The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About39-Planning 'Clt:( OF SAN BERNARDIwO - REQU~ FOR COUNCIL AC'...JON R. Ann Siracusa From: Di rector of Pl anni ng Dept: Pl anni n9 Date: July l4, 1987 REC'O.-~Qb O~ppeal of Variance No. 87-25~cy- l'~r' JD! 2" P:1 3: ~ 3 .0. -." Mayor and Council Meeti ng of August 3, 1987, 2:00 p.m. Synopsis of Previous Council action: Previous Planning Commission Action: At the meeting of the Planning Commission on June l6, 1987, the following action was taken: The application for Variance No. 87-25 was unanimously denied. Recommended motion: That the hearing on the appeal be closed and the decision of the Planning Commission be affirmed, modified or rejected. Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: 384-5057 1 Contact penon: R. Ann Siracusa Phone: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: (ACCT. NO.) (ACCT. DESCRIPTION) Finance: Council Notel: -=<q /c 699 North Arrowhead, Suite 101 San Bernardino, California 92401 LAW OFFIC:-OF ROBER1, .... GOODRICH \M~@~G\J~lID JUl 0 2 1981 (714) 885-3488 , .." , M""''''';'E''I T C'TY "L"''\',. ""," ,-"II, I .- , I MI,. .1'-" ,~- . N DE~'''''' ""'''10 CA SA u hdnil:';l.. , July l, 1987 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ai ::w ", ..... ("') 300 North "nn Street ", San Bernardino, CA 92418 ~ <: m ATTN: CITY CLERK Cl , I - 52 ~ "0 -< - ("') RE: APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE NO. 87-25 W r- m APPLICANT: BAUER FAMILY TRUST ..., ::0 "><: Dear Sir/Madam: This letter is to formally apprise you that my client, the Bauer Family Trust, appeals the decision of the Planning Commission for the City of San Bernardino to deny its application for Variance, application number 87-25. The facts and circumstances regarding the application are fully set forth in the documents in the referred file, and I will briefly review them here. First, the problem herein arose when Irene Bauer, the beneficiary of applicant, requested a new gas meter hooku~ for a certain rental unit owned by her in the subject area. At that time she was first informed that there was a lien against her property because of certain alleged violations of the Building Code, and therefore the permit for a new gas hookup would not be granted. The whole matter starts off in an unfair manner, therefore, inasmuch as Mrs. Bauer sold the property to certain parties during 1980, taking back a Deed of Trust, and the problems arose while these other parties owned the property. When the lien was attached to the property Mrs. Bauer, as a Trust Deed holder, should have been notified by the City, but was not notified. Subsequently she took back the property by way of a Deed-in-Lieu-of-Foreclosure, still having never learned of the City's lien. It is respectfully represented by Mrs. Bauer that if she had known of the lien at that time, or previously, she would have had it taken care of quickly and easily, pursuant to the Building Code standards of that time. She was noe-so notified, however, and now must, according to the City, make certain changes in her property according to recent Building Code requirements in order to get the new gas hookup. SpeCifically, sometime ago there was considerable fire damage to certain wooden carports to the rear of the subject rv-. .,1 r'-' "" -, units. Applicant now wishes to replace those carports using the old footings and erecting nice new aluminum carports, with storage as needed. The reason for her decision is not financial hardship, contrary to the statements of the Planning Commission, which evidently did not seriously consider her application. Rather, the reason for aluminum rather than wood carports is because the area in general suffers from frequent arson attacks, and wooden out-buildings are simply unfeasible for the area. Also, aluminum carports are much more in keeping with the other architecture in the area, pursuant to submitted photographs, and, although a financial hardship is not claimed by applicant, as a matter of practicality if she is forced to build expensive wooden carports then, of necessity, she will have to raise the rent. The units in ques~ion constitute low-cost housing, and it is difficult to understand why the Planning Commission requires new construction which is out of context with the area and which will result in the increase in price of low-cost housing. Also, the City apparently is requiring new foundations, footings and curbs, which matters, again, are out of character with the neighborhood and will cause an exorbitant increase in the rental amounts for the units in issue. r might point out that staff's response, that the