HomeMy WebLinkAbout35-Development Services
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: \'akni..' C Ross, Director
Subject: Development Penmt Type 1 No. 06-
054 (Appeal No. 06-13) - Appeal of the
Planning Commission revocation of a permit to
operate a small container recycling facility at
1620 W. Baseline Street In the CG-1,
Commercial General land use district.
Dcpt: Development Services
Date: September 25.2006
MCC Date:
October 16, 2006
Synopsis of Previous Council Action: None
Recommended Motion:
That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor and Common Council deny Appeal No. 06-13 and
uphold the Planning Commission's revocation of Development Pem1it Type I No. 06-054.
I~r/.f(#
Valene C. Ross
('untact person:
Tf'ni R;lhh:11 lit)' Pbnnf'f
Phone:
,S4-)0'i7
Supporting data attached:
Staff Report
Ward:
6
Fl':\DI"G REQl'IRE'VIE:\TS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. Description)
Finance:
Council Notes:
Agenda Item No.
35"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
Mayor & Common Council Meeting of October] 6, 2006
SUBJECT:
Development Permit Type] No. 06-054 (Appeal No. 06-13)
APPELLANT:
Eugene Vortman
E&M Recycling
526 S. Alameda Sl.
Los Angeles. CA 900]3
(213) 595-5000
REPRESENTATIVE:
A. Patrick Munoz
Rutan & Tucker, LLP
6] I Anton Blvd. Ste ]400
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-] 950
(714) 662-4628
BACKGROUND
The subject of this appeal is the revocation of Development Permit Type] No. 06-054 by the
Planning Commission on August 22. 2006. The Development Permit, authorizing operation of a
small container recycling facility in the parking lot of Jimmy's Food Store at ]620 West Baseline
Street, was approved by the Director on May 12, 2006. Soon after the facility started operating in
.July 2006. surrounding property owners began to complain about conditions at the site, including
loitering. accumulation of debris and abandoned shopping carts. Staff investigated, confirmed the
reported conditions and also noted an illegal sign, use of a storage receptacle other than the
approved kiosk and graffiti on the trash enclosure that should have been removed. Staff
photographed the site on various occasions to document the conditions, then the operator, E&M
Recycling. was given notice of a revocation hearing before the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission Staff Report (Exhibit ]) contains a location map, site photos and a
detailed discussion of the conditions that warrant revocation of the Development Permit, which
can be summarized as follows:
1. The findings for approval of DP] No. 06-054 can no longer be met because the facility
is not compatible with surrounding properties, as evidenced by immediate complaints
from surrounding property owners about the impacts on the neighborhood.
2. The operator has not complied with several conditions of approval, including use of an
illegal sign, failure to install the kiosk structure in accordance with the project plans and
failure to maintain the site in a clean and orderly condition.
3. The facility constitutes a public nuisance due to loitering and abandonment of shopping
carts on site, on surrounding properties and in the public right-of-way.
On August 22, 2006, the Planning Commission considered the case and revoked the
Development Pern1it. The revocation action was unanimous, with Commissioners Coute, Durr,
Heasley, Mulvihill, Munoz and Saurbrun voting in favor. Commissioners Enciso, Longville and
Rawls were absent. On September 5, 2006, the appellant filed Appeal No. 06-13 seeking to
overturn the Planning Commission decision.
Appeal No. U6-1 J
Hearing Date: October 16, 2006
Page 2
The appeal statement claims that revocation is not warranted because the operator has removed
the illegal sign and has installed the modular kiosk, as required. The appeal statement suggests
that it was unreasonable for the City to expect the Kiosk to be installed prior to commencement
of the operation, and states that the operator should not be held responsible for actions of the
recycling patrons, such as loitering and abandonment of shopping carts, because these actions are
outside oCthe operator's control.
Staffs response to the appeal is that actions taken by the appellant to comply with conditions of
the Development Permit after revocation proceedings commenced are not convincing signs of
on-going compliance and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, The illegal sign has
been removed, but it is a portable sign that could reappear at any time. The modular kiosk was
finally installed, but only under threat of permit revocation. The problem with shopping cart
abandonment continues, and the appellant states that the operator cannot control the situation.
Section 19.44.110 of the Development Code clearly states that non-compliance with any
condition of approval is grounds for revocation of the permit. Conditions of approval #7 and #8
clearly define pernlitted and prohibited signage. Condition #22 specifies the approved kiosk.
Conditions # 15 and # 16 establish standards for site maintenance. From the first day of operation,
the facility did not comply with the conditions of approval. The Development Code does not
provide for a grace period for uses to eventually come into compliance with Code requirements
or conditions of approval. In conclusion, staff contends that the appellant has not presented
evidence to support the argument that the Development Permit should not be revoked. Therefore,
stalT recommends that the Mayor and Common Council uphold the action of the Planning
Commission to re\oke De\elopment Pernlit Type I No. 06-054.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
No impact to the City of San Bernardino.
RECOMMENDATION
That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor and Common Council deny Appeal No 06-13 and
uphold the Planning Commission's revocation of Development Permit Type I No. 06-054.
EXHIBITS: 1.
2.
August 22, 2006 Planning Commission Staff Report
Appeal
EXHIBIT 1
SUMMARY
CITY OF SAN BER.I\TARDINO PLANNING DIVISION
CASE:
AGENDA ITEM:
HEARING DATE:
WARD:
Development Permit Type 1 No. 06-054 - Revocation
3
August 22, 2006
6
APPLICANT:
Eugene Vortman
E&M Recycling
526 S. Alameda SI.
Los Angeles, C A 90013
(213) 595-5000
PROPERTY OWNER:
Mary Townsend
1445 N. Pepper Ave.
Rialto, CA 92376
(909) 889-0597
REQUEST/LOCATION:
A staff-initiated proposal to revoke Development Permit (Type 1) No. 06-054 for the small
container recycling facility located in the parking lot of Jimmy's Food Store, at 1620 West
Baseline Street in the CG-I, Commercial General land use district (APN: 0143-161-20).
