HomeMy WebLinkAbout36-Plannning
c
#~
CITY OF. SAN BERNARDINO
~J(";--:.;..-;_ :-,~':')' ~o/:
~\: . . !-
....?~~/\~~.:~;
-..:" \ 1":.'/
o
o
:)
1.J
POST OFFICE BOX 131B. SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 92402
December 9, 1986
SHAUNA CLARK
CITY CLERK
Frank Del'Andrae
5560 Mission Blvd.
Riverside, CA 92509
Dear Mr. Del'Andrae:
At the meeting of the Mayor and Common Council held December 8,
1986, your appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of appeal
on Review of Plans No. 86-43, for the construction of a 48 unit,
three story apartment complex located on the south side of Mill
Street, west of Rancho Avenue, was continued.
The hearing on the appeal was continued to December 22, 1986, at
2:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D"
Street, San Bernardino, California.
Sincerely,
~t"/?~,0
"'5HAUNA CLARK
City Clerk
SC:dc
cc: Mayor Wilcox
Councilman Ralph Hernandez
Planning
Henry & Alice Stiel
,
. ..
<"
< '. .jPRICE IN PPOGFESS
'.. . I' .-1
\",-.. ..-""
;-................- /,
~- ';;';"';"', I
300 NORTH "0" STREET. SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 9241B'()121
PHONE 17141 3B3-5oo2/3B3.51 02
.<1.
Cln ,OF SAN BERNARDICO - REQU~~T FOR COUNCIL ACGoN"j
Frank A. Schuma Appeal of Denial of Appeal
From: Planning Director Subject: on
Review of Plans No. 86-43
Dept: Planning
Mayor and Council Meeting of
Date: November 18, 1986 December 8, 1986, 2:00 p.m.
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
Previous Planning Commission action:
At the meeting of the Planning Commission on November 5, 1986, the
following action was taken:
The appeal of Review of Plans No. 86-43 was reviewed and it was the
determination of the Commission that the appeal was not filed in a
timely and appropriate manner, and, therefore, no further action
could be taken by the Planning Commission.
Vote: 5-2, 2 absent.
Recommen1ed motion:
That the hearing on the appeal be closed and the decision of the
Planning Commission be affirmed, modified or rejected.
Q
p
-
-
Signature Frank A. Schuma
Frank A. Schuma
383-5057
Contact person:
Phone:
Supporting data attached:
Staff Report
Ward:
3
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Sou rce:
Finance:
Council Notes:
C~ITY OF SAN BEF(;IARDINO C- MEMORANDU~')
To MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
From
RALPH H. PRINCE
City Attorney
December 5, 1986
Subject Item 53, Agenda of December 8, 1986
Appeal of Review of Plans 86-43
Date
Approved
Date
Review of Plans 86-43 was approved by the Development Review
Committee on August 7, 1986; a letter advising the applicant
that the application had been approved and enclosing copies
of the requirements and conditions was mailed to the
applicant on August 25, 1986.
At the Council meeting of August 18, 1986, Councilman
Hernandez orally indicated his desire to appeal Review of
Plans 86-43.
Planning Director, Frank Schuma, concurs that a verbal
request was made at the Council meeting, but it was not
included in the Minutes, nor was it located on the recording
of the meeting.
At the Council meeting of September 8, 1986, Councilman
Hernandez reaffirmed his desire to appeal Review of Plans 86-
43, and the architect was subsequently informed by letter on
September 25, 1986 that an appeal had been made. No appeal
was ever submitted in writing.
The Planning Commission heard the question of the timeliness
of the appeal on November 5, 1986. Resolution No. 86-361r
which set forth procedures for administrative appeals of
Development Review Commission decisions to the Planning
Commission, was adopted on September 9, 1986, subsequent to
the events above described. At the time that Councilman
Hernandez' a eal was orally made, there was no t1me 11mit
n re irem wr1 1n .
//'
1.. J"'.
l'
)
Therefore, absent any specific appeal procedure in the Code,
or adopted policYr fundamental principles of due process
require that administrative appeals of staff decisions be
entertained by the Planning Commission. Absent a specific
time requirement, the time for appeal was a reasonable time.
The appeal of Review of Plans 86-43 should be referred to the
Planning Commission for a hearing on the merits. Interested
parties should be notified.
~hY2~-c:~/
RALPH H. PRINCE
city Attorney
Attachment: Resolution No. 86-361
()
C. c
'QltQp,
-.
'-'
o
-e"D _~. I
. -Hf.N. (Wlf:
1986 ClEc - 5 D.R,~m.nt:
~I'f f(): 04
OFFICE OF THE
MAYOR
December 4, 1986
,
I
,;,~. Phon. No.:
^ '.
UJ .. \
~ ~t'O"J
~,,~.r ~~
'~-.
(714) 370-5061
The Honorable Evlyn Wilcox and
Members of the City Council
City of San Bernardino
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, California 92418
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of Appeal of Review of
Plans No. 86-43 - December 8, 1986
Dear Mayor Wilcox and Members of the City Council:
The City of Colton has been made aware of the above-referenced appeal by a
local resident. I have been briefed as to the type of project which is being
considered for the area and am very much concerned. As you know, the proposed
apartments are to be located in an area adjacent to our City limits. While
I would never attempt to dictate to the City of San Bernardino what develop-
ment should be approved or denied, I believe that the two cities'share common
concerns about approving proper development. Therefore, I wish to share with
you some of my concerns regarding the proposed development:
1, ~have police and fire statistics for the area that are overwhelming.
The cost to the City to police and protect the existing apartment develop-
ment is extremely high and proportionately the highest in the City.
2. The proposed development has a density of thirty-six units per acre.
As you know, higher density projects tend to provide higher amounts
of aberrant behavior and thereby higher need for police, paramedic,
and fire services.
3. The schools. in the area are already heavily impacted. I am aware of
the fees being collected to alleviate this type of situation. However,
there is a lag-time involved in provi~ng new classrooms which will
exacerbate the impaction on our classrooms.
The City of Colton has been concerned enough regarding the above that our new
General Plan draft proposal would change all R-3 zoning in the area to R-1.
The City has also had long and numerous conversations with the apartment owners
on the northeast corner of Mill and Rancho and finally succeeded in having them
build a ten-foot high fence around their project and hire security guards.
Unfortunately, this came too late to save some of the lives of those people
murdered in the area, and it was too late to keep the businesses across the
:U'
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION.JTEM ~
/:J.t!'-IT,t
CITY OF COLTON CIVIC CENTER . 850 N. LA CADENA DRIVE . COLTON, CALIFORNIA 82324
c
.-
\.of
-
v
Mayor Wilcox and City Council
Page Two
December 4, 1986
street from leaving due to continuous robberies, thefts, and harassment of
customers.
I feel confident you will make the right and proper decision regarding this
matter, and I look forward to working together toward quality development
in the areas of mutual concern as we have in the past,
Sincerely yours,
~./4.~
FRANK A. GONZALES
Mayor
FG:bg
:lo4r-
'L
~
c
,
- .
