land uses which would unnecessarily attract birds or waterfowl
but not limited to the growing of certain types of vegetation attrac-
birds or waterfowl.
8. If you have any questions of our comments, please contact Mr Frank
Disparte at (714) 382-3909.
.
'-~.iY Jl/(]{[j~z::tc
FRANK L. DISPARTE, Community Planner
63d Civil Engineering Squadron
-
~""'''''''''''''W'''''.''''W
~hllng
~hlf Systems Design
Sol~, Fe.slbl1l1y Reports
Title 24 Energy Calculations
En15rgy Audit, & ImphlmenteUon
(
KAMAL
o 0 (' 0
S.ISKANDER& ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
November 30, 1984
2101 S. ATLANTIC BLVD. . L09 ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90040 . (213) 264-0196
f'.1~ ~.
,.
Mr. Talat Radwan
c/o Honda Mission Viejo
26371 Avery Parkway
Mission Viejo, California 92692
Dear Mr. Radwan:
Re: Apartment Building at
994 S. Washington Boulevard
San Bernardino, California
I have visited the building referenced above as requested and I have the following
recommendations:
a. Repair roof leaks during which a thorough inspection of all the roof structural
components, elat are not exposed at this time, shall be done. All broken,
damaged, missing, and dry-rotted members shall be removed, replaced with same
and installed per governing building codes.
b. Ceiling and floor - remove, replaced with same and install per code all broken,
damaged, missing and dry-rotted joists, drywalls and subfloors. A thorough
inspection of all the unexposed components shall be done and correcting measures
shall be taken.
c. Walls - carry out a thorough inspection of all wall studs, posts, headers and
plates upon which all broken, damaged, missing and dry-rotted members shall be
removed, replaced with same and installed per code.
d. Staircase framing to second-story shows rotted members that shall be removed,
replaced with same and installed per code. Framing of the railing shall also be
inspected.
e. Add-In Patio - (lS' x 6' +/-) on the right hand side of the building shall be
removed because it does not appear to be built-to-code.
f. Exsiting repairs and/or alterations to rafters and joists that does not conform
to the code shall be removed and corrected and/or redone.
continued....... .
.
o
(
o
o
(
o
'Or 0 'l'alat Radwan
c/o Honda Mission Viejo
N0vember 30, 1984
Page_ 2
If the recommendations above were carried out, we assume that this building will be
brought up to conformance with the building code in force at the time it was
originally built.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call.
Sincerely yours,
.
, .
.j') "" II
._:...-, ;~'~'~'~~.:
1/ ~:- ./.~ ."
.-.1;,...--:-.'-.--.....- ....-...
HA!IY T. TADROS, P.E.
IIT'l'/jf
,~
'DE";RTMENT OF TRANt"O~TIONI
FlC7bo CONTROLlAIRPOItTS
o.
COUNTY OF SAN BERN~. NO
ENVIRONHENTA
PUBLIC WORKS AGEN Y
.''Jf.
"
"
0''''''1
.;,... III ~,~~",."
W;~~'I~~
".till'
~,
January
i:m;7;~3:~'~~~~.~'~)"h'~~1t~~~~~~,,""""'J"'''n ,.........,_~'""....J,.
MICHAEL G. WALKER
Director
'}_~~..~~' 1<. '~\;p .,,'",,_'1" 1<'~;l.'~"" F.~ '.
825 East Third Street. San Bernardino. CA 92415-0835 0 (7141383-1665
tJ;;r truly yours.
.I " - ../0.
I' . .
:;;:: '~:~~:,~,~:::j '''( JJ
p-'" '.' .'~' -"d:~l
~: :~:~ t
I
t
'.1
~ I
--...j
7, 19B5
File: 2-405/1.00
Tract 1995
City of San Bernardino
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino. CA 92418
Attention: Ms. Ann Larson
Re: 20ne 2, East TWin Creek
Imp. Variance No. 84-34
Gentlemen:
Reference is made to your transmittal with accompanying plans received
by this office on December 17, 1984 regarding a request to waive Section
19.36.020 to allow the restoration and use of an existing apartment complex
and requesting the District's review and comments. The building to be
restored is located on the west side of Washington Avenue and approximately
1200 feet south of the Washington-Central Avenue intersection, in the south
portion of the City of San Bernardino. The property abutts the District's
Twin Creek Channels east property line.
This office has previously reported on this area to the San Bernardino
City Planning Department by letter dated August 28. 1984. A copy of our
pr ev ious correspond enc e is enclosed for your reference. Our comments and
recommendations remain the same.
Should you have any further questions concerning this matter, please feel
free to contact the undersigned at (714) 383-2388.
AJK: HWS:mjs
Encl. as noted
I!::; 4 n
""1.1.\1
. ~, .-.
'~~ .'J
...,--
. -'I
. -. .,1
,
Ul:~RTMENT Of TRArL/uAIIUNI ( I
F'~,~.??~~~,~:.~.o.~~~~~"~~~i:al!~J.~,.~;:~.",~~~,,!Z~-~!k~~~I~~'_W"-~' \
. ....._._._ ." .. ......__.,1._~.. . ~':__"".I~"'.) -.
I
i
o
COUNTY OF SAN IlfRNQINO
ENVIRONMENTAL
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
825 East Third Street. San Bernard;noo CA 92415.0835 . (714) 383.7.3Bfl
fl,5'f{
28, 1984
File: 2-409/1.00
Tract 1995
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San'Bernardino, CA 92418
Attention: Ms. Ann Larson
Planning Department
Re: Zone 2, Twin Creek Channel
T,nprovements - Conditional
Use Permit No. 84-49
Gentlemen:
Reference is made to your transmittal with accompanying sketch received
by this office on August 20, 1984, regarding a conditional use permit to
convert an existing apartment to an equipment rental shop and requesting
the District 's review and comments. The proposed bui Iding conversion is
located on the west side of Washington Avenue and approximately 1200-feet
south of the Washington - Central Avenue intersection, in the south portion
of the City of San Bernardino. The property abutts the District's Twin
Creek Channels east property line.
In our opinion, the proposed building conversion is in an area reasonably
free of serious flood hazards from major flood channels and drainage courses.