CONSTRAINTS/OVERLA YS:
None
ENVIRONMENT AL FINDINGS:
o Not Applicable
[8] Exempt from CEQA, Section 15321 - Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies
o No Significant Effects
o Previous Negative Declaration
o Potential Effects. "litigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
o Approval
[8] Revocation
o Denial
11 Continuance to:
DevelOpment Perm II Type I No. 06-054
Rel'ocarion Hearing. August ]].2006
Page 2
REQUEST & LOCATION
Staff requests that the Planning Commission consider revocation of Development Permit Type I
No. 06-054, a permit for a small container recycling facility operating in the parking lot of
Jimmy's Food Store, an existing market located at 1620 West Baseline Street (Attachment A -
Location Map) The site is a multi-tenant commercial center on the north side of Baseline Street,
approximately 300 ft. west of Medical Center Drive, in the CG-I, Commercial General land use
district. In addItion to the market and the recycling facility, the site is also occupied by a taco
stand, a barber shop and a beauty salon (Attachment B - Site Plan).
SETTING & SITE CHAR~CTERISTICS
The recycling facility consists of a metal container, approximately 8 ft. in height, 18 ft. wide and
30 ft. long. As a condition of approval of DPI 06-054, the applicant resurfaced and re-striped the
portion of the parking lot where the recycling facility is located. Surrounding land uses include
Martin Luther King Middle School to the north, vacant land in the CG-I land use district to the
west and a vacant commercial building in the CG-I district to the east. To the south, there are
various commercial uses on the south side of Baseline Street, including Bobby Ray's Barbecue
Restaurant.
CALIFOR"iIA E:\'VIRONMENT AL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
The proposed re\'ocation of Development Permit Type I No. 06-054 would be exempt from
environmental review, pursuant to Section 15321 of the CEQA Guidelines - Enforcement
Actions by Regulatory Agencies.
BACKGROl':\D
E&M Recycling Company (E&M) previously operated a small container recycling facility at the
E Street Market. located at 1156 N. 'E' Street, under Development Permit Type I No. 04-029
(DPI 04-029). The Plarming Commission revoked DPl 04-029 on May 17, 2005, due to the
condition of the facility. including accumulation of litter, debris and shopping carts, and loitering
by transients. E&M set out to find another location in the City of San Bernardino.
On March 15, 2005. E&M submitted another Development Permit application (OPl 06-054),
with a letter of intent that promised a recycling kiosk "engineered 10 ensure the safe. secure and
aestheticlllh pleasal1! collection of consumer materials while maintaining the conforming look of
the communm Ilnd the propern' It reSIdes all. .. (See Attachment D). OPI 06-054 was approved
on May 12, 2006. Since the recycling facility began to operate at 1620 W. Baseline Street,
neighboring business owners have become very concerned about conditions at the project site.
The Sixth Ward Councilman has received complaints about loitering, debris and abandoned
shopping carts on the site and in the surrounding neighborhood.
Development Permit Type I No.06-054
Revocation Hearing: August 22. 2006
Page 3
Staff investigated the citizen complaints, found several conditions warranting revocation of
Development Permit Type I No. 06-054, and provided notice of a revocation hearing to the
facility operator (E&M) and to the owner of the 1620 W. Baseline Street property.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
Pursuant to Section 19.44.110 of the Development Code, a Development Permit may be revoked
by the review authority if any of the following fmdings can be made:
1. Circumstances have changed so that one or more of the findings for approval ofDP1 06-054, as
listed in Section 19.44.060 of the Development Code, can no longer be made.
One of the findings required for approval of a Development Permit is that the proposed use
would be harmonious and compatible with existing and future land uses in the general area.
When DP I 06-054 was approved, staff expected the small container recycling facility to be
compatible with commercial uses in the surrounding CG-I, General Commercial land use
district. However, since the facility has opened, nearby businesses have complained about
the condition of the project site, loitering on the project site and visual blight on Baseline
Street caused by patrons of the recycling facility. Therefore, the required finding of
compatibility with surrounding land uses can no longer be made.
2. The Development Permit was obtained by misrepresentation or fraud
Staff is not aware of any fraud perpetrated to obtain the Development Permit. However, the
application for DPl 06-054 did misrepresent the style of the recycling kiosk. The elevations
and example photo submitted with the application represented a modular kiosk unit with
some articulation, including a fa~de with a "roof-line" and faux ''windows.'' The recycling
receptacle installed at the site consists of two rectangular metal containers with no
architectural features whatsoever.
3. The use for which the Development Permit was granted has ceased or has been suspended for
six or more calendar months.
This finding does not apply to DPI 06-054.
4. One or more of the conditions of approval of the Development Permit (DP 1 06-054) have not
been met.
Condition #7 of the Development Permit requires a separate permit for any proposed
signage. It also requires that the name and telephone number of the facility operator and the
hours of operation be posted on the recycling kiosk. To date, no sign permit application has
been submitted, and the required contact information has not been posted.
DevelOpment Permit Type I No 06-054
Revocation Hearing. August 22,2006
Page 4
Condition #8 of the Development Permit prohibits the use of portable "come on" signs,
which are prohibited by the Municipal Code (Sec. 19.22.060). Since the recycling facility
opened, an illegal portable sign, approximately six feet in height, has been placed adjacent to
the sidewalk on Baseline Street.
Condition #12 of the Development Permit requires removal of graffiti within 24 hours of its
occurrence. When staff first visited the site to investigate complaints on July 30, 2006, the
trash enclosure adjacent to the recycling kiosk was marked with graffiti which has not been
removed to date.
Condition 1;'16 of the Development Permit prohibits outdoor storage of materials and
requires the operator to prevent dumping or dropping off of materials when no attendant is
present. Although recycling materials have been properly stowed each day, shopping carts
left by patrons have been allowed to accumulate on site and on adjacent properties.
