Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout40-Planning and Building - CITY OF SAN BERNOtDINO - REQUEST rC)R COUNCIL ACTION From: Al Boughey, Director Subject: Appeal of denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 91-28 and Variance No. 91-08 Dept: Planning & Building Services Date: January 9, 1992 Mayor and Common Council Meeting January 21, 1992 Synopsis of Previous Council action: December 16, 1991 That Mayor and Common Council continue the appeal, and direct staff to prepare alternative approaches other than Code Amendments, and return in thirty days with recommendations. Recommended motion: Staff recommends that the distance standards for convenience stores not be amended and that the Variance section not be amended to include reductions to the distance requirements for convenience stores; and Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council deny the appeal and deny Conditional Use Permit No. 91-28 and Variance No. 91-08 based on the Findings of Fact contained in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated November 6, 1991. ~ Q f2 ~ ~ ~ure Al Boughey . Contact person: Al Boughey Supporting data attached: Staff Report Phone: 384-5357 Ward: 6 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. DescriPtion) Finance: Council Notes: 75-0262 Agenda Item No. flJ ".. . wr ......, .....n...~I.-.....al....... - ..-,.......----. . ....... ................,.,.~ ....v. ."-"11I C) o , . STAFF REPORT Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 91-28, and Variance No. 91-08, requesting approval of the Conditional Use Permit to permit the sales of beer and wine for off-site consumption, and a variance from Development Code Section 19.06.030 permitting a convenience store to be constructed on less than the minimum lot size, and a variance from Code Section 19.26 to permit a reduction in loading space requirements. Mayor and Common Council Meeting of January 21, 1992 BACKGROUND At the meeting of December 16, 1991, Council directed staff to prepare alternative approaches other than code amendments to allow for approval of this project, and return in thirty days with recommendations (refer to Mayor and Common.Council Staff Report dated December 16, 1991 for background discussion of the specific project). ANALYSIS A matrix was developed by staff to show areas of concern for a convenience store with lor without alcohol at this location. Based on this information, the only options identified for project approval would be amending the Development Code to revise or delete the distance requirements, or amending the Code to expand the Variance section. The minimum lot size and minimum loading area issues could be resolved by variance. OPTIONS OPTION I: Development Code Amendment to Distance Requirements The Development Code minimum standards were established because of health and safety concerns. Basically, a concensus was developed during the Development Code workshops, that minimum standards should be set in order to improve current concerns associated with the detrimental effects of premises which are licensed for the off-site sales of alcohol. Public concerns frequently include vandalism, crime, deterioration of neighborhoods and the sales of alcohol to minors. Therefore, because there are minimum standards set, the code draws a line, or 75-0264 Page 2 o o a setpoint, which the City relies on as reasonable standards that hopefully, reduce potential impacts. with these given standards staff can not make the necessary findings that a proposal would not have detrimental impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION Staff recomends that the distance standards regarding the location of convenience stores not be amended. OPTION II: Development Code Amendment to the Variance section If the Variance section of the Code were to be amended to allow for a reduction in distance standards, it would be difficult, with the minimum distance standards to make the findings that the granting of a variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. The Development Code addresses various concerns in the granting of a variance. The burden of proof to establish the evidence in support of the findings is the responsibility of the applicant. Findings for the granting of a variance may be made when there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, or that the strict application of the code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property under identical district classification. The previous staff report outlined why there were no circumstances with regard to the physical characteristics subject property. These findings would not be altered they are not affected by the distance standards. special of the because Another concern in the granting of a variance is that it is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possiessed by other property and denied to the subject property. The findings in this circumstances would not be made, due to the ability of the property owner to continue to use and develop the property with alternative proposals. The granting of a variance in these circumstances would, undeniably, constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and land use district in which such property is located. Other variance findings are concerned with the consistency of the project with the General Plan land use designation and would not be affected by distance requirements. These concerns with findings would be true for other similar proposals and not just this specific proposal. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Variance section of the Development Code not be amended. Mayor and Common Page 3 .REcnMMENDAT1:0N I...OUlJ.......:.l,..... ...........-.... "::;) o o staff recommends that the distance standards for convenience stores not ~e amended and the the Variance section not ~e amended to include reductions to the distance requirements for convenience stores; AND staff recommends that the Mayor and Common council deny the appeal and deny conditional Use permit No. 91-28 and variance No 91-08 based on the Findings of Fact contained in the staff Report to the planning commission dated Nove~er 6, 1991. prepared by: Attachment: Denise s. Moonier Assistant Planner for Al Boughey, AICP Director of planning and Building services A _ convenience store Matrix B _ Mayor and Common council staff Report and backup dated Dece~er 16, 1991 o o CONVENIENCE STORES WITH ALCOHOL SALES , . CATEGORY DEV. CODE 19.060.030 (2)(b.)(F.) MC-77 0 INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE (MC-660) * Permitted Use Subject to distance standard/approved findings C.U.P. Subject to MC-770/ P.C. Findings Subject to C.U.P. Section 19.26.020/ P.C. Findings Proximity To Does not meet standards Does not meet No distance Existing 4 stores within 1000 ft. V standards V standards Stores 4 stores within 1000 ft. To Does not meet standards V No distance No distance Religious 1 church within 500 ft. standards standards Instit- ution To Resid- Does not meet standards No distance No distances ential 2 within 100 ft. V standards standards Uses required to required to erect block erect block wall wall To Schools Meets distance requirements o within 500 ft. Site Area Does not meet standard requires 10,000 sq. ft. v Parking/ Landscaping Meets parking requirements Meets landscaping require- ments Frontage on Meets standards a major street on secondary street Lighting Meets standard requirements Meets distance o within 1000 ft. Does not meet stan<:lard . ./ requl.res Y 10,000 sq. ft. Defers to 19.56 section of Old Title 19 Meets standards Meets standards No distance standards No minimum lot area Meets minimum parking require- ments Title 19, 19.56.050(A) Meets standard requirements Meets standard requirements Attachment "A" , . Public Restrooms Trash Enclosure Loading Area saturation levels for premises which are licensed for off-site sales of alcohol ,-,-..- --_..~~ variance No. 91-08 o c CONVENIENCE STORES WITH ALCOHOL SALES CONTINUED Meets standards Meets standard requirements Does not meet standards ~ No standards Findings mayor may not be made by P.C. * Referenced Title 19 of Municipal Code Meets standards Meets standards No standards No standards Meets standard requirements Meets' standard requirements Meets Code Title 19 19.58.010 Findings for undue concentration as determined by P.C. . . CATEGORY o o CONVENIENCE STORES WITHOUT ALCOHOL SALES DEV. CODE MC-770 MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 19 D.R.C. approval (ROP) Permitted Use Proximity To Existing Stores Subject to Subject to distance standards MC-770 Does not meet ../ standards v To Religious No distance Institutions standards To Residen- tial Uses To Schools site Area Meets distance requirements Meets distance standards Does not meet V standard requires 10,000 sq. ft. Does not meet No distance standards standards 4 stores within 1000 ft. V No distance standards No distance standards No distance standards requires a block wall No distance standards requires a block wall Meets distance No standards standards Does not meet No standards standard V No minimum lot area requires 10,000 sq. ft. Cf7Y OF SAN BERNOIDINO - REQUEST QR COUNCIL ACTION .. From: Al Boughey, Director Subject: Appeal of denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 91-28 and Variance Nq. 91-08 De~: Planning & Building Services Date: December 5, 1991 ' Mayor and Common Council Meeting December 16, 1991 Synopsis of Previous Council action: None Recommended motion: The Mayor and Common Council may deny the appeal and deny Conditional Use Permit No. 91-28 and Variance No. 91-08. OR The Mayor and Common Council may continue the item, and direct staff to prepare an amendment to the Development Code to revise the distance criteria for establishments with off-site sales of alcohol (19.06.030) (2) (B) and also to revise the distance criteria for establishment of convenience stores (19.06.030 (2) (F)). Contact perton: Al Bouqhey Phone: 384-5357 Supporting deta etteched: Staff Report Werd: 6 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (ACCT. NO.) (ACCT. DESCRIPTION) FInance: Council Notel: #t _1f_.J!!l/ .Jl <? <J1' tftJ ..... CI?Y OF SAN BERtORDINO - REQUEST CDR COUNCIL ACTION -' , STAFF REPORT - Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 91-28, and Variance No. 91-08, requesting approval of the Conditional Use Permit to permit the sales of beer and wine for off-site consumption and a variance from Development Code Section 19.06.030 permitting a convenience store to be constructed on less than the minimum lot size, and a variance from Code Section 19.26 to permit a reduction in loading space requirements. Mayor and Common Council Meeting of December 16, 1991 REOUEST The owners, Mr. and Mrs Kensie Wooten, are appealing the denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 91-28 and Variance 91-08 by the Planning Commission. Under the authority of Development Code Section 19.06.020 the applicant, Value Homes, is requesting to construct 2,000 sq. ft. of office & retail space including a convenience store with off-site sales of beer & wine. Concurrently, under the authority of section 19.72.030, the owner requests a variance from Code Section 19.06.030 requiring convenience stores to be constructed on 10,000 sq.ft., and a variance from the Code Section 19.26 which established standards of 15 ft. in width and 50 ft. in length for commercial loading space. The project proposes a loading space of 10 ft. in width and 15 ft. in length. The subject property consists of a 6,250 sq. ft., rectangular shaped parcel, located on the south side of Baseline Street, between Mt. Vernon Avenue and Garner Street, also described as 1255 West Baseline. The land use designation of the site is CG-2, Commercial General, General Plan land use. ANALYSIS The subject property is within 255 ft. from a religious institution and within 100 ft. of residentially used property. Municipal Code standards specify that development of new convenience stores comply with the minimum standards therein, in addition to conditions imposed by the Commission. The standards restrict proposals for alcohol sales within 500 feet of any religious institution, school or public park, and within 100 ft. of any property designated for residential use or used for residential purposes. The subject property does not meet the 75.0264 --- --- -- ~_.-----_.._- -~- - --...-- ;"......-...u 0. ,,0...........0.....1....1:;: .."'1.,..1. ';j.l.-UO I Mayor and Common C~cil Meeting December 16,091 Page 2 \",I , minimum standards as described in the Municipal Code. Code Section 19.06.030 (2) (B) regulates structures subject to an off-site "ABC" license with regard to review by the Police Department who. shall determine if a proposed location meets Municipal Code distance criteria or the location is in such close proximity to another similar use to cause oversaturation of the neighborhood. The determination of saturation levels and undue concentration of licensed premises is then reviewed by the Planning Division and included in Staff's report to the Planning Commission. with regard to Variances, Chapter 19.72 of the Development Code makes reference to the appropriate application of variances. The Code states that the power to grant variances does not extend to use regulations. BACKGROUND On May 11, 1991, the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 91-28 and Variance No. 91-08 was submitted, and on August 9, 1991, the application was deemed complete and accepted for processing. On November 6, 1991, the Planning commission held a properly noticed public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 91-28 and Variance No. 91-08. The hearing began with a presentation of Staff's analysis and recommendation. Staff described how the necessary findings could not be made because convenience stores are not permitted within 1,000 ft. of existing licensed outlets, and because establishments proposing alcohol sales are not permitted within 500 ft. of a religious institution, and 100 feet of a residentially used property. Staff described how the project was initially submitted as Review of Plans No. 91-13, on March 27, 1991. The proposal did not contain an application including sales of alcohol for off-site consumption at that time. An interm ordinance, MC 770, was adopted by the Mayor and Common Council, concerning the urgency of regulating the oversaturation of convenience stores. The ordinance was adopted March 12, 1991 and became effective April 12, 1991, prior to Review of Plans No. 91-13 being accepted as complete (Refer to Planning commission report for more complete discussion). commissioners Stone and Cole spoke in favor of the CUP and Variance because they felt it would help the area. Mr. Kensie Wooten, property owner, spoke in favor. several area residents objected. In addition to the owner, two persons in favor of the proposal and four opposition spoke at the Planning Commission meeting Planning Commission Minutes attached as an eXhibit). However, property persons in (Refer to Mr. Empeno, was not in Deputy City Attorney, advised that compliance with the Development Code the application and in addition, ....-. --------......~- _w...... ~'-_......'_ ~\'-'. :;)....