,
]
2
3
4
5
6
i
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
, ,€ff
. ,.a 30
'I -~i -;"C 0 0
o
o
RESOLUTION NO. ,p ~ - 3 :.;
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AMENDING RESOLUTION
NO. 83-48 ENTITLED IN PART "RESOLUTION . . . ESTABLISHING A
PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF PLANS", AND ADOING
PROVISIONS WHICH ESTABLISH A PROCEDURE FOR THE APPEAL OF
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Resolution No. 83-48 Section 9 is amended to
read:
"Section 9. Appeal - Public Hearina.
A. The Planning Department shall approve or reject the
plans submitted for review, and the decision shall be final
unless an appeal to the Planning Commission is filed, in writing,
within ten days of the decision.
B. Upon receipt of an appeal from the decision of the
Planning Department, the Planning Commission shall fix a time and
place of public hearing thereon not less than fifteen days nor
more than forty days thereafter. Notice of time and place of the
hearing, including a general description of the matter to be
I
considered and a general description. of the property fOr which
I
the appeal is proposed, shall be given at least ten days before
I
I
1. Tbe notice shall be published at least once in a
I
newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the
I
I
2. The notice shall be mailed 0) delivered to all
persons, including businesses, corporatioJs, or other public or
I
private entities, shown on the last equalized assessment roll as
I
owning real property within five hundred feet of the property
the hearing in the following manner:
City.
which is the subject of the proposed appeal.
9/9/86
c
1
c
--.
\.J
o
3. Forms and procedures for processing an appeal to the
2 Planning Commission shall be prescribed by the Director of
3 Planning. Th~ appellant shall pay a fee to cover administrative
costs as set forth by resolution.
4
5
this section shall not invalidate any action taken.
6
C. Failure of any person to receive the notice required by
7
D. The Chairman of the Planning Commission, or the acting
8 Chairman, shall administer oaths and all witnesses shall be
sworn.-
9
10
adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
11
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly
12 Bernardino at a
13 the 1M day of 4 '"' 7;:.../u <
'/
14 to wit:
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
meeting thereof, held" on
, 1986, by the following vote,
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
City Clerk
4'i~
22 ~e fategoing iesolution is hereby approved this
'..
23
24
25
26 Approved as to form:
/'., ,,'-/l-
27' . . ......."
28 City Attorney
day of
, 1986.
Mayor of the City of San Bernardino
2
9/9/86
CCITY OF SAN BE~~ARDINOO- MEMORANDUQ
To Shauna Clark, City Clerk
From Council Office
Subject Appeal/Project 86-43
Date November 13, 1986
Approved
Date
I herewith appeal the decision
Ccommission to not hear my appeal of
opinion is that my appeal was filed in a
manner and that the Planning Commission
the authority. to review the Developmental
recommendations.
of the Planning
Project 86-43. My
timely and correct
and Council have
Review Committee's
tt..-eI;-
RALPH HERNANDEZ
Councilman, Third Ward
RH:sr
cc: Planning Department
3300
7Ctl
~
.
C
1
2
3
..
5
6
7
8
9
10
!:- 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPEAL
"
-V
o
J
SUBJECT:
REVIEW OF PLANS NO. 86-43
p~ope~ty !ocat~on; ~ubject p~ope~ty ~~ 1.3 ac~e~ hav~ng app~o .
498' on the South ~~de 06 Mil! and be~ng !ocated app~ox.
200' we~t 06 the cente~!~ne 06 Rancho Avenue
TO. CITY CLERK
CITY 06 SAN BERNARDINO
CITY HALL
SAN BERNARDINO, CA.
:.:~
-;-1
I
Aie unde~~~gned pa~t~e~ do he~eby appea! the above ~
ment~oned pian b 'o~e the P!anning COmm~~~~on at th~~ t~me,
". oJ _
The ~eUOn6 6M the appea! (p~ote.ltl Me i~~ted a~ 60!E~~: '.
1. D<.n6.<.ty 06 the a~ea----- the~e a~e ~eve~ct! comp!exe~
~n the a~ea at th~~ t~me, ..... ._.
one comp!ex ha~ 184 un.<.t~
the next one ha~ 156 un~t~
In1 next, 204 unt~~ (w~th a vacancy 60~ thL~ one
~aione 06 62%1, anothe~, ha~ 10 un~t~...the~e
a~e two mobi!e home pa~~~-------one w~th
103, annthe~ 93.... .th~~ ~~ ~n the ~mmed~ate
CITY PLMJi(il.!;j t,;TiUl1MENT Mea.... !eH than a b!oc~ d~~tance 6~om the
SAN BERNARDINO. CA
p~opo~ed ~ite.. ... ....the~e a~e ohe~ pa~~~
and comp!exe~, a!~o, ~n the ~u~~oJnding a~ea.
,
00 m@m~~7~
NOV 07 1986
2. C~ime ac.tivitY_h_-thue i~ a high Mime a~ea......
d~ug~, bu~g!a~y, petty the6t....a!! within thi~
immed~ate a~ea,.... .one ~hopping cente~ ha~
bec.ome iI "wa~t!and" 06 empty bU~~neHe~....
due to the c.~~me ~n the a~ea. .....~t ~~
adjacent to Coiton, and the~e60~e, ~u66e~~
the ove~6!ow 6~om thei~ c.~ime ~tati~tic~.
3. Schoo!~.. ..the p~ope~ty i~ w~thin the Ria!to Sc.hoo!
D~~t~~c.t~....th.<.~ ~c.hoo! ~~ a!~eady at ~ max-
~mum pea~ toad 6o~ the~~ popu!ation !im~t,
.. .
c
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
c
~ PLAN 86-43 ~ont.
~
/
4. Involvement 06 the 60Itmelt"...Bob Hol~omb u-
Mayolt, hah taken it upon himhe!6 to be~ome involved
....thih ih totally out 06 line, ...hih uhing hih
in6luen~e in 066i~eh whelte he ih no longelt in
autholtity, but tltying to Uhe what in6luen~e he
hah Itemaining. ..to en~oultage molte ~ltime a~tivity
-....molte tlta66i~ pltoblemh...molte pltoblemh with an
allteady bultdened h~hool hyhtem....,we 6eel ih a
dilte~t inhult to the ~ultltent Mayolt....the Honoltable
Evlyn [fJ.u~o",
A petition hah been ~iIt~ulated, and hignatulteh gathelted......
in a VeAY hholtt length 06 tlme...,.lettelth welte hubmitted
to the Planning COmmihhion, the Mayolt'h 066l~e, the Coun~.u
066i~e..,.all 601t Iteview 06 hih deli~ate hituation.
Thlh planning lh hultely not in the beht inteAeht 06 the ~ommunity
., ...it ~ould only exaheAbate the a~lteady exihting pltoblemh.
VA TE:Lf1 fJi) .
'7,'ff'~."
,
ALlCE STIEL
.
S, f'I"K bll ST ~Q€:,\LE. ~RK.
~::tSo w. \'{\\LL S\'. *l\lo
Co L"\' 0 (\j) C. f\ C\ ~ ~ ~ '1
<6~~-~"?>S\o \ ~<g~-\.o\OS
. JEl~L ~i, Q
.