The general area may be subject to 'excessive street flows and accumulated
drainage from the north and east. It is therefore, recommended that a
separate report be obtained from the City Engineers Office with respect
to local and onsite drainage conditions. Comprehensive Storm Drain Plan
Project No. 7-C17 alignment appears to be very close to the subject property.
Our recommendation would be that a block wall or other adequate barrier
be installed along the west property line of the property to eliminate
trespass onto the District access road extending along the east side of
Twin Creek Channel.
Continued...
E"A/GL. "# I
.
o
Letter
August
Page 2
to the Cig)Of
28, 1984
o
o
o
.
San Bernardino
Should you have any further questions concerning this matter, please feel
free to contact the undersigned at the above telephone number.
Very truly yours,
t2/j~ d ~~4f
ALLAN J. KI~L~, Chief
Water Resources Division
AJK:lf.olS:mjs
cc: San Bernardino City Engineer
Charles L. Laird
o
p"..idmt
Lonnie So Barrier
Viet" Prl".'iidt'nl
Dillard Cash
St'c'rt'laJ"\'
Willi, M. Brue
rI.t.IILlilant Sl"cutary
Edna Rhoads
Board Member"
Roy Norwood
Co Sanders
Mallias Davis
Ray Humphrey
Val( I FOms Mutual Oater ( :).
c/o 1063 So. Lincoln Ave.
SolO I\('rnardinno CA 92,108
"l'-.
?'
,
1")"r:
~1~~~.~. ~~n~~~"~~~
?'V'" ..~~...~!-. 01' l~ ...~
ro
. ~~'''''1 :-'" \ '~'"'. ~"!
"",'- '1",,,,,,",,1 ,..._~\ ....~.'C', -." r",,'~......, ':',,,""'r: ....1.,,,.,' .;...1........... ~"., " "':.....,........~_
.,....,...''It.~_')..... ,.,' '1.,1.",..,..,,1 ~.... 1.,"'.,......,...1' . t' --;l.,.~.... ~r ';.,.~~ ~~!"...t.'l. ";,,,.">_
r:'i:~,:,~r..,~,:. -.':"'(;~'''''~~ ~'n.J., rl~n~.,1 ")f ;'~yl .....,.':"r: ':'"":__ ":1;1, ..~'!"'" 0,.,
\....c -~,,:(~....:......,...~ ~')!' +'-!~ .",,:'II'lT,;L., rqA.~on~:
~.
.j..',.... ... "'I"'''"
1-'."1. .....r....... \..,f';'....1':'o ".~I"l.
'. '1 ~ ~-,..,.......
"",,-'
~'''.,'''' r~ ""ti~'" 1
,.. 1 \ ~.'" 1 r.o. "', i, 1.,<- I I-"~,.... ..,....
"F'~ -:f ....-;-~~'~.'"!, ..~., .......
,,:,-..,.!:,"~ 1. ....0.1"""'.... ..-,~........r...l"'" ".......... '1!,t.'1r ""!~t.,,,,!
.~;r"" :,1......:1.,.. oF' ','1.L.~.... ~~ rl'!:~"I-,'r:,l +"-0': n.
re'~, -"'!C't~l "!....... f't"o'~
PI'; !1t...... ~.~:.!-,.....~. P'l,".,,":, ,~.ll!Jt, "....,." :--.l).!'";!'.....l '-j'''',',
"'''. --:n,ll r. ~-l ~ ;.,....'- ...."".
""'1'" "'''1.-'-,..... t-.011~ :"q'~'"' \'.,...~,.1 t)I" 1. ~1.::!" :"'~~.'" to)..... ~.
. ,'(.'> ~l"'''' r;:" +.....;~ f"J....1-,;, ',.... , +\1'1+' ...... (' ~...,:,:-'- L..., :"...-,
..~~..-,....~:~ ;:",.. !.,..-."'"!r',..~.....:, t' 1'~. '';1. .~,.I.. ~~'~""I1'" .I..... .1.\.,,...
....'"J,:~ 1:
.~..!.,:> l' ~
.1.-.
:':'p~;~ .
'~1r.-" ~." ~!1~"
~":'I >'1 , -
.''') ~T~"~1.'.
~,
.',
1'.,.1........... L) I..'........ .'''~~~.,',r,l,.., ......;.
"
;{.., "0" ',~' r; ":~ ('
. ,..,r} Ii { ,. 7.='.:I l'- t..,t.
," ~....:,~".,-'o.._~_,. -~_~
','" .', '.": . "
?jil{ (/Ji. ,,,_ (.i (\ ,;If.
- ~......~1 --:;.,...' , ';i,:r -._~...
<Q */> j{W ~'-
'.,q.llll~.:,<. "r1. .'c_.
G'/;.~I -h"'~y4~ ...':-'
.-,1~~."..,...".':' .,1_...
'r -J)': "
'{:!4j~{.4~v.~y.
fD:: t7'; r r~; It; FI'
.;, ~: p :,
" .' I" !
.. , '.
I.: I
, .~ '. .' ,
,-,
: " ~ !
,/I-;;j
i} .1
~.,
. ....~
1" ~..
~,. :')
.l,1 ,-'L,: ;...'\ii~;E~ i
~,;t,.;!lAnml.~Q, CA
o
r--r;':."~ -~
I'
!
i
\
i
!
~=-
.
o
Prr.,idmt
Lonnit So Barritr
Via Pre.,idml
Roy Norwood
Director
WilIt Mo 'B....,
Board Member..
Dillard Cash
Co Sandtrs
Mauias Davis
r;i-,:;:;-l
/:':~,':,;
0,. ;
.....,:
I ,
Y! :1
I . .. I
~-- - ~. - )
-"
~ u G:::Fmunity L~ue r c.
1117 So. Lincoln Avt.
MailinK Address: 1063 So. Lincoln Avt.
San Bernardino. CA 92408
(714) 889.4132
.,,~. ..;y.. "r. r.."l V" I ....,~+
"to-'
'>~':"","l]'",l i .., "":'~...
.,., 0
.,............'.
II""" ...,
o
., .
?r- 1 ~...,:"
._~, .....
".~' 1.
. t~~
'fO"_~.'l
,p..,1...,..sl ..",,1, ,"';S::~~\..,..,.ll<. !'nq,.....,c-t ., "cr1."".t ')4" "::lI.:!"l~.-~~e
::')~4 ...., .t"(\'!" ....!~'"' f"'11'.""1~'''''' :"'!"''''''~':''''l~:
1'''' ~,",""'~"'~'" . _'Tn",;!, 'J:" ~"+.^!":'1;', ""..p.