-"-0 ex lJal:.l.a.rlce Cornman COCil 11eeting December 16,()91 1'<0. ~~-u~ Mayor and . Page 3 there were no findings for approval. Plannina Commission Action The public hea~ing was closed and discussion of a motion to approve the conditional use permit followed. Mr. Empeno advised that the approval of the conditional use permit would be of questionable validity, and thus subject to appeal on validity. He stated that making findings for approval would be in direct conflict with the Code. Commissioner Cole made a motion Commissioner stone seconded it. Commissioner Valles made a motion the conditonal use permit. There to approve with conditions. The motion was not carried. to approve the variance and deny was no second. Based on the discussion and in agreement with the staff recommendation, Commissioner Romero made a motion to deny both variance and conditional use permit. Commissioner oretego seconded it. The vote was carried with Commissioners Jordan, Lopez, Ortega, Romero voting to deny and Commissioners Cole, Stone, and Valles voting to approve. On November 14, 1991, the property owner filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit 91-28, and Variance No. 91-08 with the city of San Bernardino (Exhibit A). Mayor and Common C~ci1 Meeting of December ~ 1991 Page 4 ~ '~ MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OPTIONS The Mayor and Common Council may deny the appeal and deny Conditional Use-Permit No. 91-28 and Variance No. 91-08. OR The Mayor and Common Council may continue the item, and direct Staff to prepare an amendment to the Development Code to revise the distance criteria for establishments with off-site sales of alcohol (19.06.030 (2)(B) and also to revise the distance criteria for establishment of convenience stores (19.06.030 (2)(F)). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that and deny Conditional based on the Findings the Mayor and Common Use Permit No. 91-28 of Fact contained in Council deny the appeal and Variance No. 91-08 Exhibit D. Prepared by: Denise S. Moonier Assistant Planner for Al Boughey, AICP Director of Planning and Building Services Exhibits: A - Letter of Appeal B - Statement of Planning Commission Action C - Official Notice of Public Hearing before the Mayor and Common Council D - November 6, 1991 Planning commission Minutes E - Staff Report to the Planning commission dated November 6, 1991 .' - ... o o November 10, 1991 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 300 north "D" street. San Bernardino, California 92418 Department of planning and building services Att. Al Boughey Director RE: Conditional use permit no. 91/28 variance no.91/08 Appeal of planning commissions' denial Dear Mr.Boughey: I would like to appeal the decision of the planning commission. I have attached a short summary of my situation. My appeal is based upon circumstances as depicted in the summary. I have enclosed a check for $106.00 - AS per a telephone conversation with one of your staff this date. ~ ,-- " <7', ;.= c, ,:,0 ~ \Ul . '. '. ,... ;... \ ,./ ,i III , -.' ,...' - " " \ " 'c'-"_-- UI C" .." '-.,.' ;1"", L.:,../ 'c..: t,JV 1 'i 1991 101 's ':~ '\l ' \--,1..1 r-"""\ - \ ~ \ .- \.1 \ \~ ij~1 .. .~,: "~:,..;:)"'~) .'t'~" , " .3 L . .~.. --' ,.i,:..._'.; ~'" '. L.__ . l CC -<f~~:~~,~:~~Z~:i:g ~< EXHIBIT "A" .. . o o GOODEVENNG ~ADIES AND GENGLEMEN lAM KENZIE WOOTEN I RESIDE AT 15~8 WESTERN AVE WITHIN THE CITY OF SAN IJERNARDINO. lAM TilE m-1NER OF THE PROPuSED BUSINESS SITE. THESE COMMENTS ARE REFERENCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-28 AND VARIANCE NO.91-08. I HAVE RESIDED WITHIN TillS COMMUNITY FOR 36 YEARS. I SERVED THE PEOPLE OF THIS COMMUNITY FOR 23 YEARS AS A POLICE OFFICER; 2YEARS WITH THE SAN BERNARDINO POLICE DEPT. AND d YEARS WITH THE CALIFORNIA HWY PATROL. DURING MY LAW ENFORCEMENT CAREER I MOONLIGHTED IN VARIOUS MINI MKTS WITHIN THIS CITY. WORKING IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY. UPON MY RETIREMENT IN 1989 I APPROACHED THE SAN BDNO PLANNING DEPT. TO ASCERTAIN THE FEASIBILITY OF BUILDING A CONVIENCE STORE ON THE AFORE DESCRIBED SITE. RESPONDING TO THE DEPT!S VERnAL DIRECTIONS I PROCEEDED TO TAKE THE APPROPRIATE STEPS IN OBTAINING ^ APPLICATION. ALL OF MY EFFORTS AND ACTIVITIES REF TillS 1'liIS PROJECT WERE MADE AT THE DIREC'rION OF VARIOUS DEPT. EMPLOYEES. THE INITIAL SIX MON'l'IlS I WAS ADVISED TO AWAIT TilE DEMOLISHION OF SOME AJOINING PROPERTY. AFTER NUMEROUS DELAYS AND RED TAPE, I SOUGHT THE ASSISTANCE OF THE 6 WARD COUNCIL PERSON, MRS LUDLAM. IN MAY OF 1991 I WAS ADVISED TIlAT MY APPLICATION HAD BEEN ACCEPTED. I WAS ALSO ADVISED IN MAY OF 1991 THAT AS OF MARCH 1991 THE CODES AND ORDINANCES, AS THEY RELATE 1'0 THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF CONVIENCE STORES, HAD BEEN AMMENDED ~flYo~;f/.4'/-1la~~ o o MY PROJECT WAS NO LONGER IN CONFORMANCE. BEING TWO YEARS INTO THE PROJECT AND HAVING SPENT A GREAT DEAL OF MONEY. I. RESPONDING TO THE DIREC~ION OF THE PLANNING DEPT. APPLIED FOR A VARIANCE. IN RESPONDING TO THE DEPTARTMENTS DESIRES THE PLANS.AT ADDITIONAL EXPENCE. WERE REDRAWN. THE CILMINATION OF APPROXIMATELY 3 YEARS OF EFFORT ARE EXHIBITED HERE BEFORE YOU. IT IS MY CONTENTION THAT THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT WILL NOT IMPAR THE INTEGRITY AND CHARACTER OF THE AREA. MY PRIMARY OBJECTIVE IS NOT A LIQUOR STORE. I NEED THE BEER AND WINE LICENCE TO MAKE MY STORE COMPETITIVE. AS IS EXHIBITED BY TIlE DECLINING MARKET FOR SUCH ITEMS, THE BEER AND WINE WILL BE OFFERED ONLY AS A CONVIENCE TO MY CUSTOMERS. IN COMMENTING ON THE FINDINGS OF STAFF------REFERENCE THE THE SUMMARY-----I QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THE POLICE DEPT/S STATISTICAL INFORMATION AS IT ADDRESSES ALCOHOL RELATED CRIMES IN THE AREA. OF 122 INCUDENTS OFFERED AS EXAMPLES ONLY 12 ARE DEFINED IN THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE AS BEING RELATED TO ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION. 20 OF THE ARRESTS WERE INFACT ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE CITY. ALL OF THE EXAMPLES OF COMMERCIAL BURGLARIES (5) DEPICTED IN THE REPORT WERE BURGULARIES COMMITED AT THE PROPOSED PROJECT SITE. IN THIS INSTANCE I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE POLICE DEPT. THE BUILDING,DUE TO ITS DETERIORATEING CONDITION, IS ATTRACTING THE WRONG ELEMENT. (14) OF THE ARRESTS ARE DRIVING RELATED OFFENCES. (7) OF WHICH WERE DRUNK DRIVING. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE TRAVERSING AND RESIDING IN THIS AREA; THESE ARREST FIGUERS SEEM MINIMAL. o o THE STAFFS COMM8NTS REFERENCE THE CHURCHS ARE ALSO OUESTIONARLE NEITHER CHURCH WAS IN EXISTANCE AT THE TIME OF MY INITIAL APPLICATION. GALILEE MISSION BAPTIST CHURCH STILL DOES NOT EXIST IN CLOSING I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT ALTHOUGH MY PROJECT IS NOT IN COMPLETE CONFORMANCE WITII STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. THE MAJORITY OF RUSINESSES IN TIiIS COMMUNITY DO NOT CONFORM '1'0 DEVELOPEMEN'i' CODE STANDARDS. OF TilE (~) BUSINESSfS LISTED IN THE SAME PROXIMITY OF ~lY PROJECT (3) HAVE NO ON CITE LOADINC OR PARKING CAPABILITIES. I CONTEND THAT MY FACILITY WILL BE A MODERN. WELL DESICNfD AND FUNCTIONAL INHANCE~lENT TO 'l'Hf AREA. MY PROPOSED USE OF A MARKfT WITH SALES OF "fER AND WINE FOR OFF-CITE CONSUMPTION IS CONSISTENT WI'l'rl THE INTENT OF TIlE CENERAL PLAN .'\ND IS A P8RMITED LAND USE. THANK YOU o o City of San Bernardino STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION PROJECT Number: Conditional Use Permit No. 91-28 and Variance No. 91-08 Applicant: Value Homes Owner: Mr. & Mrs. Kensie Wooten Meeting Date: November 6, 1991 X Denied Based Upon Findings of Fact (Attachment B) . VOTE Ayes: Nays: Abstain: Absent: Jordan, Lopez, Ortega, Romero Cole, Stone Valles None Clemensen, Lindseth I, hereby, certify that this Statement of Official Action accurately reflects the final determination of the Planning commission of the City of San Bernardino. 1 i , , Al Bouahev. Di ector of Plannina & Buildina Services Name and Title cc: Project Property Owner Project Applicant Building Division Engineering Division Case File PCAGENDA: PCACTION EXHIBIT "B" n ~ - CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ~ SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM 6 HEARING DATE 11-6-<)1 WARD 6 - "r--, APPLICANT' Value Homes . 22345 Barton Road W CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Grand Terrace, CA 92324 tn NO. 91-28 and < OWNER: Mr. & Mrs. Kensie Wooton U VARIANCE NO. 91-08 1588 Western Avenue San Bernardino, CA 92411 "......., Under authority of Development Code Section 19.06.020 to to- construct 2,000 sq. ft. of office & retail space including tn a convenience store with off-site sales of beer & wine, on W :) 6.250 sq. ft. Concurrently, under the authority of Section 0 19.72.030, the applicant requests a variance from Code Section W a: 19.06.030 requiring convenience stores to be constructed on - 10,000 sq. ft. and a variance from Code Section 19.26 which < established standards to regulate off-street loading & delivery W Subject property is a rectangularly shaped parcel, located on a: < the south side of Baseline Street, between Ut. Vernon Avenue & Garner Street, also described as 1255 West Baseline. '--' '- r EXISTING GENERAL PLAN PROPERTY LAND USE ZONING DFSiIGNATION Subject Commercial CG-2 Commercial General North Commercial CG-2 Commercial General South Residential RS Residential Suburban East Residential CG-2 Commercial General West Vacant CG-2 Commercial General ./ GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC DYES I FLOOD HAZARD 0 YES 0 ZONE A )( SEWERS: xar; YES ) I HAZARD ZONE: jQ{NO ZONE: fecNO OZONE B :J NO HIGH FIRE DYES AIRPORT NOISEI DYES r REDEVELOPMENT XZiXYES ( HAZARD ZONE: H NO CRASH ZONE: PROJECT AREA: D:NO '- :J NO ,...---." r r- -l o NOT o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z 0 APPROVAL < APPLICABLE EFFECTS WITH 0 to- MITIGATING MEASURES ~ 0 Ztn NOE.l.R. < CONDITIONS We,:, u.el :iiz o EXEMPT o E.l.R. REQUIRED BUT NO u.Z n DENIAL Z- SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS CW Oel WITH MITIGATING til a:iiEi MEASURES 0 CONTINUANCE TO -II. > xI*I NO SIGNIFICANT o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS 0 Z U W EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E.R.C. W MINUTES a: "- '- ClT'lCII'_""""" --- PLAN-I.D2 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4<10) " ('\ - CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE CUP 9l-28/VAR 91-08 6 11-6-91 16 FINDINGS OF FACT AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE ... , CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The proposed use is conditionally permitted within the subject land use district, however, it does not comply with all of the applicable provisions of this Development Code in that the lot area does not meet the minimum standards for convenience stores, minimum standards for loading and delivery area, and for minimum distance between religious institutions, residential uses and existing convenience markets with sales of alcohol. 2. The proposed building would not impair character of the land use district be located in that it is architecturally the built environment. the integrity and in which it is to compatible with 3. The subject site is not physically suitable for the type and intensity of land use being proposed in that the site is too small for the intensity of a convenience store. 4. The proposed use is compatible with the land uses presently on the subject property in that the present use is commercial. 5. The proposed use would not be compatible with existing and future land uses within the general area in which the proposed use is to be located in that the general area is oversaturated with licensed outlets for sales of alcohol and in that there is residential land use within 100 ft. 6. The proposed use is not compatible in scale, mass, coverage density and intensity with all adjacent land uses in the site is too small and the loading area is adjacent to a residentially used property. 7. There are adequate prov1s1ons for water, sanitation, and public utilties, however, there are not adequate provisions for public services which address the crime problems associated with convenience stores, and may be detrimental to pUblic health and safety. 8. There will be adequate provisions the subject proposal in that the access from a public street. for public access to serve site would have one drive ~ c:rrrClf'''~ CllmW,.~__CU PLAN-I.D6 PAGE' O~ 1 ,..go, ,. t'\ - CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE CUP 91-28/VAR 91-08 """l 6 11-6-91 17 FINDINGS OF FACT AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE ~ 9. There will be a harmful effect upon desirable neighborhood characteristics in that the sales of alcohol is associated within loitering, drinking in public, and other reported activities. 10. The Development Code does not require a market study for the proposed use of a convenience market. 11. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan in that the convenience market is a permitted use, subject to the property development standards and approval of a CUP in the CG-2 land use designation. 12. There will not be significant harmful effects upon environ- mental quality and natural resources in that an Initial study was permformed and a Negative Declaration was prepared. 13. The enviromental impacts were not significant and do not require mitigation. 14. The proposed location, size, design, and operationg charac- teristics of the proposed use would be detrimental based on the above Findings, to the public interests, health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the City. ~~.r..= ~ ~ PLM-I.a6 PAGE 1 OF 1 (".go) ('"\ r' CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE CUP 91-28/VAR 91-08 6 11-6-91 18 FINDINGS OF FACT AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE .... VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT 1. There are no special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Development Code does not deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical land use district classification. 2. That granting the Variance preservation and enjoyment of possessed by other property in district. is not necessary for the a substantial property right the same vicinity and land use 3. That granting the Variance will be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to property or improvements in such vicinity and land district in that the site is too small for the proposed and the area is oversaturated with properties licensed the sales of alcohol. the use use for 4. That granting of this variance request constitutes a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity in which the subject property is located in that all other such properties, except those of legal nonconforming status, are subject to limitations that are no less stringent than those place upon the subject property. 5. That granting the Variance does allow a use which is not authorized by the Development Code Standards for convenience stores. 6. That granting of this variance request General Plan, in that the proposed use subject to approval of a Conditional Use will be consistent is a permitted use, Permit. Qn Cf INo .-...c ClIffM.