CCITY OF SAN-dEhNARDINO'J- "YlEMORANDU~
To The Planning commission
From
Frank A. Schuma
Planning Director
Su~~t Appeal of Review of Plans No. 86-43,
Ward 3
Date
November 5, 1986
Approved
Agenda Item No. 11
Date
Owner:
Mr. Darwin Reinglass
1901 East Fourth Street
Santa Ana, CA 92705
App lican t:
Mr. Frank Del'Andrae
5560 Mission Boulevard
Riversider CA 92509
t.,
Review of Plans No. .;86-43 is a proposal to construct a 48
unitr three-story apartment complex on approximately 1.3
acres on land located on the south side of Mill street, west
of Rancho Avenue and in the R-3-1200 Multiple Family Residen-
tial zone. This item was originally presented to the Devel-
opment Review Committee for the review and approval at their
meeting of May 16r 1986. At the request of the Planning
Department staff, the development proposal, which was ulti-
mately . approved by the Development Review Committee at their
August 7, 1986 meeting, was altered several times to insure
compatibility with the surrounding area.
One of the issues concerning staff was the issue of
story structUres in an area where the predominance of
opment is single story with some two-story development
immediate area.
three-
devel-
in the
The letter advising the applicant that the application had
been approved was dated August 25, 1986. The letter con-
tained the approval along with the appropriate standard
requirements and conditions applicable to the project. The
letter further stated that the approval of Review of Plans
No. 86-43 was final unless appealed within 10 days of the
date of the approval letter.
..
Councilman Hernandez, at a meeting of the Mayor and Council
on August 18, 1986, indicated to me his desire to appeal
Review of Plans No. 86-43 on the basis of incompatibility
because of the three-story structures. This was a verbal
request made a the Council meeting, however, it was not
included in the minutes of the Mayor and Council nOr was it
picked up on the recording of the meeting. Councilman
Hernandez, at the Council meeting of september 8,1986,
reaffirmed his appeal of Review of Plans No. 86-43 because of
the three-story aspect of the project. Staff then, on
September 25r 1986, informed Mr. Frank Del'Andrae, architect
for the applicant, Mr. Darwin Reinglass, that the item had
been appealed and the date on which the appeal hearing would
c.ry ON rHI=MiOv.
c
----
o
~
~
'--
~
Memorandum to the Planning Commission
November 5r 1986
Page 2
.
be held. No appeal was ever submitted in writing by myself
or Councilman Hernandez.
Before the Planning Commission can act on this appealr it
must determine that the appeal that was requested by Council-
man Hernandez was acted on in a timely manner and in a manner
consistent with the purpose and intent of the appeal process.
If the Commission can make such a determinationr it then can
proceed with the appeal of the application to determine its
compatibility with the surrounding properties.
Recommended Motions:
That the appeal of Councilman Hernandez was filed in a timely
manner and that the Planning Commission can act upon the
appeal.
or
That the appeal of Councilman Hernandez was not
timely manner andr therefore, no further action
by the Planning Commission.
filed in a
can be taken
Respectfully submittedr
SCHUMA
Director
.
~f
.
c;lTY OF SAN ]EP~IARDINOC- ,~1EMORANDUr6
.
To Planning Cornrnission
Subject Review of Plans No. 86-43
From Planning Department
Date October 21. 1986
Approved rTEM NO. 11 WARD ND. 3
Dale
.
Owner: Darwin Reinglass
1901 East 4th Streetl
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Applicant: Frank Del Andre
5560 Mission Blvd.,
Riverside, CA 92509
Review of Plans No. 86-43 is a proposal to construct
unit apartment complex on 1.3 acres ~f land located on
Street, approximately 200 feet west of Rancho in the
MUltiple-Family Residential zone.
a 48
Mill
R-3r
This item initially was presented to the Development Review
Committee on May l5r 1986, The applicant requested maxin,uln
dens i ty at the site. Comments at that point in time were
that three stories, maximum density and the commercial
appearance of the elevations would be incompatible to the
area, The developer resubmitted the proposal on three
subsequent dates, each time making small concessions but
still maintaining three stories and maximum ~ensity in his
proposal. At the Development Review Committee meeting of
August 7 r 1986, it was determined . that every minimum
requirement of the San Dernardino 11unicipai Code had been ~,e\.
and that the project was still three stories and maxi.mum
density, but was passed through the committee for further
action. A letter of approval was sent to the developer on
August 25, 1986.
At the City Counc i 1 meet ing of Septembe l 8, 1986, Counc iJman
Ralph Hernandez appealed the decision of the Development
Review Committee. A letter indicating such was sent to the
owner on September 25, 1986. The appeal was based on the
three stories which requires a massive structure on the
parcel and the incompatibility of the structure and resulting
density with the surrounding uses. Density at the site is
proposed at 36 units per acre. Surrounding land uses
include: a single family tract to the northr directly across
Hi 11 Street; two story apartments to the south; and
commercial uses to the east.
Respectfully Submitted,
FRAHrZ A. SClIUHA.
Planning Director
S~N
Associate Planner
rHI~~'V.
KEV I .w OOF"--t-:t_.c~-JS. ~~-4"3
5 v (" r c> "M. V\. d...i. n. a-- \ t:L V\.. ol 'V\. S es
c
;:.,' ;j{," <13 . /o-IJ-i" ~
_ "u.f.e(...t (W.-cel (4r7rr' -!To"/"
6.., ,till -red d,UI') -;l. Sj'-Df'lf ~
I ;tor,/ H-f'K 1"- kl:.:ft'~u."ct!'
'5\,e
,"J"",' . :'j:;.,"
.^i
I;',
~
NOf..-rn
J
. ~..'
,J
f!.f r",-f(3' , '. IO-13-f~,
- "S11l.:Jle fa,yu./'1 -I:.re(,c.t;,,- e;cf,;{-
~m.es dilnll; (kcross-!n,."\ tee J
, NO~:TH
. ,-;rr-_.-- u___ -.- ..--. ~...... '_'_"
1
...~,.' ."'--.
:-":t~ .... . --...-..._.
(~'.'; ~T .-__~_
'.'
,
I
. __ ::..:'~:.~_:.'T.'.~.-.-:C, . on
(U~V",-l/3 . /0-/3-['t-
_ Vie,.,; tiP Para' I -PCIf! Si~(~
-f,l..... -H-",,{, yard. /-Sf"'1 a.r.s-
i~ -fl,..e 5'"o.<-f-1-.
SiTE , S~\A,TH
/,' )/__ ,Ii,
KE.V I E.\J - &r -PL.A."Q~ ,-<gG::,-4~
~(" r OV--~A..7r Ia:..~ xses
.
c
r::.p ~/7"43
51llflc. 9Ior';j
jO-/3-n
M~ 7lJ ~ tL-f(
5ouX-h.