:-: ~(' Y,l'".')"''''' ~ S ~:}'" Cr:~:'~+~ r_":'"'....t....~ "';.&.
'r. "",.,','-"'", +h.i~ f"!\'ct."\Y" t,') '~':':.;~__l~..:t:;
'\S"'1t ~..,,~. ''If
-,. '~+.~""""R"'l. fI','-3..
~l:.'lt nr:: ~""'!1.~.,_~~"..'
;" -"I')Y'jt:'> ',0 I- . r ')~_''''''''''~'';:;.
~.~i~~ , "';','
~~.. '~.,.., ..~.1_' ;." +,'-J.!=' ~.l"rn. "'~"1'.1 --:-.t" q ^""H'~";:"':'- ':~',~,:'. "',' ....,....
.,
.. .,-....,1
r ..., ,. ..: ~ ..... '1'"
.....' ~ I'.' I'
1" '""\Y"-lr.-'!'" t,r: 'l+.t.,....p~L "l ..r'~..,'.:~,; ~.'.:~:.:-:,;I"':~~..:-~. as
:.,.~_ ...'" __::',...' I ""'.r ~...'~ I,.... '."r ";1'''':.'''' ...;.t" .I.',...
~,"1",,", .,)~." "':: ...,.....t",~ 'r"'':. :".........". 1"""."':'" ';'>'~" ,1.'=; ".......,....~..
"',... r...... ~!'~.t '-,r,;.:.
..~ L I, I. "'''' . :~!. ~ ';:"I........~,. ~) t'
...I'"l.~..,~.... ~ ........~ ,..~'~...' '.\. ,..~........r'..c:;
., '~O::, -:r::"'" ..r1.... 1..... ',.... t., "':r ~ ')" t l' r ~ ....
'".'..,.'1.... ., ',."'- 1. ",--:or, ..~)~. ~. \..., r.> ".~ .1-.'.
-,.,.,..'''~,,~.'"; "';r ':..i-.(' S~:1.l-1;.;:r"
... ~".., r:> '-:: ~..: 1.. !} t',,~..... ":~;. J..:, '1..,......',
ro,1 .....'... ~ ., 1 .....r-: t). ' -' -+ '. ~.... ?:'<: 3..
.J'
. ~i"-,::~""t 1.~' 1.1 :\-~, ~,'''''' .",;1:".. :,~ .~,...",.~~ ".__.....,1.3 ~... ":;-
..,-,t.:.'.::" ~,.,......... "'r', ~,"''''''' ...t' l'l"':._-l.... ~:J.... _,_r-' '.-:"1......,'"1'. \':;.:,'11"':~.1
...."':......L...,.... 'r:.
't. ,-.' :":',1'" .,::' ~',:: ,)t" ~.'..~ ..,....1. '!,O~,'..:)J ~l.l.l.~ l:"l'-'.l~.!'...~r; ":"."\~
'. )~v'f" ,"'\ .,,~~ ..,','"I^'" .1. :'-:'':' ~i';"~ ......., ~C;.L....r--t:".5.~~ ....co
, '. -. ;.... . :.,) :'.r~ '!" ':. .: .
'r:zc ,-:' '"'\~~~:. ::
!
!
'ffill r- @ [~ i1 ~7 ~ I hl
'-'I L!j
JAN 23 19:;5
(.r('..: !'," ;....:'-I..!. ":),n
I I I '.;;.' ,"'~.:l ~":l LIlTMEriT
SAN etp.N.~RDlNO. C,1
'~'.,~~ ,....',~,r.~l1. .....:) 'l1.r.l.. .I.-"C !''''!o;-I.. .,,\...;:1 ~-::~"." ...'"1:"--:
.'. ',;~or "'"~di' (:;;''' :)"r..,"V~
~ (}'l~0<...-' cU2/2.<-P'
-/ 13.()um M./
.J /. ..?
~~/b" ~. 'PdoL'-C/(Jb 2>' ~~f1rrk
~~ / /;f/ ~ Ura...l-./"'-
fA/tuCfi/ &t--- 115) S;.UXwl-,{""-
~(uf11Jt"l O~ ~o? do X"",\c,.t--.
.~ ,'" /J (21 a1-1,~ IT3 ()..v....-"-'
.. ' 00 t.?
.
o
Pusidmt
Lonnie S. Barrier
Viu Pu.,idmt
Roy Norwood
Diuclor
Wille M. .B..-
Boord Membtfs
Dillard Cash
C. Sanden
Manias Davis
.--r:,1.-j'- J'7/ ,.:..
/. 1/
~f ",r ~munlty L~ue ("'C.
1117 So. Lincoln A ~
MailinR Address: 106~ So. Lincoln Ave.
San Bernardino. CA 92408
(714) 889.41~2
o
'~~ (0 .~
M~~L
tJ~ ~. .
I2aL (' ~
~ ...L".,.g~ I/V.3 S. WC1..5 \A: Y\~tCY"\ 0 v"-1-UL
[:t4 7~ 9"~3 5,L\he..ClL.t\ "'V~\ '
(r1~t~ ~4J'1 VOR.mAJoJ Ko~D
/ ~ /3' S; ~r..vn (',,~
/()~~ So> ;(o.#1t~
1-4/'11 ,A/ a,~"",,--lj
CITY OF
SAN
BERNSolNO PlA~NI~G OEP~RTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
Case Number (s): \/aJllrlM.MJ Mo. BtJ-- 3Y
.
Project Description: W . l'l
2.
\V\~ll
t-\-\ '~.J
LLJo~O^~H\~~~J.AfL'
1.
3. General Location:~ ~1'
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
YES
MAYBE
NO
1.