~a'hK:U PLAN.US PAGE 1 OF 1 t4-lOl - - - - r' CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-28 & VARIANCE NO. 91-08 (WA:O' J PROPERTY LOCATION: Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consistinq of about .151 acres havinq a frontaqe of about 50 feet on the south side of Baseline Street and beinq located about 300 feet east of the centerline of Mt. Vernon Avenue and further described as beinq located at 1255 West Baseline Street. PROPOSAL: The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit under authority of Code Section 19.06.020 to permit construction of Office/retail space includinq a convenience store with off-site sales of beer and wine and the applicant requests a Variance of Code section 19.06.030 (2) (F) to construct the convenience store with less than the minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet required for new construction of convenience stores in CG-2, Commercial General. General Plan land use desiqnation. PUBLIC HEARING LOCATION: SAN BERNARDINO CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 NORTH "0" STREET SAN BERNARDINO. CA 92418 HEARING DATE AND TIME: Monday, December 16, 1991 2:00 A__...._...........-............._ ~r t>,_II.CIr.....,........fufttw~IbauI..~prtor."" pWIC...............PIIInnng... 8uIdiIg SeM::. - r .._lIln____ ...._(714)_lIlII7. The '....... eonm.iln " ~ 'IfNI ". . ".. " you .. u..... --.JOU".,....._~In__al.InCllPPDlllllnlOttIe.....lOU. PtInMIg WICIIkiIlIng s.w:. ai' ..._." San 8ernMI1nO cay HIlL 30Q Nortft-o- su.t........... c.IIorNa 1M1.. ~....__~......._......._.Coo- dtioftII U. PenMa. AerwiIw of p.... Terutw TIWI ..... .... v...... un.. ~ IOttlIw.,.1nd Ccua. ~ to'" Wayaranct Counc:II nuI......in ...,....ttw g...... 01 1M...... and nul "lr.t:rrinId ID...CIr C*k.... wrttI IN...... fetwltlln--. dip GI tMdIcIIUcIn (WI dayS tar pftll...... TIiMIIiv'I T,.. ....1. Zono___,..._...._'....._IO...._Coclo wil ~"___IO IN Way1M' and Council tor fNl...... " you c:NIIfIOe 1M _ulaN CIOn 01 the PIInNng ComnwIiDn in CDUft. JOU Ny be tiriIed to fIliIil'9 Ottr tI'IoIe.... you or..... tIN .....u..... '-nno o.cribedin_notlDI.Cll'in........~~.IheClyPWmingDMIiDn aLOl'priorlO."'puClllCe.mg. IPNflWft..t ~II__ IllfI ~ It.- wll M.1tiftlv I".. 1ft fIlM .........__ ...... ~~.~-;-~ ;;:] ~ ~ BASELR STREET i~. TI~ . . " . i( Ill: II t: " ! L r '4'1". [j nr ~NORTH 6U ~ PLAN-I.D& PAGE 1 OF 1 (0&-10) o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 6, 1991 INDEX -- Planning Director's Report General Plan Amendment No. 91-11 General Plan Amendment No. 91-15 variance No. 91-11 Tentative Tract No. 15222 Tentative Tract No. 14209 - Extension of Time Conditional Use Permit No. 91-28 and Variance No. 91-08 Parcel Map No. 14139 Page 1 2 2 3 3 3 4 6 EXHIBIT "0" City of San Bern~ino Planning Commissi~ Meeting Minutes November 6, 1991 Page 4 o Washington Avenue and Palm AVenue having a frontage of about 1,413.98 feet on the south side of Washington Avenue and a frontage of 71~ feet on the west side of Palm Avenue. The applicant requests an extension of time to establish a 41 lot single family subdivision in the RL, Residential Low, General Plan land use designation. OWner: Stateland Development Applicant: Sierra Engineering Ward: 5 Previous Negative Declaration; staff recommends approval This item was considered on the Consent Calendar and adopted previous Negative Declaration and approved request to expire on September 19, 1992 based upon Findings of Fact contained in staff reported dated November 6, 1991 and subject to Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements listed therein. ITEM NO.6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-28 AND VARIANCE NO. 91-08 Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of about .151 acres having a frontage of 50 feet on the south side of Baseline Street and being located about 300 feet east of the centerline of Mount Vernon Avenue and further described as being located at 1255 West Baseline Street. The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit under authority of Code Section 19.06.020 to permit construction of office/retail space including a convenience store with off-site sales of beer and wine and requests approval of a Variance of Code Section 19.06.030(2) (F) to construct the convenience store with less than the minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet required for new construction of convenience stores in the CG-2, Commercial General, General Plan use designation. Owner: Mr. and Mrs. Wooten Applicant: Value Homes Ward: 6 Receive comments formally from Public or Planning commission. Denise Moonier, Assistant Planner, presented a summary of the project. Ms. Moonier provided staff's recommendation of denial. She stated that the neighborhood, according to staff's findings, was already saturated with liquor stores and had a high crime rate and did not comply with the Development Code. Commissioner denied. He enhance the Cole objected to having this said that a store selling beer quality of the neighborhood. item (Item 6) and wine would Mr. Kenzie Wooten, the Bernardino was opposed to selling beer and wine in owner, 1588 Western Avenue, San the denial. He felt that a market his neighborhood would improve the City of San Bern~no Planning Commissi~ Meeting Minutes November 6, 1991 page 5 o area because it was a business. Mr. Carl Dea~, 1255 W. Baseline (owner of property in question), was in support of Mr. Wooten. He stated there was not a high crime rate at the time when the application was made. Mr. Peter favor. He problems. A. Mercudante, Baseline and Mt. Vernon, spoke in said he was directly across the street and had no Commissioner Lopez asked if there was anyone else in favor of this item. He then asked for those who were opposed. John Hernandez, 1248 W. Orange st., was opposed. He stated there were too many drug, crack houses, and wine and beer places. Ms. Lupe Moranga, 1263 W. Orange St. stated that she did not want anymore wine and beer stores. Mr. Jim Rodriguez, 1256 W. Orange st., stated that there was already too much crime and robbings. He said he was almost shot approximately three Wednesdays ago. Commissioner Valles asked Mr. Rodriquez if the problem was liquor. Mr. Rodriquez stated it was. Norma Garcia, 1207 W. Baseline, says there are over 150 people at her church. There are a lot of robberies. There is grafitti on walls. There is also a lot of vandalizing. Mr. Wooten responded by saying the facility would be modern and well lighted. Mr. Empeno advised that the application was not in compliance with the Development Code and in addition, there were no findings for approval. The public hearing was closed and Commissioner Cole made a motion to approve with conditions. Commissioner Stone seconded it. Motion was not carried. There was discussion. Commissioner Valles made a motion to approve the variance and deny the conditional use permit. There was no second. Commissioner Romero made a motion to deny both variance and conditional use permit. Commissioner Oretega seconded it. The vote was carried with Commissioners Jordan, Lopez, Ortega, Romero voting to deny and Commissioners Cole, Stone, and Valles voting to approve. Vice Chairperson Lopez stated that the decision of the City of San Bern~no Planning commissi~Meeting Minutes November 6, 1991 Page 6 o Planning Commission was and Common Council, in Commission act~on. final unless appealed to the Mayor writing, within 15 days of Planning ITEM NO.7 PARCEL MAP NO. 14139 - Subject property is a rectangularly- shaped parcel of land consisting of about .717 acres located at the northeast corner of Mountain Avenue and Lynwood Drive. The proposal is to create 4 parcels for single-family lots in the RS, Residential Suburban, General Plan land use designation. owner: Applicant: Ward: Exempt: staff George and Patricia Denny Carlson 7 recommends approval Hicks This item was considered on the Consent Calendar and request approved based upon Findings of Fact contained in staff report dated November 6, 1991 and subject to Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements listed therein. Henry Empeno, Deputy City Attorney, advised the Commissioners that Fred Wilson, Assistant City Administrator has been the Hearings Officer for revocation hearings. Mr. Wilson is requesting that the Planning Commission authorize Peggy Ducey, Assistant to the City Administrator, to also act as a Hearings Officer to help handle these proceedings. Mr. Empeno reviewed her biography. Commissioner Lopez made a motion to approve. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously carried. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM 6 HEARING DATE 11-6-91 WARD 6 ~",........, r APPLICANT. Value Homes . 22345 Barton Road W CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Grand Terrace, CA 92324 U) NO. 91-28 and C OWNER: Mr. & Mrs. Kensie Wooton CJ VARIANCE NO. 91-08 1588 Western Avenue San Bernardino, CA 92411 "-./ '- ",........, Under authority of Development Code Section 19.06.020 to I- construct 2,000 sq. ft. of office & retail space including U) a convenience store with off-site sales of beer & wine, on W :;) 6.250 sq. ft. Concurrently, under the authority of Section 0 19.72.030, the applicant requests a variance from Code Section W 19.06.030 requiring convenience stores to be constructed on a: - 10,000 sq. ft. and a variance from Code Section 19.26 which C established standards to regulate off-street loading & delivery W a: Subject property is a rectangularly shaped parcel, located on C the south side of Baseline Street, between r.1t. Vernon Avenue & Garner Street, also described as 1255 West Baseline. '-' '- r EXISTING GENERAL PLAN PROPERTY LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION Subject Commercial CG-2 Commercial General North Commercial CG-2 Commercial General South Residential RS Residential Suburban East Residential CG-2 Commercial General West Vacant CG-2 Commercial General GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC DYES FLOOD HAZARD 0 YES o ZONE A ( SEWERS: XIXI YES ) HAZARD ZONE: jQ{NO ZONE: )geNO OZONE B o NO HIGH FIRE DYES AIRPORT NOISE! DYES REDEVELOPMENT XlXlXvES HAZARD ZONE: ~ NO CRASH ZONE: PROJECT AREA: IKlKNO o NO - r--.. r r ..J o NOT o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z 0 APPROVAL C APPLICABLE EFFECTS WITH 0 I- MITIGATING MEASURES i= 0 ZU) NOE.l.R. C CONDITIONS WCJ ~Q :2Z o EXEMPT o E.I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO ~Z U DENIAL Z- SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS CW OQ WITH MITIGATING t;1 a:ii MEASURES 0 CONTINUANCE TO -~ > xl*! NO SIGNIFICANT o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS 0 Z CJ W EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E.R.C. W MINUTES a: '- '---" '- ....- ClTYClI'........,..,., --- PLAN-I.D2 PAGE, OF 1 ('-iO) CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE CUP 91-28/ VAR 91-08 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE - o 11-6-91 2 r REOUEST The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit under authority of Development Code section 19.06.020 and Table 06.01 (List of Permitted Uses) to establish a convenience store including the off-site sales of beer and wine. The project is located on a site of 6,250 square feet. Concurrently, under the authority of Development Code Section 19.72.030, the applicant is requesting a a variance from Development Code Section 19.06.030 (2) (f) requiring convenience stores to be constructed on a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, and a variance from Development Code Section 19.26 which established standards to regulate off-street loading and delivery. SITE LOCATION The project site is a rectangularly shaped parcel, located on the south side of Baseline Street between Mt. Vernon Avenue and Garner Avenue and further described as 1255 West Baseline in the CG-2,Commercial General, General Plan land use designation. DEVELOPMENT CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE The proposal is consistent with the Development Code with regard to setbacks, height, parking and landscaping (See Attachment A). The use is a permitted use subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The proposal is not consistent with the Development Code regarding the following items: the proposed site does not meet minimum lot size standards of 10,000 square feet for the construction of a convenience store ; the proposed site does not meet minimum Off-street loading standards for delivery ; the proposed location is less than 1000 feet from an existing or previously approved convenience store; less than 500 feet from a religious institution; less than 100 feet from a property used for residential purposes; and is in close proximity to other like and similar uses to cause oversaturation. ... .... ClnOi.....1IflIWlDIC) C8fTIW. -....o....cu PLAN.I.oe PAGE 1 OF 1 (4.g()) r- o o """l CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE CUP 91-28/VAR 91-08 b 11-6-91 3 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE """'I CEOA STATUS The project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act and further includes the proposed demolition of two buildings located on the property. Pursuant to Section 1, Chapter 15.37 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code, the project CUP 91-28, is subject to compliance with procedures for demolition. The project is required to undergo review by the Historical Preservation Task Force. In compliance with the Urgency Historic Structure Demolition Ordinance (MC 694), the applicant submitted a Historical Resources Evaluation Report to the Planning Division. Written by the consulting firm of Management Sciences Applications, Inc., the report is on record in the Planning Division. Of the two buildings on the property one is a primary single family residential building that has been converted to office use and the second is the detached garage. The primary residential building is a single story, rectangular shaped building of wood construction in a Craftsman style. Basically, the report concluded that due to the extensive alteration of the facade and the fact that the building was moved to this site in 1944, this particular building is not eligible for any designation under the criteria set forth in the National Register of Historic Places. As the project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, an Initial Study was prepared and reviewed at the meeting of September 9, 1991, of the Environmental Review Committee. The ERC recommended a Negative Declaration to the Planning commission. The Initial Study was available for public comment from September 6, 1991 through September 27, 1991 and no public comments were received. Although assessment towards the undergo the Task Force. Management Sciences Applications, Inc, in their report recommend that no further action be taken building, the proposal to remove the buildings must scheduled review on October 23, 1991 by the Historic .. .oil cmr""~ CEtfflItoliI..