~,.""""""",~, I:<!'j . lrn'l"r}i"~' '"'~ ./
. ':'I.;~A'J.~",r";",,.:.~:x:,. ~..l,(.~J:!:"','.r:-....,. ~~_,:,:,,,,,,.<.:.,:.1' ':..1'Y'-~
. .... ,- 'il ,,-., ',' .'. ,-'. -". . . ",'" ,'l- :t'\;,. ~
"j,; \ :U,?~.'~I,~.:"~~':l\r;Ai,-':\!~~. ;.. :,:,';.:';'..;\"if~K~:',::~~~~
.'.....\'. 1M'"' t~. ,;1~ ""'"'l..,."."."..'l"",~'f"1..
.....'~.~.. IffU"!" ........f ':"'l '{ '~"""f""""~':"'" ~: ",,':'
~ ":~Y:./:~.!f :~;~ /: ~~':"if;~i~'i,;,,~':.i:;'~'r~f'r;' ~;'<;1
.......
" .' ~
c. -.2. .......-;e
;<;' f,,-l,!3
-tv
#<2 f/i!;{
/0-/3- f
~.A<'I
o
(?.fJ '6&-'13 /0-1'3-81:,
'])~fJc. rulCe. te-/z..;ee,~ :/..- s./o"iJ "(''4-
(," o7'-t)a..,...{. /.;{",,'! tr.f-l~' {611 (eR)
S ou..-rH
~ w c57
Itr g~-43
J- $/fory MTS TO
10-13-8
LJer.t
,\t-\ t:=.~"I
I ,
_./' :i /_
..: - (. I,.
o
o
o
~
J
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AGENDA
ITEM #
LOCATION
CASE REVIEW OF PLANS 36-43
11
HEARING DATE
OCT. Zl, 1:l1lb
'"
!H
f-;:,-j "-2 \
~]f
1 ~'~ ~C '
k:J
R.I
R-I
C-3A
C-y,
R-I
RIA T
R-Z R-I
C-3A
R -I R-I
R-Z
...
u
R-I .-,
R-3 M-I
R -I .. R-3 -
~ 2000 R-I
R-2 c , 0;- or-
.-\ a: a: a: --
'" ",1
R- Z ~
R-Z
~
R - 2
R-I
R-I
R-I
R-I
~
)ll
O\..~O
Cl
~
~ -I
R-I
I
.
R - I
R -I
I
I
1
--
I
....,
I .-..
R -I
", :
.--
.'M'T!
.' . \. .
--~!":~":I""''':<: - I~I
--, ,----, UIIIIIII.
II I ,
I)'
.';, .j/- ct
-
c
o
o
o
~-~~"",
/_ .,_~ ..-.,;........ 1,J
,'-. / -. ". .",.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO POST OFFICE BOX 131B. SAN BERNAROINO. CALIFORNIA 92402
I::J;"-<:- ':':\'~I')61
\: ~":., .......~.~. '"". .' =;
'\. ,";. " ~ ,/'
,....:. . ,"
'-. ~ '_..~ ',/
December 9, 1986
SHAUNA CLARK
CITY CLERK
Darlene B. Fischer
Hill, Farrer & Burrill
445 South Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, California 90071
Dear Ms. Fischer:
At the meeting of the Mayor and Common Council held December 8,
1986, the matter relative to the extension of time on the Grand-
father Clause for the Mountain Shadows Villas Project, was
continued.
This matter will be heard at 2:0~ p.m., December 22, 1986, in the
Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernar-
dino, California.
Sincerely,
.1fva' /.'t1~t-
-'SliAUNA CLARK
City Clerk
SC:dc
cc: City Attorney
Planning
Stubblefield Enterprises, Inc.
Peter B. Brekhus
Jim Smith
i
'cC::'C:: IN .c,C,?~p=SS
--
300 NORTH "0" STREET. SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 9241B'()121
PHONE 17141 3B3-50021383-5102
.::?'7
c
-
\",I
-
v
o
Council Member Hernandez made a motion. seconded by
Council Member Estrada and unanimously carried, that the
maintenance contract between Gibson Bros., the Central
City Mall and the City. be continued to the Adjourned
Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Common Council to be held
December 8. 1986. in the Council Chambers of City Hall.
300 North "0" Strt!et, San Bernardino: that staff be
directed to present a final resolution in writing,
stating what each side will agree upon.
NEW FIRE STATION - TRI-CITY CORPORATE COMPLEX -
STATUS REPORT
In a memorandum dated November 5. 1980. City Engineer
Hardgrave provided an Engineer's Report on the use of
assessment district funds to construct a new fire station
in the Tei-City Corporate Complex. and stated that based
upon present estimates, the project is currently $165,000
over budget. (42)
Council Member StriCkler made a motion, seconded by
Council Member Reilly and unanimously carried, that the
status report on construction of a new fire station in the
Tri-City corporate complex be referred to the Ways and
Means Committee for a recommendation on the overrun in
estimated construction costs.
STUBBLEFIELD ENTERPRISES - MOUNTAIN SHADOWS
VILLAS - DISCUSSION RE EXTENSION OF TIME ON
GRANDFATHER CLAUSE - NEW R-3 ORDINANCE
CONTINUED FROM EARLIER IN MEETING
The Mayor and Common Council discussed an ordinance
on the Council Agenda granting an extension of time on the
grandfather clause concerning the Mountain Shadows Villas
project by StUbblefield Enterprises. (See page 42) (48)
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
ESTABLISHING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR PROJECTS PERTAINING
TO MULTIPLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS APPEALED
TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION &~D THEN TO THE
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL; AND DECLARING
THE URGENCY THEREOF.
On November 17, 1986, the Mayor and Common Council
closed the hearing on the appeal of the Planning Commis-
sian's decision to issue a Negative Declaration for the
Mountain Shadows Villas located between the northern ter-
minus of 1a praix Avenue and Citrus Street, and ordered
the preparation of a focused environmental impact report.
On November 7, 1986, by Council action, Stubblefield
Enterprises was granted an extension of two weeKS to get
their application before the Development Review Committee
in order to meet the grand fathering provisions under the
transition ordinance for the new R-3 standards.
The ordinance on the agenda finalizes the action of
November 7, 1986.
The Mayor and Council debated as to whether or not
the grand fathering of the project 3hould be discussed at
this time. On November 17,1986, a number of Council
Members had agreed that if any further discussions on the
Stubblefield Mountain Shadows Villas project was held,
that the public would be notified.
5U
lL/17/86
c
-
v
o
o
The Mayor and Council discussed the three-story is-
sue. Under the existing R-3 ordinance, three story units
are acceptable. But. they are not acceptable under the
new ordinance. which will become effective in December
19Bo.
The Mayor and Council also discussed the environ-
mental review process and the use of this process to look
at the three story issue.
Arnold Stubblefield pointed out that all projects
over 24 units are required to obtain a conditional use
permit, so if their project is not grandfathered, they
will have to start back at the beginning of the process.
Frank Schuma, Planning Director, answered questions
regarding the EIR process and the ability of the Mayor and
Common Council to override the findings in the consul-
tant's report by way of a statement of overriding consi-
derations.
