Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout33- Planning & Building Services CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION From: Michael E. Hays, Director Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission action to uphold the Development Review Committee's approval of Dept: Planning & Building Services Development Permit II No. 97-13 Date: October 23, 1997 MCC Date: November 3, 1997 Synopsis of Previous Council Action: N/A CRIGINAL Recommended Motion: That the Mayor and Common Council close the public hearing; deny the appeal and approve Development Permit II No. 97-13, based on the Findings of Fact. ichael Hays Contact person: Michael E. Hays Phone: 384-5357 Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward(s): 3 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (Acct. No.) N/A (Acct. Description) Finance: Council Notes: Agenda Item No. 33 Continued to //�fj(�`�7 /113/q7 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION TO UPHOLD THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE'S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TYPE II NO. 97-13; MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL MEETING: NOVEMBER 3, 1997 OWNER: MANO MANAGEMENT COMPANY 500 INLAND CENTER DRIVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408 (909)884-2171 APPLICANT: GRESHAM, SAVAGE, NOLAN & TILDEN C/O MARK OSTOICH 600 NORTH ARROWHEAD AVENUE, SUITE 300 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 (909)884-2171 REQUEST/LOCATION The appellant, Central City Company/Carousel Mall, is appealing the Planning Commission's October 7, 1997 action to uphold the Development Review Committee's September 11, 1997 approval of Development Permit Type II No. 97-13, a proposal to initiate Phase I of the Inland Center Mall Expansion Project by constructing a two-level 165,000 square-foot anchor department store to be occupied by Robinson's-May and a four-level parking structure. The project is located at 500 Inland Center Drive within the CR-1, Commercial Regional (Malls), land use district. The appellant is asking that the Mayor and Common Council overturn the Development Permit approval (Refer to Exhibit 1, Letter of Appeal). BACKGROUND Development Pen-nit Type 11 No. 97-13 was approved by the Environmental/Development Review Committee on September 11, 1997. The E/DRC's action was appealed on September 25, 1997 by Central City Company (Carousel Mall) to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission reviewed the appeal at their October 7, 1997 public hearing and upheld the E/DRC's approval. For further background, refer to the attached Planning Commission Staff Report (Exhibit 4). Appeal of Planning Commission Action to Uphold the Development Review Committee's Approval of Development Permit Type II No. 97-13 Mayor and Common Council Meeting: November 3, 1997 Page 2 of 5 KEY POINTS * The proposed initiation of Phase I of the Inland Center Mall Expansion consisting of a department store and parking structure was found to be in conformance with the General Plan and Development Code. * The project was found to be within the scope of the project analyzed in the certified Final EIR and, therefore, did not require further environmental review pursuant to CEQA, Public Resources Code §21166 and CEQA Guidelines 14 CCR §15162. * The appellant was properly notified and given copies of the entire contents contained in the Development Permit case file upon request. APPELLANT'S GROUNDS FOR APPEAL & STAFF RESPONSE The appellant's grounds for appeal are contained in a letter dated October 21, 1997 (Refer to Exhibit 1 for specific language). The appellant's six (6) grounds for the appeal are summarized below. Appeal Point #1: The appellant was denied due process rights and precluded from effective representation of and participation in the E/DRC meeting of September 11, 1997, by not receiving the proposed Findings of Fact, Conditions of Approval, and other documents pertaining to the review of Development Permit Type II No. 97-13 until after the DRC meeting. Staff Response: The appellant received all of the information that was available in the case file each time a request was made. The Findings of Fact were distributed at the September 11, 1997 E/DRC meeting and read into the record prior to the Committee's action. The conditions of approval from the Planning Division were also available that morning in draft form. All other conditions of approval and standard requirements were received during the meeting and not available in final form until the following day, September 12, 1997. It is standard operating procedure for the E/DRC to present the conditions and standard requirements to the applicant during the meeting verbally and in draft format. The final conditions, standard requirements, and letter of approval are collated and given to the applicant following the E/DRC meeting. Appeal of Planning Commission Action to Uphold the Development Review Committee's Approval of Development Permit Type II No. 97-13 Mayor and Common Council Meeting: November 3, 1997 Page 3 of 5 Appeal Point #2: Any permits granted for the Inland Center Mall Expansion are in connection with the approval of Development Agreement No. 91-01 which is invalid as a matter of law and is currently pending before the San Bernardino County Superior Court. Staff Response: Refer to Exhibit 2, "September 30, 1997 Response from City Attorney's Office to Planning Commission Regarding Appellant's Grounds for Appeal". Appeal Point #3: Resolution No. 96-84 which certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the mall expansion and adopted and authorized the execution of Development Agreement No. 91-01 has been set aside by a Judgment executed on September 17, 1997 by Judge Edwards. Staff Response: Refer to Exhibit 2, "September 30, 1997 Response from City Attorney's Office to Planning Commission Regarding Appellant's Grounds for Appeal". Appeal Point #4: A minor modification "approved by the DRC" violates City Development Code §19.40.040 which describes the mandatory contents of Development Agreements. 1 Staff Response: Pursuant to Development Code §19.60.030, minor modifications may be granted by the Director of Planning and Building Services, not DRC, for the placement of structures or a decrease/increase in the density or intensity of a project up to a maximum of 10% change. Only when the change is more than 10% shall an amendment to the original Development Agreement be required. Minor Modification No. 97-04 was approved by the Director for the following two adjustments which constituted less than a 10% change: 1. The gross floor area of the planned anchor stores within Phase I of the development was modified from the approved 160,000 and 140,000 square feet, respectively, to 165,000 and 135,000 square feet not to exceed the aggregate square-footage of 540,000 as approved by the City through Development Agreement No. 91-01. Appeal of Planning Commission Action to Uphold the Development Review Committee's Approval of Development Permit Type II No. 97-13 Mayor and Common Council Meeting: November 3, 1997 Page 4 of 5 2. Phase I of the Inland Center Mall Expansion Project originally showed the development of two new anchor stores on the eastern portion of the mall. This was modified to show the development 1 of the Robinsons-May department store on the west side of the a Mall in the approximate location of the department store shown as being in Phase II. Appeal Point #5: The E/DRC and Planning Commission had inadequate facts and information on which to base its approval of Development Permit Type II No. 97-13. Staff Response: The final reviewing authority for Development Permits Type II is the Development Review Committee. Development Permit Type II No. 97-13 was routed to the E/DRC on July 28, 1997 for review. At the E/DRC meeting of August 14, 1997, the Committee asked for site plan, floor plan, and elevation revisions. Revised plans were received by Staff and routed to the E/DRC on September 4, 1997. After reviewing the proposal once again with the revisions, the E/DRC approved Development Permit Type II No. 97-13 on September 11, 1997. All facts and information were presented to the E/DRC since the project's first submittal on July 24, 1997. Revised plans were requested to clarify questions brought up by the E/DRC on August 14, 1997 pertaining to building design, handicap access, fire sprinklers, landscaping, and a more detailed building floorplan. Appeal Point #6: Staff, the DRC, and the Planning Commission relied on the Office of the City Attorney and its deputies for legal advice and counseling on the processing of Development Permit Type II No. 97-13. The appellant believes the City Attorney has a conflict of interest in that he accepted a donation from the Agents responsible for submitting the Development Permit application. Staff Response: The City Attorney's Office will respond separately to this point at the Mayor and Common Council meeting of November 3, 1997. Appeal of Planning Commission Action to Uphold the Development Review Committee's Approval of Development Permit Type II No. 97-13 Mayor and Common Council Meeting: November 3, 1997 Page 5 of 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the hearing be closed and that the Mayor and Common Council: 1. Deny the appeal; and 2. Approve Development Permit Type II No. 97-13 based on the Findings of Fact (Exhibit 3 - Attachment B) and subject to the Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements (Exhibit 3 - Attachment E). Prepared for: MICHAEL E. HAYS, Director of Planning & Building Services by GUSTAVO J. ROMO, Assistant Planner EXHIBITS 1 - Letter of Appeal 2 - September 30, 1997 Response from City Attorney's Office to Planning Commission Regarding Appellant's Grounds for Appeal 3 - Appeal to Planning Commission Staff Report with Attachments EXHIBIT "I" LAW OFFICES OF MARLENE A. FOX A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ,j rnnRLeNE A. Fox 2031 ORCHARD DRIVE, SUITE 200 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 RECE11V ^ 7Y (^1_r';" I Y+_-. �� •-� (714) 975-8444 "-_ FAX (714) 975-8447 DELIVERED BY COURIER •97 OCT 22 A10 :38 October 21, 1997 Mayor Tom Minor and Members LETTER OF APPEAL of the Common Council City of San Bernardino 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 Re: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION OF OCTOBER 7, 1997 Upholding DRC Approval of Development Permit Type II, No. 97-13, Phase I - Inland Center Mall Expansion (Robinsons-May) , (500 Inland Center Mall) ; APPELLANT: CENTRAL CITY COMPANY/CAROUSEL MALL Our File No. 09450 Dear Mayor Minor and Members of the Common Council : This Office represents the Central City Company and the Carousel Mall and on its behalf, submits this Appeal to the Common Council pursuant to City of San Bernardino Municipal (Development) Code §19 . 52 . 100, appealing the action by the Planning Commission on October 7, 1997, upholding the DRC approval of Development Permit No. 97-13, described more fully above. The required Appeal fee in the amount of $75 . 00 was transmitted with a cover letter to the City Clerk in connection with this written Appeal . It is our understanding that there is no specific Appeal Form and that the written Appeal may be submitted and is acceptable in letter form, stating the grounds of the Appeal and accompanied by the requisite Appeal fee. Please note this Appeal Letter will be transmitted by FAX to the City on this date and the original, together with the Appeal fee, will be delivered by courier to the City on Wednesday, October 22, 1997, the 15th day of the Appeal period. GROUNDS FOR THE APPEAL This Appeal is brought on each and all of the following grounds : 1. Since October 1992 Appellant and Appellant' s counsel has repeatedly requested a full and fair opportunity to participate in Mayor Tom Minor and Members of the City Council City of San Bernardino October 21, 1997 Page 2 the processing on matters involving the ICM Expansion. We have repeatedly requested that we be provided in advance, copies of any and all pertinent documents to allow Appellant a full and fair opportunity to participate in public hearings . We specifically requested that we be provided in advance with copies of staff reports and other pertinent public records in the file, including submittals by the Applicant and inter-office memos . Our repeated requests for public records and advance notice of hearings was re- asserted numerous times during the processing of the ICM Expansion by the Planning Commission and Common Council in March and April 1996 . The Planning Department and DRC was reminded of that continuing request by the undersigned at the August 27, 1997 DRC meeting. In addition, formal written requests were again made to the Planning Department on September 9 and September 10, 1997 for copies of any and all documents that would be considered by the DRC at its meeting on this Project, on September 11, 1997 . As has happened in the past, the documents requested were not made available to Appellant until after the conclusion of the September 11, 1997 DRC meeting, at which the DRC approved Development Permit Type II, No. 97-13 . Withholding the proposed Findings of Fact, the Conditions and other pertinent documents pertaining to the review of Development Permit No. 97-13 denied Appellant its due process rights and precluded a effective representation of and participation by Appellant in the DRC meeting on September 11, 1997 prior to the approval of the Development Permit . Appellant contends it has the right to participate in the public hearing process, including the processing of approval of Development Permit No. 97-13 by the DRC and asserts it has been denied its rights under City Code, under the State of California Public Records Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Planning and Zoning Code and the Constitutions of the State of California and of the United States by virtue of the fact that the Planning Commission upheld the DRC approval . 2 . The second ground of this Appeal is based on the fact that any permits granted for the Inland Center Mall Expansion would be in connection with the approval on April 1, 1996 by the Common Council, approving and adopting Development Agreement 91-01 ("DA 91- 01") . The second ground of this Appeal is based on the fact that DA 91-01 is invalid as a matter of law as it was not executed on behalf of the only other named party to the Agreement, other than the City of San Bernardino, to-wit : Mano Management Company, Inc. , the owners of the ICM. Since DA 91-01 was not executed by an authorized Mayor Tom Minor and Members of the City Council City of San Bernardino October 21, 1997 Page 3 officer of the named party, Mano Management, Inc. , the Development Agreement is invalid as a matter of law. This matter is currently being presented to the San Bernardino County Superior Court for judicial determination. 3 . This Appeal is brought on the basis that Resolution 96- 84, enacted by the Common Council of the City of San Bernardino on April 1, 1996 and approved April 3, 1996, is not severable. Resolution No. 96-84 certified the Final EIR for the ICM Expansion Project and adopted and authorized execution of DA 91-01 to "govern the expansion of the ICM. " Resolution 96-84 must be set aside by the Common Council pursuant to the Judgment executed by James A. Edwards, Judge of the San Bernardino Superior Court on September 17, 1997 wherein he Ordered that the City vacate and set aside its certification of a portion of the Final EIR. The Order issued by Judge Edwards cannot be complied with unless the Council meets in public hearing and sets aside Resolution No. 96-84 . The Council must thereafter adopt a new Resolution. Resolution No. 96-84 is no longer valid by Order of the Court and therefore approval of Development Permit 97-13 by the DRC, under the authority of Resolution 96-84 and DA 91-01, is invalid as a matter of law. A public hearing must be conducted and the defective Resolution and defective EIR must be set aside. Without a valid EIR, there can be no valid Development Agreement . The mechanics of responding to the Court' s Order must be complied with before any further action can be taken with regard to the approval of a Permit for the ICM Expansion. Appellant notes that the Planning Commission Staff Report for the October 7, 1997 Commission hearing on Appellant' s Appeal contained a copy of Executive Order 97-1, executed by Mayor Tom Minor on September 26, 1997 which purports to vacate and set aside the April 1, 1996 Certification of a portion of the Final EIR for the Inland Center Mall Expansion; purports to direct the City Clerk to annotate Resolution 96-84 to indicate it is affected by the Executive Order and purports to direct all City Departments to refrain from approving any construction activities related to the cinema complex expansion pending full compliance with CEQA environmental review requirements for that portion of the project. Appellant contends that the Executive Order 97-1, executed by the Mayor on September 26, 1997, violates the Writ of Mandate issued by the Court in Case Co. SCV 29232 . Appellant further maintains that the Executive Order must be rescinded so that the Council action of April 1, 1996 can be remanded as required, to the full Council, as required by law. Mayor Tom Minor and Members of the City Council City of San Bernardino October 21, 1997 Page 4 4 . The fourth ground of this Appeal is based on the fact that the minor modification approved by the DRC violates City Development Code §19 .40 . 040 which sets forth the mandatory contents of a Development Agreement. Development Code §19.40 . 