application is based on financial hardship and not one which is physical in nature to the subject property, completely ignores the above. It is well known that the special circumstances which allow a variance include, the circumstances of the location or surroundings. Those circumstances, as indicated above, strongly militate for the granting of the variance. Staff simply has not tried to understand or see those facts. The same argument applies tu staff's confusing claim that the applicaiton for variance will not restore parity with nearby construction. It is therefore clear that the application is in the best interests of the neighborhood, contrary to staff's incredible response that the variance would have an detrimental impact on the neighborhood. If the variance is not granted, then clean new wooden structures will be erected, which will be almost as quickly burned by vagrants, endangering the neighborhood. Additionally, numerous individuals who can find only this type of housing will be priced out of these units. The variance, therefore, should be granted. Very Truly Yours, ~2G-;Od~ RLG/sap / ( "'-0 ........., ERN ARD IN 0 300 NORTH "0" STREET. SAN BERNAROINO. CALIFORNIA 9241B EVLYN WILCOX Moyor MemtMn of the Common Council Esther Estrlda. . . . . . . . ... . . . First Ward Jack Reilly.. ..... . .. ... . Second Wlrd Rllph H.rn.ndez . . . . . . . . . . . Third Wlrd Steve Marks. . . . . . . . . . . . . Faurt" Ward GOrdon Qui.. . . . . . . . . ; . . . . pritt,. Wlrd Din Frazier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sheth W.rd Jack Strick I., . . . . . . . . . . . .seventh Ward June 18, 1987 Ms. Irene Bauer 455 Skylark Drive San Bernardino, CA 92405 . Dear Ms. Bauer: l , At the meeting of the Planning Commission on June 16, 1987, the following action was taken: The application for Variance No. 87-25, to permit a variance of Municipal Code Section 19.56.020.C requiring the construc- tion of enclosed carports in the R-3 Multiple Family Residen- tial zone ,on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately .30 acre having a frontage of 93 feet on the north side of Fourth Street and being located approximately 222 feet west of Lugo Avenue and further described as 154 East Fourth Street, was denied based upon findings of fact contained in the staff report dated June 16, 1987. According to the San Bernardino Municipal Code, Sections 2.64.030 and 2.64.040, the following would apply in regard to appeals to the Mayor and Council of Planning Commission actions: WExcept as provided in Section 2.64.020., any person aggrieved by, dissatisfied with, or excepting to any action, denial, order, requirement, permit, decision or determination made or issued by an administrative official or by an admini- strative board, commission, body or other agency of the City pursuant to the provisions of any ordinance, code, rule or regulation of the City, may appeal therefrom by filing a .~~,' IDE IN PROtRESS -~:\....~ ~~, ,,",., ( ....... ...,., Ms. Irene Bauer June 18, 1987 Page 2 written notice of appeal with the City Clerk, directed to the Common Council." "Any such notice of appeal shall not be valid and shall not be acted upon unless filed within fifteen days after the date of the action or decision appealed from. If notice of such action has not been provided in writing, and the appellant had no notice of the hearing at which the action was to be considered, the appellant may, within five days after first becoming aware of such action, demand written notice thereof, and shall have ten days following such notice in which to file the notice of appeal. A prospective appellant who was present at the time the action or decision relating thereto was made shall be presumed to have constructive notice thereof and shall file a notice of appeal within fifteen days after the date of the action or decision." r- If no appeal is filed pursuant provisions of the San Bernardino of the Commission shall be final. to the previously mentioned Municipal Code, the action Res " " 'i R. ANN lRACUSA Director of Planning mkf cc: Building and Safety Dept. Bauer Family Trust 935 East Pennsylvania Escondido, CA 92021 '\-~-"..' -~ '-" ~'" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~ SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE WARD 1 6/16/87 1 ILl o ~ Variance No. 87-25 o APPLICANT: Irene Bauer 455 Skylark Drive San Bdno., CA 92405 OWNER: Bauer Family Trust 935 E. Pennsylvania Escondido, CA 92021 t; ILl j o au G: ..... ~ I&J G: ~ The applicant requests a variance of Code Section 19.56.020(C) requiring enclosed carport construction in the R-3, Multiple Family Residential zone. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately .30 acres having a frontage of 93 feet on the north side of Fourth Street and being located approximately 222 feet west of Lugo Avenue and further described as 154 East Fourth Street. . PROPERTY Subject North South East West EXISTING LAND USE Apartments Apartments Apartments Apartments Apartments GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Multiple Family Multiple Family Civic District Multiple Family Multiple Family ZONING R-3-1200 R-3-l200 R-3-1200 R-3-1200 R-3-1200 GEOLOGIC / SEISMIC DYES FLOOD HAZARD DYES OZONE A ( SEWERS DYES ) HAZARD ZONE fK)NO ZONE &I NO OZONE B &I NO HIGH FIRE DYES AIRPORT NOISE / DYES REDEVELOPMENT liO YES HAZARD ZONE liaNO CRASH ZONE KINO PROJECT AREA oNO -I o NOT o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z 0 APPROVAL ~ APPLICABLE E FFE CTS 0 WITH MITIGATING ~ 0 CONDITIONS ZU) MEASURES NO E,I.R, ILI(!) D!I EXEMPT o E,I.R, REQUIRED BUT NO &1.0 Kl 2Z &l.ffi DENIAL z- tion 15303, SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS 00 ~2 Q:Z lass 3, ~ WITH MITIGATING 0 CONTINUANCE TO MEASURES 02 S:iL idelines 0 Z oNO o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS 0 ILl SIGNIFICANT SEE ATTACHED E,R C, ILl EFFECTS MINUTES Q: HOV. 1911 REVIIEO JULY 1111 SKY "- '-' -" ," CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE VAR NO, 87-25 OBSERVATIONS 1 6/16/R7 ? AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 1. REQUEST The applicant is requesting to waive Section 19.56.020(C) of the Municipal Code which requires the construction of a three sided carport in the R-3, Multiple Pamily Residential zone. 2. LOCATION The site is located on the north side of Pourth Street, west of Lugo Avenue on approximately .30 acre site and further described as 154 East Fourth Street. 3. GENERAL PLAN The City's General Plan designates the site for Multiple Family Residential up to 73 families per acre. The existing R-3 zoning is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. CODE REQUIREMENTS The San Bernardino Municipal Code requires that carports for multiple family uses shall be made so that they are enclosed on three sides (open entry, no door). It has been the architectural policy of the Planning Department that carports of metal construction be provided with a wood or stucco facade so that no metal is exposed. 5. BACKGROUND The property in question has been the subject of a non- compliance case with the Department of Building and Safety. The case has been ongoing since 1981, according to records in the Department of Building and Safety. Copies of those records are attached for the Commission's perusal. Previously, the site had garages which were considered unsafe due to fire damage. Consequently, the structures were ordered to be demolished. For reconstruction purposes, they must meet tOdays requirements for parking needs and not those prior to 1981. The footings for the previous garages were built in the 1930's and are considered unsafe by the Building Department and must be removed and new footings and slab be installed with any new construction. The applicant wishes to build metal (aluminum) rather than wood carports with no siding (as required) on the existing footings (considered unsafe and not to present Code requirements). "'.... '-" '-.-""",, CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE VAR NO. 87-25 OBSERVATIONS 1 6/16/87 1 AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 6. STORAGERE~JREMENT~ The submitted site plan indicates the 150 cubic foot storage cabinets required by Code will be installed within the carport. 7 . IDlYJ~QNMmn'AL CLEARANCE At their regularly scheduled meeting of May 21, 1987, the City's Environmental Review Committee found that the proposed Variance was categorically exempt from further environmental review under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. ...,"..... '"", r' - ....~..; CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE VAR NO. 87-25 FINDINGS of FACT 1 6/16/R7 4 AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE All applications for a variance must include a written response to each of the following items in order to clearly establish the need for the variance: A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use of the property, which do not apply generally to other property in the same zoning district. Applicant's Response: Applicant wants to replace old carports with new aluminum ones. Applicant's predecessor, Irene Bauer, owned the property prior to 1980. At that time she sold it, remaining the legal owner by taking back a deed of trust which was duly recorded during 