5. The use is in violation of mH' statute, ordinance, law or regulation.
As mentioned under Finding #4, the portable "come-on" sign placed adjacent to the
sidewalk on Baseline Street (Attachment C - Site Photos) is prohibited by the sign
regulations codified in Section 19,22,060 of the City of San Bernardino Development Code.
The prohibited sign has been displayed in conjunction with the recycling facility, in
violation of the City ordinance since the use was established at 1620 W. Baseline Street.
6. The reCl'clingfilcilil1' permilled b\, DP 1 05-06 is detrimental to the public health. safety or
H'elfare or constitutes a Jluisance.
The accumulation of abandoned shopping carts on the project site and in the public right-of-
way on Baseline Street constitutes a public nuisance and a safety hazard. Loitering on the
project site constitutes a nuisance to potential patrons of adjacent businesses.
CONCLUSIO:"
Five of the six conditions that warrant revocation of Development Permit Type 1 No. 06-054
have been found to exist. Anyone of these findings would be sufficient grounds to revoke the
Development Permit.
RECOMMENDA nON
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission revoke Development Permit Type 1 No, 06-
054 based on the findings contained in this staff report.
DevelOpment Permit T.\pe I No.06-054
Revocation Hearing. August 22.2006
Poge 5
Respectfully Submitted,
VWMvu, RMY-
Valene C. Ross
Director of Development Services
-4/;:' ~1 I! ;)
/ F ~.--f~
Terri Rahhal
Deputy Director/City Planner
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
Location Map
Site Plan
Site Photos
DPl 06-054 Application, Approval Letter and Conditions of Approval
ATTACHMENT A - LOCATION MAP
1620 W. Baseline Street
....::>-::<::-i' " 1IIIl~~I-D I I I I
'"' ',,- I =n=r
':>:;~'<;tTlTP I I I
, .' < . " . rt-t--t-'e-- U)
.-> I .2L...LL..L.L1- w
li:~_ -~ I -VIRGINIA-
I iZ
1
"1]: _'1::
.miiffiHOME j;:,'
Z en
_~ :E
-<.-13TH;POll
-< I I
:~ 11 · fri
II z
< Z (;;:J: < en
:z O~O;po =l I rri-
<j U)~Z~Z <:( ;:JJ
>1 0.::8 Q_ F z-
_~ ~- ~=11THffi~ II III ~Ij[i
~ U) ~
~ ~ z
_ (CI City of San Bernardjno:';I~~>_ {:':~CJNCORD~~' ~,r-g E3illl
,l~ ~ i .n.4. rT.l.*"'~" -II".:..-~ III -~~=.-!-li ~
r
~
:i
u
,,(
:u..
z
o
it::
u
w
.J
.J
o
U
.J
.J
e(
:E
rn
,>-
,Z
ie(
ill.
:E
'0
!()
. Cl
iZ
; :i
'u
>-
u
w
ac
:E
, oe
w
. .
~IJ
'..
:10"
0..::;
UOS
00,
Ig-
~lI.l
...
U").,.
:nS
:I:::'"
: ~
~.".'
,();
.f
~&::
.~
\II .a;
~'.
~~i
. .
vU:
89:=.
Vl~ .'
;i.h:
..~
~2~
A TT ACHMENT B - SITE PLAN
ADJ.ACENT PROPERTY
$ ~ Jo ..T ,T;
.
yO
ii
.w
T
~\? ;;:
~
.
~
~
f~
W
&
o
~g
\
=rJ
=
" .~
.~. ....
'.,i
r:J
:
II
,
-
....
..:'
-
-<
'"'
Z
....-..;;!;,
).ll:l3dOekl J.N3J"tro'f
\)~Ou-05"Y
~
w
is!
~
~
~
i
w
:;
~
w
~
"
'"
.
f:
"
~
w
g
'"
.
~
I
w
Z
::l
~
,
,
~..~:,: ~~~t:;.--- ~.
ir~rn@rnow~[ID
. , "':~. '" r: "1 ,..
:1.:-, . ,.1 L\JlJt
':fN OF FAN af......A~~:NC
"')FvElCPME~r SER.\lICE.'i
')~~AAT",,""'T
A TT ACHMENT C - SITE PHOTOS
.....,.1,
,:'''~< ~ .~~ "tr",. ,~~~
..#---......f:"'"
. ,,,,:,';:ll) ,
:.. ~.~. ,~>-;;-i. 1IIIIIt'~--.:..>-." - ".....'
E&M Recycling: 1620 W. Baseline
August I, 2006, 6: 17 p.m.
Shopping Carts abandoned adjacent to the site on Baseline
A TT ACHMENT C - SITE PHOTOS
'\
.
it
E&M Recycling: 1620 W. Baseline
July 31, 2006, 7:25 p.m.
Shopping cart abandoned on site
ATTACHMENT C - SITE PHOTOS
,tR' i
t~~,.. J'. ^'e
'j-' ._.J'!L.
; J..... ,1
I ,,,~"f ~
II "'11111
I!~.
:~;/'''''''' ,
E&M Recycling: 1620 W. Baseline
August 1,2006,6:21 p.m.
Shopping carts abandoned on site and loitering on site
A TT ACHMENT C - SITE PHOTOS
E&M Recycling: 1620 W. Baseline
August 2, 2006, 6:41 p.m.
Shopping cart abandoned west of the site on Baseline
A TT ACHMENT C - SITE PHOTOS
:,,,,,',:':::::~~:,t:;~
E&M Recycling: 1620 W. Baseline
July 30, 2006, 4:21 p.m.
Graffiti on trash enclosure
ATTACHMENT C - SITE PHOTOS
4
E&M Recycling: 1620 W. Baseline
July 30, 2006, 4:22 p.m.
Il1egal sign on Baseline frontage
ATTACHMENT D
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
~
300 North "D" Street. San Bernardino' CA 92418-0001
Planning & Building 909.384.5057 . Fax: 909.384.5080
Public Works/Engineering 909.384.5111 . Fax: 909.384.5155
www.sbcily.org
May 12, 2006
Eugene Vortman
526 5 Alameda 51.