Could project change
cated on the General
within general area?
proposed uses of land, as indi-
Plan, either on project site or ~
2. Would significant increases in either noise levels,
dust odors, fumes, vibration or radiation be gener-
ated from project area, either during construction
or from completed project other than those result- /'
ing from normal construction activity? ~
30 Will project involve application, use or disposal , J
.of hazardous or toxic materials? U
4. Will any deviation from any established environ-
mental standards (air, water, pois~, light, etc.)
and/or adopted plans be requested in connection ~
with project? ~
5. Will the project require the use of significant
amounts of energy which could be reduced by the
use of appropriate mitigation measures? ~
6. Could the project create a traffic hazard or /
conges tion? .JL
7. Could project result in any substantial change in
quality, quantity, or accessibility of any portion
of region's air or surface and ground water re- J'
sources? y
MAY ."1.
E.R.C, FORM A
~'"l
r~
--
\,
r"l
--
H. Will project involvl' nlllslrllelioll of f.wilities in
an area which COli hi bl' r J ooded uur ing an inter-
mediate regional or localized flood?
9. Will project involve construction of facilities or
services beyond those presently available or pro-
posed in near future?
100 Could the project result in the displacement of
community residents?
llo Are there any natural or man-made features in pro-
ject area unique or rare (i.e. not normally
found in other parts of country or regions)?
~
12. Are there any known historical or archae logical
sites in vicinity of project area which could be
affected by project?
13. Could the project affect the use of a recrea-
tional area or area of important aesthetic value
or reduce or restrict access to public lands or
parks?
';
140 Are there any known rare or endangered plant
species in the project area?
15. Does project area serve as habitat, food source,
nesting place, source of water, migratory path,
etco, for any rare or endangered wildlife or fish
species?
16. Will project be hcated in immediate area of any
adverse geologir nature such as slide prone areas,
highly erosible soils, earthquake faults, etc.?
17. Could project substantially affect potential use
or conservation of a non-renewable natural
resource?
18. Will any grading or excavation be required in
connection with project which could alter any
existing prominent surface land form, i.e., hill-
side, canyons, ,drainage courses, ete?
19. Will any effects of the subject project together
or in conjunction with effects of other projects
cause a cumulative significant adverse impact on
the environment?
l>
YES
L
~
../
MAYBE
~
I..~
NO
v
/
/
/
/"
/1
-I
/
v'
- I
I
,
~
~
.
(>
(
o
o
(
o
(
C. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CUMULATIVE F.FFECTS
If any of the findings of rac t have been answered YES or MAYBE, then a brief
clarification of potential impact shall be included as well as a discussion
of apy cum~la'i,i~e effects (attach additional sheets if needed).
--1Dt'(J ~ 1'" A'J:>]S
J~~~\~~;~~ R
__ G
Do MITIGATION MEASURES
Describe type and anticipated effect of any measures proposed to mitigate or
eliminate potentially significant adverse environmental impacts:
.
E. DETERMINATION
On the has is of this initial evaluation,
o We find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
o We find that al:hough the proposed project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in
this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
~ We find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the envtron-
ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IIWACT REPORT is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
AMtA\ KrvJJ
(Secretary)
DATE: ~O {\ONV\~l-QJ\
-
al l!i6y
- I
. .
o
(, 0
o (.
o
3. 0...(\ V\OI'E;Q.. SeM"5\'\-Iv'e... \~ ~.
1..1. T.{L~Ct!~.A-~ QOJV\ Q..'f~e..cl- ~ ~'e.. lV\-\--e.\tQ,~ ct UJ\~ .
0..,,\,\J \~I::S ~uc...~ ~ <:0v~\c..o.:L\~1i Q"Y\ '^- ~ b~
'--I;
. to. _' ..' _....__.__.__.._...,.~ .
rC~::-'-I:\-':-' '.0 :=--~:.'!\.' N'--[( .~-I:;;~'~:~:'D~ !,'I.dO"'""~JL-OI?~~~~~~.J, -; '[)r-e'" fJ ARThl12HT
, ... , - ", ~,"- "'f;1. ..~. .. '.1 , ,~~ '4~ ~ .....' ..'"
~ .'~ -' ..-.-
, CASE.-
It' ',",,:, !:" ",".\ I. ., 'j''- ")\1 IJf\' 1',1[; (,:c:::-..) !', f](.','..;:. - .-"
/1 ',' '\: ,'!,' I ,\/ti','I, I !(( "I!:\':" AGENl>A ITEM .__
(' ,:" ., ,,- \'" \" , .', "I \ i \ )
I ,.....:,'/ t~: ;.....,~..' l_~. I U u J i.J b I.: L.; '~-"./ L \... - HE^RH\IG DATe: ____.__.___
~ Pt.(',!" _.._'.., ,_..
,-;=-~.:~.::.::::...:_-:;:::.: ':',:. =:::.... -:=:"::::::'.::."::::--:.,,,=:':.: ,~::::: ''::--::. :....::.:.:.:..:::.:::::-::-.: .::::::-::: .':.::::::"
: \. Nc ,fYi'\': ,9 oPf"" ~; \...\.'t...,(' "',c .:.J. I { II
"25, \. ":-' \:. \ (, ',' ,:': \ I.', A; \ c:... V 'Z.. ,:-*wu~ .)..-v..e..,o..... 0/V'0.0 (. I (t', 1/
\J I \( \..,~\ \-~ '2/.\ ,->\ \ O( A (I e! \..~, \ i ~"....L (}~ (\J \\ \)..J C\.l~ Dip)
\ ~ \-J( \ I/\{\\.ov"''-i \O../V\cM.V'8 f\)\\,'\l)'\1 ,
'5, \e.. \s d', recJ--\y ~ffe.c-k& by ~, \7011ow J ~
CA." '(' c'V'oS\- Ol>V\o.1-I<JY\s : ' ,
0.. I\\'("c..'{'o..~ '\'\YI~ 11300 k\- o...bove..,. 0~ l~"~
CA00 ~V\~ \l..V\ASl-\.cJL ol-vnos ~\G Q..ch\J I ~\ (J"MI J
~ \fV\~ ~ 0.() \ow 0...1 600 feeA A-bL.
10. A'fc'("o...\=+ ~1l.AcJn~ \"" ~ \Jt=R ~\("c.it, YV\~
~\y ~ \vw ~ 300 ~ 1\(;1.- v..V\&M ~u.lUQ.,
od-W\OSFIC toY\d;!1~. .