1980. Sometime prior to mid-1983 the City placed a lien against the property, apparently because of a substandard gas meter. Irene Bauer was never informed of that lien. She took back the property during mid 1983 by way of Deed-in-lieu-of-foreclosure. During early 1987, a long term tenant left and at that time applicant attempted to have the gas meter replaced. That could not be done because of the City's lien, however, meanwhile the existing wood carports had become damaged by numerous different firesl apparently caused by transients and anti-social neighbors. In discussing matters with the City personnel during early 1987, Irene Bauer first learned that, due to some "new code" she could not replace the carports with nice, new aluminum structures, as she had intended, but must instead have entirely new foundations, footings and curbs installed, with wooden structures and lockers. The cost for the latter is exorbitant and the newly required structures would be completely out of character relative to the existing structures and the surrounding neighborhood. Also, the reason the old carports were damaged to begin with was because they were wooden, and were susceptible to the fires started by the type of people who inhabit the neighborhood. To put up new, wood structures would only result in more fires in the neighborhood. Also, if applicant and applicant's predecessor had known of the lien to begin with, as they should have, then the faulty gas meter would have been replaced immediately, and the City would not now have a lien against the property, which lien is the City's leverage for withholding permission for construction of the nice, new aluminum carports. Therefore, the applicant requests that a variance be granted to allow relief from the new codes, to allow construction of new J '-t,_ - ,- CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE VAR NO. 87-25 FINDINGS of FACT 1 6/16/87 <; AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE aluminum carports using the existing slabs on the indicated property. Staff's Response Variance from the terms of the zoning ordinance, as stipulated by State law and City Ordinance, can only be granted due to special circumstances applicable to the property including size, shape, topography and location or surroundings. / There is no extraordinary' or exceptional circumstances involved with the subject site. The same requirements for carports with three sides would be imposed on the neighbors in the applicant's neighborhood with the same zoning. The reasons, as stated in the applicant's response, indicates a financial hardship and not one which is physical in nature to the subject property. B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. bppljggn!'s Response Project is merely intended to allow owner of cottages to replace old carports, which have been damaged, with nice, new aluminum carports which will not be susceptible to fires; the carports are a necessity for the tenants, and aluminum carports are proper for reasons given above. Staff's Resp9D9~: Substantial property right refers to the right to use the property in a manner which is on a par with uses allowed to oth7r property owners which are in the vicinity and have a like zonlng. The purpose of the variance is to restore parity where the strict application of the zoning law deprives such property owners of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. The applicant is required (not a right) to have covered, three sided carports by San Bernardino Municipal Code. The same requirement would be placed on any other owner within the same zoning district anywhere in the City. The necessity of such a variance is not apparent by the applicant's finding. '- - ....." r CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE VAR NO. 87-25 FINDINGS of FACT 1 6/16/R7 /; AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE C. That the granting of the variance detrimental to the public welfare or improvements in the zoning district the property is located. will not be materially injurious to property and and neighborhood in which ~icant's Response: Project will enhance the safety and aesthetics of the neighbor- hood for reasons given above. ~t~ff~s Response: In determining the application for a variance, the best interest of the entire community is the controlling factor rather than the suitability or adaptability of the property in question for a particular use. . The proposed variance would have an apparent detrimental impact to the neighborhood or improvements in this neighborhood. Any new construction should be according to the provisions of the Municipal Code in order