Council Member Ouiel made a motion. seconded by
Council Member Strickler. that with regard to the Stub-
blefield project and their proposed three story units,
which would require a conditional use permit under the new
ordinance, if in fact the ElR study comes back and indi-
cates that those three story units will not have a signif-
icant impact on the surrounding community, that we will
accept that and allow for the development of three-story
units: this will allow for an independent analysis with
respect to the three-story.
The Mayor and Common Council discussed the motion.
Arnold Stubblefield expressed his concern that the
Council was singling out this project to impose the stric-
ter standards.
After further discussion, Council Members Quiel and
StriCkler withdrew their motion.
COUNCIL MEMBER ESTRADA EXCUSED
Council Member Estrada left the Council Meeting.
Council Member Quiel made a substitute motion,
seconded by Council Member Marks and unanimously carried,
that this matter be referred to the legislative Review
Committee and continued to the Adjourned Regular Meeting
of the Mayor and Common Council to be held at 2:00 p.m.,
Monday, December 8, 1986, in the Council Chambers of City
Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino.
COUNCIL MEMBER ESTRADA RETURNED
Council Member Estrada returned to the Council Meet-
ing and took her place at the Council Table.
COUNCIL MEMBER FRAZIER EXCUSED
Council Member Frazier left the Council Meeting.
APPROVAL - CHANGE ORDER NO. ONE - CONTRACT
VALLEY CREST LANDSCAPING, INC. - SECCOMBE
LAJ<E STATE URBAN RECREATION AREA
In a memorandum dated November 12, 1986, City Engi-
neer Hardgrave stated that during work on the old AdObe
Building in the Seccombe Lake State Urban Recreation Area,
portions of the north and east walls collapsed, and that a
potential liability was created. Authority needs to be
given to the Valley Crest landscaping, Inc., the contrac-
tor, to proceed with the demolition in order to abate any
possible liability exposure. (5-1)
51
11/17/86
--
---.
----~
CCITY OF SAN BE':::~ARDINOO-
MEMORANDU':>
To MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
From RALPH H. PRINCE
City Attorney
Date December 18, 1986
Subject Review of Plans No. 86-43; Appeal of,
Approved
Opn. No. 86-54, 10.85
DUe 700.30, 700.1
Backqround
The appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of appeal of
Review of Plans No. 86-43 was continued from the City Council
meeting of December 8, 1986 to December 22, 1986, for further
legal advice concerning the timeliness and form of the
appeal.
Facts
Review of Plans No. 86-43 was tentatively approved by the
Development Review Committee on August 7, 1986; a letter
advising applicant that the application had been approved and
enclosing the conditions and requirements was mailed to the
applicant on August 25, 1986. At that time, Resolution No.
83-48 Section 9 limited an appeal to the Planning Commission
from the decision of the Planning Department to the
applicant.
At the Council meeting of August 18, 1986, Councilman
Hernandez talked with a neighbor of the proposed development
who was attempting to appeal the decision to the Planning
Commission. At the meeting, Councilman Hernandez orally
indicated his desire to appeal Review of Plans No. 86-43.
Mrs. Alice stiel the neighbor, contends that she was advised
on August 18, 1986 by the Planning Department that it was too
late to file an appeal. Frank Schuma, Planning Directorr
concurs that the oral request was made at the Council
meeting, and that the request by Councilman Hernandez was
reaffirmed at the Council meeting of September 8, 1986.
On September 25r 1986, the applicant was advised that an
appeal had been made. The appeal was not in writing.
/
Analvsis
Resolution No. 83-48 Section 9 provided on August 18, 1986
and September 8r 1986 that the "decision shall be final
unless an appeal" is made to the Planning Commission in
writing, "by the applicant within ten days of the decision."
On the following daYr September 9, 1986, Section 9 was
amended to permit an appeal by any interested party, not just
the applicant. The Planning Commission is now required to
give notice of the time and place of the hearing on the
appeal by publication in a newspaper and by mail to all
1
@
.C
cz;rM
o
-
'....;
o
persons owning real property within five hundred feet of the
subject property.
The amendment of Section 9 by the Common Council indicated
its awareness that neighboring property owners, as well as
the applicant, were entitled to notice and the same right as
the applicant to the appeal process. The most fundamental
right available to property owners is the right of due
process; namely, notice and an opportunity to be heard. They
are entitled to present evidence that the development will
not "occur in a manner which complements the character and
quality of surrounding developments . . . " or be . . .
"harmonious with their sites and with surrounding sites and
structures . . . " as set forth in Resolution No. 83-48
Section 3.
Therefore, in the absence of notice and the appeal right
being afforded to surrounding property owners, fundamental
principles of due process require an implied right of appeal
of the property owners and tenants from decisions to the
Planning Commission.
Since the surrounding property owners, who could be adversely
effee~ed by the proposed project, were not provided written
notice of the DRC meeting or the decision or its conditions,
a requirement that the appeal had to be made in writing would
be inequitable at this time. The timeliness of the appeal is
evident from the attempt by at least one neighboring property
owner to file an appeal on August 18r 1986, and then request
her Councilman to assist in filing the appeal.
The cases of Horn v. citv of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605r
156 Cal.Rptr. 718; and Mead v. Citv Council. citv of Redlands
(1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 199, 205 Cal.Rptr. 443 are ample
authority for the proposition that procedural due process
requires notice and hearing to surrounding property owners,
and that the failure to give notice and an opportunity to be
heard constitutes a denial of due process, and could render
the decision void.
Attached for your perusal is a copy of a legal opinion
pr7P~red by Deputy City Attorney Cynthia Grace; in her
op~n~on, she concluded that the appeal of DRC 86-48 which was
made by Councilman Hernandez on behalf of the stiels should
be heard.
2
~--
~-
,.C
-
v
-
v
~
,.,
Conclusion
The appeal of Review of Plans No. 86-43 should be referred to
the Planning Commission for a hearing on the merits. Interes-
ted parties should be notified.
il2h;-I.. )~;V
~L;r;;~- PRINCE
City Attorney
RHP: pmm
cc: Mayor
City Administrator
Planning Director
Attach: Legal Opinion
3
G'ITY OF SAN BER~jARDINO
-.-
\ t
-
MEMORANDUM;>
To RALPH H. PRINCE
City Attorney
Subject Review of Plans 86-43, Appeal of,
From CYNTHIA GRACE
Date Deputy City Attorney
December 19, 1986
Approved
Opn. No. 86-52
Ode 10.47. 700.30
Ouestion
Was the appeal of Review of Plans 86-43 to the Planning
Commission filed timely and in the appropriate form?
Facts
Review of Plans 86-43 was tentatively approved by the
Development Review Committee on August 7, 1986, subject to
the finalization of conditions of approval; a letter advising
the applicant that the application for the project had been
approved and enclosing copies of the conditions and
requirements was mailed to the applicant on August 25, 1986.
At the Council meeting of August 18, 1986, Councilman
Hernandez talked with a neighbor of the project, Alice stiel,
and orally indicated his desire to appeal Review of Plans 86-
43. Planning Directorr Frank Schuma, concurs that an oral
request was made at the Council meeting, but it was not
included in the minutes of the meetingr nor was it found on
the recording of the meeting.