Co, 0 ~ CUI.;\-, ~ C>.:I f'<:: r~ Cl""- yo \J VW,J cu.~ <?(i, hCW~~"-
\-0.:.& ~\ ~ ~Ol ~~ '1'\ '\-k.. C:\,<Cl*'GY\, ~ ~
rr~QA\.v. Ov..r\~ -tcJ.ceo~ I jQ.. \- ~ I' tv() ~
(,\JV\.f up' 40 Mo.xl~ DOw-eJ\ ~
\rI1(f- lA.0i-se lelJe1~ I-e I.~ '('&A, . ~,
d. \'\~.\ \.y I~~~ ~b D..;, ("c,y'~ vv:u^-s\- U..'6;f-
t\M.>o -r u V\ w~ cL..u... -\-0 ktk.e D ~ we....\ ' afl\.{jI
t-12.('l"o...\y., ~'ii;&..uaJ-',O\...C, ~lQjL , c....~
o\J~Y ~ r~'\-Y ~ ~p(,Ol\\.''Y\ ,'})000
~ P(GL cJ-! h,~ fowv. 5~+\-i~,
~. N"o~ cUr~\&J ,\'i> o~ Ol.}-h~ fl:V' ~ ,:LJc.t.Mr,
~lU\ v.:>e.~ . A\Y"C.("(),..,Pr deJpo..\\-w-Q.S ~ OvV',hJato ~ ~~
~ ~'\ 4 .~ ~ ot 10:00 ?r\ ~ G ',QoflrH
:3. t\c..C.O<"6', ~ lo ~ N 0("'-\-0", A c::- B 1\-1 c...v <:. s~, fu S I k l'e5
. w\~ ~Mcal q) ot. I\c.c....\~ f>~\-ttt Zo1Ji \ \ UN\d
L W\~'^ \-k lS 6~ WVI~'
~ ~\ C.A.t<=., 5+1.1..& ""'O~\ ~I roIl 00 IA.. re,c..oVV'\ ~ .Q..Y-, Clurl,
('Q..S\~-\-\o-l \0;;& ~ ~<0 D '\ , \\v... ~ ~.l!A~cMd.\~
,--- .~~.:fS. hS.Q..\SQ...E. ~~-~'~':~I~~&~~&f~""
1
_0 0 (
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
, CASE
, OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
~ ,~c.W\() ~s \'\O\~e "eAI\~~\;"e.. \GMd l.\C5eS.
~ e.d -\-0 ~ e. \V\\.u ~ ~ of (!..(!A -\a.l t'\
1.\. Tv:'.~\. ~ .~() oS ~'I'v\~'^\t.cd-'l~ ~ 0.. re~OA.
c:..c..'TI v \ +\ ~ .., \JCoI'\. ,
'o~"S \"5 .
5. lo~ '\v1 0.. \i~~ev-- ~f:f'M.. '13 I -k> be, V'v\i\,~~4ec
by, ~\A.i \d\~ C\N\J,15O\.t.e~ ~('~ ~ ~ .\.I~
0+ c:lwQ,(of5~'
(c. G,~ p\D.N\ de.'b'l~~~ lli~'\\e ~y L"3ht- I~ria.{
\~ ~e~ o..s we-\ \ (M) ~ -z,oV\', ~ .
To \V\\-rOctw:e ~-\.\r.k-~ '.\) '('es~~ ~Ia.f. ""~ b
e..&Y\~wy \O-\.~ ~C'lli aN\d. o~J~+-'lves , ~ ~~
P\~. '
::J. ~ \)oJ.\~ futv~~ t\M.-"^-o& Wo:hA Co. r~~, . oJ..
b($::QJA~1L ~~~~ ~-\:'O.i~~~
o.v-d. \.\S~. wt'"XiA ~'\"eO +ro~C\.. p\lW\~\~ ~y&~
?o't~ed. ~vY\ ~\ec\l-,cAry ,fr.lf\o'\ 'So .C.Q.Q.i~. GQ,'S~ .
~ ~ ~ ~'i(~ w~ f<>A -t,)(ceed 0JNf ~~b ~
~ tiRe, C'e<: ()V\'\VY\.tN\d,os ckV\iat ~ \JA-R..a 84-3$
b~seJ dl'\. ~ OVV\w.0.VVI\~ ev~ce oC seA i ~
~~ ~ soJ,.e.\y ~fob~s. A ~c:.,Vo.ed {;./ R
\S V-€:tf...t\ red i{:- ~ P.c...~\~ i-o OftProue..
s o.A~ OPfli~d(~.
. ,
./ cCi Y 'OF ::lAN ~,...::RiO\RDINO 0- ~ EMORANDU~
, - BOARD OF BUILDING 9Mr1ISSIONERS , ' Q.
To MEETING OF: ,ll!NF 1. 19 ..Jl!.. From FIRE DEPARTI-IENT
FIRE CODE VIOLATION~ I
PROJECT I: ..' c;l '110
.'
Date
~1AV 16, 1984
Subject
Approved
Date
"
--
LOCAl ION:
, 994 S. WASHINGTON
TWO STORY BLDG.
DATE OF INSPECTION: 5111/84
- '
-- ."
/.
, ~'
THE FOLLOWING F.I-RE !:OOE VIOLATIONS WERE FOUND:
.'
~ d':
( )
(XX)
( XX>}
.. ","
NO FIRE'.CODE VIOLATIONS FOUND.
2.201 - UNSAFE BUILDINGS.,
3.101 - UNLAWFUL CONT H~'lANCE. OF A FIRE HAZARD.
(XX) 11.411 - VACANT BUILDINGS SHALL BE LEFT IN A NEAT Jl.I~D ORDERI-Y
MANNE~. _ __
...::..- ." ..-
( ) ,11.412 -: VACANT BUILDINGS SHALL BE SECURELY LOCKED.
MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATIONS:
( )8.360.10 - ABANDONED1':1RECKED VEHICI:ES SHALL BE RE/-:OVEIL
( ) .15.16.170;" FIRE DAMAGED STRUCTURES SHALL BE REMOVED OR SECURE:>.
.
( ) OTHER VIOLATIONS:
":'h :....:....L".:..:
-
.
COMMENTS:
. '
The building is substandard, and becoming obsolete due to the
.
lack of maintenance and dilapidation. The stairs are weak, and dry rot is prescnt.
It is 'becoming a fire hazard.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Immediate demolition is requested.
.'
.'
",-
; ,...
o.
. "..
,:~ ~. .
.