to promote an improved quality of life for the area. D. That the granting of such a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Master Plan. 6p~~~~ Response: Applicant wants to replace old carports with new aluminum ones. Applicant's predecessor, Irene Bauer, owned the property prior to 1980. At that time she sold it, remaining the legal owner by taking back a deed of trust which was duly recorded during 1980. Sometime prior to mid-1983 the City placed a lien against the property, apparently because of a substandard gas meter. Irene Bauer was never informed of that lien. She took back the property during mid 1983 by way of Deed-in-lieu-of-foreclosure. During early 1987, a long term tenant left and at that time applicant attempted to have the gas meter replaced. That could not be done because of the City's lien, however, meanwhile the existing wood carports had become damaged by numerous different fires; apparently caused by transients and anti-social neighbors. In discussing matters with the City personnel during early 1987, Irene Bauer first learned that, due to some "new code" she could not replace the carports with nice, new aluminum structures, as she had intended, but must instead have entirely new foundations, footings and curbs installed, with wooden structures and lockers. The cost for the latter is exorbitant '- "-' -,-, CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE VAR NO. 87-25 FINDINGS of FACT ~~~~~16~fE6/i6j87 PAGE 7 and the newly required structures would be completely out of character relative to the existing structures and the surrounding neighborhood. Also, the reason the old carports were damaged to begin with was because they were wooden, and were susceptible to the fires started by the type of people who inhabit the neighborhood. To put up new, wood structures would only result in more fires in the neighborhood. Also, if applicant and applicant's predecessor had known of the lien to begin with, as they should have, then, the faulty gas meter would have been replaced immediately, and the City would not now have a lien against the property, which lien is the City's leverage for withholding permission for construction of the nice, new aluminum carports. Therefore, the applicant requests that a variance be granted to allow relief from the new codes, to allow construction of new , aluminum carports using the existing slabs on the indicated property. ~f's Response: The objectives of the General Plan is to improve the quality of life for all residents of the City and improve the safety of the residents as well. The approval of the variance would be in contradiction with those objectives by allowing something which is less than Cod~ standards and may be unsafe if allowed to be rebuilt on the old footings. RE!;;QMM~NDATION Based on the observations and four mandated findings, Staff recommends denial of Variance No. 87-25. Respectfully Submitted, :"'''''''''' '-' ............ ,. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT "I ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE ~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST ~ ,. "I A. BACKGROUND 1. Case Number (s): VARIANCE NO.87-25 Date: 2, Project Description: Applicant requests a waiver of S.B.M.C. Section 19.56.020(C) regarding carport construction in the R-3, Multiple Family Residential zone. Applicant proposes to construct aluminum carports on the existing pad. 3, General Location: 154 East Fourth Street. ~. ENV ( IWNMENT AL lMPACTS YES MAYBE ~o , 1. Could project change proposed uses of land, as indi- cated on the General Plan, either on project site or within general area? --X - - 2, I~ould significant increases in either noise levels, dust odorst fumes, vibration or radiation be gener- ated from project area, either during construction .Jr from complete,d project other than those result- ing from normal construction activity? X - - - ] . IHll project lnvolve application, use or disposal of hazardous or toxic materials? X - - - 4. Will any deviation from any established environ- mental standards (air, water, noise, l i~h t , etc. ) and/or adopted plans be requested in connection with project? X - - - 5, \Hll the project require the use of significant amounts of energy which could be reduced by the use of appropriate mitigation measures? X - - - 6. Could the project create a traffic hazard or congestion? - -X 7. Could project result in any substantial change in quality, quantity, or accessibility of any portion of region's air or surface and ground water re- sources? X - ~ ~ ,-, VAR NO. 87-25 - '-'" 8. Will project involve construction of facilities in an area which could be flooded during an inter- mediate regional or localized flood? 