~IEfMCIE. PLAN-8.08 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-90) CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE CUP 91-28/VAR 91-08 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 6 11-6-91 4 , ~ BACKGROUND City records indicate that a proposal to construct 2,500 square feet of retail/office space at 1255 W. Baseline was previously filed as Review of Plans 91-13, on March 27, 1991. This proposal did not request a permit for off-site sales of alcohol. The project proposal included the demolition of a structure and pursuant to section 1, Chapter 15.37 of the San Bernardino Municipal code, the project RP 91-13 was subject to compliance with procedures for demolition. RP 91-13 was required to undergo review by the Historic Preservation Task Force, prior to final approval by the Environmental Review Committee and the Development Review Committee. The property owners representative, Value Homes, was notified of the City's requirements, including requirements for deeming the application Incomplete within 30 days of filing with the City. On April 12, 1991 pursuant to Municipal Code guidelines, the Finance Department informed and directed Staff to discontinue processing the project due to unpaid fees. On April 12, 1991 Staff telephoned the property owners representative, Value Homes, and advised them of the circumstances regarding the fees necessary for continuing the project. At that time the representative communicated to Staff to deem the application withdrawn and close the case. RP 91-13 was deemed Withdrawn on April 12, 1991. The property owners and their representative subsequently contacted staff in order to determine if the application could be revised and new fees submitted in order to develop a project for this site. Staff met with the property owners and Mr. Paul Weiler, their representative. Staff advised the property owners of Ordinance No. 770 which had been adopted by the Mayor and Common Council on March 12, 1991 and provided them copies of Ordinance MC-770. There was an interm ordinance, MC 770, adopted at the request of the Mayor and Council, prior to the Development Code because of the urgency of regulating the oversaturation of convenience stores in the City. On March 12, 1991, the Mayor and Council voted to regulate convenience stores, identifying 10,000 square feet as the minimum lot size allowable. The ordinance was adopted March 12, 1991 and became effective April 12, 1991, prior to the project being reviewed for 30 days and deemed Incomplete. .... ClTfOl.....~ Cl!NnW."--~ PLAN.8.D8 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-90) r' n (j CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE CUP 91-28/VAR 91-08 6 11-6-91 5 .II OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE ... ""'l After reviewing the site characteristics, Staff determined the necessary revisions and fees for developing the site with a convenience store, which included a new application for the sales of beer and wine for off-site consumption and a request for a variance to permit construction of a convenience store on a parcel size of less than 10,000 square feet. This was re-submitted on May 11. 1991, as Conditional Use Permit 91-28 and Variance 91-08. The applicant met with the City's Development Review Committee on May 30, 1991, who requested a revised site plan and that a Historical Resources Report be submitted. The case was deemed Incomplete on May 30, 1991. A revised site plan recieved on Development Review Committee, Resources Evaluation Report was 1991. The report was reviewed Complete August 9, 1991. June 18, 1991, as required by the and submittal of the Historical received by the City on August 6, for accuracy and the case deemed ANALYSIS PROPOSED USE The intent of the Commercial General land use designation is to provide goods/services which include general retail, restaurants and convenience stores. The proposed use of a market with sales of beer and wine for off-site consumption is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and is a permitted land use subject to the property development standards of the the Development Code and with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. COMPATIBILITY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD The proposed site is located on the south between Mount Vernon and Garner Avenues. Mt. Vernon Elementary School, at 1271 N. 3/10's of a mile away. side of Baseline Street The nearest school is Mt. Vernon, is located The nearest religious Church is 54 feet away Iglesia Church of God site. institution, the Galilee Mission Baptist at 1239 West Baseline Street Road, and the Penticostal, is 255 feet from the project The subject property is 3/10's of a mile from 10 th Street Park and next door to a residence at 1247 W. Baseline Street. To the south are residential land uses, to the east are commercial uses and to the north are commercial uses. .. .II ClTYCI'............., --- PLAN-a.oa PAGE 1 OF 1 l~-IO) n ^ r ..... CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE CUP 9l-28/VAR 91-08 AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 6 OBSERV A TIONS HEARING DATE 11-6-91 PAGE 6 .. ~ ..... CRIME The site of the proposed market is located within census tract 47, and crime reporting district SCl19. For the reporting period of 1987 reported crimes were 150 per cent above the average crime statistics for the entire City. According to the San Bernardino Police Department investigation, the subject property is located in and around a high crime area. High numbers of violent crimes occur and the majority of suspects are under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. The 1987 crime statistics reported 171 Part I Crimes and 247 Part II Arrests. Of the Part II Arrests, 14 per cent, or 33 arrests were directly alcohol related. The 90 day statistics reported from 10-1-90 through contain 61 Part I Crimes reported and 62 Part II Arrests, per cent of the arrests being directly related to consumption. 1-24-91 with 24 alcohol To summerize the crime statistics, the 90 day stats indicate a substantial increase from 1987 in overall crimes reported and an increase from 1987 in the percentage of Part II Arrests which are directly alcohol related. CONCENTRATION OF ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENTS The concentration of existing outlets for off-site sales, five existing outlets, equals the saturation level of five, as determined by the Police Department. If Conditional Use Permit 91-28 is approved the concentration of alcohol outlets will exceed the saturation level. Their investigation reported evidence that there are four other locations within 1,000 feet of the site. The nearest locations are listed as : Budget King, 1150 W. Baseline Street Catoes, 1127 W. Baseline Street Pete's Liquor Store, 1101 N.Mt Vernon Jimbo's Market, 1395 W. Baseline Street 685 feet from site 964 feet from site 823 feet from site 944 feet from site ... ClTY~"'1I!l'lNAl'IIlN) Cl!HIIW.~~ PL,AN.8.oa PAGE 1 OF 1 (4.iO) CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE CUP 91-28/VAR 91-08 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 6 11-6-91 7 ..... The number of existing on-site sales is five. The saturation level from the Police Department is set at six outlets for the census tract. The nearest location with on-site sales of alcohol is the Arrowhead Elks Lodge, 2/10's of a mile away at 1073 N. Mt. Vernon. COMMENTS RECIEVED Area Residents The Police contacted six residents in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site. Of the six, five had no objections. The resident at 1247 West Baseline Street, Cora Mattews advised the Investigator that she is intending to move and has no opinion about the proposed business. Police Department The Police Department's report stated the following concerns: the lot is too small for the building and offstreet parking; the area is saturated with stores which sell alcoholic beverages; in one block there are three stores that sell beer and wine; and the area is a documented high crime district. Development Review committee Conditional Use Permit 91-28, and Variance 91-09 was reviewed at the September 26, 1991 meeting of the Development Review Committee. The DRC voted to recommend denial of Conditional Use Permit 91-28 and Variance 91-09 to the Planning commission. ABC COMMENTS On October 10, 1991, Staff contacted an Inspector Department of Alcohol Beverage Control regarding the convenience market. The Inspector advised Staff applicant has not applied for an ABC off-premise license for the proposed that the yet. Additionaly, because the site is located within 100 feet of a residence, ABC rule 61.4 (proximity to residences) may apply to this site. An ABC license may be denied by ABC per this rule if they determine issuance of a license is detrimental to residents. ClTVCFINII~ --- PLAN.B.D8 PAGE' OF 1 (4-10) CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE CUP 9l-28/VAR 91-08 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 6 11-6-91 8 "'l ANALYSIS Variance Request The applicant is requesting a variance 19.06.030 Land Use District Specific ience Stores, to permit construction 6,250 square feet site located at 1255 of Development Code section Standards (2) (F.1) Conven- of a convenience market on West Baseline Street. Concurrently, the applicant is Development Code section 19.26. Muncipal standards which regulate for commercial establishments. requesting a variance from This section identifies the off-street loading and delivery Site Characteristics The subject property is a rectangularly shaped parcel having a frontage of approximately 50 feet on Baseline street and a depth of 132 feet. The parcel is relatively flat with no unusual topography, and surrounded by similarly sized lots having businesses or older single family residences. Project Characteristics The parcel would be developed to the rear of the site. The required off-street parking property. with a two-story structure situated plans show one driveway, and eight, spaces along the west side of the The plans propose construction of store on the ground floor and 550 the second floor. a 1,450 square foot convenience square feet of office space on There would be a loading space, 10 feet in width by 20 feet in depth on the east side of the structure located between the east wall of the structure and the easterly property line. Development Code standards Code Section 19.06.030 Land Use District Specific Standards (2) (F) permits convenience stores, of gross floor area less than 5,000 square feet subject to Conditional Use Permit review, and constructed and operated under specific development standards, with the requirement that the minimum site area shall be 10,000 square feet. Chapter 19.26, Section loading space not less and 14 feet of vertical 19.26.040 Design Standards (2) require than 15 feet in width, 50 feet in length, clearance. ... ...j ern Of IIoIW IENWI:II<<) ClENIAAl.~.1MCU PI.AN-8.G8 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-101 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE CUP 91-28/VAR 91-08 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 6 11-6-91 9 ~ ...., Mandatory Variance Findings Section 65906 of the California specific parameters under which a Section 19.72.050 of the Development provisions into the mandatory findings make prior to granting a variance. Government Code identifies variance may be granted. Code incorporates these that the Commission must Pursuant to the Development Code, there must be special circumstances applicable to the property that cause the strict application of the Code to deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under the same land use district classification. In a written response intended to establish the need for a variance (Attachment C), the applicant holds that due to the size and the difficulty of increasing the size, the property owner is denied full commercial development that the surrounding property owners enjoy. The applicant feels that the surrounding property is allowed to be developed for commercial use and the subject property is restricted only due to its size. Further, the applicant states that the property was originally a residential district, that has been changed to a commercial district and that the project has been planned by the applicant for over one year. The granting of a variance must be found to not create a detriment to the public health, safety or welfare. The applicant responded that the granting of this variance will not be a detriment to the community. Instead, the applicant writes that the property can be developed in a way that will meet all existing zoning and planning requirements. The City may not grant a variance if it constitutes a special privilege that is not consistent with the limitations placed upon other properties in the vicinity. The applicant writes that there would be no special privilege with regard to parking, landscaping and other planning requirements and that the use of the property as a store/retail building had been anticipated by the owner since its purchase. Finally, the granting of a variance does not allow a use or activity which ~s not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject parcel. The applicant writes that the stated property would be used for purposes expressly allowed under the existing zoning and consistent with the General Plan. ... CI1'VClf......~ CENnW."'NrING~ P!.AN.8.oe PAGE 1 OF 1 (".grJ) CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE CUP 91-28/VAR 91-08 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 6 11-6-91 10 ,. staff's Findings 1. Special Circumstances The applicant feels that special circumstances exist for the granting of a variance from the development standards restricting minimum lot size and dimensions of loading and delivery areas. Staff examined the Assessor's Map Book to determine the similarity of lot size and dimensions of subject property as compared with lot size and dimensions of other properties in the surrounding block area. The surrounding properties on the subject's block and across Baseline all have similar lot sizes and dimensions. The property is identical to others on the block and in the vicinity. There are no special circumstances applicable to this property including size, shape, topograhpy, location and surroundings that would place it at a direct disadvantage with other properties in the vicinity and identical land use if the Development Code standards were applied. Secondly, the applicant holds that special circumstances apply because of zoning re-classification. Staff's response to the aspect of zone classification, is that the subject property has been commercial for many years, specifically C-3, before the adoption of the General Plan in 1989. City land use maps document that the block in which the subject property is situated, along Baseline was zoned C-3. A check of City documents indicated that the property has not been recently re-zoned, nor subject to a new zoning land use classification. Subject to Conditional Use Permit discretionary review procedures and specific development standards under the old Title 19, Municipal Code, the property has remained a commercial land use classification through the adoption of the General Plan of June 1989. The CUP review procedures facilitate a discretionary approval for land uses whose approval may result in adverse impacts on neighborhood residents or encroach upon future development and may be only granted by the Commission when Findings have been made. A decision to grant a CUP based on the necessary Findings (with respect to ensuring a site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development) has not changed from the old Title 19 Municipal Code to the new Development Code. Cl1"l' CI' _ .-....0 ClNJJW.~1EIMCU ... Pl.AN-8.D8 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-iO) r t""\ ..... CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE CUP 91-28/VAR 91-0R 6 11-b-91 1 1 II. OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE r For example, the old Title 19, section 19.78.050 required that we address that the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare. Additionally, Title 19, section 19.78.050 also required introduction of alcoholic beverage sales at the proposed will not create an adverse impact on the surrounding pattern nor will a parking congestion be generated. that the location traffic Therefore, Staff cannot concur that special circumstances exist because under the old Title 19, the project would have been subject to CUP review procedures and based on Findings necessary to be made for project approval. A review of the location, design, configuation, and potential impact of the proposed use would have been conducted. To summarize the issues addressed in this section, it is Staff's determination that special circumstances do not exist because of a re-classification of land use, zoning changes, or speculative anticipation. 