/~
I ,t~-;OR
.
~o
OI\TE:
June 1, 19B4
(Q)
o
o
\,
o
.
ADDRESS: 994 So. Washington
TYPE OF STRUCTURE: Vacant Dwellin,9
. . /...-
REPORT/PROJECT NO: 2S96
. .
,
...
. .
",
"'~SESSORS NO: 136-451-02
/.,
On or about March, 1984 and again in April. 1984, an inspection was ma",e of t:he above
structure .and premises', and substandard cond'itions which'shall include but not he
limited to the following. were observed: 0
~is'is an ~pen and vaca~t dwelling which has had no maintenance~ There
is'trash. ~eeds and debris throughout. ~he building is in a state of
complete deterioration with broken doors and windows. ~he elect:ical,
mechanical and plumbing systems are. in an unsafe condition. ~he property,
is'in a state of being a fire hazard. The conditivn nf , the property"
constitutes' an imminent dangelS to life 'ond propelty and is an attracl:i.v(<
~azardous nuisance to inquisitive minors~
.
,
'l'he ownerls were sent a certified mailing of these con"ditions.
.. _.._~..-
..
X do ask 'for abatement of the struct~re by demolition.
All'such .substandard building~ are~~err.by 'declared to be publ~c nuisances and fiuch
nuisances shall be abated by the repair, removal or demolition of such unsafe
buildings by the proper'procedure. 'Permits are reguiredprior: to starting l:i"<pair
or demolition work.
, .
SBMC 8.30, 8.33. 15.28 Uniformed,Building Code 1979 Ch 1 Sec 104(d)
Ch 2 Sec 203. 20S Uniformed Housing Code 1979 Ch 2.Sec 202, 20~
UC for The Abatement of Dangerous Dldgs 1979 Ch 2 Sec 202, 203 Ch 3 Sec 302
'l'ota~ costs incurred to date: $ 134.04
.'
BY:
-'
Ilu 11
. .
~
~-
,
. .
! ~ .
. .
ll. .
a.---~
o
('
o
o
t'
.
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 3OONORTH"O"STll[ET.SAI~BEflNAROINOoCAlIFOflNI" f''-41R
/.'::
Hay 10: 1984
,
.
.
-_.
W;R. "BOB" HOLCOMB
. &i!ayor
Uernt-rI of the Common Council
::a.::'t,t A. Ca".neda .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. First W.rd
:.:# Ralny......................... . Second Ward
=.:..H.rnandez.. ..'".............. . Tn.,dWa,d.
....L An" Bons .. .. .. .. .. .. .. '. .. .. .-_F-ourt" Ward-.
G:.oon Quiet.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. F"th Ward
.0:-1 D. HobbJ .......... .0......... .SlxthW,rd
.....':<C St,Ic.\(le, .. .. .. .. .. .. .__ ~ .. .. .swant" W"rd
-'
Re:
994 So. Washington
,San Bernardino, CA
Vacant Dwelling
Assessors No: 136-451-02
Report/Project No. 2596 . ,
. ,
....
.. .~"':"10
'..
.
"
Hugo Anderson Jr.
17621 Xrvine Blvd,
Tustin, CA 926BO
". ;...
5te:203
. ~ ~~.
.d'
.. - ---
.. ...~
'.
." .'. ..
1:"15 CORRECTION NOTICE is being dire'cted to your attention as owner of thr~ p,'operty
. listed above. ,: . ,.' ' , ,
'An in~pection> by this department'of the structure(s) located thereon rr.ve(il(~cl
certain building code violations.'U'is therefore necessary that these conrlit1on(!:]
be repaired in aCfordance with. proper procedures and permits from this dr~partment.
. ' '
Please contact this office within ten' (10) calendar days from this date to mal:(l
'arrangements to correct those violations indicated in this letter,
"-::'.:T. -~:
.--'..
..... .
City Building Official, ' d'
Department of Building ~nd Safety
,.
by:
In ector
p ne: 714/383 5373 ,
Hours: 7:30 - 8:30 A.M. or 1:00 - 1:30 P.M.
Attached hereto and incorporated therein by reference is a list of some of th~
major defects of the structures(s) as determined by our inspection, '.
,/'
'.
.'
.'
.
.'
,
,t'-
-.
~..
.....:
..' ~.
~.' '.
.,. .
, .
"
o'
.
'0
C
2596 .
o
o
b
o
o>ort/Project No.
~ORRECTION NOTICE
Page -2-
tlAJOR DEFECTS:
, .
1. Open and vacant.
"
--2. Broken doors and windows.
." .'
3. inadequate sanitation.
'.
I
. .
,,'.'
4. Structural hazards..
. s. Nuisance.
~
.
,':".
6. Hazardous wiring.
"
7. Hazardous, plumbing.
8. Hazardous mechanical equipment~
9. Trash. weeds and debris.
10. Faulty weather protection.
:
11. Fire hazard.
.-..~
12. o<Faul;~l(. materials of construction.
.
13. Hazardous and insanitary premises.
14. Inadequate maintenance.
Please be advised that if we do not receive properly substa~tiated information
within ten (10) days i~dicating that these violations have been corrected, we
will'not be reluctant to take whatever action is necessary to guarante,e co ]'
mp ,~ance
with the Ordinance through court proceedings. '
We would appreciate your cooperation in this matter.
"
.'
.'
-'-
'.
~
...-
..'.
o' .
, .
~t :1
.O\.:~~o J~!c~t~Y;&~le~~ )...:--:<)
ADDRESS Illi2,L~",If.o(..\l(J3L'cL__St=...ir 20'-.,
C lTV -n.l..I t. ~'- I G.t.t{. ((.'1, u- fO
PHONE NO
MAJOR DEFECTS:
~ Open and vacant.
~)'Broken doors and windows.
(") Unmaintained pool. fence & gate.
/.,(>0 Inadequate sanitation.
,
()O Structural hazards...
~ Nuisance.
~ Hazardous wiring.
~ Hazardous plumbing.
C)Q ,Hazardous mechanical equipment,
.--:
".--,
'0 '
.'
"; ". ~.'~' . . .
DATE X 4--:;50-0<( 0-
TYPEQo;- -Yd.t-~,:t D/,J.,",,?.r~~ . .