9. Will project involve construction of facilities or services beyond those presently available or pro- posed in near future? 10. Could the project result in the displacement of community residents? 11. Are there any natural or man-made features in pro- ject area unique or rare (i.e. not normally found in other parts of country or regions)? 12, Are there any known historical or archaelogical sites in vicinity of project area which could be affected by project? 13. Could the project affect the use of a recrea- tional area or area of important aesthetic value or reduce or restrict access to public lands or parks? 14. Are there any known rare or endangered plant species in the project area? 15. Does project area serve as habitat, food source, nesting place, source of water, migratory path, etc., for any rare or endangered wildlife or fish ~pecies? 16. Will project be ,located in immediate area or any adverse geologic nature such as slide prone areas, l\ighly erosible soils, earthquake faults, etc.? 17. Could project substantially affect potential use or conservation or a non-renewable natural resource? 18. Will any grading or excavation be required in connection with project which could alter any existing prominent surface land form, i.e., hill- side, canyons, drainage courses, ete? 19. Will any effects of the subject project together or in conjunction with effects of other projects cause a cumulative significant adverse impact on the environment? '" YES MAYBE no ~ ~ x x x x --"" x Liquefaction ZonE .X-- _IIBII_ x x -J ERt FORM A D&ft~ ::II n~ .. ;., -- '-" VAR NO. 87-25 "l C, SilllMARY OF FINDINGS AND CilllULATIVE EFFECTS If any of the findings of fact have been answered YES or ~""YBE . then a brief clarification of po ten t ia 1 impact shall be included as well as a discussion of any cumulative effects (attach additional sheets if needed) . The site falls within Liauefaction zone liB". Adherence to the liquefaction resolution shall be reauired. I). MITIGATION MEASURES Describe type and anticipated effect of any measures proposed to mitigate or eliminate potentially significant adverse environmental impac ts : To adher@ to the requirements of the liquefaction report prior to the issuance of buildinll permits. - .-.-- E. DETERIHNATION On the has is of ttlis initial evaluation, 0 I.~e find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect an the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 1..J~ find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in tllis case because the mitigation measures described an an attached sheet Ilave been added to the project, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREP~~ED, o tie find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ- ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IllP ACT REPORT is required. X We find the proposed project to be categorically exempt from further environmental review under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. ENVIROm1ENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA ?'~'-'. ~:..~ . -- - ",OJ" - (SecretarYVALERIE C. ROSS, Associate Planner DATE: .. , ,'. . , , ... MAY '81 ERe FORM A ~'. C)z \II x "l\ ~ .... ~ ..... '~ '" ~ ~ l=- <:to -:, \ ~, " j ~ ~ Pe.o~",p ~Jafe. ~Ji:: le~~ ~~ 1'5"4 ~. 4-'nt ~~err ~4 ~12"lA1ZDINO.(A <:7\A) fJu.-!5~" I l,1a...)J.. t......6C'.eJ~~ I.l"I.j &>1~os..W.~ ~,\.4:>U. -..c,,, ~ ........1.1 101 A. ~1" l>lo4ofWl-lQenll..INIJ ~,. -+"" ~, '46.,"'~""~lIIIlIl'I'~II""'~~.lIW ~ ," . f~~~H ~. .1ll~ ~ q~' , 111~t..l '5OU11o/ \40'1::11\.1., 1to1Lr1" c:>rt &~IoU-I''-I<i", ~a 1.0 ~:l i o --- 'I" U - . , ,I:~j ','~.......o..wll:.' ,) " ,.. . ."""" . \!lilt ~i\ . ~,. ...... ;!;l: ~ ~" \ ...~ tl " I ~ ;~Z ~ 6. -I ,., '~j,. """ 1'- h-~. i L~ f~ V. , ...' - f~O I_,~ , l2'O!I'~~' ~ {} {} ~ ~' .. 4110' I ~.!:. .-- .' I_~, '- ~ :~I - ~q . ' , . I r \ I -,' 'j ,:' ",- T / . ' it ' J""";,._\t~ "\... ....1V'. {} ~ ""'L .. ::J' ,I I..... " - :il1l' .~" 'I ~ {} ~ '<)\ =f " {} .. ~.'. ~, --...;.. ';, '. .. , 'I " ", ....r g, {} '''L. ;~ o --.. h, " "I'L " y -4:.1U ~ ~ ~ ., 1'Q6.14It-l ey: '1~ ,1i!>1~e.__I-l'f" 4i4J \.o~ Y"~N6 ~ I2I1OL ">>p<>, CA.. '1l~3 (11")l'Ia-'1+f1~ " '-.;"",h .. ",",,,,J ,"-' '-'. ... .7 AGENDA ITEM # CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT LOCATION VAR NO. 87-25 1 CASE HEARING DATE I; 11 I; /R 7 OLlJI II .. .-- .. R-3 R-3 [g R-3 R'3 C.JA R-3 [] R'3 R-3 R'3 R'3 100" "0" T 3 · I C-M HlO" CoM C-3A A-P A,P C'M (;Irr C'M "AU A-P A-P ~ , T, C'4 A'P R-3 .. ~ C-M C'M "011 -- C CoM ITE I C-3A R-3 : eM ~~~~3A lC~ M I :~:~ C'M "a" "0" 110" C-3A T R-3 I~ C'M