Los Angeles. CA 90013
RE: Development Permit Type I No. 06-054 -1620 W. Baseline
(APN: 0143-161-20-0000)
Dear Mr. Vort.man;
Planning staff has approved Development Permit I (DPI) No. 06-054, a request to
establish a small container recycling facility, based on the Findings of Fact in the
Development Code 9 19.44.060 and subject to the enclosed Conditions of Approval.
The decision of the Director is final unless a written appeal is filed, with the appropriate
fee, within 15 days of the action, pursuant to Section 19.52.100 of the Municipal
(Development) Code.
Please contact me at (909) 384-5057 extension 3330 if you have any questions or concerns
regarding the approval of DPI No. 06-054.
Sincerely,
,
//A/~/
Terri Rahhal,
Principal Planner
Ene. Conditions of Approval
Cc: Address File
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -
DPI No. 06-054
Establishment of a Small Container Recycling Facility
1620 W. Baseline
1. This Development Permit Type I is an approval to establish a small container
collection/ recycling facility as an accessory use to an existing retail store located at
1620 W. Baseline. Pursuant to San Bernardino Municipal Code 919.22.060.
2. The facility shall be a small container collection facility, not to exceed 500 square feet
of total area consisting of two receptacles for collection of glass, aluminum and
plastic beverage containers only, and a kiosk/collection booth. The hours of
operation shall be 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday through Saturday.
3. Within two years of development approval, commencement of construction shall
have occurred or the permit/approval shall become null and void. In addition, if
after commencement of construction, work is discontinued for a period of one year,
then the permit/ approval shall become null and void. However, approval of the
Development Permit does not authorize commencement of construction. All
necessary permits must be obtained prior to commencement of specified
construction activities included in the Conditions of Approval.
Expiration Date:
May 12, 2008
4. The review authority may grant a one-time extension, for good cause, not to exceed
12 months. The applicant must file an application, the processing fees, and all
required submittal items, 30 days prior to the expiration date. The review authority
shall ensure that the project complies with all Development Code provisions in
effect at the time of the requested extension.
5. In the event this approval is legally challenged, the City will promptly notify the
applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and will cooperate fully in the defense
of this matter. Once notified, the applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold
harmless the City of San Bernardino (City), the Economic Development Agency of
the City 9f San Bernardino (ED A), any departments, agencies, divisions, boards or
commission of either the City or EDA as well as predecessors, successors, assigns,
agents, directors, elected officials, officers, employees, representatives and attorneys
of either the City or EDA from any claim, action or proceeding against any of the
foregoing persons or entities. The applicant further agrees to reimburse the City for
any costs and attorneys' fees which the City may be required by a court to pay as a
result of such action, but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his or her
obligation under this condition.
Conditions of Approval
DP! No. 06-054
The costs, salaries, and expenses of the City Attorney and employees of his office
shall be considered as "attorneys fees" for the purpose of this condition.
As part of the consideration for issuing this permit, this condition shall remain in
effect if this Development Permit is rescinded or revoked, whether or not at the
request of applicant.
6. The 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 control during construction and grading activities (as
applicable); emission control of fumes, vapors, gas 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.
7. Signs are not approved as part of this permit. Any signage proposed on the outside of
the kiosk or receptacles must be submitted for review and approval of a sign permit by
Planning Staff. The two inset "window" spaces on the front of the kiosk shall be used
to post the name and telephone number of the facility operator, hours of operation,
redemption values and a notice stating that no material shall be left outside when the
facility is closed.
8. No banners, balloons, sandwich boards or come-on signs shall be permitted per SBMC
919.22.060.
9. No public pay phone shall be permitted in conjunction with this use.
10. The project shall comply with all applicable requirements of other City departments or
divisions, including Public Works, Building and Safety, Police, Fire, Public Services
Refuse Division, and the City Clerks Office, Business Registration Division.
11. The project shall comply with all applicable requirements of outside agencies,
including San Bernardino County Public Health Department, California Board of
Equalization, etc., as applicable.
12. All graffiti must be removed within 24 hours of its occurrence. The management
shall take a photograph of the graffiti and provide it to the Police Department before
removing the graffiti.
13. Submittal requirements for any permit applications (site improvements,
landscaping, etc.) to Building Plan Check and/or Public Works/Engineering shall
include all Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements issued with this
Development Permit Type 1 approval.
2
Conditions of Approval
DP! No. 06-054
14. No outdoor music or loudspeakers shall be permitted in conjunction with this use.
15. The entire outdoor area of the site where the facility is proposed shall be cleaned of
all trash and debris, and trash dumpsters shall be secured in the enclosures prior to
establishment of the recycling collection facility.
16. No outdoor storage of any materials shall be allowed on-site, and no dumping or
dropping off of materials shall be permitted when no attendant is on duty.
17. The parking lot where the kiosk is proposed, on the east side of the existing market
and behind the existing taco stand, an area of approximately 70 ft. X 100 ft. shall be
repaired, rehabilitated and restriped, if necessary to provide a smooth, impervious
surface with clearly marked parking spaces.
18. No power-driven processing equipment shall be permitted in conjunction with the
collection facility except for reverse vending machines.
19. The collection containers shall be secured when not in use from unauthorized entry
and/ or removal of materials.
20. Containers shall be of a capacity sufficient to accommodate materials collected and the
collection schedule.
21. Removal/replacement of containers shall occur only during the approved hours of
operation (10:00 AM - 5:00 PM Monday through Saturday).
22. The kiosk material shall be consistent with the rendering and example photos
submitted with the application (DPl 06-054) and shall conform to the specified
dimensions (18 ft. wide X 30 ft. long X 11 ft. high).
23. The facility shall provide and maintain adequate refuse containers for the disposal of
non-hazardous waste. Small refuse containers shall be emptied into dumpsters on
site and stowed inside the kiosk at the end of each day of operation.