040 (1) (D) provides that the maximum height and size of proposed structures contemplated by development agreement must be included as mandatory contents of the DA. Accordingly, as the City Code assigns such importance to the size and height of structures which are approved in connection with an approved development agreement, changes of the height and size (square footage) of a building, particularly a building as significant as a major department store or so-called "anchor store, " cannot be considered a minor modification and must be considered at a Noticed public hearing as required by Government Code §65868 . Government Code §65868 requires that an amendment to a development agreement must be discussed at a Noticed public hearing and must be approved by Ordinance, subject to a referendum. Appellant submits that amending a recorded Development Agreement, as to one of its mandatory provisions, cannot qualify as a "minor modification. " S . This Appeal is brought on the further grounds that the DRC and Planning Commission had inadequate facts and information on which to base the DRC approval and P.C. affirmation of that approval for Development Permit 97-13 and therefore, the approval must be set aside. 6. This Appeal is based on the further ground that staff, the DRC and the Planning Commission relied on the Office of the City Attorney, James F. Penman and Deputies from the City Attorney' s Office under his supervision and control, for legal advice and counseling with regard to the processing of Development Permit Type II, No. 97-13 . Appellant has recently learned that the City Attorney has a conflict of interest in that the City Attorney accepted a significant donation from the Agents responsible for the processing of these Applications. Appellant submits that the donation was of a sufficiently large amount to suggest that the City Attorney has a conflict and cannot be unbiased in his dealings with the processing of the Inland Center Mall Expansion plans . For that reason, the entire proceeding by the DRC and Planning Commission have been tainted and must be set aside. REQUEST FOR APPEAL HEARING Appellant respectfully requests that the Common Council set this matter for public hearing before the Council on a date certain after November 5, 1997 and that Appellant be given a minimum of 15 days prior Notice of the date of the public hearing at which the Appeal will be heard by the Council . Appellant makes this request Mayor Tom Minor and Members of the City Council City of San Bernardino October 21, 1997 Page 5 so that Appellant will be provided sufficient time within which to prepare its evidence for submittal to the Council prior to the Appeal hearing. Any questions or responses to this Appeal should be transmitted to this Office, at the address listed above on our letterhead. Should you have any questions whatsoever, or require further amplification of the grounds for the Appeal, please do not hesitate to contact us at this Office. E On behalf of our client, the Central City Company, we thank the Council for its consideration of this Appeal . Please note that we will provide the Council with evidence, both documentary and oral, k to support the grounds of this Appeal. s k Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF MARLENE A. FOX By: Y' MARLENE A. FOX MAF/Lgl CC: Mr. Robert D. Curci Mr. John M. Coombe COPY BY FAX ORIGINAL HAND DELIVERED ON 10/22/97 EXHIBIT 'T' CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Henry Emper o, Jr., Deputy City Attorney DATE: September 30, 1997 RE: Response to Appeal by Central City Company/Carousel Mall (Attorney Marlene A. Fox) of Development Permit Type II No. 97-13 This is my response to the second and third grounds of the Appeal: 2. DP No. 97-13 is based upon Development Agreement 91-01, the validity of which has been challenged in two pending court cases. No court order or judgment has yet been issued which invalidates Development Agreement 91-01. In the court cases, the City contends that Development Agreement 91-01 is valid and was properly executed by Mano Management Company, Inc. 3. The appellant misstates the facts and mischaracterizes Judge Edwards' decision in one of the pending court cases. I have reviewed the Judgment dated September 17, 1997. Judge Edwards has not invalidated Resolution No. 96-84, which approved Development Agreement 91-01 and certified the Final EIR. Judge Edwards has directed the City to vacate and set aside its certification of that portion of the Final EIR that pertains to the multi-screen theater complex. The City has complied with the Court's decision by the Mayor's issuance of Executive Order 97-1, copy attached. The City's processing and approval of DP No. 97-13 is consistent with the Court's decision. HENRY EMPENO, JR., Deputy City Attorney [attachment] cc: James F. Penman, City Attorney Michael Hays, Director of Planning & Building Services HLao[VRossImem] City of San Bernardino INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF THE MAYOR TO: All Department Heads FROM: Mayor Tom Minor SUBJECT: EXECUTIVE ORDER 97-1 DATE: September 26, 1997 COPIES: File On April 1, 1996 by way of Resolution 96-84, the Common Council of the City of San Bernardino approved Development Agreement 91-01 for the expansion of the Inland Center Mall and by that same Resolution certified the Final Environmental Impact Report relating thereto. Subsequent to that action, suit was filed in the San Bernardino County Superior Court as Case No.SCV29232 against the City of San Bernardino and others claiming thatt ere had been certain non compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") , which suite was entitled Central City Company v. City of San Bernardino, et al. Trial has now been completed in that suite and the Court has issued its writ of mandate to the City providing, in part, that the City: "Vacate and set aside the April 1, 1996 Certification of that portion of the Environmental Impact Report that pertains to the multi-screen movie theater complex. " To comply with the Writ of Mandate, in my capacity as Mayor of this City, and by this Executive Order, I hereby: (1) Vacate and set aside the April 1, 1996 certification of that portion of the Final Environmental Impact Report referred to in Resolution 96-84 that pertains to the multi-screen movie theater complex; (2) Direct the City Clerk to annotate Resolution 96-84 to indicate that it is affected by this Executive Order, and inform related Departments thereof; and, (3) Direct all City Departments to refrain from approving any construction activities related to the cinema complex expansion pending full compliance with CEQA environmental review requirements for that portion of the project. '6w^ Dated: `�!" ��— (?7 T m Minor Mayor Approved as to form and legal content : es F. Penman, City Attorney EXHIBIT "Y CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: MICHAEL E. HAYS, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES SUBJECT: APPEAL OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE'S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TYPE II NO. 97013 DATE: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 7, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: # 4 OWNER: Mano Management Company 500 Inland Center Drive San Bernardino, CA 92408 APPLICANT: Gresham, Savage, Nolan & Tilden c/o Mark Ostoich 600 North Arrowhead Avenue, Suite 300 San Bernardino, CA 92401 REQUEST The appellant, Central City Company/Carousel Mall, is appealing the Development Review Committee's September 11, 1997 approval of Development Permit Type II No. 97013, a proposal to initiate Phase I of the Inland Center Mall Expansion Project by constructing a 165,000 square-foot, two-level, anchor department store to be occupied by Robinson's-May and a four-level parking structure. The project is located at 500 Inland Center Drive within the CR- 1, Commercial Regional (Malls), land use district. The appellant is asking that the Planning Commission overturn the approval (Refer to Attachment A, Letter of Appeal). Neither the appellant nor a representative was present at the E/DRC meeting of September 11, 1997. BACKGROUND 1 Development Agreement No. 91-01, which was approved by the Mayor and Common Council on April 1, 1996, authorized in concept the addition of up to a total of three new anchor stores within the boundaries of Inland Center Mall. An aggregate of 540,000 square feet was approved for the mall expansion with 300,000 square feet for Phase I and 240,000 square feet for Phase II. EXHIBIT "4" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: MICHAEL E. HAYS, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES SUBJECT: APPEAL OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE'S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TYPE II NO. 97013 DATE: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 7, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: # 4 OWNER: Mano Management Company 500 Inland Center Drive San Bernardino, CA 92408 APPLICANT: Gresham, Savage, Nolan & Tilden c/o Mark Ostoich 600 North Arrowhead Avenue, Suite 300 San Bernardino, CA 92401 REQUEST The appellant, Central City Company/Carousel Mall, is appealing the Development Review Committee's September 11, 1997 approval of Development Permit Type II No. 97013, a proposal to initiate Phase I of the Inland Center Mall Expansion Project by constructing a 165,000 square-foot, two-level, anchor department store to be occupied by Robinson's-May and a four-level parking structure. The project is located at 500 Inland Center Drive within the CR- 1, Commercial Regional (Malls), land use district. The appellant is asking that the Planning Commission overturn the approval (Refer to Attachment A, Letter of Appeal). Neither the appellant nor a representative was present at the E/DRC meeting of September 11, 1997. BACKGROUND Development Agreement No. 91-01, which was approved by the Mayor and Common Council on April 1, 1996, authorized in concept the addition of up to a total of three new anchor stores within the boundaries of Inland Center Mall. An aggregate of 540,000 square feet was approved for the mall expansion with 300,000 square feet for Phase I and 240,000 square feet for Phase II. Appeal of DPII97013 500 Inland Center Drive Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1997 Page 2 of 4 In connection with the Development Agreement, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The EIR was certified on April 1, 1996 by City Resolution No. 96-84. The EIR described the expansion project for Inland Center Mall as including, among other things, the construction of up to three new major anchor stores and the construction of four multi-level parking structures. Minor Modification No. 97004 was approved on September 10, 1997 by the Director to modify the gross floor area of the planned anchor stores from 160,000 and 140,000 square feet (as indicated in the Development Agreement) to 165,000 and 135,000 square feet, respectively, not to exceed the aggregate of 540,000 square feet. In addition, the location of the anchor store within Phase I was modified from the eastern portion of the mall to the west side. Development Permit Type II No. 97013 was submitted to Staff on July 24, 1997 and scheduled for review on the August 14, 1997 Environmental and Development Review Committee agenda. The E/DRC commented on the project, requested revisions to the plans, and continued the item to September 18, 1997 in order to give the applicant adequate time to submit revised plans. The applicant was able to submit the revised plans earlier than expected, and the item was re- scheduled for the E/DRC meeting of September 11, 1997. A copy of the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Plan from the certified EIR was re-distributed to the E/DRC on September 10, 1997 for its convenience (Refer to Attachment F). In addition, the project Findings of Fact and Environmental Compliance Review were handed to the E/DRC at the start of the meeting on September 11, 1997 and read into the record (Refer to Attachments B and C). The E/DRC found that the project met all provisions of the Development Code and approved it with conditions and standard requirements. ' F APPELLANT'S GROUNDS O R APPEAL The appellant's grounds for the appeal are contained in a letter dated September 25, 1997 (Refer to Attachment A for specific language). In summary, the appellant states the following four points as grounds for the appeal: (1) The appellant was denied due process rights and precluded from effective representation of and participation in the E/DRC meeting of September 11, 1997, by not receiving the proposed Findings of Fact, Conditions of Approval, and other documents pertaining to the review of Development Permit Type 11 No. 97013; (2) Any permits granted for the Inland Center Mall Expansion are in connection with the approval of Development Agreement No. 91-01 which is invalid as a matter of law and is currently pending before the San Bernardino County Superior Court; (3) Resolution No. 96-84 which certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the mall expansion and adopted and authorized the execution of Development Agreement No. 91-01 has been set aside by a Judgment executed on September 17, 1997 by Judge Edwards; and Appeal of DPII97013 500 Inland Center Drive Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1997 Page 3 of 4 (4) The E/DRC had inadequate facts and information on which to base its approval of Development Permit Type II No. 97013. ANALYSIS OF GROUNDS FOR APPEAL (1) The appellant received all of the information that was available in the case file each time a request was made. The Findings of Fact were distributed at the September 11, 1997 E/DRC meeting and read into the record prior to the Committee's action. The conditions of approval from the Planning Division were also available that morning in draft form. All other conditions of approval and standard requirements were received during the meeting and not available in final form until the following day, September 12, 1997. It is standard operating procedure for the E/DRC to present the conditions and standard requirements to the applicant during the meeting verbally and in draft format. The final conditions, standard requirements, and letter of approval are collated and given to the applicant following the E/DRC meeting. (2) Refer to Attachment D. (3) Refer to Attachment D. (4) Development Permit Type II No. 97013 was routed to the E/DRC on July 28, 1997 for review. At the E/DRC meeting of August 14, 1997, the Committee asked for site plan, floor plan, and elevation revisions. Revised plans were received by Staff and routed to the E/DRC on September 4, 1997. After reviewing the proposal once again with the revisions, the E/DRC approved Development Permit Type II No. 97013 on September 11, 1997. All facts and information were presented to the E/DRC since the project's first submittal on July 24, 1997. Revised plans were requested to clarify questions brought up by the E/DRC on August 14, 1997 pertaining to building design, handicap access, fire sprinklers, landscaping, and a more detailed building floorplan. CONCLUSION The proposed initiation of Phase I of the Inland Center Mall Expansion consisting of a department store and parking structure was found to be in conformance with the General Plan and Development Code. Furthermore, the project was found to be within the scope of the project analyzed in the certified Final EIR and, therefore, did not require further environmental review pursuant to CEQA, Public Resources Code §21166 and CEQA Guidelines 14 CCR §15162, as outlined in Attachment C. Appeal of DPII97013 500 Inland Center Drive Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1997 Page 4 of 4 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the hearing be closed and that the Planning Commission: 1. Deny the appeal; and 2. Approve Development Permit Type II No. 97013 based on the attached Findings of Fact (Attachment B) and subject to the Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements (Attachment E). Respectfully Submitted, Kam_ MICHAEL E. AYS Director of Planning and Building Services IV— GUSTAVO J. ROMO Assistant Planner Attachments: A Letter of Appeal B Development Permit Findings of Fact C Environmental Compliance Review D City Attorney's response to second and third grounds of appeal and attached Executive Order No. 97-1 E Development Permit Type II No. 97013 Letter of Approval with Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements F Copy of Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Plan 09/25/97 17:34 $714 975 8447 MARLENE A FOX wj 001 ***** PLEASE GIVE TO MR. GUS ROMO **** OR THE SECRETARY TO THE ATTACHMENT "A" PLANNING COMMISSION ASAP. THANKS. LAW OPPICCBS OB MAiRxxiq], A. FOX A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION In4n��/a� w, ►Ort 2031 ORCHARD DRIVE,SUITE 200 NEWPORT BEACH, CA v2ee0 4744107-3-19444 FAX (714) 074-0447 FAX COVER SHEET DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 1997 TO: THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING COMMISSION RE: APPEAL OF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 97-13; ICM - ROBINSON'S-MAY FAX NUMBER: (909) 384-5080 MESSAGE: MR. ROMO Or SECRETARY TO PLANNING COMMISSION: ATTACHED IS THE APPEAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE CENTRAL CITY COMPANY OF THE ABOVE-IDENTIFIED DEVELOPMENT PEFt.'I'IYT (97-13) AND COPY OF CHECK FOR $126.00 APPEAL FEE_ ORIGINAL OF APPEAL AND THE CHECK WILL BE Z DELIVERED BY FEDERAL EXPRESS, FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1997 IN THE MORNING. PLEASE REFER ANY QUESTIONS OR NOTICES TO THIS OFFICE. PLEASE ADVISE OF THE DATE CERTAIN FOR BEARING BEFORE THE COMMISSION ASAP. RESPECTFULLY, MARLENE A_ FOX, ATTORNEY FOR CENTRAL CITY TRANSMITTED BY LAW OFFICES OF MARLENE A. FOX - FAX: (714) 975-8447 TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET: 6 IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE CALL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE: (714) 975-8444 CHARGE: Our File No. 09450 CCC V. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO Sender of this Transmittal is: MARLENE A. FOX 09/25/97 17:35 0714 975 8447 M"LENE A FOX 4D 002 LAW o�mnczs of MABI�mm& A. PDX A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION MARLCNC A. FOX 2031 ORCHARD DRIVE, SU1rr- lbo NEWPORT REACH. CA oaeeo (7141 07%-8444 FAX 171-4) 076-8447 TRANSMITTED BY FAX September 25, 1997 The City of San Bernardino NOTICE OF FLING APPEAL Planning Commission c/o Department of Planning and Building Services and Office of the City Clerk 300 North I'D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 Re: Appeal of Development Permit Type II No. 97-13 Phase I - Inland Centex Mall Expansion Robinsons-May (500 Inland Center Mall) ; Our File No. 09450 Appellant - Central City Company/Carousel Mall Dear Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission: APPEAL OF DRC DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 11, 1997 The Central City Company and the Carousel Mall submit this Appeal to the Planning Commission pursuant to City of San Bernardino Municipal Code 519.52.090, hereby appealing the action by the DRC on September 11, 1997, approving Development Permit No. 97-13, described more fully above, on behalf of the owner and attorney agents of the Inland Center Mall. We understand that there is an Appeal fee of $126.00 that must accompany the written Appeal. Further, we have been advised by Mr. Gus Romo of the City of San Bernardino Planning Department, that there is no specific Appeal Form and that the written Appeal may be submitted in letter form, stating the grounds of the Appeal and accompanied by the Appeal fee. Accordingly, transmitted herewith please find our Corporate Check No. 5804 made payable to the City of San Bernardino, in the amount of $126.00 as payment of the Appeal fee on behalf of this Appeal submitted on behalf of the Central City Company and the Carousel Mall. This letter will be transmitted by FAX to the City on this date and the original, together with the Appeal fee will be sent by Federal Express - Overnight Priority for delivery to the City in the morning of Friday, September 26, 1997, the 15th day of the Appeal period. 09/25/97 17:56 IP714 975 8447 HARLENF A FOX 16005 City of San Bernardino Planning Commission September 25, 1997 Page 2 GROUNDS FOR THE APPEAL This Appeal is brought on each and all of the following grounds: 1. Going back to November 1994, Appellant has continuously, consistently and persistently requested that Appellant be given full opportunity to participate in the public review process for any approvals that are part of the ICM Expansion Project. In that regard we requested that we be provided in advance, copies of any and all pertinent documents as well as Notices of public hearings, including, submittals by the Applicant, Staff Reports, Inter-office Memos, etc. That request for public records and advance Notice of hearings was re-asserted numerous times during the processing of the ICM Expansion by the Planning Commission and the Commons Council. The Planning Department and DRC was reminded of that continuing request by the undersigned at the August 27, 1997 DRC meeting. Formal written requests were again made on September 9 and September 10, 1997 to Mr. Romo of the Planning Department for copies of any and all documents that would be considered by the DRC at its meeting on September 11. The documents requested were not made available to Appellant until after the conclusion of the September 11, 1997 DRC meeting, at which the DRC approved Permit No. 97--13 . Withholding the proposed Findings of Fact, the Conditions and other pertinent documents pertaining to the review of Development Permit No. 97-13 denied Appellant its due process rights and precluded effective representation of and participation by Appellant in the DRC meeting on September 11, 1997, prior to the approval of the Development Permit. Appellant contends it has a right to participate in the public hearing process, including the processing of approval of Development Permit 97-13 by the DRC and asserts it has been denied its rights under City Code, under the State of California Public Records Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Planning and Zoning Code and the Constitutions of the State of California and of the United States. 2 . This Appeal is brought on the grounds that any permits granted for the Inland Center Mall Expansion would be in connection with the approval on April 1, 1996 by the Common Council, when it approved and adopted Development Agreement 91-01 {"DA 91-01"} . the second ground of this Appeal is based on the fact that DA 91-01 is invalid as a matter of law as it was not executed on behalf of the only other named party to the Agreement, other than the City of San Bernardino, to-wit: Mano Management Company, Inc. , the owners of the ICM. Since DA 91-01 was not executed by an authorized officer of named partly, Mano Management, Inc. , the Development Agreement is invalid; this matter is currently pending before the San Bernardino 09/25/97 17:36 '0714 975 8447 MARLENE A FOX Q00 4 City of San Bernardino Planning Commission September 25, 1997 Page 3 County Superior Court and set for hearing on this issue, among other issues, on October 21, 1997. 3 . This Appeal is brought on the basis that Resolution 96- 84, enacted by the Common Council of the City of San Bernardino on April 1, 1996 and approved April 3, 1996, is not severable. Resolution No. 96-84 certified the Final EIR for the ICM Expansion Project and adopted and authorized execution of DA 91-01 to "govern the expansion of the ICM. " Resolution 96-84 must be set aside by the Common Council pursuant to the Judgment executed by James A. Edwards, Judge of the San Bernardino Superior Court on September 17, 1997 wherein he Ordered that the City vacate and set aside its certification of a portion of the Final EIR. That Order cannot be complied with without the Council, meeting in public hearing and setting aside Resolution No. 96-84 and thereafter adopting a new Resolution. Resolution No. 96-84 is no longer valid by Order of the Court and therefore approval of Development Permit 97-13 by the DRC, under the authority of Resolution 96-84 and DA 91-01, is invalid as a matter of law. A public hearing must be conducted and the defective Resolution and defective EIR must be set aside. Without a valid EIR, there can be no valid Development Agreement. The mechanics of responding to the Court's Order must be complied with before any further action can be taken with regard to the approval of a Permit for the ICM Expansion. 4. This Appeal is brought on the further grounds that the DRC had inadequate facts and information on which to base its approval of Development Permit 97-13 and for that reason, the approval must be set aside. REQUEST FOR APPEAL FEARING Appellant respectfully requests that the Planning Commission set this matter for public hearing before the Commission on a date certain and that Appellant be given a minimum of 15 days prior notice of the date of the public hearing at which time the Appeal will be heard by the Commission to allow Appellant sufficient time within which to prepare its evidence for submittal to the Commission. Any questions or responses to this Appeal should be transmitted to this Office, as Counsel for Appellant Central City Company/ Carousel Mall. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at the number and address listed above on this letterhead. 09/25/97 17:37 $714 975 8447 H"LENE A FOX 005 City of San Bernardino Planning Commission September 25, 1997 Page 4 On behalf of our client, the Central City Company, we thank the Commission for its consideration of this Appeal. Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF MARLENE A. FOX By: MAREEW A. FOX MAF/Lgl ORIGINAL BY FEDERAL EXPRESS OVERNIGHT PRIORITY cc: Planning Director Secretary to Planning Commission San Bernardino City Clerk Robert D. Curci 09/25/97 17:37 '0714 975 8447 MARLENE A FOX. woo 6 LAW OFFICES OF MARLENE A. FOX 5804 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION GENERAL ACCOUNT 2031 ORCHARD DR..SUFfE 2W 9755-8444 �.37��1 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 926W SEPTEMBER 25 19 97 If TO rHr .CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 1 $ 126 no/1005 ORDER OF ONE HUNDRED And TWENTY-SIX DOLLARS and no/100*-----------------DOLLARS California.State Bank ig°'D&w wem Nt"ef b `C&Wa"A MW (ON BEHALF OF CENTRAL AP —�4 PEAL FEE for Appeal of 9/1.1/97 CITY CO.) • FOR_DRE pPROVAL—@1--DEV--pL-MrT-'r—I 97-13 1CM EXPANSION-q Q513 0411• 1: L 2 2 2 3 768 31: 009-r. 362621" ATTACHMENT "B" FINDINGS OF FACT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TYPE II NO. 97-13 PHASE I OF INLAND CENTER MALL EXPANSION (ROBINSONS-MAY) 500 INLAND CENTER DRIVE (APN: 136-531-04) PAGE 1 OF 2 1. The proposed development is one permitted within the subject zoning district and complies with all of the applicable provisions of this Development Code, including prescribed development/site standards and any/all applicable design guidelines. Pursuant to Development Code Section 19.06.020(I)(6), department stores (general merchandise) are permitted uses in the CR-1 land use district subject to the approval of a development permit. The proposed department store and parking structure comply with all applicable provisions of the Development Code. As such, the proposal will improve and not impair the character of the CR-1 land use district. 2. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan. The proposal is consistent with General Plan Policy 1.3.11, which states that it shall be the policy of the City to allow for the introduction of major regional-serving commercial uses which may currently not be present and could significantly benefit the City, p y provided that the do not incur unacceptable adverse economic impacts, in areas between downtown and the Tri- City/Commercenter area (I1.1, I1.441.9, I1.11, and I1.12)". 3. The proposed development would be harmonious and compatible with the existing and future developments within the land use district and general area, as well as with the land uses presently on the subject property. The proposal is part of an existing retail mall. The expansion of the mall has already been approved through a Development Agreement and does not entail any other use than that provided by said agreement. As such, the proposed development would be harmonious and compatible with the existing and future development. 4. The approval of the Development Permit for the proposed use is in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and Section 19.20.030(6) of the Development Code. The proposed project's potential to cause a significant effect on the environment has previously been identified in the EIR certified by Resolution No. 96-84 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council on April 1, 1996. As such, no susequent environmental analysis is required prior to taking action on this project. i FINDINGS OF FACT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TYPE II NO. 97-13 PAGE 2 OF 2 S. There will be no potentially significant negative impacts upon environmental quality and natural resources that could not be properly mitigated and monitored. As identified in the certified EIR, the project is subject to the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Refer to Development Agreement No. 91-01, Exhibit G). Prior to the issuance, of grading and building permits and any certificate of occupancy, the mitigation measures must be in place. 6. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed. I The site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of the project being proposed as evidenced by project compliance with all applicable Development Code Standards. I 7. There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use would not be detrimental to public health and safety. All agencies responsible for reviewing access, and providing water, sanitation and other public services have all had the opportunity to review the proposal, and none have indicated an inability t to serve the project. The proposal will not be detrimental to the public health and safety. 8. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed development would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. The proposal is in compliance with all applicable Development Code Standards and is consistent with the General Plan as noted previously in the Findings of Fact. The proposal will not create any significant noise, traffic, or other conditions or situations that have not been identified in the Mitigation and Monitoring Report(Refer to Development Agreement No. 91-01, Exhibit G). As such, the proposal will not be detrimental to other permitted uses in the vicinity and will not create any situation adverse to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City. ATTACHMENT "C" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE REVIEW FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TYPE II NO. 97-13 !� Applicant: Mano Management Company, Inc. c/o Gresham, Savage, Nolan & Tilden 600 North Arrowhead Avenue, #300 San Bernardino, CA 92401 Prepared By: Gustavo J. Romo Assistant Planner September,11, 1997 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE REVIEW FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TYPE II NO. 97-13 A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND OVERVIEW 1. APPLICATION NUMBER: Development Permit Type H No. 97-13 2. OWNER: Mano Management Co., Inc. 3. APPLICANT: Gresham, Savage, Nolan & Tilden 4. CITY CONTACT AND PHONE NUMBER: Gustavo J. Romo Assistant Planner i (909)384-5057 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION: k The applicant proposes to initiate Phase I of the Inland Center Mall Expansion Project as outlined in Development Agreement No. 91-01 which was approved by the Mayor and Common Council on April 1, 1996 (Refer to Development Agreement No. 91-01, l effective May 1, 1996). The project consists of the following: (a) construction of a 165,000 square-foot, two-level, anchor department store to be occupied by Robinson's- May; and (b) construction of a four-level parking structure to accommodate 1,297 automobiles. Development Agreement No. 91-01 authorized the construction of a total of three new anchor stores within the boundary of Inland Center Mall, having a total of 540,000 square feet, with 300,000 square feet of such expansion being within Phase I and the remaining 240,000 square feet within Phase II of the mall expansion. The project is located at 500 Inland Center Mall. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: Development Agreement No. 91-01 was approved by the Mayor and Common Council on April 1, 1996. In connection with the Development Agreement, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The EIR was certified on April 1, 1996 by City Resolution No. 96-84. City of San Bernardino Environmental Compliance Review Development Permit Type II No. 97-13 September 11, 1997 Page 2 of 4 The EIR described the expansion project for Inland Center Mall as including, among other things, the construction of up to three new major anchor stores and the construction of four multi-level parking structures (Refer to the Project Description for the EIR, pp. 7-20). By reason of the foregoing, the proposed construction of the Robinson's-May department store and one multi-level parking structure is within the scope of the project analyzed in the certified EIR; therefore, pursuant to CEQA, Public Resources Code §21166 and CEQA Guidelines 14 CCR §15162, no further or subsequent environmental review is required. 7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CR-1, Commercial Regional (Malls) 8. SUMMARY: 1. The proposed construction is for one of the three major anchor stores described in Phase I of the approved Development Agreement No. 91-01. 2. The square-footage of the proposed construction is within the limitations described in Phase I of the approved Development Agreement No. 91-01. 3. The EIR prepared and certified for Development Agreement No. 91-01 included within the project scope the construction of the department store and the multi- level parking structure which are the subject of this application. 4. CEQA Guidelines §15162 indicate that no subsequent EIR need be prepared for any project where the project has no significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR. 5. The analysis of the current application indicates that it presents no significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR. 6. As a consequence of the foregoing, no subsequent environmental analysis is required prior to taking action on the application. City of San Bernardino Environmental Compliance Review Development Permit Type II No. 97-13 September 11, 1997 Page 3 of 4 9. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION On the basis of this environmental compliance review: XX The proposed project's potential to cause a significant effect on the environment has previously been identified in the EIR certified by Resolution No. 96-84 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council on April 1, 1996. PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA Gustavo J. Romo, Assistant Planner Name and Title Signa re September 11 1997 Date City of San Bernardino Environmental Compliance Review Development Permit Type II No. 97-13 September 11, 1997 Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT "D" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Henry Empeno, Jr., Deputy City Attorney DATE: September 30, 1997 RE: Response to Appeal by Central City Company/Carousel Mall (Attorney Marlene A. Fox) of Development Permit Type II No. 97-13 This is my response to the second and third grounds of the Appeal: 2. DP No. 97-13 is based upon Development Agreement 91-01, the validity of which has been challenged in two pending court cases. No court order or judgment has yet been issued which invalidates Development Agreement 91-01. In the court cases, the City contends that Development Agreement 91-01 is valid and was properly executed by Mano Management Company, Inc. 3. The appellant misstates the facts and mischaracterizes Judge Edwards' decision in one of the pending court cases. I have reviewed the Judgment dated September 17, 1997. Judge Edwards has not invalidated Resolution No. 96-84, which approved Development Agreement 91-01 and certified the Final EIR. Judge Edwards has directed the City to vacate and set aside its certification of that portion of the Final EIR that pertains to the multi-screen theater complex. The City has complied with the Court's decision by the Mayor's issuance of Executive Order 97-1, copy attached. The City's processing and approval of DP No. 97-13 is consistent with the Court's decision. HENRY EMPENO, JR., Deputy City Attorney [attachment] cc: James F. Penman, City Attorney Michael Hays, Director of Planning & Building Services HE:aotVRoss2.mem] City of San Bernardino INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF THE MAYOR TO: All Department Heads FROM: Mayor Tom Minor SUBJECT: EXECUTIVE ORDER 97-1 DATE: September 26, 1997 COPIES: File On April 1, 1996 by way of Resolution 96-84, the Common Council of the City of Inland Center MalpandebyDthat samenResolution certified the Final Environmental Impact Report relating thereto. Subsequent to that action, suit was filed in the San Bernardino County Superior Court as Case No.SCV29232 against the City of San Bernardino and others claiming thatt ere had been certain non compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") , which suite was entitled Central City Company v. City of San Bernardino, et al. Trial has now been completed in that suite and the Court has issued its Writ of mandate to the City providing, in part, that the City: "Vacate and set aside the April 1, 1996 Certification of that portion of the Environmental Impact Report that pertains to the multi-screen movie theater complex." To comply with the Writ of Mandate, in my capacity as Mayor of this City, and by this Executive Order, I hereby: (1) Vacate and set aside the April 1, 1996 certification of that portion of the Final Environmental Impact Report referred to in Resolution 96-84 that pertains to the multi-screen movie theater complex; (2) Direct the City Clerk to annotate Resolution 96-84 to indicate that it is affected by this Executive Order, and inform related Departments thereof; and, (3) Direct all City Departments to refrain from approving any construction activities related to the cinema complex expansion pending full compliance with CEQA environmental review requirements for that portion of the project. Dated: T m Minor Mayor Approved as to form and legal content: es F. Penman, City Attorney �0�4tNARD�N n ATTACHMENT 11E" C I T Y O F O an bernardino ynF_D IS 1 D E P A R T M E N T OF P L A N N I N G A N D B U I L D I N G SERVICES M I C H A E L E H A Y S D I R E C T O R September 11, 1997 Gresham, Savage, Note--& Tilden Attn: Mark A. Ostoich 600 North Arrowhead Avenue, Suite 300 San Bernardino, CA 92401 RE: DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TYPE II, NO. 97-13; Phase I of Inland Center Mall Expansion (Robinson's-May); 500 Inland Center Drive (APN: 136-531-04). Dear Mr. Ostoich: At their meeting of September 11, 1997, the Development Review Committee approved your request to initiate Phase I of the Inland Center Mall Expansion Project to construct a 165,000 square-foot two-level anchor department store to be occupied by Robinson's-May and a four- level parkiniz structure at the property referenced above. As all findings have been made relating to Development Permits (Section 19.44.060 of the San Bernardino Development Code) and Design Review (Section 19.38.040), your proposal has been approved subject to the attached conditions of approval and standard requirements. Pursuant to San Bernardino Development Code Sections 19.52.080 and 19.52.100, Development Permits shall become effective 15 days following the final date of action by the Development Review Committee unless an appeal is filed. All appeals shall be submitted in writing with the appropriate fee to the Department of-Planning and Building Services within 15 days of the final decision and shall clearly state the basis of the appeal. If no appeal is filed pursuant to the above provision of the San Bernardino Development Code, the action of the Development Review Committee shall be final. 3 0 0 N O R T H D ' S T R E E T . S A N B E R N A R D I N 0 . C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 4 1 8 - 0 0 0 1 (808 ) 384-5071 /S057 • F A X (808 ) 384 -5080 DPII-97-13 500 Inland Center Drive Page 2 of 2 Attached are the project findings of fact and the conditions of approval and standard requirements from the following City divisions/departments and public agencies: • Planning Division (Planning & Building Services Department) • Building Division (Planning & Building Services Department) • Public Works/Engineering Department • Water Department • Fire Department • Parks and--Recreation Department • Public Services Department • Police Department • GTE Telephone Operations If you have any questions pertaining to this approval or the attached conditions of approval and standard requirements, please contact me at (909)384-5057. Respectfully, 4w— Gustavo J. Romo Assistant Planner cc: Case File Development Agreement No. 91-01 Case File FINDINGS OF FACT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TYPE II NO. 97-13 PHASE I OF INLAND CENTER MALL EXPANSION (ROBINSONS-MAY) 500 INLAND CENTER DRIVE (APN: 136-531-04) PAGE 1 OF 2 1. The proposed development is one permitted within the subject zoning district and complies with all of the applicable provisions of this Development Code, including prescribed development/site standards and any/all applicable design guidelines. Pursuant to Development Code Section 19.06.020(I)(6), department stores (general merchandise) are permitted uses in the CR-1 land use district subject to the approval of a development permit. The proposed department store and parking structure comply with all applicable provisions of the Development Code. As such, the proposal will improve and not impair the character of the CR-1 land use district. 2. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan. The proposal is consistent with General Plan Policy 1.3.11, which states that it shall be the policy of the City to "allow for the introduction of major regional-serving commercial uses which may currently not be present and could significantly benefit the City, provided that they do not incur unacceptable adverse economic impacts, in areas between downtown and the Tri- City/Commercenter area (11.1, I1.441.9, I1.11, and I1.12)". 3. The proposed development would be harmonious and compatible with the existing and future developments within the land use district and general area, as well as with the land uses presently on the subject property. The proposal is part of an existing retail mall. The expansion of the mall has already been approved through a Development Agreement and does not entail any other use than that provided by said agreement. As such, the proposed development would be harmonious and compatible with the existing and future development. 4. The approval of the Development Permit for the proposed use is in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and Section 19.20.030(6) of the Development Code. The proposed project's potential to cause a significant effect on the environment has previously been identified in the EIR certified by Resolution No. 96-84 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council on April 1, 1996. As such, no susequent environmental analysis is required prior to taking action on this project. FINDINGS OF FACT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TYPE II NO. 97-13 PAGE 2 OF 2 S. There will be no potentially significant negative impacts upon environmental quality and natural resources that could not be properly mitigated and monitored. As identified in the certified EIR, the project is subject to the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Refer to Development Agreement No. 91-01, Exhibit G). Prior to the issuance, of grading and building permits and any certificate of occupancy, the mitigation measures must be in place. 6. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed. The site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of the project being proposed as evidenced by project compliance with all applicable Development Code Standards. 7. There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use would not be detrimental to public health and safety. All agencies responsible for reviewing access, and providing water, sanitation and other public services have all had the opportunity to review the proposal, and none have indicated an inability to serve the project. The proposal will not be detrimental to the public health and safety. 8. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed development would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. The proposal is in compliance with all applicable Development Code Standards and is consistent with the General Plan as noted previously in the Findings of Fact. The proposal will not create any significant noise, traffic, or other conditions or situations that have not been identified in the Mitigation and Monitoring Report (Refer to Development Agreement No. 91-01, Exhibit G). As such, the proposal will not be detrimental to other permitted uses in the vicinity and will not create any situation adverse to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TYPE II NO. 97-13 PHASE I OF INLAND CENTER MALL EXPANSION (ROBINSONS-MAY) 500 INLAND CENTER DRIVE (APN: 136-531-04) PAGE 1 OF 3 1. Within two years of development approval, commencement of construction shall have occurred or the permit/approval shall become null and void. In addition, if after commencement of construction, work is discontinued for a period of one year, then the permit/approval shall become null and void. PROJECT: Development Permit Type H No. 97-13 EXPIRATION DATE: September 11, 1999 2. The review authority may, upon application being filed 30 days prior to the expiration date and for good cause, grant one time extension not to exceed 12 months. The review authority shall ensure that the project complies with all current Development Code provisions. 3. In the event that this approval is legally challenged, the City will promptly notify the applicant of any claim or action and will cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. Once notified, the applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of San Bernardino. The applicant further agrees to reimburse the City of any costs and attorneys' fees which the City may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action, but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his or her obligation under this condition. 4. Construction shall be in substantial conformance with the plan(s) approved by the Director, Development Review Committee, Planning Commission or Mayor and Common Council. Minor modification to the plan(s) shall be subject to approval by the Director through a minor modification permit process. Any modification which exceeds 10% of the following allowable measurable design/site considerations shall require the refiling of the original application and a subsequent hearing by the appropriate hearing review authority if applicable. a. On-site circulation and parking, loading and landscaping; b. Placement and/or height of walls, fences and structures; C. Reconfiguration of architectural features, including colors, and/or modification of finished materials that do not alter or compromise the previously approved theme; and, d. A reduction in density or intensity of a development project. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TYPE II NO. 97-13 PAGE 2 OF 3 5. No vacant, relocated, altered, repaired or hereafter erected structure shall be occupied or no change of use of land or structure(s) shall be inaugurated, or no new business commenced as authorized by this permit until a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued by the Department. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued by the Department subject to the conditions imposed on the use, provided that a deposit is filed with the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of the Certificate. The deposit or security shall guarantee the faithful performance and completion of all terms, conditions and performance standards imposed on the intended use by this permit. 6. This permit or approval is subject to all the applicable provisions of the Development Code in effect at the time of approval. This includes Chapter 19.20 - Property Development Standards, and includes: dust and dirt control during construction and grading activities; emission control of fumes, vapors, gases and other forms of air pollution; glare control; exterior lightning design and control; noise control; odor control; screening; signs, off-street parking and off-street loading; and, vibration control. Screening and sign regulations compliance are important considerations to the developer because they will delay the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy until they are complied with. Any exterior structural equipment, or utility transformers, boxes, ducts or meter cabinets shall be architecturally screened by wall or structural element, blending with the building design and include landscaping when on the ground. 7. The developer is to submit a complete landscape and irrigation plan (5 sets) to the Public Works Department with the required fee for review (Note: issuance of a building permit by the Department of Planning and Building Services does NOT waive this requirement). No grading permit will be issued prior to approval of the landscape and irrigation plans. The landscape and irrigation plans shall comply with the "Procedure and Policy for Landscaping and Irrigation" provided by the Department of Parks and Recreation and included with their standard requirements. 8. Parking structure shall accommodate a minimum of 1,297 standard parking spaces, including required handicap stalls. New striped parking not within the parking structure shall meet all dimensional and landscaping requirements of Chapter 19.24 of the Development Code. Wheel stops are prohibited. 9. Trash enclosures shall be constructed in accordance with the Department of Public Works specifications. 10. All illuminated sign, building, and parking lot lights shall be located, aimed, and/or shielded to prevent lights from shining or reflecting on adjacent property. i CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TYPE II NO. 97-13 PAGE 3 OF 3 11. Signs are not a part of this approval. Applicant must submit a sign permit application and obtain approval from the Planning Division prior to obtaining any building permits for signs. 12. All mitigation measures identified in certified EIR and listed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are incorporated herein as project Conditions of Approval. 13. Demolition permits shall be obtained for the demolition and removal of the portion of the mall associated with the Robinsons-May attachment. 14. The developer shall indicate the location of the covered drop-off facility for public transit riders adjacent to the Mall and coordinate with OMNITRANS prior to plan check submittal. 15. This approval is subject to all applicable provisions of Development Agreement No. 91- 01. 16. This permit or approval is subject to the attached conditions or requirements of the following City Departments or Divisions and public agencies: a. Building Services Division of the Planning and Building Services Department b. Public Works/Engineering Department c. Water Department d. Fire Department e. Parks and Recreation Department f. Public Services Department g. Police Department h. GTE Telephone Operations i I �i STANDARD REQUIREMENTS BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION DPII-97-13 (APN: 136-531-04) 1. Submit plans prepared by a Registered Architect or Civil or Structural Engineer. 2. Submit a complete lateral and structural analysis prepared by a Registered Civil or Structural Engineer or Architect. 3. Submit State of California Title 24 Energy Calculation Forms for non-residential buildings including a signed compliance statement. 4. Submit floorplan of existing structure. Label all uses and existing materials of construction. 5. Submit four (4) complete sets of construction plans including: (5 sets if requesting expeditious review) a. Copy of letter of DPII approval and conditions (4) b. Soils and/or liquefaction report (4) C. Energy Calculations (4) d. Structural Calculation (4) 6. Submit a preliminary (soils and geology with liquefaction analysis) report prepared by a person licensed to do so. 7. Submit a single line drawing of the electrical service. Show all equipment, conduit and wire sizes and types. Show the service ground size and grounding electrode. 8. Submit panel schedule(s) and electrical plans. 9. Permit is required for demolition of existing portion (entrance to mall for Robinsons- May). 10. Submit a plan of the heating, ventilating or air conditioning system. (Clearly identify the location and rating of the equipment and the sizes and material of all ducts, registers and the location of all fire dampers). Show means of providing mechanical ventilation as required by the 1994 Uniform Building Code. Page 1 of 2 DPII-97-13 -continued- 11. Submit gas pipe loads, sizing calculations and isometrics, if applicable. 12. Provide a plot plan showing the location of the proposed sewer system. 13. Submit isometric plans of the cold and hot water and drain waste and vent systems, if applicable. 14. Show compliance with Title 24 for disabled access. 15. Fire sprinklers required: Plans for fire sprinklers shall be submitted to Fire Department and approved prior to installation. No building inspections shall be performed beyond "framing and ventilation" until fire sprinkler plans are approved. 16. City of San Bernardino named as certificate holder for Worker's Compensation Insurance. 17. Assessor's Parcel Number 18. Contractor's City license. 19. Contractor's State license. 20. Sewer capacity rights from Water Department, (909)384-5093, Neil Thomsen. 21. School fees from Unified School District, (909)381-1179. 22. Plan check time is approximately 5 to 6 weeks Expeditious plan check time is approximately 10 working days Contact Development Services for possible expeditious review (909)384-5057. 