At the Council meeting of September 8r 1986r Councilman
Hernandez reaffirmed his appeal of Review of Plans 86-43, and
the architect was subsequently informed by letter on
September 25r 1986 that an appeal had been made. The
Planning Commission heard the question of the timeliness of
the appeal on November 5, 1986.
Resolution No. 86-361, which set forth procedures for
administrative appeals of Development Review Commission
decisions to the Planning Commission, by an interested party,
was adopted on september 9, 1986r subsequent to the events
above described. At the time Councilman Hernandez' appeal
was orally made on August 18, 1986 and September 9, 1986,
there was no resolution or ordinance requiring interested
parties (other than applicant) to appeal in writing to the
Planning commission within a time limit.
Resolution No. 83-48 Section 9 was in effect but only
permitted the applicant (developer) to appeal in writing
within ten days of the decision. It provided as follows:
1
3?
-- ---
c
-
v
....
:>
-
"The Planning Department shall approve or
reject the plans submitted for review, and the
decision shall be final unless an appeal to the
Planning Commission is filedr in writing, by
the applicant within ten days of the decision."
On December 11, 1986, Ms. Alice stiel telephoned the city
Attorney's office and stated that she had attempted to appeal
Review of Plans 86-43, and to that end spoke to Planner
Sandra Paulsen. She first spoke with Sandra Paulsen on
August 18r and was told by Mrs. Paulsen that it was too late
to file an appeal. She subsequently spoke with Mrs. Paulsen
again in Septemberr and was again told that it was too late.
Sandra Paulsen advised that she remembered talking with Mrs.
stiel on two occasions, although she could not remember the
dates. The first time they spoke she explained to Mrs. Stiel
the procedures for filing an appeal. On the second occasion,
Mrs. Stiel came into the Planning Department accompanied by
her daughter, and was advised that she should write a letter
stating the grounds for appeal and suggested the wording for
such a letter. Mrs. Paulsen stated that she did not advise
Mrs. stiel that the time period to appeal had elapsed,
Analvsis
A line of cases holds that where a statute is vague or silent
on the right to administrative appeal, then an administrative
hearing should be granted if there is no express language to
the contrary in the statute. The right of appeal derives
from the procedural due process clause and the courts will
imply a right of appeal where none is expressly stated, or
construe a vague statute broadly in favor of a right of
appeal.
One such case is Chavez v. Sacramento Countv Civil Service
commission (1977) 137 Cal.Rptr. 228. A probationary employee
had been fired from the Sheriff's Department, and he demanded
a hearing; he alleged that his appeal involved a claim of
discrimination.
The employerr which was the County Sheriff, argued that a
probationary employee is not entitled to a hearing prior to
dismissal. The court said:
"The Commission's rules do not
specifically provide for a hearing and evidence
when a probationary employee has been released
because of race, etc. But where there is no
2
c
,...
'-"
-
o
..."
specific prOV1S1on for a hearing, a hearing
requirement is to be implied, absent a contrary
intent expressed in the provisions creating the
right of appeal." McCullouqh v. Terzian (1970) 2
Cal.3d 647, at 657, 87 Cal.Rptr. 195, 470 P.2d
4; Ratliff v. Lamoton (1948) 32 Cal.2d 226, 195
P.2d 792; Deerinq California Administrative
Mandamus (CEB 1966) section 2.5.
There is an interesting sidelight of this case in that the
civil service Commission had lost the tape wherein the
appellant had attempted to perfect his right to appeal. The
court ruled at page 233 that he had a right to have a new
hearing solely to reconstruct the evidence and provide an
adequate record.
"Where a full record has not been kept,
the parties may reconstruct the record; if
unable to do so, a new hearing must be held
so as to provide an adequate record."
Chavez at page 233. (citations omitted).
Chavez and the cases which it relies upon, notably the cases
of McCullouqh v. Terzian and Ratliff v. Lamoton, do not
involve adversary proceedings. These are all situations
where an employee was fired, welfare benefits suspendedr or
license or permit denied or revoked. The courts have implied
procedural due process protectionr even when there was no
specific statute on point, in these kinds of cases for many
years.
One of the first cases to apply procedural due process
principles in the land use context was Horn v. citv of
Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 156 Cal.Rptr. 718.
In this case, a tentative subdivision was approved by the
County and a neighbor objected and attempted to appeal. He
was told by the county staff and Board of Supervisors that he
did not have standing to appeal an administrative decision.
The court held in inter alia that the approval of the
tentative subdivision was an adjudicatory action which did
require notice and hearing, and the notice provisions
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, which
required posting at certain locations, publication, and
mailing of notice to persons who specifically requested it,
were inadequate to apprise concerned landowners of
governmental actions affecting their property interests in
connection with approval of the subdivision, and thus
violated the procedural due process rights of the neighboring
property owners.
3
c..
-
"'"
-
"-'
~
The Horn case is particularly significant because the right
to notice and hearing was extended to neighboring property
owners (as opposed to just the applicant for development) and
more importantlYr because the right to notice was based upon
the procedural due process clause of the constitutionr rather
than the provisions in the Government Code, which requires
notice and hearing in connection with certain zoning and
subdivision actions.
In fact, the court did not even refer to these provisions in
the Government Code. Its argument was based solely and
entirely upon due process.
"Due process principles require reasonable
notice and opportunity to be heard before
governmental deprivation of a significant
property interest." (citations omitted), at page
721.
"The general application of due process
principles is flexibler depending on the nature
of the competing interests involved. (E.g'r
Goss v. Looez, supra, 419 U.S. 565, 583, 95 S.ct.
729, 42 L.Ed.2d 725; Boddie v. Connecticutr
supra, 401 U.S. 371, 378, 89 S.ct. 2138r 23
L.Ed.2d 763; Skellv v. State Personnel Bd.,
supra, 15 Cal.3d 194r 209, 124 Cal.Rptr. 14, 539
P.2d 774; Beaudreau v. Suoerior Court, supra, 14
Cal.3d 448, 458, 121 Cal.Rptr. 585r 535 P.2d
713.) The extent of administrative burden is one
of the factors to be considered in determining
the nature of an appropriate notice. Hannah v.
Larche (1960) 363 U.S. 420, 442, 80 S.ct. 1502, 4
L.Ed.2d 1307; In Re Tucker (1971) 5 Cal.3d 171r
179, 95 Cal.Rptr. 761, 486 P.2d 657.) However,
where, as here, prior notice of a potentially
adverse decision is constitutionally required,
that notice must, at a minimum, be reasonably
calculated to afford affected persons the
realistic oportunity to protect their interests.
(See Mullane v. Central Hanover Tr. Co., supra,
339 U.S. 306, 313, 70 s.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed 865;
Beaudreau v. Suoerior Court, supra; Scott v. citv
of Indian Wells, suprar 6 Cal.3d 541, 549r 99
Cal.Rptr. 745, 492 P.2d 1137.) Horn at page 724
and 725.
On the basis of the Horn case, it is now well-established in
4
c
"
~
~
'-'
~
~
California law that procedural due process requires notice
and hearing to not only surrounding property owners, but
surrounding tenants as well.