2. Necessity For the Preservation of a Property Right The property has been zoned commercial for many years, and its owners had the opportunity to construct a convenience market onsite previously. Additionally, the property may be developed for any number of permitted uses; such as general retail, office, or food service uses. Loading restrictions may vary according to proposed land use. However, every other property owner in the vicinity is subject to the same standards for convenience stores. The regulations in regard to the subject property are due to the size of the lot, and to its location in proximity to other convenience stores and other premises which are licensed by ABC for the sales of alcohol beverages. The regulations on the subject property are also due to the location in proximity to religious institutions, and residences. other properties in the vicinity and land use district would be subject to the Municipal Code restrictions if the other properties filed an application for a new a convenience store project. The Findings cannot be made that application of necessary for the preservation of property rights lot area or loading area. a variance is with regard to .... PLAN-8.D1 PAGE 1 OF 1 (".;Q) ClTYCll'IM~ --- n n ~ """'l CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE CUP 9l-28/VAR 91-0R AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 6 CONDITIONS HEARING DATE 11-6-91 , PAGE 12 """'l 3. Health, safety and General Welfare A convenience store would be subject to frequent stops for deliveries of beer, wine, food and other goods. Both cars and trucks require sufficient room for driving, parking and backing up. Due to the small nature of the site, there may be some traffic impacts between vehicles as it is the nature of convenience store parking lots to be busy. The parcel may be subject to the impacts of vehicles because of frequent, small trips of short duration. During peak day and evening periods of purchasing there may be localized traffic impacts associated with the blocking of the drive aisle on the property. The project cannot be developed in a way that will meet all existing zoning and planning requirements and not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare in that the location of the property is within an environment that is a high crime area, oversaturated with like and similiar uses and results in an undue concentration of off-site alcohol outlets. The site is also in proximity to churches, schools, and residential uses. The project proposes putting a 10 by 20 loading area on the east side of the site, next to a single family residence. Locating a loading area within a few feet of a residence may cause impacts on the adjacent property. other uses , for example, medical or professional offices, may not have delivery trucks with food and beverages unloading next door to a residence. All things considered, a larger loading area, situated farther from a residential property would be more compatible with the area. staff does not concur that the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety,or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and land use district in which it is located. 4. Special Privilege While a number of other businesses have sites that do not conform to Development Code standards, and while the applicant would not have any special privilege with regards to having the required number of parking spaces, landscaping and setbacks, other properties in the vicinity and in the land use district are subject to the same Municipal Code requirements as the applicant. Staff holds that the granting of the variance does constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and land use district. ... ~ ClTTOI-IM~ --- PLAN-8.D8 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-iO) CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE CUP NO. 91-28/ VAR NO. 91-08 6 11-6-91 13 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 5. General Plan Consistency The proposal General land Plan. is consistent with the intent of the Commercial use designation as described in the City's General CONCLUSION It is the intent of the Development Code to prevent the oversaturation of convenience stores, as they are associated with high crime statistics and other activities troublesome to local residents. Comments from area residents, ABC inspectors, the Police Department and the Development Review Committee have been incorporated in the analysis, and conclusions are based on these Attachments as evidence which supports or does not support the applications for the Conditional Use Permit, and Variances. The site does not conform to the Development Code size, loading area, and compatibility to other land the project location being in proximity to similar residential land use, and religious institutions. with regard to uses, based on and like uses, The Development Code states that parcels are to provide adequate space to meet the needs of commercial development including off-street parking and loading, to minimize congestion, and to ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses. It is difficult to make Findings for approving the Conditional Use permit and a Variance for this parcel. The project does not conform to the Development Code with regard to lot size based on proposed use. The project does not conform to Development Code Section 19.06.030 (2), which addresses property development standards and regulates establishments which require the issuance of an "ABC" license, that they shall not be located in such close proximity to another similar use as to cause oversaturation of the neighborhood. CIT'l' OF ..... II!MUDIC) --- .. ...oil PLAN-8.OII PAGE 1 OF' , 14-10) i'\ ,.. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE CUP 91-28/VAR 91-08 6 11-6-91 14 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE , """I RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Conditional Use Permit No. 91-28, and variance No. 91-08 based on the Findings of Fact. (Attachment B). Respectfully submitted, ~~C;R~~,~Jtant Director Planning and Building S~ices AA1I'K 5- /J1tz/lL-, ~:S. Moon~ Assistant Planner Attachments: A - Development Code Conformance Table B - Findings of Fact C - Variance written response D - Initial Study E - Police Report F - site plan, Floor plan and Elevations G - Location Map ... CIT'l'ClI'_llElIiIIIIIWIO ---- PLAN.8.DB PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-90) CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT , " t""\ - """"l CASE CUP 91-28/VAR 91-08 AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 6 11-6-91 15 ... OBSERVATIONS ..... po DEVELOPMENT CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE """"l Cateaorv Permitted Use Height Setbacks front side rear Lot Coverage Parking Proposal Development Code General Plan Market/ Office Subject to: Convenience Store Stand. & approved CUP Permitted Subject CUP 2 stories 2 stories/ 30 ft. 2 stories 10 ft. 5 ft./4 ft. Oft. 10 ft. Oft. Oft. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 25.6 % 50 % 8 8 DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 19.06.030 (2) (b.f.) (Convenience Store Development Standards) Site area 6,250 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. N/A Direct frontage from public street Driveways Proximity: to existing convenience stores to Religious Institutions to housing to schools ... C/JYtJI-...............:t --- YES YES N/A 1 1 N/A N/A 4 stores o stores within 1000 ft. within 1000 ft. 2 within 500 ft. o within 500 ft. N/A 2 within 100 ft. o within 100 ft. N/A 1 within 3/10 's of mile o within 500 ft. N/A PlAN.8.D8 PAGE 1 OF 1 lHIO: t"'\ C) r' CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE CUP 91-28/VAR 91-08 6 11-6-91 16 FINDINGS OF FACT AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE , CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The proposed use is conditionally permitted within the subject land use district, however, it does not comply with all of the applicable provisions of this Development Code in that the lot area does not meet the minimum standards for convenience stores, minimum standards for loading and delivery area, and for minimum distance between religious institutions, residential uses and existing convenience markets with sales of alcohol. 2. The proposed building would not impair character of the land use district be located in that it is architecturally the built environment. the integrity and in which it is to compatible with 3. The subject site is not physically suitable for the type and intensity of land use being proposed in that the site is too small for the intensity of a convenience store. 4. The proposed use is compatible with the land uses presently on the subject property in that the present use is commercial. 5. The proposed use would not be compatible with existing and future land uses within the general area in which the proposed use is to be located in that the general area is oversaturated with licensed outlets for sales of alcohol and in that there is residential land use within 100 ft. 6. The proposed use is not compatible in scale, mass, coverage density and intensity with all adjacent land uses in the site is too small and the loading area is adjacent to a residentially used property. 7. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilties, however, there are not adequate provisions for public services which address the crime problems associated with convenience stores, and may be detrimental to pUblic health and safety. 8. There will be adequate provisions the subject proposal in that the access from a public street. for public access to serve site would have one drive ... .... CIT'l' Of SNI .-....0 ---...... PLAN-8.D6 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-80) , n () "III CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE CUP 91-28/VAR 91-08 6 11-6-91 17 FINDINGS OF FACT AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE ... F' 9. There will be a harmful effect upon desirable neighborhood characteristics in that the sales of alcohol is associated within loitering, drinking in public, and other reported activities. 10. The Development Code does not require a market study for the proposed use of a convenience market. 11. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan in that the convenience market is a permitted use, subject to the property development standards and approval of a CUP in the CG-2 land use designation. 12. There will not be significant harmful effects upon environ- mental quality and natural resources in that an Initial Study was permformed and a Negative Declaration was prepared. 13. The enviromental impacts were not significant and do not require mitigation. 14. The proposed location, size, design, and operationg charac- teristics of the proposed use would be detrimental based on the above Findings, to the public interests, health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the City. ... Cl1"l'ClF_1!MUlIlIC) --- P~.Q6 PAGE 1 OF 1 (".go) o o ~ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE CUP 91-28/VAR 91-08 6 11-6-91 18 FINDINGS OF FACT AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE ~ VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT 1. There are no special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Development Code does not deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical land use district classification. 2. That granting the variance preservation and enjoyment of possessed by other property in district. is not necessary for the a substantial property right the same vicinity and land use 3. That granting the Variance will be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to property or improvements in such vicinity and land district in that the site is too small for the proposed and the area is oversaturated with properties licensed the sales of alcohol. the use use for 4. That granting of this variance request constitutes a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity in which the subject property is located in that all other such properties, except those of legal nonconforming status, are subject to limitations that are no less stringent than those place upon the subject property. 5. That granting the Variance does allow a use which is not authorized by the Development Code Standards for convenience stores. 6. That granting ~f this variance request General Plan, ~n that the proposed use subject to approval of a Conditional Use will be consistent is a permitted use, Permit. ...,j ClrrOFINlI~ CEIfTAAl.~.-cu PLAN-8.D6 PAGE 1 OF , (4.QO) J -"'~";" CrN OF SAN BERN~INO PLANNING AND BUILDIN~ ERVICES DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FOR oj ~. VARIANCE NO. C\ \ -()-6 ~~ ~ APPLICANT: t-#J~ ~eS ADDRESS: ~2:?~,j bf~ k #~ &~b~~~ "'OWNER: ~.JX4'/; r&.P~'f' ~~ ADDRESS:/$"d~ ~ ~~ &.1/ ~J?AW'/.V'~ a TELEPHONE~tJ '2$~353~ .J DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE: GENERAL LOCATION: /.;64/# cJ1w ~/lQ#~ &/# \.J~a:r ~ ,~e-U..Q'6" J~~ ~~,V /' d'""p/U/,PZ. '* #~w ~~~. /:Jy-ty7/-~? \.. GEOLOGIC! 0 YES SEISMIC HAZARD ZONE: ,,8( NO ~YES DNO """ GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION CY-z ,.. HIGH FIRE ',0 YES HAZARD ZONE: _ '- AS-NO ,.. ZONING DESIGNATION ~-2 '- FLOOD 0 YES 0 ZONE A AIRPORT NOISE! 0 YES HAZARD CRASH ZONE: ZONE: 0 ZONE B CEWERS: ~~ ~, ~ITTALS: ..::::... ~PPUCATION. (9AETTER OF CERTIFICATION (NOTARIZED). ~ LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION (NOTARIZED) ~ SITE PLAN (16 COPIES. FOLDED TO 8-112" X 11"). o WRITTEN RESPONSE TO FINDINGS. 0 CHECK FOR $215.00 MADE PAYABLE TO SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT (IF APPLICABLE). .J:J PREUMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION FORM. - ~ ~ 8-112" X 11" TRANSPARENCY. CJ,.l.-"'UMMED LABELS (2 SETS). ........ ~ ~__ ~ SUPLEMENTAL APPUCATlON. c u.-ow FT. PROPERTY OWNER'S MAP. ....... _ 'U PREUMINARY TITLE REPORT (WITHIN LAST 6 MONTHS). '1ii FLOOR PLANS & ELEVATIONS (IF APPLICABLE). PLOT PLAN CHECKLIST. ~f2..P - ~F=> 0.1-l3 SIGNATURE OF LEGAL OWNER (S) and/or APPUCANT DATE: ?::./8'1 'f / DATE: ~/ rJ'7/ DATE: """ DATE APPUCATlON RECEIVED: DATE APPUCATlON ACCEPTED: CD APPROVED o DENIED E. R. C.! D. R. C. MEETING PC. MEETING M! C.C. MEETING ) =-=~~. - -= p~.o:s PAGE 1 OF' (2-10) .. - - ;,;. ~>~'. ~ 1>_.... .-'..c. ~ c () AlLAPPLICATIONS FORA VARIANCE MUST INCLUDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO EACH OF THE FOllOWING ITEMS IN ORDER TO ClEARLY ESTABLISH THE mil FOR THE VARIANCE. PlEASE ANSWER All ITEMS DIRECTlY ON THIS SHEET. A. "",-.,. ~ circumstances appIicaIlle to the property, including size, sh~, topography, location or surraundingl; the atricl eppIicetion 01 this Code deprives such property 01 privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinlly and u~er identical land use district classdication; ;!i/r,;rtJ /~r (i?'z~ ,,~r.l/Ar ~tp/'lCV'kff // -;ur /!/PtI/TY /rP ~?~ ,12/& ,f1zr "?'''' .7:Z/r ~"2st? ,t1AfP~ ?"H ~//~~ ,P/LL- &h?~~~L- t7EZ/r~J"'~r ,Wp/ ,,7R'E cf'##At'c:??"4".e::>Ac:(~ /~~ ~#6W ~~. ~/r.li' /,::?/,er -m 7.Q~ ~r 7Z'~ / .' / / / / /1//~ /~ V~ d~~/k/;#L/y # .tIJm-~~ ~N/E ~/r /S .t?~~ C~~.6:"b Tt!' ,4- ~_A'f :-:.