23. Prior to plan check submittal, contact the Development Services Division for plan check fees at (909)384-5071. Page 2 of 2 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS/ CASE NO. DP1197--13 CITY ENGINEER DESCRIPTION: 165,000 SF DEPT. HEARING DATE STORE AND PARKING STRUCTURE AGENDA ITEM LOCATION: INLAND CENTER MALL (NEW ROBINSON-MA Y) PAGE NO: ♦ NOTE TO APPLICANT: Where separate Engineering plans are required, the applicant is responsible for submitting the Engineering plans directly to the Engineering Division. They may be submitted prior to submittal of Building Plans. 1. Drainage and Flood Control a) A local drainage study will be required for the project. Any drainage improvements, structures or storm drains needed to mitigate downstream impacts or protect the development shall be designed and constructed at the developer's expense, and right-of-way dedicated as necessary. b) All drainage from the development shall be directed to an approved public drainage facility. If not feasible, proper drainage facilities and easements shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. c) Applicant shall mitigate on-site storm water discharge sufficiently to maintain compliance with the City's NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit Requirements. A "Notice of Intent (NOI)" shall be filed with the State Water Quality Control Board for construction disturbing 5 acres of more of land. d) The City Engineer, prior to grading plan approval, shall approve an Erosion Control Plan. The plan shall be designed to control erosion due to water and wind, including blowing dust, during all phases of construction, including graded areas which are not proposed to be immediately built upon. Page 1 of 8 Pages 9/1197 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS/ CASE NO. DP1197--13 CITY ENGINEER DESCRIPTION: 165,000 SF DEPT, HEARING DATE STORE AND PARKING STRUCTURE AGENDA ITEM LOCATION: INLAND CENTER MALL (NEW ROBINSON-MA Y) PAGE NO: 2. Grading and Landscaping a) If more than 1' of fill or 2' of cut is proposed, the site/plot/grading and drainage plan shall be signed by a Registered Civil Engineer and a grading permit will be required. The grading plan shall be prepared in strict accordance with the City's "Grading Policies and Procedures" and the City's "Standard Drawings", unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. b) If more than 5 trees are to be removed from the site, a tree removal permit conforming to the requirements of Section 19.28.090 of the Development Code shall be obtained from the Department of Planning and Building Services prior to issuance of any grading or site development permits. c) If more than 5,000 cubic yards of earthwork is proposed, a grading bond will be required and the grading shall be supervised in accordance with Section 7012(c) of the Uniform Building Code. d) A liquefaction evaluation is required for the site. This evaluation must be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a grading permit. Any grading requirements recommended by the approved liquefaction evaluation shall be incorporated in the grading plan. e) A site-specific geologic investigation shall be conducted by the applicant's Geologist and reviewed by the City Geologist. The purpose of the investigation is to comply with the Seismicity/Liquefaction section of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). This investigation shall be completed, reviewed and accepted by the City prior to issuance of any grading permits for this project. If faulting is found to occur on the site, then all structures intended for human occupancy shall be set back from the fault as recommended in the geologic investigation. Page 2 of 8 Pages 9/11/97 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS/ CASE NO. DPII 97-13 CITY ENGINEER DESCRIPTION: 165,000 SF DEPT. HEARING DATE STORE AND PARKING STRUCTURE AGENDA ITEM LOCATION: INLAND CENTER MALL (NEW ROBINSON--MAY) PAGE NO: f) An on-site Improvement Plan is required for this project. Where feasible, this plan shall be incorporated with the grading plan and shall conform to all requirements of Section 15.04-167 of the Municipal Code (See "Grading Policies and Procedures"). g) Retaining walls, block walls and all on-site fencing shall be designed and detailed on the On-site Improvement Plan. This work shall be part of the On-site Improvement permit issued by the Department of Public Works/City Engineer. h) The on-site improvement plan shall include details of on-site lighting, including light location, type of poles and fixtures, foundation design, conduit location and size, and the number and size of conductors. Photometry calculations shall be provided which show that the proposed on-site lighting design will meet the intensity and distribution criteria specified by the City Police Department. i) The design of on-site improvements shall also comply with all requirements of The California Building Code, Title 24, relating to handicap parking and accessibility, including retrofitting of existing building access points for handicap accessibility, if applicable. j) A handicap accessible path of travel shall be provided from the public way to the building entrance. All pathways shall be paved and shall provide a minimum clear width of 4 feet. Where parking overhangs the pathway, the minimum paved width shall be 6 feet. k) A reciprocal easement shall be recorded prior to grading plan approval if reciprocal drainage, access, sewer, and/or parking is proposed to cross lot lines, or a lot merger shall be recorded to remove the interior lot lines. Page 3 of 8 Pages SV11/97 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS/ CASE NO. DPII 97-13 CITY ENGINEER DESCRIPTION: 165,000 SF DEPT. HEARING DATE STORE AND PARKING STRUCTURE AGENDA ITEM LOCATION: INLAND CENTER MALL (NEW ROBINSON-MA Y) PAGE NO: 1) The project Landscape Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. Submit 5 copies to the Engineering Division for Checking. m) An easement and covenant shall be executed on behalf of the City to allow the City to enter and maintain any required landscaping in case of owner neglect. The Real Property Section for execution by the property owner and shall ensure that, if the property owner or subsequent owner(s) fail to properly maintain the landscaping, the City will be able to file appropriate liens against the property in order to accomplish the required landscape maintenance. A document processing fee in the amount of 200.00 shall be paid to the Real Property Section to cover processing costs. This easement and covenant shall be executed by the property owner prior to plan approval unless otherwise allowed by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. 3. Utilities a) Design and construct all public utilities to serve the site in accordance with City Code, City Standards and requirements of the serving utility, including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer and cable TV (Cable TV optional for commercial, industrial, or institutional uses). b) A City owned and maintained sewer lift station presently serves the Inland Center Mall. It is anticipated that this project will cause the overall discharge from the Mall to exceed the current design capacity of the lift station. Therefore, the applicant shall fund a study to determine the adequacy of the existing lift station to accept the additional sewage that will be generated by this project. The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of upgrading the lift station and local sewer lines to provide additional capacity for this project and future phase in accordance with the approved Development Agreement. Page 4 of 8 Pages 9111)97 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS/ CASE NO. DP/l 97-13 CITY ENGINEER DESCRIPTION: 165,000 SF DEPT. HEARING DATE STORE AND PARKING STRUCTURE AGENDA ITEM LOCATION: INLAND CENTER MALL (NEW ROB/NSON--MAID PAGE NO: c) Backflow preventers shall be installed for any building with the finished floor elevation below the rim elevation of the nearest upstream manhole. d) Underground sewer and storm drain lines shall be relocated, if necessary, to clearn6w building foundations. e) Sewer main extensions required to serve the site shall be constructed at the Developer's expense. Sewer systems shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's "Sewer Policy and Procedures" and City Standard Drawings. f) Utility services shall be placed underground and easements provided as required. g) All existing overhead utilities adjacent to or traversing the site on either side of the street shall be undergrounded in accordance with Section 19.20.030 of the Development Code. h) Existing Utilities which interfere with new construction shall be relocated at the Developer's expense as directed by the City Engineer, except overhead lines, if required by provisions of the Development Code to be undergrounded. See Development Code Section 19.30.110. Page 5 of 8 Pages 9/11)97 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS/ CASE NO. DPII 97-13 CITY ENGINEER DESCRIPTION: 165,000 SF DEPT. HEARING DATE STORE AND PARKING STRUCTURE AGENDA ITEM LOCATION: INLAND CENTER MALL (NEW ROB/NSON--MAID PAGE NO: 4. Street Improvement and Dedications a) All public streets within and adjacent to the development shall be improved to include combination curb and gutter, paving, handicap ramps, 'sti=eet lights, sidewalks and appurtenances, including, but not limited to traffic signals, traffic signal modifications, relocation of public or private facilities which interfere with new construction, striping, shall be accomplished in accordance with the City of San Bernardino "Street Improvement Policy" and City "Standard Drawings", unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Street lighting, when required, shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's "Street Lighting Policies and Procedures". Street lighting shall be shown on street improvement plans except where otherwise approved by the City Engineer. b) Street improvement shall be designed and constructed for this project in accordance with requirement of the Mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) for Development Agreement No. 91-01. These mitigation measures are referenced as "Year 2000 Mitigation Measures" and begin on page 14 of the MMRP. 6. Required Engineering Permits a) Grading permit (If applicable.). b) On-site improvements construction permit (except buildings - see Planning and Building Services), including landscaping. c) Off-site improvements construction permit. Page 6 of 8 Pages 911197 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS/ CASE NO. DPII 97-13 CITY ENGINEER DESCRIPTION: 165,000 SF DEPT, HEARING DATE STORE AND PARKING STRUCTURE AGENDA ITEM LOCATION: INLAND CENTER MALL (NEW ROBINSON-MAY) PAGE NO: 6. Applicable Engineerinq Fees' a) Plan check and inspection fees for off-site improvements - 4% and 4%, respectively, of the estimated construction cose of the off-site improvements. b) Plan check and inspection fees for on-site improvements (except buildings - See Planning and Building Services) - 2% and 3%, respectively, of the estimated construction costa of the on-site improvements, including landscaping. c) Plan check and inspection fees for grading (If permit required) - Fee Schedule available at the Engineering Division Counter. d) Traffic systems fee in the approximate amount of $130,000. This fee will be credited on a dollar for dollar basis against the cost of street improvements required for this project, which are identified in the MMRP as "Year 2000 Mitigation Measures", up to the total amount of the traffic systems fee paid by this project. e) Drainage fee in the approximate amount of $22,700. Based on 157.500 Square Feet @ $0.405 per square foot for the first 3,000 square feet of impervious building area, then $0.139 per square foot of remaining impervious lot area or fraction thereof. All Fees are subject to change without notice. EEsiimated Construction Cost for Off-Site Improvements is based on a list of standard unit prices on rile with the Department of Public Works/City Engineer. 3 Estimated Construction Cost for On-Site Improvements is based on a list of standard unit prices on rile with the Department of Public Works/City Engineer. Page 7 of 8 Pages 9111197 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS/ CASE NO. DP1197--13 CITY ENGINEER DESCRIPTION: 165,000 SF DEPT. HEARING DATE STORE AND PARKING STRUCTURE AGENDA ITEM LOCATION: INLAND CENTER MALL (NEW ROBINSON--MAY) PAGE NO: f) Sewer Connection fee in the approximate amount of $12,600. Based on 165.000 Square Feet of Bldg Area @ $229.15 per 3,000 square feet or fraction thereof. g) Sewer inspection fee in the amount of 1 Based on 1 connection @ $19.32 per connection. Page 8 of 8 Pages 91111,97 sly IT T&i> V/ y 'rte Ps gRos Codo (Y4- G� SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL WATER DEPARTMENT STANDARD REQUIREMENTS Review of Plans: t� A�` 1 Date Compiled: 1Z —9-7 Owner/Developer: M`A`OO MP�f�GEtEr�LT Compiled By: � , l.ri✓7-�N Type of Project: �c�.l�.� A-l�, 71 LJa6U -L-rne7T S IC)P5 Number of Units: Location: 46, tos� MAY WATER DEPARTMENT EN�GIIN�E�ERING•: Contact: ui P� _ Phone: 364 G39 Fax: -3fjZ4- S5-3Z Note: All Water Services are Subject to the Rules& Regulations of the Water Department. • Size of Main Adjacent the Project: �� �t 0JkJ �Sk l� NrAWJ51 bW • Approximate Water Pressure: ��� Elevation of Water Storage: Hydrant Flow® 20 psi: > (e60 6 // • Type, Size, Location, and Distance to-Nearest Fire Hydrant: ep Z MIAY 4-YLVi4d-rC, 0.l V")000, 1'c"-r t o,J S Oil-S t TrG • Pressure Regulator Required on Customer's Side on the Meter. ❑ Off-site Water Facilities Required. ❑ Area Not Served by San Bernardino M cipal Water Department. c � � b'� Rt Comments: p �' WATER QUALITY CONTROL: Contact: � � yam.4G✓F/l i Phone: :r0J-S/ZR Fax: )(R.P.P. Backflow Device Required at Service Connection. Double Check Backflow Device Required at Service Connection. Backflow Device to be Inspected Before Water Service can be Activated. ❑ No Backflow Device Required at This Time. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL./INDUSTRIAL WASTE* Contact: 'Dl Oo C As"7'qo Phone: 33 12/f S Fax: ✓B`-f �J� Note: No Brine Regenerative Water Softeners May be Installed, Unless Holding and Hauling is Provided for the Brine. All Interceptors a 1200 Gallon Capacity with a Sample Box Included. ndustnal Waste Pernut Required. ❑ Grease Interceptor Required. ❑ Sand/Oil Interceptor Required. ❑ No Issues at this Time. ❑ Pre-treatment Required. _ SENVER CAPACITY INFORMATION: Contact: &1 1� Phone: 3871- -Cbq Fax: 324- SoZIS Note: Proof of Payment Must be Submitted to the Building&Safety Department Prior to Issuance of the Building Permit. ❑ No Sewer Capacity Fee Applicable at This Time. a`S-1wer Capacity Fee Must Be Paid to the Water Department for 3,7q-; Gallons Per Day, Equivalent Dwelling Units: ❑ Subject to Recalculation of Fee Prior to the Issuance of Building Permit. Break=down of Estimated Gallons Per Day: 1 105, Voo S•t• 1"-+Ot .OZ3 = ZOVS STDREQI113.FRM(2/97) CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO FIRIF DEPARTMENT STANDARD REQUIREMENTS cage: 17- 1-5 Date: f - // - f7 Reviewed By: ,GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Provide one additional set of construction plans to Building and Safety for Fire Oeparrment use at time of plan check. Contact the City of San Bemardino Fire Department at (909) 384.5388 for specific Metalled requirements. The developer shall provide for adequate fire flow as computed by the Fire Prevention $ureau. Minimum fire flow requirements shall be based on square footage.construction features,and exposure information suppllod by the developer and ,lL,W be available Uda to placing combustible materials on site. WATER PURVEYOR FOR FIRE PROTECTION: The fire protection water service for the area of this project is provided by: San Bernardino Municipal water Department- E:ngi!