24. Landscaping in the rear parking area described above, as shown surrounding parking
stalls 41': 46 on the approved site plan, shall be replanted with healthy shrubs and
turf. Irrigation shall be repaired or installed as needed, and this area shall be mowed,
cleaned up and maintained on a weekly basis, at a minimum.
25. This permit or approval is subject to the attached conditions or requirements of the
following City Departments or Divisions:
a. Building and Safety
3
~'\&,~
~@..
",~.:..:t:. .
..,:......-..
City of San Bernardino
ST ANDARD REQUIREMENTS
Development Services/Plan Check Division
Property address:
DOCICU~;:t 0 ;el)
---. ----
NOTE; NCJ PLANS WILL BE
CHECK WITHOUT CONDmONS
IMPRINTED ON PLAN SHEETS.
,/-;? /(
DATE: '1 .-' -'.-
ACCEPTED
OF
FOR PLAN
APPROV AL
Submit 6 sets of plans, minimum size lB" x 24", drawn to scale. If plan check is for
expeditious review. submit 6 sets. The plans shall include (if applicable):
a. site plan (include address & assessors parcel number)
b. foundation plan
c. floor plan (label use of all areas)
. d. elevations
e. electrical, mechanical. & plumbing plans
f. detail sheets (structural) -"..
g. cross section details
h. show compliance with Title 24/Accessibility (disabled access)
i. a plan check deposit fee will be required upon submittal of plans.
Call Development Services (plan check) 909-384-5071 for amount.
\. The title sheet of the plans must specify the occupancy classification, type of construction, if
the building has sprinklers, & the current applicable codes..
2. The person who prepares them must sign the plans. Also, provide the address & phone
number of that person. Some types of occupancies require that the plans are prepared,
stamped, and signed by an architect, engineer, or other person licensed by the State of
California.
,
3. For structures that must include an engineers design, provide 2 sets of stamped/wet signed
calculations prepared by a licensed architect/engineer.
4. Provide 2 sets of Title 24/Energy compliance forms and calculations. Some compliance
forms are required to be printed on the plans.
5. Submit grading, site, and/or landscape plans to Public Works/Engineering for plan check
approval and permits. For more information, phone 909-384-5111.
300 N '0' SIRe' San Bernardino CA 92418
909-384-5071 Office
909-384-5080 Fax
6. Fire sprinkler plans, fires suppression system plans, etc., shall be submitted to the Fire
Department for plan check approval and permits. For information, phone 909-384-5388.
7. Signs require a separate submittal to the Planning Division for plan check approval and
permits. For information, phone 909-384-5057.
8. Restaurants, food preparation facilities, and some health related occupancies will require
clearances and approved plans from San Bernardino County Health Department. For
information, phone 909-387-304].
9, Occupancies that include restaurants, car washes, automotive repair/auto body, dentist
offices, food preparation facilities or processIng plants, etc. may require approvals and
permits from San Bernardino Water Reclamation. For Information, phone 909-384-5141.
10. An air quality permit may be required. Contact South Coast Air Qualit)' Management
Division for information, phone 909-]96-2000.
11. State of California Business & Professions Code/Contractors License Law requires that
permits can be issued to licensed contractors or owner-builders (that are doing the work).
Contractors must provide their State license number, a city business registration, and
workers compensation policy carrier & policy number. Owner-builders must provide
proof of ownership.
1"OTE: PLAN CHECK TIME ON THESE TYPE~'OF PROJECTS IS APPROXIMATEL Y 4-6
WEEKS FOR 1 ST CORRECTIONS. EXPEDITIOU~~VIEW IS APPROXIMA TEL Y 10 WORKING
DAYS. THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IS NOT THE BUILDING PLAN CHECK AND
DOES NOT IMPL Y THAT THE DESIGN AS SUBMITTED WILL BE APPROVED WITHOUT
CORRECTIONS.
Comments:
300 N . 0' Street San Bernardino CA 92418
909-384.5071 Office
909-384-5080 Fax
. =Of i ob~OS 1 I
Was Appllnlld '! 11_ d) f
~,-c'" ~.___./ - :
Arrnu,,"'-
On
r J c-- C b_
-.....-----.
AO.J/lCENT PROPERTY
i~i
~g~
U"I "
~O. T
!8~
~. ~
>".
Vi-II
~~I .
a=-; '. ~
liJ' ~
. _/ , ~
~ ~T~ ~T~ ~T~ ~T~ ~
I9
~g
~W
.
~
~
~
\
=1]
~
[::
..
.,
'"
N
.
N
~
N
"
N
;;
c
"
~
"
:::
.
.-
:':
::'
~
=
"
).,.l113dOCk:1 lN3O"tro'f'
~rn@rnowrn[ID
vi At, 'l 5 2006
\)?"t. 01.1- 05"Y
CITY OF !;AN BE'R"oAROINQ
l"JEVELOPMENT SERVICES
f)EP"RT~"NT
.
':".~
.~'
~
w
Il!
~
~
I
w
z
:::
t:l
<Ii
.
~
t:;
w
I"
'"
I
w
Z
:J
~
..
>- .
Z_
cCCI)
A.
~ Q) .
C
-
j-
C):
ZC'lI
:Jm
(J.
ti3:
Wo
It:N
:E (Q'
all.....
W
I~I
!-l
'w
I
lI:::
en
o
i2
>
.Z
:~
, ::e I
181
'"
Z
:J
()
>
!()
'lL!
\
\~
I
, all ___
'w
~,
I
- - i ~
'"
\ :
\1
I
'<'I
'"
~
W
:>
I-
z
o
0::
~
l'
. I
r I
f ,_
I
,
.
.
- ! - -
!
f
i
I
3:
W
:>
~
()
<C
a:I
.
,
I
I
I
- II
, .
\ :
\1'
.
I
I
I
I
i
i
.!
-~
~ 3:
W - w
:> :>
. w
A.
, e . 0
' , en
.
(
______i
/
'.
"
-
j
l
f
~,'.,.