~,C / / ZUE. ,;M.r /",~ur$Nr ~/ /.u,,~>Io""/'-""'~ pdA-J R/,e- &/P- .aYE V.G-'1'4.- / ~ h'.?v,5gV~ ~~ ,$ A'tY~ ~M"'.v", , ~#P'?I.T. " / . ./ B. That granting the Variance is necessary lor the preservation and enjoyment 01 a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinlly and land use district and denied to the property lor which the Variance is sought; ,?hi.#' (~~I/'(/b,?(/9 ,,t1~~~/ ~ e4Gl'~$- ~ A5 #~~ 7!7 ~ ~~~/~ .~a.- ~".b?G'"~~ , / dr-~ .~r M1:J~r ~~~~ /~/~ ff ~~ ~/~ UYE /?Z') /.73" $Ze- Gc)..?~ /c.:r~) ,F/U7~ ~~ .P~e-~/,,<!a7 /// ,7Z/E ,~e- h/~ C. That granting the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public hea~h, safety, or we"are, or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinlly and land use district in which the property is located; ,7Z/r H$v-#" #~~<:? ,~ /"~ .&;r ~Jz:;~ $ .#' 4/"""" /;t:<%~ h4~ ~.,.. d& .6r/'!?'7.....r~ c~.#~ // /,/~.u/.uy ,.de;p///N5H.?~ A./~ /1Z/~ .sr~#<</ f'F ~r u?ZE ... ~ :..:.~._::.= P~.Q:3 PAQE..OFt (2_ ..... ,.. o ,:) .... O. That granting the V.,ianc:e does not constitute. spacial privilege inconsistent with the Hmitations upon other plllpaItlM in ~ vicinity and land use district in which such properly is located; 'We- ~~ tVaYLe? e- C'a:/J~ ~//%" ~.e- 1'..... , ~(Pf" ,.~ #teYd/..t7~ /~~7? ~f""'~_6V.r;-' .~p;;:? iVY//Lb ..//'7" ,u##r ~7 ~ezp--:VL /~/...vH~ i;-1r# ,41E61H~e?J' /"%7 /~~~L/~ ~A#?,r~.!r .?~ ~nYPv- /,zIflX/A//#? 4E<P~~&2(/'T / k //~ ~ /'U.Lr ,~hI':'.I'~ A'V ..-1 ;f/p~~/..I: Am-.tb/~4' /O~ d~...v ~?7/-<~'P-- 4Y /7Xt'~ ~4"~ ,f?'a:'E.r,f,iIV/t!?#;v~ E. That granting the Variance does not allow a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject parcel; 'WE ,t7~ I/~~-'Y .L4//Lh? /?r ~ ~ / /' / /~~d.?Pr .&:Y~:I'o/ d//~--'.A? V'#~ /~.e- PX/V'7L~(; .?';U/#'--7- F. That granting the Variance will not be inconsistent w~h the General Plan. 7.Ve- ~~ /' /?J ,t/J~ .H'A~ ~~ /' " ~~ J'7'/C ~....~ ,-4'" t;1'/ / / cn"f (II ... ..-....0 ........ .- Ii. PLNW.o:l P_50H (..... r ("') - CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ~ INITIAL STUDY .... r Initial study for Environmental Impacts for CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-28 VARIANCE 91-08 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: proposed construction of a 2033 square foot office and retail space including a proposal for off-site sales of beer and wine while varying the minimum lot size required for a convenience store. Project site is .151 acres located on the south side of Baseline between Mt. Vernon and Garner Avenue in the CG-2, Commercial General land use designation. Auqust 23, 1991 Prepared for: Mr. and Mrs. Wooton 1588 Western Avenue San Bernardino, Ca 92411 Prepared by: Denise S. Moonier Assistant Planner City of San Bernardino Planninq and Building Services Department 300 North "0" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 ~en;:-~ ... PLAN-I.07 PAGE 1 OF I {'-to) ^ o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT .. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST ... Application Number: ~ ql-~<?~ VA.~IAl\I(!:r. 11-~~ Project Description: 10 e"~~ .cr 6:2. C,33 ~ t==T." OF ~'t / nF'Flc.2"' ~.AC ,J;:r l \NC \ (-t>\N.6tA ~\ ~~~ rX~ s~ SA.L~ ~ "1-'-I~iwlNl;t:) Location:w\.lIL;:t V~)i::YIt.l(1 ~ 111t\l\MIM/\ I~"S\,~..~" ~A~~n. s:;~ ~ ~.s5 \A/. ~~1~P7" Sl. Environmental Constraints Areas~~ "R~I'V\.()VA I 77f=- A.. ~r1(~~ \~ C~S ~1.~,t~lt'r"'~~~D\.~\~ General Plan Designation: 6~;;< t ~t1TS.1;r lA \ ~~y ("'"~!!.t-..If"1f.A ! r: .n)1~\A\ r A. BACKGROUND ~~\ Zoning Designation: """I B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a separate allached sheet. 1. Earth Resource. Will the proposal resuh in: a. Eanh movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more? Ves b. Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 15% natural grade? c. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone as defined in Section 12.0 - Geologic & Seismic, Figure 47, of the City's General Plan? d. Mod~ication of any unique geologic or physical feature? e. Development within areas defined for high potential for water or wind erosion as ident~ied in Section 12.0- Geologic & Seismic, Figure 53, of the City's General Plan? f. Mod~ication of a channel, creek or river? No Maybe X X X )( X. --I. ern 01' .... .........., --- (11.10} ~ PLAN-I.DI PAGE 1 OF ^ () r' .... g. Development within an area subject to landslides. Yes No Maybe mudslides, liquefaction or other similar hazards as identnied in Section 12.0. Geologic & Seismic, X Figures 48, 52 and 53 of the City's General Plan? h. Other? - >< 2. Air Resources: Will the proposal resutt in: a. Substantial air emissions or an effect upon ambient X air quality as defined by AQMD? b. The creation of objectionable odors? ~ c. Development within a high wind hazard area as identffied in Section 15.0. Wind & Fire, Figure 59, of the City's ~ General Plan? 3. Wster Resources: Will the proposal resutt in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff due to impermeable surfaces? --\" b. Changes in the course or flow of flood waters? ~ c. Discharge into surface waters or any atteration k of surface water quality? d. Change in the quantity or quality of ground water? ...t e. Exposure of people or property to flood hazards as identnied in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Rood Insuranceg:te Map, Community Panel Number 060281llQL). , and Section 16.0. -t Flooding, Figure 62, of the City's General Plan? f. Other? -1' 4. BlologlcIIl Resources: Could the proposal resutt in: a. Development within the Biological Resources Management averlay, as identffied in Section 10.0 . Natural Resources, Figure 41, of the City's ~ General Plan? b. Change in the number of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants or their habitat indueling ~ stands of trees? c. Change in the number of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals or their habitat? k' d. Removal of viable, mature trees? (6" or gre8ler) 1" e. Other? ;\" 5. No"': Could the proposal resutt in: a. Development of housing, hestth care facilities, schools, libraries, religious facilities or other "noise" sensitive uses in areas where existing or future noise levels exceed an Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior and an Ldn of 45 dB(AI interior as identnied in Section 14.0. Noise, Figures 14-6 and A 14.13 of the City's General Plan? ... ~ ~-=-=== DIAllLIt._ IIAfte4"r nt__ o o , b. D.v.lopm.nt of n.w or .xpansion of .xisting industrial, comm.rcial or oth.r uses which g.n.rat. noise I.v.ls on a.... containing housing, schools, h.a~h car. faciliti.s or oth.r ..ns~iv. us.s above an ldn of 65 dB(A) .xt.rior or an ldn of 45 dB(A) int.rior? c. Othar? - 6. Land U..: Willth. proposal r.sub in: a. A chang. in th. land us. as d.signated on th. G.n.ral Plan? b. D.v.lopm.nt within an Airport District as id.nt~ied in th. Air Installation Compatibl. Us. Zona (AICUZ) R.port and th. Land Us. Zoning District Map? c. D.v.lopm.nt within Foothill Fir. Zonas A & B, or C as id.ntnied on th. land Us. Zoning District Map? d. Othar? 7. Man-Made Hazards: Willth. proJad: a. Us.. sto... transport or dispose of hazardous or toxic mat.rials (including but notlim~ed to oil, pesticid.s, ch.micals or radiation)? b. Involv.th. r.leas. of hazardous substances? c. exPOS. peopl. to th. pot.ntial heabh/saf.ty hazards? d. Other? 8. Housing: Willth. proposal: a. R.mov. .xisting housing or cr. at. a d.mand for addttional housing? b. Other? II. Tranaportatlon I Circulation: Could th. proposal. in comparison with th. Circulation Plan.. id.ntniad in Sadion 6.0 . Circulation of the City's Gen.ral Plan. ..sub in: a. An incr.... in traffic that is gr.at.r than th. land us. d.signated on the G.n.ral Plan? b. Use of existing. or d.mand for new, parking facil~ieSlstrudur.s? c. Impact upon .xisting public transponation syst.ms? d. Ab.ration of pr.sent pall.ms of circulation? .. Impact to rail or air traffic? f. Increased saf.ty hazards to v.hiclas. bicyclists or pedestrians? g. A disjointed patt.m of roadway improv.m.nts? h. Sign~icant incr.... in traffic volum.s on th. roadways or int.rsactions? i. Othar? ... (IT'/' ClI' 1M IflIIiWDIII) --- v.s No X. A: } k . ) )( ---L- }o oX X A: X x x- X l( ~ ~ ~ " ~ Maybe PLAN.'a PAGE3OF_ (11-101 ~ 0 10. Public Service.: Will the proposal impact the following Yes No Maybe beyond the capabil~y to provide adequate levels of service? a. Fire ptOtection? .l( b. Police protection? { c. Schools (i.e., attendance, boundaries, overload, etc.)? ( d. Parks or other recreational facil~ies? { e. Medical aid? >( f. Solid Waste? l( g. Other? K 11. utllltla.: Will the proposal: a. Impact the following beyond the capabil~ to provide adequale levels of service or require the construction of new facil~ies? 1. Natural gas? X 2. Electricity? ~ 3. Water? ~ 4. Se_r? ~ 5. Other? I( b. Resutt in a disjointed pattern of util~ extensions? ~ c. Require the construction of new facil~ies? .( 12. Aa8thatlea: a. Could the proposal resutt in the obstruction of any ~ scenic view? b. Will the visual impact of the project be detrimental X to the surrounding area? c. Other? y 13. Cultural Resource.: Could the ptOposal resutt in: L Tha atteration or de.truction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological .~e by developmeM w~hin an archaeological .ansitive area as identified in Section >< 3.0 - Historical, Figura 8, of the C~y's General Plan? b. Attaration or destruction of a historical s~a, structure or object as listed in the C~'s Historic Resources X Raconnaissance Survey? c. Other? 1( .. . ~ !!"_CI"'" !!!'!!!!!!!!S! o o ~ """II 14. Mandatory Findings of Significance (Section 15065) The ClIllfornia Environmental Ouality Act states that ff any of the following can be answered yes or maybe, the project may have a signfficant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Repon shall be prepared. Ves No Maybe a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the hab~at of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlffe population to drop below se" sustaining Iavels, thre.en to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Calffornia history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve shon- term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A shon.term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, defin~ive period of time while Iong.term impacts will endure well into the future.) ~ X' c. Does the project have impacts which are individually Iim~ed, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the affect of the total of those impacts on the environment is signfficanL) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, e~her directly or indirectly? l' .-t C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATlON AND MmGATlON MEASURES (Attach sheets as necessary.) ... !!:Z..e:: ... .._ o t~ D. DETERMINA TlON On the basis of this in~ial study. 0'The proposed project COULD NOT have a signdicant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARA. TION will be prepared. o The proposed project could have a signdicant effect on the environment. a~hough there will not be a slQndicant effect in this case because the m~igation measures described above have been added to the proJect. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. o The proposed project MAY have a signdicant effect on the environment. and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA :;;1I"!I1D117~"'€ItY ,4INU'''''' ~~~ Name and Title ~~~ Date: '/-S;~I { II.. gT'tCll'....~ ClImW.-......-- PLAN-I. PAOE_OF_ {11.IDJ ...oil o o INITIAL STUDY FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-28 AND VARIANCE 91-08 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report is provided by the City of San Bernardino as an Initial Study for CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-28/VARIANCE 91-08. Section 2.0 provides a description of the project and site characteristics. As stated in section 15063 Quality Act guidelines, the to : of the purposes California Environmental of an Initial Study are 1. Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration: 2. Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for Negative Declaration: 3. Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by: (A) Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant, (B) Identify the effects determined not to be significant, and (C) Explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be significant. 4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project: 5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a Negative Declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment: 6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs: 7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project. o o INITIAL STUDY FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-28/VAR 91-08 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant's request is to construct 2,033 square feet of office and retail space in a two story commercial structure. The proposal includes a request to permit the sale of beer and wine for off-site consumption. Variance 91-08 requests a variance from the Development Code Section 19.06.030: Land Use Development standards, which permits the development of convenience stores on a minimum site area of 10,000 square feet. 2.1 Project Site Characteristics The project site is a rectangularly shaped parcel consisting of .151 acres (6,577.5 square feet) and further described as Assessor Parcel No. 139-071-06, and having a frontage of 50 feet on the south side of Baseline between Mount Vernon and Garner Avenues. The subject property is further described as 1255 West Baseline Street. The project site is designated CG-2,Commercial General, land use designation, and the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Additionally, the site is developed with an older residential structure which has been converted to commercial office space. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT f 3.1 Environmental Setting The project site is not located in any known areas subject to environmental hazards as identified in the City's General Plan. 3 . 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CUltural Resources 13.b. The structure on the property was built over fifty (50) years ago and as such, the building must be evaluated for potential historical significance as part of the review for a removal of the structure and construction of the project. This evaluation is in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the city's Urgency Historic Structure Demolition Ordinance (MC-694). o o INITIAL STUDY FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-28/VAR 91-08 The applicant has submitted an Historical Resources Evaluation Report prepared by Management Sciences Application, Inc. (MSAI). A copy of this report, which is dated July 1991 and was filed with the City's planning Division August 6, 1991, has been attached to the Initial Study. In MSAI's report it was noted that there are two buildings on the property; a primary single family residential building which has been converted to office use and a separate detached garage. Records indicate that the building was moved onto the site in 1944. Prior to 1944, the property was owned by the Sun Company of San Bernardino and the lot was vacant. The primary residential structure is dated circa 1920's. The Craftsman architectural style has been heavily modified. MSAI Consultants hold, that, due to an addition of a commercial facade and other modifications, the structure has lost all architectural significance. In summary, since the existing structures have historic significance under National, State no significant, adverse impacts would result the buildings. no architectural or or local criteria from the removal of - - I . . . . . . . . o ':) , . .... .. Historic Assessment Report On 1255 West Baseline Street San Bernardino, California July, 1991 Prepared by Management Sciences Applications, Inc. 123 East Ninth Street, Suite 309 Upland, California, 91786 (714) 981-0894 . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . r . . . . . . . . . o o PROJECT METIIODOLOGY AND BACKGROUND On May 17, 1991, Management Sciences Applications, In~., (MSAI) was contacted by Kenzie Wooten regarding the preparation of an Histone Resources Assessment regardinll the property located at 1255 West Baseline Street in San Bernardino, Califorma. - On July 8, 1991, MSAI prepared photographs of the building, documenting all sides of the property, as well as the setting of the building. . On July 22, 1991, MSAI conducted a review of the San Bernardino County Assessor Lot Books located at the San Bernardino County Archives. Lot Assessor Book Number 123 for the period 1942 to 1947 and Book Number 88 for the period 1936 to 1941 were researched. Additional research was conducted at tile Building Department of the City of San Bernardino. The building permit records for the subject property were reviewed to determine type and extent of alterations and additions made to the subject building. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF BUILDING The subject property is located at 1255 West Baseline Street Road, on the south side of Baseline Street, approximately 300 feet east of the intersection of Baseline Street and Mount Vernon Avenue. The surrounding propenies consist of mixed residential and commercial use, with commercial being the predominant land use. The property has the following legal description: Hockaday Park Subdivision, Lot 6, Tract 2349 as per plat recorded in Book 33 of Maps, Page 82 of said County." It is further identified as San Bernardino County Assessor Parcel Number 139-071. 06. There are two buildings located on the property. These consist of a primary single family residential buifding that has been convened to office use and a separate detached garage. The primary residential building is a single story, rectangular shap'ed building of wood construction in a Craftsmen style. The facade of the buIlding has been heavily modified through the addition of a commercial store front, consisting of a stucco parapet and fiat wall. Two commercial type fixed sash windows are located on either side of the symmetrical facade. Roof is side gable with composite rolled paper. Siding on the balance of the building is wood clapboard. The stucco siding continues half way down the west side of the building. Windows are a mix of single fIXed sash and one over one double hung. A small addition appears at the rear of the building, consisting of a single story with shed roof, covered with stucco siding. Foundation material on the building is poured concrete. The garage is located immediately to the rear of the building, and consists of a rectangular shaped building with fiat roof. Two large sliding doors are present in the front. It appears that this building was built in the 19405. Some landscaping is present along the foundation of the main building, and the entire front yard consists of concrete driveway and parking. 1 .. . . . . II . . . o o SIGNIFICANCE OF BUILDING r , According to the records researched at both the San Bernardino County Archives and the City of San Bernardino Building Department, the building was moved onto the site in 1944. Building records show that It was owned by Peter Mercadante who received building permit number 19070 to "Place and Repair Dwelling" on this lot. Prior to 1944, the property was owned by The Sun Company of San Bernardino, and the assessment records show that this panicular lot was vacant. Mercadante applied for the permit on July 10, 1944 and the work was completed on September IS, 1944. It appears that the garage is added at approximately the same time; however no separate records were found to support thIS. The building has been heavily modified through the addition of the commercial facade and the separate rear addition, and has lost all architectural significance. Only slight remnanIS remain that indicate that the building was of the Craftsman stylIng. These remnants include the attic venIS located in the gable ends and the general configuration of the principal mass of the building. The building appears to have been built in the 19205; however any association to its previous owners was destroyed through the course of the move. No information was discovered during the course of research that identified the previous location of the building. In 1946, Peter Mercadante sold the property to Carl E. and Catherine E. Gann. In 1947 it was sold to John B. and Marion P. Maare. No further research was conducted forward from this date. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS . I , I I I I I I This building would only be eligible for designation under Criteria C of the National Register of Historic Places as an example of a panicular style or the work of a master. However, due to the extensive alteration of the facade and the fact that the building was moved to this site in 1944, this particular building is not eligible for any designation under the criteria set fonh in the National Register of Historic Places. Many examples in much better shape exist of the Craftsman styling within the City of San Bernardino and the surrounding communities. This determination extends also to any designations that might be made by the City of San Bernardino under the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance. This building has neither architectural or historic significance under National, State or local criteria. The building lost its integrity of site by being moved from its original construction location to the current site in 1944. It lost its integrity of construction and architecture by the conversion of the building to commercial use through the application of the commercial facade on a residential building. It therefore should not be protected by historical landmark designation. We therefore recommend no further action be taken towards the building. 2 I o I . ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Bibliography o o ""'"' - Bibliography San Bernardino County Assessor Lot Book, Volume 88, Page 12, Line 21, Covering the ~riod 1942 to 1947, San Bernardino County Archives, San Bernardino, California . San Bernardino County Assessor Lot Book. Volume 123, Page 12, Line 21, Covering the ,p.eriod 1936 to 1941, San Bernardino County Archives, San Bernardino, California Buildilli Permit File. 1255 West Baseline Road, Permit Number 19070, Building Department, City of San Bernardino, San Bernardino, California. I I I I J - . . . ( . I I I I I I I I o ,-.... .....; Field and Research Notes and Sources . I I I . I I JI II I I III .. II II . I I ''J' \. V .... :-. L : -.L :- 10' ;lii I '-_ Pn:'pare(l for: " , I j ,,- ." I : I '~'. I r I I' " I ...;...\. Ll-"~ L M 7: . L l_- t : : I ~ 1 I QL . _L COMPANY . rlf''llJE-~t~i::l By: Jl"p: . I Owne r Name: "'00' I Silus ^ddr~'~~: ft.;) I I i nQ ^.j.jre :;:-.: Lea;) I Dr,<,.: PClrc,,1 'l!umto!'r: Z(,ninq: \. it Y Co.1!': O~:ne'r ~h I fo Typ;- y"ar [11.11 It: LJnl.~: Po(:. I : {J.::r:' COlt,..: ~- e ..', t "r ~: s : l (I': t .:. t II~' fL", f f' : S;':-II r' Pr 1-;("': rln,:. 1/ / Typ>:: . . . > > > I-'I,'(}/'f I. I) lilif OIlMA T I ().~ (( ( . L.I \ /. ., > ) ) . . '~\(; --,..\ L~I H\^HUI'\'O 'j?I'j~1 I :'::^\ tllli'\MWI'\O. CJ '''':-11'1 " I ~ ' , I I ; 1"1 . . , I I I , " -"". ...... I.. ,.,/ 1"". 11111"'1": I " -': /(\'1 1,,,:, Pr.-.v. -::.,-tl,~': Amount: . ~.Quare Fe"t: La t S i :If": "I;. I I I' I. (0 I SQ f I: " Be:dr.)om:; : B;)lhs (r H): Tota I Rooms: . . . . ': ',. . i' c:,' "./ . , ,. . " . . . . . <<( Lender 1S1 Tn!.:t D!'N1: OthE-r t "I~HIS: Price pr.r SQft: > > > 1,1\ 1.'1/ ()/;'>tA I/V \ (( ( I,'" I Annual T.-,x: Improvement ~::: Tax Rale ^re;:;: . . . \, iii !"I', : "J I (. '1'.,:,'. , "-- . Exemotlon: Improvement Value: L:ln.j V;) I u(:: TOlal Assessed V::JI: .,': , ! .'';"'' ~ .., ,~ .-' . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . " . . " ,. ~ . t .. " 'II .. i .. .. .. t . . 'II .t 'II .. . . .... .. 'II .. .. + ,. t . . . . .. ,. .. ... .. .. . .. , .. 'II .. ., Ord., No. I , - MCOMlllO 'N E..-Jrt'W ~'~r(,l.i1rll ~ '''1 ,..... 1tC1IO .1"1 , .. .. -- """~CWo "[CO"," Loa" No,ll'OU'" ( ~ ~ \ "'I IlI.S ". II" , _I_- UN tr...MAIlDINO WHEN AECOADCD MAIL TO: 1IV1 ".. _ hl1 II \. 1..01. ..4 ....46 _.. l~ u M O~,. un II. ....u.. 'a. .. .....r...., c. "'" IIIIACI AAOYI \HI' LlN,,,Oft "'COl'n""" u,., ,~,-.. ~ .~"~~ ' ~ ~' : ..' ...", .',", .. ~, .... ,... ,~ . .'; i/i',.,' '..' . J .i. t, o . t. , ,~~. " MAIL IAIlITATIMINT TOI -- .. .-. I I /II'.'" 1.'''-()71-,1 QUITCLAIM DECO -- 'IttMfu,... Ou",,", Of' A",~"I d'I"M~ ". _ ,,,"'..-. .. DOCUVIN7AIIT TIIANI'I" TAil n<..."""""""".,,, -- Ct........ . 'AI n,.,...'......, ,,:..J1~ftttett, """_....1 .," . C.......... M t... .,.,....,.'... III ~._ Ie" ...... er .""."..".....,.. ,....... III"." II.... ron A ...LUA8LE CONSIDERATION. "t.l~t 01 whICh "her'by ..knowledg.d. C..II. t. -.... C..II_ _ ..4 Lolli. .. _. ......n. on' wit. do her.by REMllIC. RELEASE n4D FOREVER QUITCLAIM 10 " L Ih. ..., ~'OllllrlT In 'h. CiI. ., .. ......4... '~ullly 01 .. ..",..41.., I.... -'-..~....46 L. _'.. .....4 .4 I/It.. .. J'.II' ,_." . 8'... 0' C""",nlo, dll.rlbnll .. Let I. t.... .".. .. ... '1.......... .11 .... " .f KI,.. .... ". .-.. ., ..14 c-". II . . ..... ......... t. l'tt . ~'A"M~': COUNTY C>> ........... Oft ... --, t... I I: -. . ....... .. ................ . Nell". ,.... ." ..,. .... .1.... .......~.......,.,--- --- _.f!doh.. 9a .. ...._LM.&.~~_ '-- _..._a__, I ,.,..,."...... ....,........ ..r.w...._. ...... ....'I.....'." ............. .................. lie_II III.,. ..,.,..... .... ...;- .........! .,!.. .............. I...~ "t1l1Nll"'", ......... I'le ...... w, hI.1I r., ........ I.,'" .......... \ J ,.. I I _ ~~~_ ,'" c-.,~... I -- -i~:.. r.. ~ Q <:"':A.-...__ '!'CII t. ~ - . - -_. ~ (lI'rl(,....._rAg . """I..L. u:....a --~ . "'" Ml'WIWWlOCXAltln ..,0IIMt 1-._11"", ',' . 1 '. ., \ ., , j " I . i . . 1 1 I / ! 1 , ~ ~ ; I ~ 1 , I I I I 1 I I 1 ~ " 1 f - - , It .- r- OJI .!! ... . . . -. .~ Q- ; .. . 1tI-. IIi -.: -;';0 ,..;. ... ill f~ .. ""~l!: ~..t ........... ~... ..- ... s . ; ''''1 .s.. -:.. "'==4" I., "c i"~ "i =- - - -- :', ~ -00 -... ..-.. ..... .,. . . !Ita . .. 8110' :.~ ,...., -00 o @ -t.-- ~l , , "t' . .. ... ... --,--- o AVENUE ~. I. ,_ .yo ,. 4a" ".' ..' .... I- . - - ~~ ~ .. o o i .. ~ .. .. (I) . ~ I ~ .. .. 00 o · .. z !! .. .. .. .. ~ .. . <I C <t : : @ .. ~ ,.. i ... .. .. , -----,-- ~ = ---'<-- .. ~ I: ., ----ht ___e. .. . . ------- ~ ~ !! <>> : ---~ e <i .. () .. o e . . @ <!> G @ ~ ~ r e @ & : e @ & t @ ~ G) t ! @ ~ ;; @ . . @ @.a<i <iI.:@ . . (j a ,.. ! . ~---i .: ~-- . . @ I..' II II @). ;, I....' I I -..+..- @ '...... ;;; r..-t:-GMNER . . SlIl[fT ) I...'" @ .,.. .... .... .,...' ~...,.. I ~ ~. =e~. ~f)~ ~ -.. . ..... -..-.. :to ~;;; ~--~--- S ~ ..~ a tIIt.'.!II 0- · .....- <t .. ~ .. =. ~ I;~---.r---.' .- r c. '... ii !.ii ,~. I ~ _& @ - 't" ..T.. 1- -!..~. ,: .., e :~ _ ~~I: .... '" . ~ ~ .. ~ : I . . . ~ ; I!> p.=.. - . 0:. ~ & ..... ~; I , 1---- . J. ... "'. .... .... .. I .... . srUEr ".-- -i I j -~~ 10 . " --t- . " '-i-- .. <!) . ". ~ ~. e ~ . eft .. ~ .. .. .. a. : @ (!) :: Ii) i . ....... - , ~ .. " . ..... ~ ; ~ @! -:--7--: ...~ ~ @ .!) ~ (~ .. I.. " .... _.. LuJ. "1,' -",., . -, : I J - :~, :0. ~ (j) @ . I r , ;' ;r . . " ~ i' R el ~W ~ III I ~ o i Ja . :-,.. srI' :1 Ir Ii n ~ a . o "" .. , - .. II - I I - ,. o ,- ...J Year owner Land I.or Vine Acre BIt/1>>n 1948 194.7 ~ '" I "'~ P. /IIAA~/~/lI. iF I ("~~ >T.C""'" ..Jl" 1MO [';11-'2- 21 1946 $W ca IT' .r.. ".wl. ~ A '",,1/1'1>0....,.. / L. . -~A l'o~ 1945 "TM .Ii^C 1944 1943 - 1942 I.- - 1941 . - ~.J.-" .21 1940 - 1939 - 1938 - 1937 - 1936 ~ - I- 1935 1934 1933 . 1932 1931 1930 1929 1928 1927 1926 1925 1924 1923 1922 1921 1920 1919 1918 1917 1916 . 1915 1914 1913 1912 1911 1910 1909 1908 1907 1906 1905 1904 1903 1902 1901 1900 1899 1898 1897 1896 1895 . . I I I . I 140co 1)4'1 j!1'&.. o N, t3 '31 ~ r:z.. ".... T1III(T" ~ 34~ V SA., l,';.JI.MJI,JO C'1'/ Ct."E 70/ ASSI1SJOfl.. t2dCt.. /I/a(,,) P-n('1) t3AS~ (.INr ,~#- f'~ M5'~CA o/J1WrJ Of).AJ,L flAt. 4 1M,., R. IJIifU.JIJ( ~". 1]"'6 Ahtlr JJ6. 11D70 I..cI" {.lo 'If' ;. 7-/I-W ~1A'4~N~ t.'J-qy tmItIL 7- ~1-"Y CIIjM/t",{} tj.'S-44 o ~.".- , , . -- ~ ...... -::. ~ I _~. .... ./ -4. -t ';t... ~ ~. - ", ...... * ... ,,,,,,. -~ .- '- "-"- ~"', ',' '. ~ ?~. /' ""'- ""'-- ---- '" ---- CARl DE-ON - Rf:AL t ~TATf- ............ o y ~- .~ ,.. ~ ::::----. , . ~ ~ l ~ ~~ - - -0 7 - .....~ " ---.... Lrrl-r' -,.. i '-'1-",1 ~._- """'11') I j ~~, =--1 ,~1 -- ~~2- ..............~ .m Mf.__ . -6.... - ,.;'" .... '. ,.I!, ~~...... -- ..... MS. -,r. ......-. <---_JItf' "-'-"'-''''''",.11- ~--- ,., ,-...,..... --- ~ .. '-. ".., ..,.. ., 111'" ~...........- __4 -,-"'---- .."..,~. .........,---....~ J.-.-.,.,,-, Mr..,....,. =:....-r'- ~"'--. ....,...,,.,....... -................ ., '- ~ t . I I I U-I~ ........1. I I I -g -- .- HI' - , .' . . ~.r... __::> ..', '..( '0 -'" , . f , . --- .'- .- ~~ ."Y1ai '~111~ .i~ , , 'I' i ,--_., -- --- .. --...-. ... ,." I V4LUE HOMES "ITE PtAN ELEVATIONS "... .... www !WI- .CA. 17"'_ .:-,. .0 I I', ;;.. ~ /f1T _ _. !IN 7'/X' ." , - o () ,. ""'" ,. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE AGENDA TEM# """"l LOCATION .. HEARING DATE .. ~ . 'b , f. ;-r Ei !~ I '. ..... ~ \V I r', TT ~~ i-I: L .( Iv , ~... ". ., ~~-- I" 1-1~r1 ~.' ~ ~'l ~ r _ -..,..,rr LJ.~ M... ~.,.., ..' I I p~ iG;] - .., ~ OILIfO. I r:. n T. .:: IGJOEI I - .: .. ., II ~ -:. ~ 1- - ~ ~ II - ' II :.~:... )..~I ,'" ! ~ :--11_: I ~ -i~! I ~_ ii I 1 ~= ; lJ::'" .." -, " F,tJ .~ --;; r.:: ~ ~ 'E ,- ,_..l1..,; -rr. : "'''''1 ! f 4 i5RE~~H :..... ~--J_--l =- . .:1 ~ Ii! ~ ~.. ~ I .. J -,- ,) ,~! --1 \d~t~ II ,- ~ ~ ~ A'~ ,Jr ~i l-~ II -.- ~~ C-':.u t -~ ! pf \ L 1 ~ ~ . i ~I~ il I'~ I-.JLJ ~ I .. - .!!t::'" ;::;; ::; ......l .~J ~~ ..^M I "&~~L 0 =0' -' . ~ rt' R.t\H-li /fY ,.I~'- ~ _ I~ ~ ,NORTH ~I 'f. J II Ir J I I _"- t.. I ~ .. l . IT. L- I:::::; ... - :,.. . ..... .... ~.,... ':IF ~ ..._..--, ~__-.Galtl/la. ;)LAN-8.11 ;)AGE; 0;:: I ,4.91)) Attachmer('\'E" Q APPLICATION FOR ~DITIONAL USE PERMITS FO~ COHOL lEVERAGE LICENSES LOCATIO.II 1255 W. Baseline Conditional Use Permit No. 91-28 Variance 91-08 Reporting District SC119 Part I Crimes Persons 52 171 30% Property Cencus Tract On Sale A/6 47 E/5 E/5 Off Sale A/5 General Vicinity Distance To Nearestl School Mt. Vernon Elementary School 1271 N. Mt. Vernon Church Galilee Mission Baptist Church 1239-41 W. Baseline Iglesia Church of God Pentecostal Park 10th Street Park ABC On Sale Licensed Premises Arrowhead Elks Lodge 1073 N. Mt. Vernon ABC Off Sale Licensed Premises See attached Distance of Parking Lot to Residence 1247 W. Baseline Distance of Building to Residence 1247 W. Baseline l'llt/D Average +150% Part II Arrests 247 Alcohol Itelated 33 14% 90 day stats (10-1-90 1-24/9: Part I - 61 Part II - 62 Persons - 11 - 18% Alcohol related - 15 - 24% Distance .3 ';4' 255' .3 .2 Property line t9 property line Property line to property line o ABC Off Sale Licensed Premises: Budget King, 1150 W. Baseline Catoes. 1127 W. Baseline Pete's Liquor Store. 