-"rin"� (909) 384-5391 East Valley Water District-Engineering (908) 888-8966 ❑ Other Water Purveyor: Phena: PUBLIC FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES: Public fire hydrants are required along streets at intervals not to seemed 300 f for commercial and multi-resldential areas and st intervals not to exceed 500 feet for residential areas. Fire hydrant minimum flow rates of 1.500 gpm at a 20 psi minimum residual pressure,are required for commercial and multi-residential areas. Minimum fire hydrant flow rates of 1,000 gpm at a 20 psi minimum residual preisur p are required for residential areas. ❑ Fire flow requirements may be met from the combined flow of two adjacent fire hydrar s. Fire flow requirements may be adjusted,as deemed appropriate by the Fire Department, based on individual site specific conditions and available mitigations. Fire hydrant type and specific location shall be jointly determined by the City of San Bernardino Fire Department in conjunction with the water Apurveyor. Fire hydrant materials and installation shall conform to the standards and tIpoeiflcationu of the water purveyor. Public fire hydrants, fire services, and public water facilities necessary to meet Firel Department requirements are the developer's financial responsibility and shall be installed by the water purveyor or by the developer at the N ater purveyor's discretion. Contact the water purveyor indicated above for additional information. ACCESS: ❑ Provide two separate.dedicated routes of ingress/egress to the property entrance. he routes shall be paved, all weather. ❑ Provide an access road to each buildng for fire apparatus. Access roadway shall hay.,an all-weather driving surface of not less than 20 feet of unobstructed width_ ❑ Extend roadway to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior wall of all single stcry buildings. ❑ Extend roadway to within 50 feet of the exterior well of all muitipie-story buildings. : ❑ Provide"NO PARKING' signs whenever parking of vehicles would possibly reduce the clearance of access roadways to less than the required width. Signs are to read "FIRE LANE-NO PARKING -M.C.Sac 15.16". O Dead-end streets shall not exceed 500 feet in length end shall have a minimum 40 fijot radius turnaround. ❑ The names of any new streets(public or private) shall be submitted to the Fire Depaitment for approval. SITE: ❑ All access roads and streets are to be constructed and usable prior to combustible Ltirm etion. ❑ Private fire hydrants shall be installed to protect each building located more than 150 ft et from the Orb line. No fire hydrants should be within 40 feet of any exterior wail. The hydrants sha8 be Wet Barrel type.with one 2'/2 inch.itnd 4 inch outlet,and approved by the Fire Deportment. Fire hydrants shall be designated as a "NO PARKING- zone by painting an B inch wice,red stripe for 15 feet in each direction in front of the hydrant in such a manner that it will not be blocked by parked vehicles. BUILDINGS: ❑ Address numerals shall be installed on the building at the front or other approved location in such a manner as to be visible from the frontage street. Commercial end multi family address numerals shall be 6 inches tall.single f imily address numerals shall be 4 inches tall. The color of the numerals shall contrast with the color of the background. • Identify each gas and electric meter with the number of the unit it serves. • Fie Extinguishers must be atstalled prior to the building being occupied. The minimuri rating for any fire extinguisher is 2A IONIC. Minimum distribution of fie extinguishers must be such that no interior part of the building is c ver 75 feet travel distance tram a fire extinguisher. • Apartment houses with 16 or more units.hotels(motels)with 20 or more units,or apailments or hotels(motels)three stories or more in height shall be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers designed to NFPA standards. All buildings, other than residential, over 5.000 square feet, shall be equipped wits► an automatic fire sprinkler system designed to NFPA standards. This includes existing buildings vacant over 365 days. Submit plans for the fire protection system to the Fire Department prior to beginning'construction of the system. '0 Tenant improvements in all sprinklered buildings are to be approved by the Fire Depa�tment prior to start of construction. Provide fire alarm(required throughout). Plan must be approved by the Fire Department prior to start of installation. Fire Department connection to(sprinkler system/standpipe system)shall be required et Fire Department approved location. Note: The applicant must request, in writing, any changes to Fire Department requiremerts. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: (h✓1 d Wef'St- d p n r- h ` -tnack, inal—al u *G?. 1 FPe 170,70 ad TO 39dd 1,4--IfT _4AT 4 A I T7 AS TR7CbPPFQF, PC'CT 1PF,T 17T 1PR CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PARRS, RECREATION is COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT STANDARD REQUIREMENTS Case:TPT__ Date: q I 10 Reviewed By: GENERAL REQUIRffiXSNPS: [�(] Commercial Industrial and multi-Unit ( ] Assessment District [ l Residential ( ] purpose, Guidelines and submittal procedure ( ] Irrigation and Landscaping Plans. ( ] Contact the City of San Bernardino Parks,Recreation and Community Services Department at (909) 384-5217 or 384-5314 for specific detailed requirements. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS: (')( ] Maintenance of landscape areas 0(1 Planter Areas I Interior Planter Areas [ l Irrigation Systems [ l Setback Areas [ J Slope Areas R] Ground Cover and Bedding material I Erosion Control [X l Weed Control PLANT NATERIALS ['CI Plant list and climatic conditions CM Street Trees [Il Plant material Size Requirements and Ratios INSPECTION AND OTHER REQUIRM TPS ["X J Irrigation System [ J Landscaping [ j Hardscaps Items ( J Street tree Specifications [ ] Arborist Report (XI Removal or destruction of trees [')(] Screening Requirement (City, Dev.Code) Note: The applicant must request, in Writing, any changes to the Parks, Recreation and Community Services requirements. Additional information COr�r l oY�6 O ' CCU ' I 6 C �5 I(,e f) i I C b1e-MS �(t 1o6c on cfe�u G -4- t5 be_ eA 40 C C Q mS:jj CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEPARTMENT OF PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES POLICY AND PROCEDURE FOR LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION REQUIREMENTS COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT FEBRUARY, 1997 Table of Contents I. Code Authority and Purpose H. Submittals A. Number of Plans and Submittal Procedures B. Landscape Plans C. Irrigation-Plans III. Landscape Areas A. Maintenance of Landscaped Areas B. Planter Areas C. Interior Planter Areas D. Irrigation E. Setback Areas F. Ground Cover and Bedding Material G. Slope H. Erosion Control I. Weed Control IV. Plant Materials A. Climatic Conditions and Plant List B. Plant Material and Size Ratio Requirements C. Street Trees V. Inspection A. Irrigation System B. Landscaping VI. Other Requirements CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBMITTAL AND APPROVAL OF LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION PLANS As stated in the City Development Code under Chapter 19.28.010, Purpose of Landscape Standards, it states, "The purpose of this Chapter is to establish landscaping regulations that are intended but not limited to." I. CODE AUTHORITY AND PURPOSES 1. Enhance the aesthetic appearance of development in all areas of the City by providing standards relating to quality and functional aspects of landscaping and landscape screening. 2. Increase compatibility between residential and abutting commercial and industrial land uses. The intent and purpose of these policies and procedures is to provide: 1. Guidance in the required submittal of landscape and irrigation plans 2. Guidance in meeting street tree requirements 3. Guidance in selection of plant materials 4. Guidance in what the landscape and irrigation plans shall show It is the responsibility of the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department to conduct required inspections prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (C of O). Refer to Page 7 for more details. H. SUBMITTALS A. NUMBER OF PLANS AND SUBMITTAL PROCEDURE Five (5) copies of landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Public Works/Engineering Department along with payment of the appropriate Landscape Plan Review Fee. B. LANDSCAPE PLANS 1. Shall be drawn by one of the following: A. A registered landscape architect B. A licensed landscape contractor who installs the actual landscape C. A nursery D. The owner - 1 - NOTE: The name, address, telephone number, along with signature of the person(s) who do the design shall be on the plans. Registered landscape architects and licensed landscape contractors shall include registration numbers and/or license numbers. 2. Plans shall be legibly drawn to scale on paper no smaller than 18" X 24" and no larger than 24" X 36". 3. Plans shall show location of the property by vicinity map and nearest cross streets and give the property address or assessor's parcel number. 4. Plans shall show location of existing and proposed utilities - above ground and underground. 5. Plans shall show type of zoning, the scale and northerly directional arrow. 6. Plans shall contain plant legends for all existing and proposed plant material. Plant legend shall provide the following: A. Plant symbol B. Plant name, botanical and common C. Plant size D. Plant quantities E. Spacing (feet on center, 100% coverage, etc.) 7. Plans shall show existing and proposed plant material drawn to scale at their mature size. 8. Plans shall contain landscape specifications and details. 9. Plans shall show the name, address and telephone number of property owner or developer. C. IRRIGATION PLANS 1. All required landscaping shall be provided with an automatic irrigation system. 2. Irrigation plans shall be submitted with, attached to, and the same size as landscape plans. 3. As addressed in Chapter G19.28.130 Landscape Design Guidelines of the City Development Code, plans shall address conservation of water and energy to include: A. Components -low gallonage and low precipitation heads, drip systems and other sub-surface techniques, mini jet heads, moisture sensing devices, controllers with ability of variable programming. - 2 - B. Efficiency - velocity shall be as close as possible to 5 feet per second. Plant material with different water requirements shall be on separate valves. Slopes shall be on separate valves. System design shall eliminate costly, wasteful overthrow and runoff. 4. Plans shall show: A. Static P.S.I. B. Service Main - type, size and length C. Water Meter - location and size D. Approved Backflow Prevention Device - location and size E. All locations of pipe, valves and heads, (includes emitters, etc.) 5. Slopes required to be planted with efficient and water conserving irrigation systems (over watering should be avoided.) 6. All sprinklers shall be installed with approved swing joints. 7. All sprinklers along pathways, driveways and any other area where foot traffic occurs shall be the pop-up type, installed flushed with the soil. Irrigation heads on risers are permitted where no foot traffic will occur. 8. Lateral irrigation pipe shall be Class 200 or better. Mainline shall be Class 315 or better. Irrigation sleeves to be Schedule 40 and 2 1/2 times the diameter of lateral or mainline. 9. Separate water meter for landscape irrigation shall be optional at owner's request and expense. Owner must notify the water department. 10. Plans shall contain irrigation installation specifications and details. 11. All irrigation lines shall be buried. Mainline at least 18" and laterals 12" deep. Brownline is not permitted. 12. Plans shall contain irrigation legends as follows: EQUIPMENT Symbol Manufacturer Model # Description Nozzle Radius GPM PSI PIPE Size Type Class or Schedule - 3 - NOTE: Piping sizing, (size) shall also be shown at each section of pipe, (mains and laterals). VALVE CHART Valve Valve Size GPM # 1 21/211 43 # 2 1/2" 27 ETC. ETC. ETC. Total of Valves: Total GPM: NOTE: All valves shall be numbered. FRICTION (PSI LOSS) " " Water Meter PSI Backflow Device PSI Elevation Changes PSI Pipe PSI Valves, Fittings, Miscellaneous PSI Total PSI Loss PSI Original PSI (Static) PSI Less Total PSI Loss PSI Equals Minimum to Farthest HD III. LANDSCAPE AREAS A. MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPE AREAS The maintenance of landscape areas shall be the responsibility of the developer until all required inspections have been completed by the City of San Bernardino Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department and the "yellow" inspection record signed. B. PLANTER AREAS - All required turf areas shall be protected from other landscape areas i.e. groundcover beds, shrub planters by a 6" concrete mow curb. Mow curb shall be 1" above finished grade. - 4 - C. IRRIGATION All required landscaping shall be provided with automatic sprinkler facilities which shall be maintained in an operative condition. Utilize only reduced pressure (rp) devices or double check valve assembly. No atmospheric vacuum breakers are permitted. D. SETBACK AREAS All required setbacks around the perimeter of the property shall be landscaped (except for walks and driveways which bisect or encroach upon the required landscape area). The required setbacks shall be landscaped with trees, shrubs and groundcover. Landscaped earth berms shall be erected and maintained within the setback. Bermed areas shall have a maximum of 3:1 slope and be planted with a tall fescue type turf grass or other approved landscaping. A minimum width of 5 feet of landscaping shall abe placed on the exterior of perimeter building walls. E. GROUND COVER AND BEDDING MATERIAL Gravel and decorative rock are permitted materials only if they are cemented or grouted in place. Loose rock is not permitted. F. SLOPE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS 1. To protect against damage by erosion and negative visual impact, surfaces of all cut slopes more than five (5) feet in height and fill slopes more than three (3) feet in height shall be protected by landscaping. Slopes exceeding fifteen (15) feet in vertical height shall also abe landscaped with shrubs spaced at not to exceed 10 feet on center and trees spaced at not to exceed 20 feet on center. Plant material selected and planting method used shall be suitable for the soil and climatic conditions on the site. 2. Plant sizes on slopes shall be as follows: A. Trees 10% - 15 gallon 49% - 5 gallon 50% - 1 gallon B. Shrubs 20% - 5 gallon 80% - 1 gallon C. Groundcover 100% - coverage within one (1) year. 3. The maintenance of graded slopes and landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer until the transfer to individual ownership. G. EROSION CONTROL All grading and drainage facilities, including erosion control planting of graded slopes, shall be done in accordance with a grading plan approved by the City Engineer. A grading permit shall be obtained prior to any grading being done. - 5 - H. WEED CONTROL Pre-emergence control, post-emergence control and cultural control of weeds shall be addressed on the landscape plans submitted by the landscape architect. IV. PLANT MATERIALS A. CLIMATIC CONDITIONS AND PLANT LIST Due to the hot, dry climate of San Bernardino, drought and heat tolerant plant material may be used upon prior approval. Plant list may be obtained from the Park Projects Coordinator at (909) 384-5217. B. PLANT MATERIAL AND SIZE RATIO REQUIREMENTS Landscaped areas shall have plant material selected and planting methods used which are suitable for the soil and climatic conditions of the site. Sizes of the plant materials shall conform to the following mix as required in the City Development Code. Trees 20%, 24" box; 50%, 15 gallon; 15%, 36" box; 15%, 48" box Shrubs 80%, 5 gallon; 20%, 1 gallon Groundcover 100% coverage within one (1) year Fifteen (15) gallon trees shall have a 1" to 1/2" diameter caliper- 5 inches above the top of the rootball. They shall be 8' to 10' in height, with a 2' to 3' spread. Twenty-four inch (24") box trees shall have a 1 3/4" to 2" diameter caliper - 5 inches above the rootball. They shall be 9' to 10' feet in height, with a 4' to 5' spread. C. STREET TREES Street trees shall be required. Tree varieties and exact location will be determined by the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department. The Park Projects Coordinator shall mark locations and inspect plant material on site, prior to planting. Sidewalks, curbs and gutters must be clean of debris prior to marking. A 24- hour notice is required for inspection. The size of the street trees shall be 24" box specimens. The 24" box trees shall be planted as street trees within the public parkway or City property. For a list of street trees, please contact the Park Projects Coordinator at the above referenced telephone number. V. INSPECTIONS A. IRRIGATION SYSTEM 1. Inspections shall be performed by a Park and Recreation Department representative at the following: A. Depth of irrigation trenching, sleeving, mainline, lateral lines (prior to burial), valve installation and irrigation head assembly. B. Pressure test of irrigation mainline (150 PSI for 2 hours). - 6 - C. Coverage test and final acceptance. 2. Do not allow or cause the above items to be buried prior to inspection and approval of the Park Department representative. A 24-hour notice shall be given prior to anticipated inspections. Contact the Landscape Section at (909) 384-5217 or 384-5314. B. LANDSCAPING 1. Inspection shall be performed by a Park and Recreation Department representative at the following: A. Upon completion of finished grade, soil preparation and final rake out. B. When trees and shrubs are spotted for planting, with one example of planting hole for trees and shrubs. Provide samples of plant fertilizer. C. Final inspection when planting and all other specified work has been completed. 2. A 24-hour notice shall be given prior to anticipated inspections. Contact the Landscape Section at (909) 384-5217 or 384-5314. VI. OTHER REQUIREMENTS A. Notify the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department of commencement of landscaping. Give anticipated time line (start-to-finish). B. All landscaping, irrigation and street trees shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the City of San Bernardino Municipal Codes, ordinances and standard requirements. C. Material requirements for all planting material shall be number one (1) grade of the California Nursery Industry Certificate as issued by the Agricultural Commissioner of the County of origin. D. Upon completion, City inspection and sign-off by City Landscape Inspector, the Contractor shall be responsible for ninety (90) day plant establishment and maintenance period. If landscape is not acceptable, the maintenance period will be extended by the Park Projects Coordinator to insure the proper horticulture establishment. E. All landscape material, irrigation equipment, irrigation components and workmanship shall be guaranteed for a period of not less than one (1) year from date of final approval by the City of San Bernardino Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department's Director or his/her designee. The conditions of the guarantee will be to insure, but not limited to all plant material being in healthy condition and free from abnormal conditions which may have occurred during or after planting, such as defoliation or structure dieback. F. ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS Contact by the City of San Bernardino Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department for Assessment District's Landscape Requirements. All other items on Assessment Districts are covered by Public Works/Engineering. 1/28/97 amt cannrrcd.i�dusaiil - 7 - CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEPARTMENT OF PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES POLICY AND PROCEDURE FOR CALIFORNIA CERTIFIED ARBORIST REPORTS FEBRUARY 1997 The City Development Code under Chapter 19.28.090 Removal or destruction of trees states. "Removal of healthy, shade providing, aesthetically valuable trees shall be discouraged. In the event that more than 5 trees are to be cut down, uprooted, destroyed or removed within a 36 month period, a permit shall first be issued by the Public Works Department. Prior to any permit issued for tree removal, all existing trees on-site shall be surveyed by the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department at the developer's expense." This involves the preparation of an Arborist's Report, covering, but not limited to: 1. Identification of each tree, botanical and common names and tree locations. Tree locations are to correlate with the tree locations on tentative tract maps and grading plans. 