I.-~;"~~
~:~"
:;.~.~~-
,....r'..#.
w;,/
r.;~ -;-'---'.-i
.~j:- ~--
. f" -."f_
~'~f,,",~ w.r
Y:7;-.' _ , "
~ .,. 4"_~,._ -'
'. . .... ;:. ..
. 04;1>..J~S .
. >:.,>~#i1'- :.; l..
-;,' -..,-- .r~- :-~. +~ 11;'
,. -_..-,~.""fOo~~~ ~
<:....~ ~~- ' -
- ';?,?1 - t' ~~_ {!t;,
;,;:'~;_f-""''j;~-- .WJ!j' -.' ~~-'~"II~
t - ~. to~ ..... - ::'\.". - I
_-"'. ~-~"'.:.o: ............ ~
- :;~~t-:~
t.:..
>~..;
j~~
/fc2J ..1. Ga::.d,r"u_
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
300 NORTH "D" STREET, SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92418. (909) 384-5057
PROJECT REVIEW ROUTING
PROJECT: DEVELOPMENT PERMIT I NO. 06-054 I
TO: ARNE LOVNASETH-PLAN CHECK
I GERI FRA.NSKE-FIRE DEPARTMENT
I
FROM:
'DATE:
PLEASE RESPOND BY: I
, , DESCRIPTIO"': A request to establish a small container recycling center in the parking I
lot of an existing multi-tenant center located at 1620 W, Baseline Street. , I
I
APN: 0143-161-20
OWNER: Mary Townsend
APPLICANT: Eugene Vortman
I LAND USE DESIGNATION: CG-2, Commercial General
I ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Exempt from CEQA, Section 15311- I
: Accessory Structure I
COMMENTS: (lTSE ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY)
,
city 4 SI1/1 Bemardillo
, .
'VeI.:~1//Iellt Sell/Ices
DfFllrtllWlt
Development Permit DP-l
Application Form
Dp.I" vplOG-05f
PrOject address'
II. 2..0
w. ()...S€.L.''''E ST.
ol't5-lbl- 2-0 -0000
Assessors Parcel "umber:
Applicant"s name: E v Go "-"'" €. V o~t".... ~....,
Applicant"s address: 51.. '" ~. Il. L.....,.., eo... :),.
Applicant"s phone 2-\"3> - 5 "115" - So 00
Property owners name: ~"lZ-'1' ~ Tow"-l SEt-! ~
Property ow ner s address: l'-l '"t S IV. r E ~ t E \'- ,. v E.
Property owners phone: "10" - ~ '6 "\ - 0 S '\ I
e-mail: 6t....€@c.~v\<.-.ec..y C.L.I.....~.C
Lo~ "'''-lc..~L.E5 ,eA '0013
FAX: 2-1 ~ - 10 2. 5". 8 \, '1
e-mail:
'f.'~"'TO c: to.
r
92. 3 7 ,
Architect/engineer name: j.. >I ..
'Sot..c,- ",",ol2.TI-I
FAX:
e-mail: rl....uo'T"...e""', 2.00 5"~'(..."'oo.c...
$"...., e:, e.~......lt~l.... ,c.. cp.,", 'I
Archltecuengineer address: 1'10 'S Lw. 0'-'" E ::'"t
Architect/engineer phone: b 1. '3 - 3'10 - 1 I '\ \
FAX:
~TAILED DESCRIPTIO:'; OF PROJECT/BCSI:-IESS: S"".. '- '- C 0'-'- E <:, 'b..... f ^ <:\ '-I i Y
TYPE OF PROJECT
o New business
Bf Relocating business
o ABC license for a restaurant
o Second dwelling unit
o Fence pennit
o Reuse of eXlstmg bUlldmg (vacant longer than I year)
o Building expansion (less than 10%)
o Exterior change to an existing buildmg
o Letter of Public COl1\'enience & "ecessity (PC")
;' ,
. . I,
I A ,,-
... ../ ~~
LAND USE DISTRICT:
r C- - 7...-
L
TYPE Of Bl'SINESS
o Retail Commercial
lQ Other (Please define):
o Office 0 Restaurant 0 Industrial
,:).....L.L ("L.L~<-\lON ~EC'(C'-IN6 c.l'l"r\:OIL
PROJECT ['"fORMA no:\"
-{uare footage of the entire property:
Square footage of the building and/or building addition:
:'~bC!\
Lj~"
~IIOI
E&M Ret.fcling Company
526 South Alameda Street - Los Angeles, CA 90013
Gene@CRVRecycling.com
March 14,2006
City of San Bernardino
Development Services Department
300 Nonh "0" Street
San Bernardino, C A 92418
Re: Development Permit Dp.I Lener of Intent
In connection with our pending Development Permit application this Lener of Intent has been prepared. The purpose of this document
is to provide the Development Services Depanment with a \\-Tinen statement describing the operation that our company proposes. The
explanations are as follows:
This project is intended to serve as a replacement facility for the following Recycling Center:
State Cenification ~ RC 11914
1578 W. Baseline Street
San Bernardino. CA 92411
It is our intent, and the purpose of the pending application, to operate a State of California Cenified Convenient Zone Recycling
Center. This facility will be of an accessory use to the existing business of"Jimmy's Food Store" located at 1620 W. Baseline Street
for the collection and convenient redemption of aluminum, glass and plastic beverage containers from consumers within the premises.
It is our goal to not only create a more convenient and efficient means of local residents to recycle.
.uppon of this objective, our company has invested a great deal of time and resources in manufacturing new, state-of-the-art kiosk
,.Jipment that has been designed specifically for this use. In deploying our services, two recycling receptacles connected to a
"Kiosk" will be utilized which will encompass a mere 486 square foot area: Each receptacle is 22'L by 8'W, and the kiosk is 18'W by
5'0. This kiosk configuration has been engineered to ensure the safe, secure and an aesthetically pleasant collection of consumer
materials while maintaining the conforming look of the community and the propeny it resides on. The first of these receptacles is for
the collection and storage of glass aIJd plastic beverage containers. it has been designed with three internal compartments for glass
(one for each color of glass; clear. brown and green). and one main compartment for plastics. With low side loading capabilities and a
custom internal manufacturing process, our receptacles store more material, produce zero pollution and spills and help eliminate the
possibility of lifting injuries by our employees. The second receptacle is for the storage of aluminum beverage containers which
utilizes special "spacers" which enable the safe and secure collection and storage of material while keeping the receptacle tight and
secure.