ADDRESS l}..9UQ.......~*"-
ASSESSORS NO: ~to- 45\ -()~ . .
()O Trash. weeds and debris.
~) Faulty weather protection.
~ Fire hazard.
0' .
~) Faulty materials of construction.
C>O Hazardous and insanitary premises.
,~ Inadequate maintenance. .
( ), Improper occupancy. ','
( ) Not fi t for human occupancy. .'
, ( ) Failure to respond to con-ection notice
of: .
0'
. .'
.'
'.
l;.~~V'prr.p~!J;IfJ.:1, ~AA!J...~,.~T,~,;J>y!1n!l, })t>,a,s.t!o.~lC."""".a.~~~U'toit1p1Y;in~(j:f-~llb;;~~'f.";'>h~
~rt~$~~mli4}:~WX"',tQ,~~a~~I:/'r;..'''' -: --:- ." l,,_,...-J
Please be advised that if we do not receive properly substantiated information l"Iithin
ten (10) days indicating that these violations have been corrected, \'Ie \./i11 not Ill!
reluctant to take whatever action is necessary to guarantee compliance with the
Ordinance through court proceedings, ' "
.
i,
--,-.,..
We would appreciate your cooperation in this matter.
....
NSPE~!OR~~ECO~~ENDATIONS: MINOR REPAIR ( ) MAJOR REPAIR ( ) DEMOLITION 1><l
ORDER TO VACATE () INSP APPROVAL REQUIRED TO OC:CU:V [lUILDING} ) ,.... . ,
LEGAL DESCRIPTION~ ./;/- It! i-(~?ro~ /79,( lIc.~f //tlL<1 vz:~ . .-
f "
,"
13' ';)-"9
'-
P /3
".
'.
'.
-.
m~t-te"
b~e
mo ONLY
. .
4J1/. .1.
.. ,.';" ~J/1
_____ U-
BU IllllllG INSPECTOR
,.
.
.
.' .
. .
~ V I H~,I\I'j iCA'J I HL. rU:AL I '/ ~~H"'I..oL" 0 ,.: ENVIRONHENTJt""\' .-
1 F."IMil~.el:B\lildin91' sanBern.,it, .A924l!J1l1! (714)3')3,1617 ..;:-4." PUBlICWORKSAG~Y
'~'. ' . -e' """""""-'1 ..."..~. ". t---- .
. .. I. - .-..,~.,:,.-"......;t..o;...'~~;f
.. --.......------ . . .~~-.- ~,..'.' ..... ,. ,;,...._.. .', .....::::: .~_. -
&~'I."';o ...~ JOHN M. UERNARO
flARD L. ROBERTS, RS.. M.P.H, " " ,
Dltector . :~".'J' Agenc~ Admini'trator
::nv;ronmenla' Health Se,,,ices '~.\,:-:;:;'t.~..
.....;rk..... .
AlsO se""ing th~ cities 0':
Adel.nto Nred1rs
B."tow Ontil';o
Chino R~nc"o CrJcamo,!~
Colton Redllf'lds .
Fonrana Ri"Ito
nd Tr"ilc. SJtn 8rmard;no
0"'" Linda V;CIO,.,ifIe
No1ttc/~;;- Uplilnd
." -:'.
September 18, 1980
"
.'
'. -'.
"/,' "
Ta'lat Radwan
26371 Avery Parkway
Mission Viejo, CA
92675
. t
.
SUBJECT:
SUBSTANDARD HOUSING'
An inspection was maqe of your rental' units lo~ated at
9394 Washington Ave in San Bernardino on September 18, 1980 by
Norman S.Hansen, Building Inspector III and Gail Cotugna, Envi.r.on-
mental Specialist II.
The' units were found to be substandard of hazardous and insanil:a:r.y
conditions as outlined in the'Uniform Housing Code and Chapter I
of Title 25. California State Administrative Code. Deficienci.en
are listed below: ' "-
Apartment No. 1 (1st Floor southend of building)
1. Hazardous wiring
:.:~:...
2.
Lack of adequate heatincLfacilities
Insanitary plumbing
Termite infested
,
3.
4.
5.
Broken windows
Damaged ceilings
"
6.
Apartment No. 2 (1st Floor northend of building)
1. Ha,zardous wiring,
2. Lack of adequate heating facilities
3. Insanitary plumbing
;4. Termite infested
.5. Broken windows
""
, ~
,
t',: .
~~. , ~
.:.
.'
. ~.:.
" ..:
, '}s
:. .:.oJ'
~ '.' ;.".
, .,~
:.: .~
....,. L.....
... .~-fi"
,~-;.':.~
t ~. ,,: ::.
'~~ll
':.,~~
':,'" .."'''
''>':'"l!
. .' .3.< .~
. ';..
". ....
. ~ I~
ti"
. .~.
......
":..;
. :.
;. -,
o .":' :~~
. .. .~~
"
~'.':
.." .
.:~
.,
". .~
,'i
'.
.
, -.
, .
~ .
. ..
~-;'
"';1.'1
~ ~~..
. ~\...tl.,
i .:~"'~,
. ~.:;~":
. "'1~':
.. .;......
,0.<
. . ;.~....,
.. ....~.~
e';;;
,
.~
"
.. : i
~ ,..
. ".
......
'.
~ -:
~,
.
.'
6UJ.3,JECT:
SUBSTAND~ 'HO~NG
"
Apartment No. 3 & 4 (Upstairs)
o
~
PAGE 2
o :.~ t~
. Jj",tf
l: ':.~'"
".
7.
. -.. .....
Missing, or broken windows
.' '. . .,.
.
.. ....
:. ,";
, .,
:....
.. .,~ " ,
;,~:;l'
'" "jij
i ,', f)
:. '".. l...
.. . -=-"::i
:r.':%o}~
~; ~1l~;
: '-':..!'t.
......-'1"'"
\~:'~~~I~
~ j;\..p"r!
. ....!......,,~
,.~,~k"
f~~.
. "'!"~'
~. . . z ....... :t
;:.r~~i1... . .
: "oS._:.
, .
1.
Hazardous wiring
.
'2.
Unventepoheater-Lack of adequate heating facilities
3.
Lack of hot water
<
~.....:.
-'-'.4.
Insanitary plumbing-Cross connection at bathtub
",
5. ' 'Rafters an~ ceiling joists overspanned'bearing walls missing
/;,'
.