2. Height and crown width. 3. Trunk circumference at DBH. 4. Health and vitality, including status of disease and insect problems, physiological problems and death of any tree. 5. Liability problems, current and future. 6. Measures to preserve trees on site in their existing locations. These measures are to include but are not limited to: A. Trimming needs using I.S.A. Standards (International Society of Arboriculture). B. Protecting trees during construction. C. Irrigation of trees pre and post construction. D. Insect and/or disease control. E. Proper supervision by the arborist to ensure measures have been taken. 7. Provide short and long term maintenance recommendations for the trees. These maintenance recommendations are to include but not limited to: A. Irrigation. B. Fertilization. C. Trimming. - 1 - D. Insect and disease control needs. E. Growth characteristics and expectations. 8. Relocation of trees due to conflicts of proposed improvements must be included in the Arborist Report and cover feasibility of relocation of all items found in # 1 - # 7. 9. Unless there is a pre-approved tree replacement plan, each tree that is removed shall be replaced with a 36" box specimen tree (minimum size). 10. The Arborist Report must be on file with the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department, City Planning Department and City Engineering Department prior to tentative tract approval and final grading plans approval. 11. Changes in project design may be required to preserve trees. These changes will be reviewed through the C.E.Q.A. and D.R.C. process. Attached is a list of local Certified Arborists. Call the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department at (909) 384-5217 if you have any questions. i Attachment 1/16/97 amt - 2 - LOCAL CERTIFIED A"ORISTS WC-ISA # 135 WC-ISA # 161 Paul Chaney, Owner Fred Roth, Owner P.E. Chaney, Horticulturist Fred Roth Tree Care 1532 Belle Street 6276 Mayberry Avenue San Bernardino, CA 92404 Alta Loma, CA 91701 (909) 884-9919 (909) 987-7165 WC-ISA # 166 WC-ISA # 231 Samuel Knapp, Owner John Conway Knapp Associates Tree Maintenance Lead Worker Post Office Box 8796 _ City of Fontana Riverside, CA 92515-8796 1648 Orange Way (909) 688-6043 Fontana, CA 92335 (909) 350-6770 WC-ISA # 285 WC-ISA # 286 David Roger, Susan Sims, Consultant Street Tree Superintendent Sims Pest & Disease City of Riverside 5535 Dodd Street 3900 Main Street Mira Lorna, CA 91752 Riverside, CA 92521 (909) 685-6662 (909) 351-6126 WC-ISA # 311 WC-ISA #453 James Asher, Owner Mark Cobb, President Consulting Forester Elite Landscape Post Office Box 2326 Post Office Box 5764 Lake Arrowhead, CA 92352 San Bernardino, CA 92412 (909) 337-2672 (909) 8879-1556 WC-ISA #463 WC-ISA 465 David Matias Mark Porter, Owner Assistant General Manager Mark's Tree Service Foothill Properties 5055 Sierra Vista 510 West Chase Drive Riverside, CA 92505 Corona, CA 91720 (909) 354-TREE (909) 737-6321 CERTIFIED ARBORLSTS HAVE PASSED WRITTEN AND FIELD EXAMS CONDUCTED BY THE W.C. I.S.A. TO OBTAIN INMRMATION ON CERTIFICATION, CONTACT THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE, POST OFFICE BOX 808, URBANA, ILLINOIS 61801, PHONE (217) 328-2032, FAX (217) 328-7483. 1/16/97 mn arborna CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Gustavo Romo, Assistant Planner FROM: Lynn Merrill, Solid Waste Manager DATE: September 11, 1997 E SUBJECT: Revised Plans for DP Type H No. 97-13, Phase I 500 Inland Center Mall (APN: 136-531-04) CC: Valerie Ross, Principal Planner; Adrienne Loa, Account Clerk; XEchelle Dyck, Environmental Projects Assistant The following conditions are applicable to the above referenced project. 1. Applicant shall install four compactors within the phase one site in each of the two service areas. For the mall commons, one compactor within each service area shall be assigned for commingled recyclables and one compactor shall be assigned for solid waste. Siting and physical configurations shall be approved by the Public Service Department prior to selection of equipment by applicant. 2. Applicant shall ensure that two compactors will be installed within the dedicated service area for the Robinsons-May building. One compactor shall be assigned to commingled recyclables and one compactor shall be assigned to solid waste for exclusive use by Robinsons-May. 3. Applicant shall incorporate into lease for Robinsons-May the requirement to divert, to the maximum extent possible, all recyclables, including but not limited to paper, cardboard, plastics and metals. Robinsons-May and its successors in interest shall coordinate with the Public Services Department on actual materials and program design prior to occupancy and as part of the mitigation monitoring. 4. Applicant shall coordinate with the Public Services Department for the development and expansion of source reduction and recycling programs through out the mall, including public outreach and education programs. Mitigation monitor shall arrange an annual tour to be scheduled 60-days prior to the anniversary of issuance of certificate of occupancy. 5. Applicant shall assume responsibility for billing tenants within mall for Refuse Services and shall coordinate with the Public Services Department to establish an appropriate monthly billing rate for service levels at the mall. bHN dUU . VULILL lU 7UyJ2ibµ25Jt5 5tv 1L " y( `J LJ h0 .UUL V .U1 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO STANDARD BUILDING kLrgiTIREMENTS POLICE DEPARTMENT 1994 DEVELOPMENTAL/ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CASE DATE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS The following special provisions shall apply to all new commercial or industrial buildings or those with 50t improvement or alteration: Garage-type doors. A. Garage type doors which are either rolling overhead, solid overhead, swinging, sliding, or accordion style doors shall conform to the following standards: 1 . Wood doors shall have panels a minimum of five- sixteenths (5/16) inch in thickness with the lacking hardware being attached to the support framing. 2 . Aluminum doors shall be a minimum thickness of .0215 inches and riveted together a minimum of eighteen (18) inches on center along the outside seams. There shall be a full width horizontal beam attached to the main door structure which shall meet the pilot or pedestrian access door framing within three (3) inches or the strike area of the pilot or pedestrian access door. 3 . Fiberglass doors shall have panels a minimum of six (6) ounces per square foot from the bottom of the door to a height of seven (7) feet. Panels above seven (7) feet and panels in residential structures have a density of not less than five (5) ounces per square foot. B. Where sliding or accordion doors are used, they shall be equipped with guide tracks which shall be designed so that the door cannot be removed from the track when in the closed and locked position. C. Doors that exceed sixteen (16) feet in width shall have two (2) lock receiving points, one located on each side of the door. Doors not exceeding sixteen (16) feet shall have one lock receiving point placed on either side of the door. A single bolt may be used in the center of the SRN BDO. POLICE Str 11 ' J( y;zo No .uuz r .uO Standard. Requirements - Police Commercial/industrial Page 2 door with the locking point located either in the floor or door frame header. D. All overhead or swinging doors shall be equipped with slidebolts which shall be capable of using padlocks with a minimum nine-thirty-seconds 99/32) inch shackle. 1 . The entire slidebolt assembly shall be constructed of case-hardened steel and shall have a frame a minimum of .120 inches in thickness, and a bolt diameter a minimum of one-half (1/2) inch, and shall protrude at least one and one-half (1 1/2) inches into the receiving guide. 2. -Slide bolt assemblies shall be attached to the door with bolts which are nonremovable from the exterior. Rivets shall not be used to attach such assemblies. E. Padlocks used with exterior mounted elide bolts shall have a hardened steel shackle a minimum of nine-thirty- seconds (9/32) inch in diameter with heel and toe locking and a minimum five (5) pin tumbler operation. The key shall be nonremovable when in an unlocked position. F. Doors using a cylinder lock shall have a minimum five (5) pin tumbler operation with the bolt or locking bar extending into the receiving guide a minimum of one (1) inch. G. Pedestrian access doors contained in garage type doors shall comply to the standards set forth in the below section. WindowslLocks/Door a (Including sliding Glass) The following requirements must be met for windows, locks, doors (including sliding glass) : A. All movable windows and sliding glass doors shall be constructed and/or equipped so as to prevent them from being lifted out of their tracks when in the closed position. B. Louvered windows shall not be used when any portion of JHn bVU. VUL 1Lt 111 :yuy$06 s4bod SLP 1219? 9:24 No .UU2 P .U4 Standards Requirements-Police Commercial/Industrial, Page 3 the window is less than twelve (12) feet vertically or six (6) feet horizontally from an accessible surface or any adjoining roof, balcony, landing, stair tread, platform, or similar structure. C. Swinging exterior glass doors, wood or metal doors with glass panels, solid wood or metal doors, shall be constructed or protected as follows: 1 . Wood doors shall be of solid core construction with a minimum thickness of one and three-fourths (1 3/4) inches. Hollow metal doors shall be constructed of a minimum equivalent to sixteen (16) -U-.S. gauge steel and have sufficient reinforcement to maintain the designed thickness of the door when any locking device is installed; such reinforcement being able to restrict collapsing of the door around the locking device. 2. Except when double cylinder deadbolts are used or safety glazing is required by Chapter 54 of the Uniform Building Code, any glazing installed within forty (40) inches of any door locking mechanisms shall be constructed or protected as follows: a. Fully tempered glass or rated burglary resistant glazing, or b. Iron or steel grills of at least one-eighth (1/8) inch mesh secured with nonremovable bolts on the inside of the glazing may be used; and framing for iron or steel grills shall be by one (1) inch by one-fourth (1/4) inch flat metal secured by nonremovable bolts, or C. The glazing shall be covered with iron or steel bare of at least one-half (1/2) inch round or one inch by on-fourth (I x 2/4) inch flat metal, spaced not more than five (5) inches apart and secured with nonremovable bolts. d. Items b and c above shall not interfere with the operation of opening windows if such windows are required to be openable by the Uniform Building Code. f Jnvr FLU . r UL-.L._L i u • 7V 7JZ704Z5Ji5 JL 11 ' y( 'J :24 NO .UUL r .U5 Standard'Requirements-Police Commercial/Industrial Page 4 D. All swinging exterior doors with the exception of aluminum frame swinging doors shall be equipped as follows : 1 . A single or double door shall be equipped with a double or single cylinder deadbolt . The bolt shall have a minimum projection of' one inch and be constructed so as to repeal cutting tool attack. The deadbolt shall have an embedment of at least three-fourths (3/4) inch into the door jamb/strike. The cylinder shall have a cylinder guard, a minimum of five (S) pin tumblers, and shall be connected to the inner portion of the lock b y connecting screws -of at least one-fourth (1/4) inch in diameter. All deadbolts will be equipped with a locked indicator. Exposed installation screws on double cylinder deadbolts shall be nonremovable. The provisions of this subsection do not apply where (1) panic hardware is required, or (2) an equivalent device is approved by the enforcing authority. Locking devices shall be mounted at a height of not less than thirty (30) nor more than fort-four (44) inches above the finished floor. 2 . Hinges for outswinging doors shall be equipped with nonremovable hinge pins or a mechanical interlock to preclude removal of the door from the exterior by removing the hinge pins . 3 . whenever a mail slot is located within forty (40) inches of the primary locking device on any exterior door it shall be covered by an interior hood which will discourage manipulation of the primary locking device. 4 . strikeplates shall be constructed of minimum sixteen (16) U.S. gauge steel, bronze or brass, a minimum of three and one-half (3 1/2) inches in length and secured to the jamb with screws a minimum of two and one-half (2 1/2) inches in length. E. All exterior double doors shall be equipped as follows: 1. The inactive leaf of double doors shall be equipped with automatic releasing metal flushbolts having a minimum embedment of five-eighths (5/8) inch into the header and threshold of the door frame or by panic hardware which contains a minimum of two (2) locking points, one located at the header, the omit Duu . ruL14,t to-yUyJ2S2f42SJti SEP 12 '9? 9 :25 No .002 P .06 St.andara.Requirements-police Commercial/Industrial Page 5 other at the threshold of each door. Double doors shall have a full-length astragal, constructed of steel a mi-nimum of 125 inch thick which will cover the opening between the doors. The astragal shall be a minimum of r_wo (2) inches wide, and extend a minimum of one inch beyond the edge of the door to which it is attached. The astragal shall. be attached to the outside of the active door by means of welding or with nonremovable bolts spaced apart on not more than ten (10) inch centers. F. Aluminum frame swinging doors shall conform to the following: 1 . The jamb on all aluminum frame swinging doors shall be so constructed or protected to withstand one thousand six hundred (1,600) pounds of pressure in both a vertical distance of three (3) inches and a horizontal distance of one (1) inch each side of the strike so as to prevent violation of the strike . 2. Aluminum frame swinging doors shall be equipped with a two-point locking mechanism consisting of deadbolt having a minimum bolt projection of one and one-half (1 1/2) inches, or a hook shaped or similar bolt that engages the strike sufficiently to prevent spreading and a metal automatic releasing threshold bolt having a minimum embedment Of five-eighths (5/8) inch into the floor. The deadbolt lock shall have a minimum of five (5) pin tumblers and a cylinder guard and shall be equipped with a locked indicator. G. Panic hardware, whenever required by the Uniform Building Code or Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, shall be equipped and installed as follows: 1 . Panic hardware shall contain a minimum of two (2) locking points on each door, one located at the head, the other at the threshold of the door, or 2 . On single doors, panic hardware may have one locking point which is not to be located at either the top or bottom rails of the door frame. The door shall have an astragal constructed of steel .125 inches thick which shall be attached with nonremovable bolts or welded to the outside of the omit Duu . r uuluc iu . .vu7,)O04bob StP 12 '97 9:25 NO .UU2 P .O? Standara Requirements-Police Commercial./Industrial Page 6 door. The astragal shall extend a minimum of six (6) inches vertically above and below the latch of the panic hardware. The astragal shall be a minimum of two (2) inches wide and extend a minimum of one (1) inch beyond the edge of the door. 3 . Double doors containing panic hardware shall have a full length steel astragal attached to the doors at their meeting point which will close the opening - between them but not interfere with the operation of either door. H. Installation and construction of frames and jambs for exterior swinging doors shall be as follows: 1. Door jambs shall be installed with solid backing in such a manner that no voids exist between the strike side of the jamb and the frame opening for a vertical distance of six (6) inches each aide of the strike. Finger joints are prohibited_ 2 . In wood framing, horizontal blocking shall be placed between studs at door lock height for three (3) stud spaces each side of the door openings. Trimmers shall be full length from the heads to the floor with solid backing against sole plates. I. In multiple occupancy office buildings all entrance doors to individual office suites shall meet the construction and locking requirements for exterior doors. J. In multiple occupancy buildings, interior walls dividing the individual suites shall not end at the false ceiling but shall continue to the real roof. K. Exterior transoms or windows shall be deemed accessible if less than twelve (12) feet above ground or adjacent to any pedestrian walkway. Accessible windows and transoms having a pane or opening exceeding ninety-six (96) square inches, with the smallest dimension exceeding six (6) inches, and not visible from a public or private thoroughfare shall be protected in the following manner: I. Fully tempered glass or burglary resistant glazing, or 2 . The following window barriers may be used but shall be secured with bolts which are nonremovable from the exterior: �nir Luu . r u�l .L iu • �v ioovoJO btF' 1L ' yf y 10 No .uuz r .ud Standard,Requirements-Police Commercial/Industrial Page 7 a. Interior or exterior steel or iron bare of at least one-half (1/2) inch round or one by one- quarter (1 x 1/4) inch flat metal spaced not more than five (5) inches apart and security fastened, or b. Interior or exterior iron or steel grills of at least one-eighth (1/8) inch metal with not more than a two (2) inch mesh and securely fastened. 