1101 N. Mt. Vernon Jimbo's Market. 1395 W. Baseline o 685' 964' 823' 944' o o CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #91-28 VARIANCE #91-08 INVESTIGATION: I (CSR R. HARPS) was assigned to investigate Conditional Use Permit #91- 28. which had been submitted for 1255 W. Baseline in San Bernardino. The nature of this project is to construct 2,500 square feet of office/convenience market with sales of beer and wine for off-site con- sumption. The Variance requests to vary the required minimum lot size for convenience stores. San Bernardino Municipal Code Chapter 19.23 regulates convenience stores. This regulation app1 ies to convenience stores of less than 5.000 square feet of retail sales floor area. Section A of this Municipal Code says that the minimum site area shall be 10,000 square feet for a convenience store. Section D of this same Municipal Code says, "No convenience store shall be located less than 1,000 feet from an existing or previously ap- proved convenience store or an existing elementary, junior high school or high school as measured from the nearest distance from one property line to another." According to the site plan elevat ions for the proposed project. the building area is 2,000 square feet. This figure includes the area for the second floor office area which would not be considered part of the retail space. The site plan elevations also list the site's area as be- ing 6,250 square feet. COMMENTS FROM AREA RESIDENTS: Det. Diaz and I contacted residents in the immediate vicinity of the pro- posed site. 1247 W. Baseline, Cora Mathews says she has lived there three and a half years and is going to be moving. She said she really does not care what goes in at the proposed site. 1271 W. Baseline, Tony Macias, Sr. says he has no concerns with the pro- posed convenience store. He said he hopes there will be no problems. 1208 W. Baseline. Rafaela Trujillo said she does not think there will be any problems. 1271 W. Orange Street, Melvin Johnson said he just moved in and does not feel a convenience store will cause any problems and, in fact, may in- crease the security of the area. 1263 W. Orange Street, Lupe Marada said she does not approve of having the convenience store. She said there is a liquor store just around the corner and they do not need it. She also said there are enough bums and prostitutes that hang around the area and hide in the bushes. She con- tinued saying it may cause problems for a nearby restaurant with the peo- ple loitering around. 1255 W. Orange Street, Mary Lou Levi said she has no obj ect ions to the o o CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 891-28 VARIANCE 891-08 PAGE 2 convenience store. 1248 W. Orange Street. 1256 W. Orange Street. no answer. AREA COMMANDER COMMENTS: A notification form regarding the proposed project was sent to Area Com- mander Lt. Curtis. I later received a response from Sgt. Ron Schwenka. Sgt. Schwenka viewed the proposed site and had the following concerns. 1 - The lot is too small for the building and off street parking. 2 - The area as a whole is saturated with stores that sell alcoholic bev- erages. 3 - In just a one block area, there are three stores that sell beer and wine. 4 - In and around the high crime area. vast majority of and/or drugs. area of Baseline and Mt. Vernon is well known as a Alot of acts of violence occur in the area and the the suspects are under the influence of alcohol ABC CONSIDERATIONS: It should be noted that ABC rule 61.4 (proximity to residences) may apply to this site. An ABC license may be denied by ABC per this rule. ABC rule 61.4 (proximity to residences) says, "No original issuance of a re- tail license or premise to premise transfer of a retail license shall be approved for premises at which either of the following conditions exist: A) The premises are located within 100' of a residence, and B) The park- ing lot or parking area which is maintained for the benefit of patrons of the premises or operated in conjunction with the premises is located within 100' of a residence." The proposed site. 1255 W. Baseline, is property line to property line to the residence located at 1247 W. Baseline. The proposed site is located within reporting district SC119 which has crime statistics 150 percent above the average for reporting districts in San Bernardino. Fourteen percent of the Part II arrests in this district are alcohol related and in the 90 day stats, this increased to 24 per- cent. The proposed site is located within census tract 47. According to ABC o o CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT '91.28 VARIANCE 191-08 PAGE 3 records. in this census tract there are five existing on-sale licenses and six are allowed. There are also five existing off-sale licenses with five allowed. There are four existing convenience stores less than 1,000' from the pro- posed site. This development falls under San Bernardino Municipal Code 19.23 which regulates cons truct ion and operation of convenience stores. This code says no convenience s tore shall be located less than 1,000' from an existing convenience store. POLICE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: This development does not meet the requirements in San Bernardino Munici- pal Code 19.23 in regards to convenience stores. There are four existing convenience stores less than 1,000' minimum from the proposed site and it does not meet the minimum lot size requirement. The proposed site is located within reporting district SC1l9 which has crime statistics 150 percent above the average for reporting districts in San Bernardino. Fourteen percent of the Part II arrests in this district are alcohol related and in the 90 day stats. this increased to 24 per- cent. CITY OF SAN CERNARDINO - QEMORANDUM To Lt. Curtis From R. HARPS, CSR II 8-2-91 Subject ~~ A!'t'L.Ll,;;A.l..LVN CUP 91-28 Variance 91-08 Date Approved Date We received a notice on the listed Alcoholic Beverage license and request your input prior to approving or protesting the application. Please return this form to the Vice Detail with your comments no later than 8-7-91 . If we do not receive a response by this date, it will be considered that you do not wish to have any input. Address: 1255 W. Baseline Applicant: Kensie & Brenda Uooton Type of license: to construct 2,500 sq. ft. of office/convenience market t:71~h salt:l:i vf beel. Qud wlu~ \"al:. to ".!lEY f'f.l{l:!irea _in. lot sIze comments: T have viewed the above listed address and have the following Your rnnrprnc;.j 1) The Int is too small for the building and off street parking. ?) The area as a whole is saturated with stores that sell alcoholic beverages. "l) In just a one block area there are three stores that sell beer and wine. 4) Tn and around the area of Baseline and Mt. Vernon is well known as a high crime area. Alot of acts of violence occur in the area and a vast majority are under the influence of alcohol By: Ron Schwenka, Sgt. GEf<X PAGE t:J. 0001 Q CAL T 06/3'/91 12: 5-1 .Q01-24-91 I'1A,JOR CRIMES W RD SC1191 C555/SC426 Fr<Q:1 10-01-90 . RD 5C 119 NAT-<:ALL: 187R RC05:000001 RD SC 11 9 NAT-<:ALL: 211A~ RCDS:OOOOOl RD 5C 11 9 NAT-<:ALL: 211S.',o( RCOS:OOOOOl RD 5C 119 NAT-<:ALL: 245 RC05:000001 RD 5C 119 NAT-<:ALL: 245R RCD5:000005 RD SC 119 NAT-<:ALL: 246R RCOS:OOOO02 RD SC 119 NAT-<:ALL: 45'i'C~ RCDS:OOOO06 RD 5C 119 NAT-<:ALL: 459ft RCOS:OOOO03 RD SC 119 NAT-<:ALL: 45'i'RR RCOS:OOOOI5 RD SC 119 NAT-<:ALL: 45'i''.' RCOS:OOOOOl RD 5C 119 NAT-<:ALL: 45'i'\'tt RCDS:OOOO05 RD SC 119 NAT-<:ALL: 487ft RCOS:OOOO04 RD SC 119 NAT-<:ALL: GTAR RCOS:OOOO09 RD SC 119 NAT-<:ALL: GTAREC RCOS:OOOO07 RD SC 119 RCOS:000061 RD SC426 NAT-<:ALL: 211-10e!51 RCOS:OOOOOl RD SC 426 NAT-<:ALL: 211R RCOS: 0-'0001 RD 5C426 NAT-<:ALL: 211Sf-.I, RCDS:OOOOO:i! RD 5C426 NAT-<:ALL: 245~ RCOS:OOOOOl RD SC426 NAT-<:ALL: 459CR RCOS:OOOOO:i! RD 5C426 NAT-<:ALL: 459R RCOS:OOOOOl RD 5C 426 NAT-<:ALL: 459i\R RCOS:OOOO07 RD 5C426 NAT-<:ALL: 459V RCDS:OOOOOl RD 5C 426 NAT-<:ALL: 459"'1( RCOS:OOOO02 RD SC 426 NAT-<:ALL: 487R RCDS:OOOO02 RD SC426 NAT-<:ALL: GTA RCDS:OOOOOl RD 5C426 NAT-<:ALL: GTAR RCDS: 0-'0008 RD SC 426 NAT-<:ALL: GTAREC RCOS:OOOOOl RD 5C426 RCOS:000030 RD SC555 NAT-<:ALL: 211,c,"'l RCDS:OOOO06 RD SC 555 NAT-<:ALL: 2115 RCOS:OOOOOl RD 5C555 NAT-<:ALL: 211S.':~ RCDS:OOOO04 RD 5C5:,5 NAT-<:ALL: 245R RCDS:OOOO03 RD SC 555 NAT-<:ALL: 261R RCOS:OOOO02 RD 5C 555 NAT-<:ALL: 45'i'CR RCOS:OOOO05 RD SC5S5 NAT-<:ALL: 45'i'Rf; RCDS:OOOO03 RD SC555 NAT-<:ALL: 45'i''o' RCOS:OOOOOl RD 5C555 NAT-<:ALL: 45'i'\'1( RCOS:OOOO07 RD 5C555 NAT-<:ALL: 487ft RCOS:OOOOOl RD 5C55S NAT-<:ALL: GTA RCDS:OOOOOl RD 5C55:; NAT-<:ALL: GTAA RCOS:OOOO09 RD 5C555 NAT-<:ALL: GTAREr. RCOS:OOOO03 RD 5C555 RC05:000046 {"RAND TOTAL RCOS: 0-'0137 - \7::.11)1. t-'Ab~ ;':0 uuu2 ~HnM OO/~d/91 1~:5~ o ARRESTS LISTEn BY "p . DR NAI';~ CHARGE D!\Ti:! LaC INVL CHA~OE 900051560 ,JO~!~!SON. ROSCOE VC 12500 C A 11 /0~/9.) l./ BASEl Ir.:.. ST IN I' ARR 900055365 CR')!. ALE,JANDRO VC12500CA 12/01/9.' 900 fJ L ST ARR 900054729 BELt. EDWARD LEE VC14601 CA 11/271Yv l./ 9TH ST m ..J ST ARR 900058703 ,JAC~SON.STEPHEN VC 14601. 1 12/27/90 II 11 TH ST /N MT VE ARR 900048704 BRIC.~, TERRY LO VC23152AB 10/2.)/90 BASEL 11,:.. ST IN GARN ARR 900051173 GILPATRICK.,JOHN VC231 52AB 11/0'1/T0 1067 II TE:-;"LE ST ARR 900055375 DIAZ,,JUAN PLASC VC23152AB 12/01/90 l./ BASE' If,!!- ST IDAV ARR 900056566 PASILLAS. RAUL F VC23152AB 12/09/90 1000 II 11 Tt'I ST ARR 900057525 CASTILLO.ROSALI VC23152AB 1.1/15/90 U 9TH ST m ,J ST ARR 900047932 ROCRIGUEZ,APOLO WI300 10/15/90 4~6 II 4TH ST OTH 900059603 DEL LA GARZA. VA WI300 1~/~9/90 1033 II 9TH ST aTH 910002501 RU/1>10, ANTHONY L WT PC-F 01/15/91 PERRIS ST/I0TH ST ARR 900059838 LUVA,ROGELIO ..J WT VC-M 12/31/90 900 II L ST ARR AR-RD SC119 RCDS: 0.:1006:< 910001636 RABON, TRAVIS TY PC148.9 01/10/91 :;:~6e CEIICVIEVE ARR 900051470 ALA!lILIA, EYNER PC211 11/0':./90 265~ CEIIEV I EVE ST ARR PC245CAll 910001636 GRE>'II, TRINCE LE PC211 01110/91 :2~6S CErlEV IEVE ST ARR VCI0851{A 24:H A 11 910000029 JOH~.:SON, TONY PC245 C A l 2 01/01/91 260 II 23RD ST ARR 900048794 BERt/tiE, HUGH THO PC488 10/20/<;0 .;~.; :1 23RO ST ARR 900046259 CLE\'d.AND, ALLIE PC647CFl 1 ')1\)01/90 2~..6 CErlEVIEVE ST ARR 900046429 REA!". SHEL TON EL PC647CFl 10/05/90 2:725 IJ 11T VIEW AV CIT 900048347 REA~.SHELDON EL PC647CFl 10/17/90 2~95 II I1Trl VIEW AII' ARR 900052495 ROf'j;I'(O. ,JASON AL VCI0851 CA 11/12/90 200 II HIGHLAND AII' ARR VC28':l0 900054926 VASQ'IEZ, MARIO E VCI0851 CA 11/29/90 280 II 23RD ST 114 ARR VC23152AB HS11550 900056412 SOTO.SANDRA VCI0851 CA 12/25/90 5TH ST/ROBERDS ST ARR 900055191 BALLARD, AL C VC23152AB 11/3'J/90 ~,')O " HIQ: Ii AND AII' ARR .. 900056553 CHAVc.z,GACIA SA VC23152AB 12/09/<;0 2.'0 II HIG:i! AND AII' ARR AR-RD SC426 RCDS:OOOO15 910002796 FELD!~AUS,CATHY PC118 900054625 ,JOI,:Fo, ..JOHN EMER PC148 900047535 BOYu,KENNETH MO PC166.4 900047786 BOYD, KENNETH MO PC166.4 900048663 BOYD. KENNETH MO PC166.4 900047633 WALSTON, DAVID M PC242 900053020 BOLIN. HOWARD LE PC242 900057671 BEII..J!;MIN. YVES PC273. 5 900046323 WICKI~N.DAVID E VCI0851CA 900048009 FIr.:;\:~GAN. TERRAN WT VC-M AR-RD SC555 GRAND TOTAL 01/17/91 2~75 ST~EIE RD 11/27/90 5?0 E CARCLIN~ ST 10/12/90 263.1 S CC~PER LA 1I 10/14/90 263.1 S CO?PER LA 10/1'i'/90 263.1 S COPPER LA 10'13/90 2505 S lIATERMI<N 11/15/<;0 2590 ST~~E ST 3 12/16/<;'0 3'18 E IHE/( RD l')/05/'i'O 5-10 E IHEw RD 10/16/90 315 E CAROLIN€ ST ARR WI10980(A ARR cn CIT ARR ARR ARR ARR ARR ARR RCDS:OOOOI0 RCDS:000087 GEHX PAGE :,,0 0001 . 0 CABM 06/;a/91 16: 5', 0 ARRESTS LISTEn BY RD . DR NAh!- CHARGE 910004030 LOI~i:.1 L. JENNIFER BP4149 900046537 ALV~ADO.PAULA T BW WT-MIS 900046914 GAL8ALDON.ROBER BW WT-MIS 900052295 LOPEZ. SYLVIA BW WT-MIS 900046312 HA:llLTON. GILDA H511350 9000~4260 LA~FS.LEONARD L H511350 900051153 PET~RS.ROBERT W H511377 900051290 DIAZ.RUBEN H511377 900054093 RAW~a. SAUL H511377 900046620 PORTILLAS.DONAV H511378 900052058 LINARES. DANIEL H511378 9000~4099 LIl.!AI\ES. DANIEL H511378 900048672 CALVIN. JOSE MIL H511378. 5 900048672 CERVANTEZ. RUBEN H511378. 5 900046620 HER:.!ANDEZ. PETE H511550 900046620 MOS~UEDA.JESUS H511550 900046620 VALF:14ZUELA. JOSE H511550 900048720 PEREZ. DAVID H511550 900048720AMARO.AISHA H511550 900049155 TAOLF.GEORGE GE H511550 900053105 WHIT~.SMITH H511550 900053156 FLORES. JOHNNY R H511550 900055335 MATA.RAMON H511550 9000~8~53 GO:UALES. DIANE H511550 900058571 CA~RION.CHRISTI H511550 900057164 REY.OILBERT EDW PC12020 900047206 PEREZ. JOSE JESU PC12025 900053663 TAOd::. QEORQE QE PC273. 5 900050027 GARCIA. JESUS BA PC381 9000~0517 GARCIA. JESUS BA PC381 900047961 RODRIGUEX.CARLO PC415 910004029 MCEA~HRON.TONYA PC417CA)1 900049864 RICHt~DSON.LOIS PC451CBl 900046905 GloBAl DON. ROBERT PC459 900045794 MENuOZA.MARCOS PC647CFl 900046612 SAIJIANA. EUSEBIO PC647CFl 900046933 JOli~.'80N. JUANITA PC647CFl 900047687 SMITH. THOMAS EA PC647CFl 900048722 TAOEE.GEORQE PC647(FI 900054298 RUIZ.PAUL PC647(FI 90005537~ CERVANTEZ. RUBEN PC647(FI 900056084 MARTINEZ. RUDY R PC647(FI 900056566 MOSQUEDA. DAVID PC647CF) 900059627 ROSErJBERG. JACGU VC10851 (A 910001192 WRIOHT.CARMINE VC10851(A r:'!iTt:. LOC INVL CHj,RGE 01121/91 1131 H~RRI8 ST JLR 1.)/06/9,) 11::8 l,j OLIVE ST ARR 10/09/90 108'1 lJ 10TH ST ARR 11/11/90 1081 1/2 W 10TH ST ARR 10/05/90 1000 l,j L ST ARR 11/25/";'0 <;00 14 91H 5T ARR 11/03/90 W BASELI~!- ST/N PE ARR 11/01/90 110,' 14 L 5T ARR 11/23/'>'0 108'1 l,j 10TH ST ARR 10107190 1081 l./ 10TH ST ARR 11/09/90 108'1 W 10TH ST ARR 11/23/90 1100 I. L 5T ARR 10/19/9,) lJ BASEL I:':;' ST IN PARR 10/19/90 l,j BASEL I:.;~ ST IN PARR 1':)/07/90 108-1 tl 10TH ST ARR Dl07l90 108', II 10TH ST ARR 11/0719.' 11J8', t,j 10TH ST ARR 10/20/9~ 10TH ST/L 5T ARR 10/2;)/90 1100 II 10TH ST ARR 10/23/90 lJ 10TH ST /N L ST ARR 11/1'/90 120>,) II 11 TH ST ARR 11/16/90 1000 II TEi'i;-LE ST ARR 12/01/90 lJ BASEl I~~ ST/N PE eIT 12/21/9,) W 11TH 5T /N L ST ARR 12/21/90 BASEl I~:~ ST/L ST ARR 12/12/90 lJ BASELU.:~ ST /N G ARR 10/11/90 940 ~ L ST eIT 11/23/90 103'1 II 10TH ST ARR 10/28/90 1140 II 9TH ST ARR 10/3'J/90 900 II L ST ARR 10/15/90 l,j BASELu.:~ 5T IN PARR 01/24/91 1131 H~"RIS 5T aTH 10/26/90 9TH/FE~RIS 5T ARR 10/09/90 108'1 II 10lH ST *11 ARR 10/01/90 1180 II ORANGE ST ARR 10/09/90 II 10TH ST /N I'1T VE ARR 10/09/90 1006 l,j TEI~;-LE ST ARR 10/13/90 W 11TH ST IGARNER ARR 10/20/90 1100 II 10TH ST ARR 11/25/90 W SASEI U:i:. ST /GARN C IT 12/01/90 W BASEl I1~;. ST /DAV ARR 12/06/90 1031 I~ L 51 ARR 12/1)9/90 1000 IJ 11TH 5T ARR 12/i2T190 200 :J HIIi:.ii AND AV ARR 01/08/91 1100 :1 9TH 5T ARR BW WI-MIS VC2800. 1 HS11364 VC23152AB HS11550 HS11550 PC3;J56 H511550 SP4149 VC12500CA HS11377 PC12031 HS11550 PC3056 o o , Lt.lt:.s PAGE NO. 00 (I 1 **... HvR:1255 W BASELINE 25025 INRR 06/26/91 10:25 LOCAT I Orl I NC';j! R'i RESPOf.lSE ,Id:,~ ST C!TY:SBO MAP:690 r'lL.! : 1. :-::'11 R,D: SCll::' , FT': E:,::!l::";:- 03/13/91 02.......05/91 02/26/89 12/15/85 01/21/85 *** INGI e'ENT SUt1t1ARI ES ,~*.;.: COMMERCIAL BURGLARY REPORT COt1MERCIAL BURGLARY REPORT COMMERCIAL BURGLARY REPORT PC459 PC459 $il0012073 ::'10006154 890009195 :::50 1565::a5 ::::5000 S1(r 20 LOC LOC LOC LOC LDC *** CAS H..OU I RY RE~.F'ONSE *** RPT-NO 890009195 CAS-CD BURC CPN Ft1-DATE 02./25..' E:9 FI~-TIt1E LnO LOCATIor.J OF' E')ENT 1255 H 8ASELIrlE ST RPT-NO 910006154 CAS-CD BURC CPN F'M-DATE 02/04/91 F'M-TIME 1700 LOCATI ON OF' E<V'ENT 1255 H 8A~;EL It'.lE ST RPT-NO 910012073 CAS-CD 8URe LOCATION OF' EVENT CPt! Fr"l-D~TE ':::=:,,"12../$11 8ASEL I r'.JE ST Ff"'l-TI r"lE l:::GC l-.C'.: 'I .::. __' ,_I ~..t JKNO ~~n 8ern~T~inc RMS tJO '10RE DA-~ ~CS ~OC~TI0N 11. C;:3