The case even more closely on point which implies a right to
notice and hearing absent specific statutory authority is
Mead v. Citv Council. citv of Redlands (1984) 159
Cal.App.3d 199, 205 Cal.Rptr. 443. The city of Redlands
granted a conditional use permit which allowed a historic
mansion to be opened to civic and community groups, to be
used as a site for limited fund-raising events for the
maintenancer restoration and preservation of the site.
viewers objected on the grounds that this was a commercial
encroachment into a heretofore residential neighborhood. The
procedure used by the city of Redlands was different than the
procedure used by this jurisdiction.
The action of the Planning Commission was not a decision, but
merely a recommendation which was automatically referred to
the city Council. The court held that the city's failure to
give notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the granting
the permit constituted a denial of due process and rendered
the decision void. The Plaintiff was entitled to attorney's
fees.
The municipal code had no prov1s10ns for notice and hearing,
and no provisions for appeal. The court said in a footnote
that:
"The Government Code provisions relied upon
by Mead do require some type of appeal from an
administrative decision where the council has
delegated its authority to grant conditional use
permits to another decision making body. Here
the council has not created a board of zoning
adjustment nor a zoning administrator with
authority to grant or deny CUP's. The Commission
serves only as an advisory body on conditional
use permits. It has no power to grant or deny
the application, it merely recommends appropriate
action by the Council. Such power to hear and
recommend may be validly delegated by the Council
to the Commission." (citations omitted).
The Government Code provisions relied upon by Mead were
Government Code Sections 65903 and 65904, which provide that:
5
c
.....
-
'-'
:>
'-'
"section 65903. Board of appeals;
duties; procedure
A board of appealsr if one has been
created and established by local ordinance,
shall hear and determine appeals from the
decisions of the board of zoning adjustment or
the zoning administrator, as the case may be.
Procedures for such appeals shall be as
provided by local ordinance. Such board may
reverse or affirmr wholly or partly, or may
modify the orderr requirement, decision or
determination appealed from, and may make such
order, requirement, decision, or determination
as should be made, and such action shall be
final."
"Section 65904. Conditional function of
local legislative body
If a board of appeals has not been
created and established the local legislative
body shall exercise all of the functions and
duties of the board of appeals in the same
manner and to the same effect as provided in
Section 65903."
While the court in Mead seemed to agree that these prov~s~ons
in the Government Code do require some sort of appeal
process, the case did not turn on this point. The case
turned on the fact that the surrounding property owners had
not been given notice and an opportunity to be heardr neither
at the Planning Commission or the Council meeting,
with respect to the permit at issue.
After having decided that the surrounding property owners
were entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard, the
court went on to elaborate on what due process was. The
court said:
"Due process does not have a fixed
content unrelated to time, place and
circumstances. (citations omitted). Instead,
it is a flexible concept requiring such
procedural protections as the particular
situation demands. (citations omitted). As
the United Supreme Court emphasized:
'The function of legal processr as that
concept is embodied in the Constitution, and in
6
c
-.
.......
c
~
the realm of factfinding, is to minimize the
risk of erroneous decisions. Because of the
broad spectrum of concerns to which the term
must apply, flexibility is necessary to gear
the process to the particular need; the quantum
and quality of the process due in a particular
situation depend upon the need to serve the
purpose of minimizing the risk of error.'"
(citations omitted) Mead, suprar 205
Cal.Rptr. 443, at page 453.
Application
Evidently, attempts were made by Alice stiel to appeal the
decision of the Development Review Committee with respect to
the approval of Review of Plans 86-48. For whatever reason,
she was unable to do this, and Councilman Hernandez appealed
orally at the Council meeting on her behalf. The Stiels are
neighboring property owners and are entitled to notice and a
right to be heard under the procedural due process clause of
the Constitution. They never received notice of the hearing
or notice of the decision.
Consequently, they cannot be reasonably penalized for filing
late when they had no way of knowing when the appeal period
began. The cases consistently hold that a right of appeal is
implied by the procedural due process clause, even when there
is no express statutory requirementr and further, that the
application of due process principles is to be flexible and
is to take into account individual circumstances in any
particular situation. Due process is not to be applied in a
mechanical or hyper-technical way if the effect would be to
deny process to those to whom it is due.
Furthermore, even if ten days were determined to be "a
reasonable time" to appeal, since that was the period granted
to applicants to appeal under Resolution 83-48, the Council
could waive the ten day appeal period and allow the late
appeal.
7
.-
'-'
-----
-
v
,J
-
v
Conclusion
The appeal of DRC 86-48 which was made by Councilman
Hernandez on behalf of the stiels should be heard.
'I .
(~J1~;:u ~~
CYNTHIA GRACE
Deputy city Attorney
CG:pmm
8
-
Iv
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
26
27
28
- -
'-' V
RESOLUTION NO.
.:)
83-4R
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ESTABLISHING A
PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF PLANS.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Review of Plans Required. Prio~ to any
development or improvement of any parcel of land intended for
commercial, industrial or multi-family residential development
intended for occupancy by more than two families, a formal review
of plans shall be instituted, and approval of such plans shall be
required.
SECTION 2. Planning Department to Conduct. The review of
plans shall be conducted by the Planning Department in
conjunction with other departments to determine whether the plans
and proposals comply with the affected department's provisions
and development standards prescribed in the San Bernardino
Municipal Code, the provisions of this and other resolutions of
the Mayor and Common Council, and standard procedures established
by the department with the approval of the Mayor and Common
Council.
SECTION 3. Intent and Purpose. Procedures for the review
and approval of plans are established in order to implement the
intent and purposes of zoning and planning regulations and
ordinances of the City by providing the Planning Department with
a visual, factual document which may be used to ~etermine and
control the proposed physical layout, design, and use of a lot or
parcel of land, buildings or structures to achieve the following
goals:
A. Development proposals shall comply with all codes,
\
,-
"
1
2
3
4
,
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
--.
-
V
ordinances and standard
~ :)
requirements established by the City;
B. New developments or the alteration or enlargement of
existing developments shall occur in a manner which complements
the character and quality of surrounding developments in the area
where a proposed project is located;
C. The location and configuration of structures shall be
harmonious with their sites and with surrounding sites and
structures;
D. The landscaping of open spaces shall conform to the
requirements of the San Bernardino Municipal Code; and
E. The design and location of signs shall be consistent
with Chapter 19.60 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code.
SECTION 4. Contents. Submittals shall include an
application form, site plans, typical elevations, and may include
diagrams, pictures, and other pertinent data as appropriate.
SECTION 5. Application - Submittal.
A. Form. Applications for review and approval of plans
,
shall be made on forms furnished by the Planning Department.
Such application shall be required for any land use, development
or building construction, or use thereof, and for any variation
from the standards established in this resolution, or in the San
Bernardino Municipal Code, as to developments subject to the
provisions of this resolution. When deemed necessary, the
Planning Department may require correction or alteration of any
site plan offered for approval to conform with the intent and
purpose of the zoning provisions of the San Bernardino Municipal
Code and the comprehensive General Plan of the City.