6.
-.". --,-
,.--
Termite infested
8.
Ceilings damaged or missing
. ~. . .
. 'I...
~""h'lf
9. Holes in interior wall covering' "~~
. '. ~. ..... .:1,'.
Stairway~' and landing' are deteriorated or termite infested. Se\olage ';~l
disposal system has' failed due' 'to number of times systeli', has been ' ~,h
,..~...
pumped. _ , . ': ~".i~~;f
Contact the San ,Ber~~dino~o~nt;~uilding and Safety Department "~~J~~
for a pre-alteration' inspection a, nd required permits Ioli thin thirty ". ':";"1~
(30) days of receipt of this ,letter. Please read enclosed ";:;<'1
document which will be' filed in case of non-compliance. ' .;.~
'-" -- " . ~,.,
If you have any quest~ons p~ea'~~pontact Ine at 383-?246. ' ~.~, ~J
, " ' . .~~ .~~
RICHARD L. ROBERTS, R.S., Mi>ii, Director '~~;J~
" ~.'/....,,;~!
~B . ;/)?rJtW~,<?;;L . A~
,N~~N s. HANS~N, Building In~pector III . '--:;~!i~
Housing & Property Improvement'Section ~'~~j
:..l:.c.
.:.~~
:A~
;i f"t;
...~~
.,:.~ .,":~
':O...~"
:. ~~~: ~
....... .
.. ~.
f4~
. "'::"~;
. -"1:;
.
,
RLR:NSH:cz
"'.
~
...
~
,
;'''.
'... .
!. ~'.
'"
#. ';"
:;,
. .
. ;;.
.- (:
~
-
~
o
~
'.
0,
.. ..
'. '. I.
, ,
,
.
.
.
o
~
o
\
. ,.
. . ..\
'. .. :, .-
'., ~ t I
~ I htJ
..
.
I
,.. I:;
--- - ...r
[-'"1t
,..;
..1
"" .~
.
.~
~I
Y
~
(;)
(J~IYE WIY
1
. adllf' s,..ttr
-- -
..
I
11M..!
, ..,..I
..., ..:
.
.. . ....
. ..
.
.
..:
pib
$
$
~:lY5
:;,
~Gl01l..
J
\ .
...
MIW'.MIIV"'-
/fJ"
~~
---
...,
I!
~ N
~'''''~~~~-f)
;:..::;: - ~..!'m-lI"l"""'-
W~;;:.~ ...."';;iI:-
loQ:...... ...,.,
01_-.
.....
......._"'
-.
'~.vc
....~......~ . ..
"&81&& ----':.1-
. ~.., 1...,_",
j:!!.ir..:.,"Il:='
..,.,. :t
I
'I
I
II
i
r
,
I
,
.
I
,
'1:';( i
t- \. .)tl I
1 ~.i
, ( '~ ~
0 t
1 - ( 0
.
0
0 1
J 0 1 ~ 1':1
1 1
HI;
~'
[] .' il~
.
.' 'e".
.,
[] I 1111"
i
~ 0_, ~ l ~!!i
.
;. -.1" -.."
I 1 !: ol!
.( ..,.. .'" .
:;,.~ Ii l .;~
"
. !
.'
.. t
I
0 !
.
..
.;
" I
. +
0
I
.
't .
"
l.Il.
0 -::1
VI,
,I
"
~.
H
a:
(]
:0;'
0 .
.
;..
.
\ . +
'.
[] . '0
.
;;. .
\ . 1 I
. I I
-. ~
'"
"~ .I. ".. . p. ~
.......
~'<::"
~'t!"
o
(
o
. . l"
".4"
.
.'
.-( .
~
.
.'
... :. .
.
;;. -;;C '. ~
I .
,;,
:. ~ ;..
~ n
. I
. ~' .
,0 .'
, ..
. .
't
- i-
.
. -;P ....
0' f , "C
.. . . 5
'.. ~ .' J.
!U .. ~ .., oJ
..
I .. ,'- '"
.~ .
I ... ~~
.. .,. O.C "
. I i.;
. .
I ,
;,
I " .
,': !l-
I
I ., .
- - - - - -
.
" 0 ~
. - . .
"?'~r
-
.....1.00"
,
:z
i
!
.
~;'I
I' I
~ j.
~,I
,I;i;"
~ ih.
r.s!lS
~ ~'.il,
In
.
;.
~
r
.
..
.
~
~
.
..
.
, ~
.~
.
.'
'..
I
I
I
'..
I
I ':
I
I
,- - - - -
.
"'~'~r
.
.
.
eo
:0
.
"
'.r'
'-'-'-
~.1CS
. '
--0
...~,,,
,
,.
..
, 00-: -
"
., .
.
.'
.
~.
.~ ~
...
..
..
.
- ~
..
j
.. .
't.
~
,0
...... 7~
."
(
. ,"
.
.
'"
.
f;
I
o
~
r
..
. ...
. 1:
,~ ~
n ..
r. cO
, '
.'"
.t;
.........
:z
i
.
..
~~ '
'"
:!
~
.
,~
~
...
~
-
r
~
,
'=
..
.
"
.
~ CITY OF SAN IL~NA()INO PLANNlrQ DE~..~TMENT ""'I r AGE9 ....
ITEM
LOCATION CASE Var. 1f84-34
HEARING DATE 2/5/85 13
....
0 "-------" ----.. .. ~ .
MILl. IT, MILL ST. .N)
]A C~M
M-2
M-I.
M-2 C-M
M-I
M-2 ''':800'
C-M
C
'0' M-I C-M
'0' M-I 0.0
-,
'0' w " C
>
oC
E CEfJTRAL AVEo
D C-M C,-M
oC M'l
w '0- 0
:0: .
~ ..
Il; M-I ~
0:
oC
C-:M
, C-M
M-I
'0'
M-I ~
oC
M.I
M-I
M'I
..
'>
oC
0:
"
o
u
,.
oJ
z
oC
,.
0:
w
C-M !<
;0
M-I
CoM
~
JW RD..
COM
'"
D
t-
..
X
%
..
oC
;0
..
>
w-
I
M-I I
.0
E "IS
C'M
M-I
.
RD.
1'0"
, DUMAS aT.
M-I
I
I