As planned, the recycling equipment will be placed on the eastern ponion of the parking lot area as indicated in the site plan. The
kiosk has been planned to be located in an "out of the way" area so that it will not impact traffic flow or parking and create an
appealing. new look. With this sining and with limited operating hours from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and with the absence of
processing equipment. noise levels will be isolated to vehicle traffic. As pan of our routine operating procedures. a daily "sweep" of
the area encompassing a 100' radius will be conducted. Any debris collected from this process will be deposited into a three yard
trash receptacle that will be provided by the City of San Bernardino Refuse Depanment.
I would like to thank you in advance for your cooperation and consideration. Should you have any further questions, please feel free
to contact me (213) 595.5000. Thanks again for your assistance in this maner.
Sincerely,
... ,. ." -<
'-::"' v. -
'-'0 b'.~-
t:"'lgene Vortman
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
RECEIPT
Activity#:DPI06-054
Development Permit I
SITE ADDRESS,
RECEIVED FROM,
RECEIPT NUMBER,
1620 W BASELINE ST SB PARCEL, 0143-161-20-0000
E &M RECYCLING COMPANY
R06001416 Copy Reprinted on 03-16-2006 at 09:21:15
TRANSACTION DATE, 03/15/2006 TOTAL PAYMENT,
TOTAL PAID FROM TRUST,
TOTAL PAID FROM CURRENCY,
124.25
.00
124.25
TRANSACTIONS,
Type Method Description Amount
---------- -------- --------------------------- ------------
Payment Check 6025 124.25
TOTAL,
124.25
ACCOUNT ITEMS,
Description
Account Code
Current pmts
Archival Fee
Archival Fee Documents
Archival Fee Plan Sheet
DEV PERMIT TYPE I
001-000-4789
001-000-4789
001-000-4789
001-000-4766
TOTAL,
1. 00
4.25
6.00
113.00
124.25
RECEIPT ISSUED BY, GMB
ENTERED DATE, 03/15/2006
INITIALS, GMB
TIME, 08 ,08 AM
~~I
.0_
01-':;;
UO~ '"
00, T
%8-
all.~ ~
>0.
ui-z
w,~ .
E, ~
::;~ ,
" '0
'l.....-~ ~
Q. , ,.
, i ~
~ T
,
'" I
0 I
:;; 1
- 1
~ - I
::i- I
0 I
~ I
z '" 1
0 '.1 J
9
j: ,
0
W
...J ~
...J -I
0 I
,
0 I
...J - ,
1
...J II ,
0( ,
~ = I
, I
Ul =
M
> ~
Z ..l
f <
~ u
0 '"
0
Cl '...,~o.
z :~~
::i ~~~
0 ~~~
> (fJgti
0 e..J~
,(fJI!l..
w ~~-
a: :bO~
....I-St
~
all
W
. .PPROVED
. 'l)f1 ofo-O~<j
WilS ApptiWlld &1 /1 [JJ
7~(J&L-
\
,
ADJ.'CErfT PROPERTY
~
~
~
~
~
q ~T~ ~T; ~T~ ~T~
~ '.' .
o
~
,0
~~
.w
N
..,
E
~
~
~
\
=
"
"
w
z
:;
~
~
t;j
w
eo
'"
w
:z:
::J
g
,l,.H::I3dQt:ld 11H:JVro'J
~rn@rnowrnlID
MAR 1 5 2006
U '?"J" 0 Co. 0 ~'t
OF SAN BERNARDINO
C~E.LOPMENT SE~"ICES
Of;>,I,ATMENT
r'
I i
'<l .
'" I
I .
:: ::
, I
! W W
i :> :>
,
. i l- i lI::
. . Z ()
~ 0 \ c:(
a: en
u..
.
I \ I
'<l ! - ~ - - \ I
L, ,
'" I
\ I
,
----~.-
---- : - -----.. .
.
z
0
~ 3:
:>
w w ::
..J :>
W i . w
lI:: Q. :>
0
U) I- W
0 c
52 U)
.
>
Z
~
~ , \ .
0
()
C)
Z
::;
()
> I
() !
~ i I
I ,
all f~ ~I
w .-
I
, ,
I "
\ ,
, f f 1
I !
-j"-
~
':'1"
{~;":
'-~-;';-
-'It' -.
?~-
EXHIBIT 2
,...u;- --
~@'~I1-~' ~
.:.:.f,:1rt_'_ :. -~ ' . ~-
,---,~:I
Silll n~f'lIal'dtuo
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Development Services Department, Planning Division
300 :--:onh "0" Street, 3" floor
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Phone (909) 384-5057 . Fax (909) 384-5080
Web address: www_sbcity.org
APPLICA no!\" FOR APPEAL
APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE (check one)
o Development Services Director
o Developmcnt/Environmental Review Committee
!XI Planning Commlssioll
Case number(s):
Development Permit Type I No. 06-054
I\fC",-\~
Pr~~ctaddress 1620 West Baseline Street, San Bernardino, CA 92418
Appellant's name: E&K Recycling Company
Appellant's address: 526 South Alameda Street, Los AnReles, CA 90013
Appcllant's phone: (213) 595-5000
Appellant's e-mail address:gene@crvrecyclinR.com
Contact person's name: A. Patrick Munoz/Rutan & Tucker, LLP
Comact person's address: 611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400, Costa Mesa. CA 92626-19~O
COllldCI person's phone: (714) 662-4628
Comact person's e-mail address:pmunoz@rutan.com
Pursuant [0 Scction 19.52.100 of the Development Code, an appeal must be filed on a City application form
within] 5 days following th~ final date of action, accompanied by the appropriate appeal fihng fee_
Appeals arc normally scheduled for a determination by the Planning CommiSSIon or Mayor and Common
Council within 30 days of the filing date ofthc appeal You will be notified, in writing, of the specific date and
lIm~ of the appeal hearing
OFFICE t:SE Ol\'L Y
Date appeal fIled C) I~ c \..'