B. Information Required. Site plans shall be dral-ln to
2
C.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
---~
o
.-
'V
.~
scale with complete dimensions, and shall furnish information
with regard to:
1. Property lines.
2. Buildings and structures, existing and proposed.
3. Yards and spaces between buildings or between
property lines and buildings.
4. Location, height and composition of walls, fences
and utility poles.
5. Off-street parking and driving aisles.
6. Pedestrian, vehicular and utility service access
with points of ingress and egress indicated.
7. Location and method of lighting including hooding
devices, if any.
8. Street dedications and improvements (existing and
proposed) .
9. Photographs showing the exterior of any building or
structure proposed to be relocated.
10. Dimensions and nature of easements.
11. Landscaping (schematic).
12. Location of refuse storage areas, together with
wall or fence heights and materials.
13. Outside storage areas.
14. Location of proposed fire hydrants (on site) as
required.
15. Preliminary grading plan with existing and finish
grades.
16. Such other data as may be required by the Planning
Department.
3
C 1
2
3
4
.5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1.5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- ~
~-
SECTION 6.
()
Fee.
o ~
as set by the Mayor and Common
A fee,
Council, shall accompany each application for review of plans.
SECTION 7. Approval - Basis. Review and approval of plans
shall be based upon:
A. Compliance of every use and development of the land with
applicable provisions of the San Bernardino Municipal Code for
the specific zone for which intended.
B. Suitability of the site for the proposed use or
development with the General Plan. Consideration shall be given
to the effect of proposed developments on neighboring properties
and traffic circulation, in order to protect the public health,
safety and general welfare of the community.
C. Compliance of the proposed development with each of the
findiqngs required under this resolution.
SECTION 8. Approval - Findings. In order to approve plans
submitted for review, the Planning Department must find:
A. That the development plans comply with all provisions of
the San Bernardino Municipal Code, the Uniform Codes incorporated
into the San Bernardino Municipal Code, and the Standard
Requirements established by the City.
B. That the buildings, structures and development, and use
thereof, shall be compatible with and not detrimental to each
other, and shall likewise be compatible with and not detricental
to the zone within which such project shall be established, so
that property values may be preserved and orderly development of
land in the surrounding areas may be assured.
C. That neighboring uses and structures will be protected
against noise, vibration and other offensive, objectionable
4
~
~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
~
~
conditions by generally
~
"
~
~
accepted methods.
D. That lighting is arranged so that light is reflected
away from adjoining properties.
E. That all proposed signs are in conformance with Cahpter
19.60 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code.
F. That the overall development is designed in such a way
as to assure pedestrian safety and provide for efficient and safe
traffic flow.
SECTION 9. Action - Appeal. The Planning Department shall
approve or reject the plans submitted for review, and the
decision shall be final unless an appeal to the Planning
Commission is filed, in writing, by the applicant within ten days
of the decision.
SECTION 10. Signing and Dating. Approved plans with the
standards attached thereto, if any, shall be dated and signed on
behalf of the Planning Department of the City by an authorized
official thereof.
SECTION 11. Completion - Time Limit - Extension.
.
Where
work on the development is not begun and diligently pursued
within one year after approval of the site plan pertaining
thereto, or within eighteen months when approval is made in
connection with a tentative subdivision, the approval of plans
shall expire, unless the Planning Commission grants an extension
of time.
SECTION 12. Approval of Standard Requirements. Standard
Requirements proposed oy the Planning Department and set forth on
Exhibits A, B, C and D, incorporated herein by reference, are
hereby approved. A copy of such standard requirements, conformed
5
C.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
o
o
o
to the particular circumstances of each development subject to
such approval, shall be provided at the time of approval of
plans. The Standard Requirements hereby approved are as follows:
Exhibit A Standard Requirements for Residential
Deve lopments,
Exhibit B Standard Requirements for Commercial, Industrial
Development,
Exhibit C Standard Requirements for San Bernardino City
Unified School District Review, and
Exhibit D Standard Requirements for Southern California
Edison Company Review - Coordination With Other
Utilities.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly
adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
Bernardino at a
regular
meeting thereof,
held on the 21st day of
February
, 1983, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
Council Members
Castaneda. Reillv. Hernandez.
Marks. Cuie}. Hobbs. Strickler
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
None
~ . /}/'.
~:.Y."'/".'/-J~/~":.t1 ;/. /
.city Clerk
day of
The foregoing
Fehr\la ry
resolution is hereby appro'(ed-This ,;:i._":/
,...~9~~: ,7 __ / _
,/;?-'//" Z', ,,' "."."
,,"'. ",..- //'.:.-- _1,........-""""'--.---.-- .
/' AlzYor/of /the" Ci ty of San< Bernard ino
. / / III
I I I
I I I
I I I
6
c.
o
"
v
~
1
Approved as to form:
4
.5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1.5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
c ,
~ .
,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
. ;iltr"
.u 3'0
'I -~) -~"'C
~
..."
o
-
-
RESOLUTION NO. Yh '3{./
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AMENDING RESOLUTION
NO. 83-48 ENTITLED IN PART "RESOLUTION . .. ESTABLISHING A
PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF PLANS", AND ADDING
PROVISIONS WHICH ESTABLISH A PROCEDURE FOR THE APPEAL OF
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Resolution No. 83-48 Section 9 is amended to
read:
'Section 9. Appeal - Public Hearinq.
A. The Planning Department shall approve or reject the
plans submitted for review, and the decision shall be final
unless an appeal to the Planning Commission is filed, in writing,
within ten days of the decision.
B. Upon receipt of an appeal from the decision of the
Planning Department, the Planning Commission shall fix a time and
place of public hearing thereon not less than fifteen days nor
more than forty days thereafter. Notice of time and place of the
hearing, including a general description of the matter to be
considered and a general description of the property for which
the appeal is proposed, shall be given at least ten days before
the hearing in the following manner:
1. The notice shall be published at least once in a
newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the
City.
2. The notice shall be mailed or delivered to all
persons, including businesses, corporations, or other public or
private entities, shown on the last equalized assessment roll as
owning real property within five hundred feet of the property
which is the subject of the proposed appeal.
C'
1
o
-
....,
J
3. Forms and procedures for processing an appeal to the
2 Planning Commission shall be prescribed by the Director of
3 Planning. Th~ appellant shall pay a fee to cover administrative
costs as set forth by resolution.
4
5
C. Failure of any person to receive the notice required by
this section shall not invalidate any action taken.
6
7
D. The Chairman of the Planning Commission, or the acting
8 Chairman, shall administer oaths and all witnesses shall be
sworn."
9
10
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly
11 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
meeting thereof, he1aon
12 Bernardino at a
13 the iM day of 0(, " ~ju <
'/
14 to wit:
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 '"' ..~
, 1986, by the following vote,
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
City Clerk
22 ~.. fot-.golnq tesolution is hereby approved this
',<
23
24
25
26 Approved
/'
27
day of
, 1986.
Mayor of the City of San Bernardino
as to form:
. .... -./) .
- '.",tf~
28 City Attorney
2