R<:cci vcd by: t f \)
j 1/04
REQUIRED I~FOR.'1ATIO" FOR AN APPEAL
Spocltlc action being app~"led and tbe date of that action.
Planning Commission Revocation of Development Permit No. 06-054, dated August 22, 2006.
Specific !;'founds [or the appeal:
See Attachment "A" hereto.
Action sought:
Appeal to City Council and reversal of Planning Commission decision revoking
Development Permit No. 06-054.
Addiuonal information:
Appellant will submit further information and supplemental briefing on this issue
prior to the City Council appeal hearing.
/ -, "]---::: ~
Signature O[appellant~;;(;'U~>.~
A. Patrick Munoz, . At:torney for Appellant
Date: 9/5/06
2
11/04
ATTACHMENT "A"
The decision of the Planning Commission revoking Development Permit 06-054 (the
"Permit") should be reversed for the following reasons:
The Planning Commission's Permit revocation significantly oversteps the City's legal
authority to regulate a vested business operation. "Where a permit has been properly obtained
and in reliance thereon, the permittee has incurred material expense, he acquires a vested
property right to the protection of which he is entitled." (Goat Hill Tavern v. City of Costa Mesa
(1992) 6 Cal.AppAth 1519, 1530.) Unlike a decision to deny or approve a permit in the first
place, local agencies are substantially limited in their power to revoke the operational permits for
a vested property right. (Id. ["Once a use permit has been properly issued the power of a
municipality to revoke it is limited."].) Indeed, when local agency chooses to revoke a permit
for such vested uses, a reviewing court will apply heightened scrutiny to the evidence both
supporting and refuting such decision. (Id.)
The basic concept of "reasonableness" also must guide any local agency decision
affecting a vested property right. A vested right cannot be revoked unless the City proves that
the permittee failed to comply with "reasonable terms or conditions expressed in the permit
granted. . . or there is a compelling public necessity." (Id. [emphasis supplied].) The revocation
of a vested property right in a manner that oversteps the bounds of reasonableness, or is
unsupported by the evidence, constitutes a violation of civil rights and warrants reversal by a
judicial writ of mandate.
The Planning Commission's decision to revoke E&M's Permit includes findings that do
not support the recommended action, and the findings that are proposed are simply not supported
by the evidence:
A. As to the finding that circumstances have changed such that findings supporting
the Permit's initial approval can no longer be made, this finding is untenable in both evidence
and logic. At the time that E&M was notified of the City's decision to revoke the Permit, its
recycling center had been operating for little more than one month. Surely, the conditions in the
area of the site had not changed so dramatically within just one month as to make the Permit
approval findings inapplicable or accurate. Moreover, no evidence has been presented to
demonstrate a change in neighborhood circumstances reaching the requisite level of "compelling
public necessity" mandated by the above-cited legal authorities.
S'. As to any findings relating to a "modular kiosk" to be installed at the recycling
facility, it again bears emphasis that the facility has only been in operation since July 1, 2006.
E&M has not been given the time necessary for the manufacturing and placement of the kiosk.
The City's expectation tha\ E&M would manufacture and install a modular kiosk within just
little more than one month from the start of operations is patently unreasonable under the legal
standards cited above.
C. Several factual bases for the Planning Commission's decision to revoke E&M's
Permit were disproved at the August 22, 2006 hearing:
1068'024012-0002
743214,01 af)9'05/06
.
It was alleged that the recycling facility failed to post a sign communicating
its name, hours of operation and telephone number. However, at the hearing,
E&M's representative provided evidence that such a sign had been posted at
the site from the start of operations. This evidence was not controverted.
.
It was also alleged that E&M had placed an illegal "come on" sign at its
Baseline site. However, it was uncontroverted that such sign had been
removed from the site several weeks before the Planning Commission
hearing. Thus, any findings based upon such a "come on" sign were cured
and could not provide a valid and lawful basis for revocation of the Permit.
.
Any and all findings relating to alleged graffiti at E&M's site were likewise
unsupported by any reliable evidence. At the Planning Commission hearing,
E&M's representative demonstrated that (I) the graffiti at issue was located
on property that did not belong to E&M, and (2) that such graffiti was pre-
existing long before E&M commenced operations. The City cannot lawfully
revoke E&M's permit as a result of pre-existing graffiti located upon the
property of others.
D. The Permit cannot lawfully be revoked as a result of actions outside of E&M's
control. The City's reliance upon findings relating to the "appearance" of certain patrons at
E&M's recycling site, or the presence of shopping carts near the site, has no support in the law.
A use permit simply cannot be lawfully revoked based upon the unsolicited acts of patrons that
outside the reasonable control of a business operator. (Tarbox v. Board of Supervisors (1958)
163 Cal.App.2d 373.) The City apparently relies upon the fact that shopping carts have been
abandoned around E&M's facility as the primary basis for revoking the Permit. The evidence
cited by the City in support of such finding consisted entirely of after-hours activities and/or
shopping carts abandoned as much as one block away from E&M's site. No evidence was
presented to demonstrate that E&M is, in fact, the cause of shopping cart abandonment on and
around Baseline Street. Moreover, despite an acknowledgement that E&M has extended efforts
to remove abandoned shopping carts, City staff and the Planning Commission apparently take
the position that no efforts exerted by E&M can ever satisfactorily prevent the presence of
shopping carts in the neighborhood. This position, however, directly and clearly contradicts any
standard of reasonableness.
For the foregoing reasons, the Planning Commission's decision revoking E&M's permit
must be reversed.
1068.0240]2-0002
743214.01 a09/0S,06
-2-