3 . The protective bars or grills shall not interfere with the operation of opening windows if such _windows are required to be openable by the Uniform Building Code. L. Roof openings shall be equipped as follows! 1 . All skylights on the roof of any building or premises used for business purposes shall be provided with: a. Rated burglary resistant glazing, or b. Iron or steel bars of at least one-half (1/2) inch round or one by one-fourth (1 x 1/4) inch flat metal spaced not more than five (S) inches on center to cross the narrowest dimension of the opening being covered. if the narrowest dimension of that opening exceeds eighteen (18) inches, cross members shall be welded into place, not more than eighteen (18) inches apart beginning with a cross member at the center of the opening. Cross members shall be welded to each and every bar it crosses. The entire bar assembly shall be mounted inside the skylight and shall be attached to the building structure by means of machine bolts spaced not more than sixteen (16) inches apart or attached by means of an equivalent method approved by the enforcing authority, or C. A steel or iron grill of at least one-eighth (1/8) inch metal with a maximum two (2) inch mesh mounted inside the skylight and secured by bolts which are nonremovable from the exterior. d. These requirements do not apply on any �niN DL$U . r uLI�.L 1L •7uyJt525425Jt5 S.EP 12 '97 9:26 No .002 P.09 Standard'.Requirements-Pclice Commercial/Industrial Page 8 structure with a height of thirty-five (35) feet or more where there is no readily available roof access as determined by the enforcing authority. 2 . A1.1 hatchway openings on the roof of any building or premises used for business purposes shall be secured as follows: a. If the hatchway is of wooden material, it shall be covered on the inside with at least sixteen (16) U.S. gauge sheet steel or its equivalent, attached with screws. b: The hatchway shall be secured from the inside with a slide bar or slide bolts which are attached by nonremovable bolts. C. Outside hinges on all hatchway opening shall be provided with nonremovable pins when using pin type hinges, 3 . All air duct or air vent openings exceeding ninety- six (96) square inches on the roof or exterior walls of any commercial building shall be secured by covering same with either of the following: a. Iron or steel bars of at least one-half (1/2) inch round or one by one-fourth (1 x 1/4) inch flat metal spaced no more than five (5) inches apart and securely fastened, or b. Iron or steel grills of at least one-eighth (1/8) inch metal with a maximum two (2) inch mesh and securely fastened, or C. If the barrier is on the outside, it shall be secured with bolts which are nonremovable from the exterior. d. The above must not interfere with venting requirements, creating potentially hazardous conditions to health and safety, or conflict with the provisions of the Uniform Building Code or Title 19, California Administrative Code. M. Permanently affixed ladders leading to roofs shall be fully enclosed with sheet metal to a height of ten (10) feet . This covering shall be locked against the ladder >nvi LJL+u . ruLL\.L Lv - �Q70OO4OJO btr 1L .y( �0:1( NU .UUL t' .1U Standard. Requirements-police "Contme'rcial/Industrial ' Page 9 . with a case hardened hasp, secured with nonremovable ,*. screws or bolts and a padlock with a minimum three-eighth (3/8) inch hardened steel shackle, locking at both heel and toe, and a minimum five (5) pin tumbler operation with nonremovable key when in an unlocked position. ?singes on the covar will be prcyided wi;"h nonremovable pins when using pin-type hinges. N. A building located within eight (8) feet of utility poles, trees, or similar structures which allow access to the building's roof, windows, or other openings shall have such access area barricaded or fenced with materials to deter human climbing. O. The .following standards for lighting and address markings shall apply to commercial buildings : 1 . The address number of every commercial building shall be located and displayed so that it shall be easily visible from the street . The numerals in these numbers shall be no leas than six (6) inches in height and be of a color contrasting to the background. In addition, any business which affords vehicular access to the rear through any driveway, alleyway, or parking lot shall also display the same numbers on the rear of the building. 2 . Roof top address numbers shall be provided. They shall be a minimum of three (3) feet in length and two (2) feet in width and of contrasting color to the background. Numbers shall be placed parallel to the street address as assigned. Each building within a commercial complex shall have its own address/assigned number affixed to the roof. 3 . All exterior doors shall be equipped with a lighting device which shall provide a minimum maintained one (1) footcandle of light at ground level during hours of darkness. Fighting devices shall be protected by vandal resistant covers. 4 . All parking lots and access thereto shall be provided with a minimum maintained one (1) footcandle of light on the parking surface from dusk until dawn. S. Exterior lighting shall not shine away from subject property. ohiv DDu. ruLILL ili ;yUy$Obb4b.)6 SEP 12 '97 9:27 No .002 P.11 Standard Requirements-Police Commercial/Industrial Page 10 6 . All exterior lighting devices are to be "shake" proof and inaccessible to common reach or climbing and shall be placed at a height which will fully illuminate an average adult. 7. All parking spaces must be visible from at least one point from the interior of the building. P. interior night lighting shall be maintained in those areas that are visible from the street (ground floors i only) . Q. All exterior block wall fencing shall have intervals prova. Iding visibility corridors which will allow visibility of the interior from outside the wall, and these visibility corridors shall be placed at regular -intervals . This applies only to block walls visible from the street. R. Passenger elevators, the interiors of which are not completely visible when the car door(s) is open, shall have .mirrors so placed as to make visible the whole of the elevator interior to prospective passengers outside the elevator. S. When access to or within a commercial complex is unduly difficult because of secured openings or where immediate access is necessary for life saving or fire fighting purposes, a key override is to be installed in an accessible location. The key override shall be mastered to both the fire department and police department keys . T. Any structure four (4) stories in height or greater will have a repeater installed in its roof. SEE PAGE 10 ,)Ml. DVU. rULILL iU :13U93884838 SEP 12 '97 9 :28 No .002 P. 12 Standard Requirements Commercial/Tndustrial Page 10 Additional Conditions I r OATE FORM 90007599 GTE. Telg goong operations TRANSMITTAL SLIP �- - MC C�OR �,.,.BuPaR I+v 3 om ti1 ozXt► TO: SEND ATTACKED MAIL VIA COMPANY ❑ OUTSIDE �U s ❑ OVERNIGHT DISPATCH CARRIER I 1 L ❑ PLEASE YOUR ❑ FOR PER RETURN El 1:1 ACTION %=EST�R ❑ RETURNED ❑APPROVAL ❑ FOILOW UP FILE R AUTHORIZE LET's❑ DISCUSS ❑YSIOGNATURE ❑ FOR FILE OR SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FROM MC I NAME OR FUNCTION TEL NO. CITY OF SAN gip � yytwC PLANNING_ & BUILDING.SLIi:1�]EE;F,S�1FPptiRTME1!�FF 300 NORTH D MMT,, SAN BERN�RDINE�r 0.92418 (909) -WSOS? PROJECT REVIEW ROUTING PROJECT: Development Permit Type II,No gr-13 TO: MIKE HAYS-ERCIDRC Chair VALERIE ROSS-Planning Depamnent MIKE GRUBBS-Public Works Depamnent MATTHEW SWALBERG-Parks &Recreation.. GUY BURDICK-Fire Depanment LT. STEVE JARVIS-Police Department DON JACKSON-Development Services JEFF ZINNER-Economic Development BILL BRYDEN-Water Department r Agency ep LYNN MERRILL-Public Svcs. Dep"amnent COUNCILMEMBER ARIAS-Ward g3 JIM WATSON-Water Reclmnativn.Plant: OTHER: FROM Gustavo J. Romp-- d' Fb DATE: 'July 28, 1997 W � EIDRC MEETING DATE: August 14, 1997 i LOCATION (APN # ): 500 Inland Center Drive (Inland Center Mall); APN: 136-531-04. DESCRIPTION: A request to construct a:two4evel d' artrnent store eP (Robinsons M# and k -our level parking structure as Phase One of the Inland Center Mall expamoijw M C Co.rtmerc al Regional (Malls),. land use district. t!•�"e�FE.p Ta -f>lAC4W2 CEQA STATUS: Previously-adopted Environmental Impact Report. APPLICAiNT: Gresham, Savage, Nolden & TiIden OWNER: Mano Management, Inc. COMMENTS: ti <'dillil t ti (SIGNATURE) (DATE) CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING & BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTI 1 'F 300 NORTH 'D'STREET; SAN BERNARDIN0; G 92418 1 1384-307 AGENCY COMN ENT SIEET JULY 28, 1997 PROJECT: Development Permit Type u, No. 97-13 DESCRIPTION: A request to construct a two-level department stare (Robinson level parking structure as Phase One of the Inland Center Mall Magi and a four_ Commercial Regional (Malls), land use district. expansion in the' :R-1 LOCATION: 500 Inland Center Drive (Inland Center Mall); APN: 136-531-04. FROM: Gustavo J. Romo THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY PLANNING AND.,. .. . BUILDING SERVICES DEPART PLEASE REVIEW TgE.F�iCE4SEg INFORMATION AND RETURN THIS SHED'Wr YOUR. Q1irI ANDlOR RECOMMENDATIONS WITHIN 21 I?AyS OF RE ;4F TES FORM. IF WE RECEIVE NO COMMENT, WL WILL ASSN N CONCERNS. KEEP THE ATTACHMENT FOR YOUR FHXS.IF Y©U SO DESIRE. This project will be reviewed by the DRC on AUGUST 14, 199T THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS APPLY TO THE ABOVE REFERENCED ITEM(S): / 1 , �no- C--T 8- / - 97 . (SIGNATURE) (AGENCY) (DATE) 2 D AUG 0 4 1997 D CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & • BUILDING SERVICES ATTACHMENT "F" F MITIGATION MONITORING/REPORTING PROGRAM FXfiIBTT 'G" MITIGATION MONITORINGIREPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE INLAND CENTER MALL EXPANSION PROJECT Introduction This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared for use by the City of San Bernardino as it implements mitigation measures for the Inland Center Mall Expansion Project These mitigation measures were identified as part of City's environmental review process and Environmental Impact Report(SCH##94032045)prepared for Development Agreement 9l-01 that authorizes future expansion of the Mall. The Environmental Impact Report was independently determined by the City to be adequate. This Environmental Impact Report incorporates mitigation measures which were identified in the Initial Study which was used by the City to determine that the potential impacts of implementing the Development Agreement could cause a significant adverse effect on the environment This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) and the State and City CEQA Guidelines. CEQA Section 21081.6 requires adoption of a reporting and/or monitoring program for those measures or conditions imposed on a project to mitigate or avoid adverse effects on the environment The law states that the monitoring or reporting program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. This MMRP is formatted in a table that contains the following elements Applicant's General Responsibilities 1) The applicant (General Growth Development) is required to comply with all mitigation measures and complete all monitoring and reporting requirements assigned to it 2) The applicant, as applicable,is responsible for the preparation and submittal of all reports, studies, submittal requirements, as noted, and all associated fees•. 3) The applicant is responsible for obtaining the signature of the designated review agency or department for each applicable measure when it applies to future development at Inland Center Mall: and 4) The applicant is responsible for submitting completed compliance records to the City, where it is the applicant's responsibility for implementation. City of San Bernardino General Responsibilities 1) The City is responsible for reviewing and approving reports, studies, plans, etc., as identified in this MMRP; and 2) The Planning Division is responsible for maintaining the project file and monitoring requirements as identified in the MMRP. organization of the inY an Mitigation Monitor Reporting proQra�n 1) The general impact category is identified in the first column of the table. Z) The mitigation measures are recorded in the second column of the table. 3 The specific process for implementing the measure is identified in the third column of the table. 4) The mitigation milestone for each measure is provided in the fourth column of the table. 5) The responsible monitoring party(ies) is identified in the fifth column of the table. 6) Prerequisite actions for initiating the monitoring activity is listed in the sixth column. 7) The seventh column in the table provides space for the City to verify that the applicant has complied with the measure. The indiv;dual measures and the accompanying monitoring/reporting actions follow. They are listed in the same sequence as presented in the Project Initial Study and Final Environmental impact Report § � \ S § > � k 0 � � �tk � ■ 6 � � / ° k ■) . i $ k � Q C� kki J2 � \\ � / 5 ` � � § |I ■ ■ _ ) _ I g ■ ` �7 � � 2- u � 2\\ } kfa2 ) ± - a © £ ` � ■ 5 � ! � k | � 21 � X12 § � ■�$ � a & a as a\ � f � s �] :��= s § } ■ E % # ¥ s - � 2 § � _ a - s � � § � } t � 2$ ■ ■ ■ = � 2 §« 2 § a7 �7 = 2 } a § / • 0 � © 2 � 2� � a ! 2a� § � �/ & \ <_ � � !i ) , ! s - • . E � � - t2222m § ° § � # | 2 � a ! ! ®� � 2 � � �l 2 ! § �E 2 & � k � ® ■ § k % �2 � �$ ! E ƒ �=4II - E � �2 & ; q � �� § =� % $ ■ a | &$ § �� . | � � | � § EJ � / § tee ) \ § \ \ 2 % N O U ti a w •a m c � O oC E W o a � a 0 c o � 5 W gzC6 z � � U O M�1 m e Zw Z. `o �° o aW5 5 � 5 u u V1 uj V •� 1 0. oC m 0 0 1--i to 0. u 0-4 dl C + LQ C -a _ Q 0.1•e $ u m< ° e g6� a „ °o E " u ,o u e E C7 t7 1{ 'A > v� a r� e G w u E r� 0 c n F, —�' b° a a' b G S �°- S o > a o c t o 5 y•°° `� a u �a S m g E c ;� ° ° S a' 9- = E `off 0 � cu v. U Q V � M O U U w CE ••-S G m O C .L C a 0 d E u = Y € a -tR 5o a W y' W O O O O Z+ v� O 9 v W gz o� sE O O Z ° m ° m ° E u N [� W o. � � y � � a e ci o m F o - C ppi o 'c O. o Y Q m ma q m u �FFi c o c �oa o V Ta °O o G � a V .o •fi u 'fi' �0 c o o .fi ace o ,u S Pn? O a x s = o $ o ° u � E ep ucu��c -O _ W `c A •a U v v fi m o o LL 4 u '•• $ o u v 3 N C V O L T N A U °O Y C N u •o c u-, �a$ iS 1O Y Vi O b 'S -u = 0 $ o i g E s N Nm u L ., L 'S Y u c b p •O �t � 3 a s N ._aT{i� •C ` r < ae E E o Q V � _ �q 0 77 � Q W 5 � z C o W � a = o 0 Lt7 C7 U U m s � Zz Cc C0-4 < ° mm � Lu W � F ' ' Y y � U •O U CC CC u € € e b € € c b {U{�� f/� cV W •i CC o v E N Y m LL (Nj� G O � p G 2p G Y O O2 W r-4 yy Y O G Y � z ro m Nm ° o ° $° o y 0. SR S W S .3 G •o �, •W m� .e .. � c � U ,°,� o g o o n 'o u 7i Q GPt�icG c'> ti �' �i o: ° ° >,.a �" e'E n o $ Y m F O 3 E •� a F�F "' '.� tqq� c + Y ca _ c e u �i `� $ L° ° o p E m$ 6 $ o V° ° o 2 r Y u Z 3 € E Y B o > c v u o a c G1 a = 3 rJl •5 w d 'c - G o L4 G = s C L3] � 22 an 0 U a 0 o � m ° a o cy a o ° L• D U z o Gil O u � m u O 2 OZ 5 c o-o � E U 5~ 2 u E o •� � � c . � a LL Gyl E e ° ° e v v o °u CA to d � .L u 3 ° � � � ° c m E E b � � c � •c u oC � ctCJ Cg g E � Cc Z El c 2, a , E a "J o E a E o .z E S O > u 3 r� u x o $ Q rn v ° Or � � - � ;n°°_ E �,g., ` E u " '� c � y `�gO ° �`- 3 � c9 �3v � •� :? '� t � � r � U� 9 a E � a a V 0 U U �- a W C W O 6 vc OR o� Q m 5a N C V1 = m 0 U W u o E � ;a 5 z °_ Ia E 0 a s � Y W p O Fm O A W OD O v 5 a VLQ, V V W �, u y _ o § � U o V° o� s m •_ m CJ o V c 5 4u- o ° " o € a a 5 u G F--d U > v a u s r H0 io 03 u Z z G O C a 3 oil �� b `Oj, ~ _ .V � X z z m ,°„ c m o •5 u u b a$ 5 9 ° 00 ra " 'o b a Fc H u t > 03 c .i u ? c c.Be c 5 E Q °- C) (Q� o . a o 0 0 § ° B 2 u E o E oo $ '� a 9 > E •5 a b 3 S = 5 $ n. W L' o �' 00 3 Q v» 0 Nu N U u 00 � O 3 0 � a a > O'5 O , C� a `° u _ o = W O E r N ° U Z � � 0 H ►-� gg s � ° � u C NO vo C" U c u 7 CU o .-4 Of u '3 •� E € �, $ th .e°-pg E _ . yi t c o u = 12 a°�� Q = m rJl m s iL1 E > o n a o eC U S v 5 1� � •a w6 V 00 0 � Q a C),5 W Q OG u m� EE c ° � L ul D U U u m o � Z, C) 'n O E a u U bm m c u � w 6 rr� O e 5 O0 `o z 0 F- S r--i < � •[ u C G. O u L � u m u V u ° .24 U CA o LL. LQ H.� N 0. L v 'o o Z E E u m Tai c e E $ c c E u c a -�'' � 8 o > � g Et Q CA .5 b E o u .°_ m u u Q u u V Q 5 o ° ° .L 4 y d E n.D o o E r'u E E o E o L ° V-2 c z o u c J a ` � � � ? �'_ �' a .E v � E .� t � �' � •S G Fi � �n ` .D � a o LL; < F— U all 0 � Q r„ U U a W w ° Y = � PL ark u m wt c a 5 O V u O ■ �' S u u w w O �Fp O � G W C7 � C.1 61 C4 � � m c O m u 5 w � O Z o u o o r < � o W Y O p G U ^^ v u b.0 n E b v 5 €: o c F E u u o c °c.� F r E E QV=i o$ o ° 3 � p ° 0 Q o $ 0 C j y fn Y — 45 {N� W Q fn v V 0 0 U W 7 m c c a 0 0 0 0 o p 0. p d u ° ° < � < a o f—� 0 rn �' U O ° o u ° > _ > o o Y° g• a 2 o S ° p eo $Tt �u. ° 53 ay 6 5 LULL u u p a u i D dQ. _ N a Zi' u u U D _ 3 . Asa' . o co O 3 0 3 3 o e k u z :a g L o `o F 5 � E E o o •5 m u u C �; 0 5 u o ' •° Arc ° u o � 05 z �.. •� � � Q v) o $ 5 'A 9 ` 5 c T, o E o g 5 t , 5 'D o o 5 o $ p �l cp m o `5 2p c c 6 m 0 �C p ,O u p '7 •,� Y 4 U C OG Y L ,L •OD a C E UE 2 6 € -- o 5 u '� z u ° E •c .E °D E u m q 6 ° r 'a ° a a Qu E8g 5 ° F>u 31 b E a u ry 5 = d 5 E < V � 0 U U � W 0 5 m p v v G. E z � oc m 5 LLI W gzo¢. 9 rn L O z O .V. U y ate' E o c (� 0O o u L 0 0 U vNi u� a > o a L C C O T _ u O a 'u m o t° Ea U c .o •� V i to y L Y•a S o ° ° c ° �¢a � Ej5 � u •a 0 a i N O � a U w W 7 p 0 W ° o a 0 o � � U O VJ O (� u l Z WZ G ° Oz � W � o a Z1O L .fie Z m rn A .E 5 �FF o f Q OC�cC a c 6 u u E E E E L 5 0 o c u , ° p v U F+ $ L u u E �.a � u � L u �� id m u � � � 8.. i` �, :e .5 u •n o � �- s o $ = a D rj .D o°v it -Q.-0 o X 3 U w < V � 0 � \ u § § � . CY « § / 9 kk � e $ C) ƒ ce ® £ � \ G � _ � � / \ �\ i\ a � ■ ± rk � � }7 � ! ■ = a � I § ■ � � z J § 7 - - E2 � ■ ■ . ■ ® ys � � = EG � a � »f� ` ■ � a a &f ; � e . - ■ j ¢ { \ } � / k ) o } ) g < K A W •'-� � E z P E $ U a s W E a � o � u m Ll � u c o '9 g 0 0 Q c N zoo m o � E � gza S E l 6 a� W � C U N 7 C7 g o u id � 3 V N U y o N o ^. I-1 W w 0 •° N N '3 c L3 a U V) i DY a NO °v UG o N U a N ai E c ` Y � ;�I� `� .. o " C � S � '•- � a � ia7 •a° c N � � •� � c g'� "' cQv t O A A L w O z' W o S o �' u � C t"e 9 S p °€ " � �''+ � ; 3 $ � H •5 � rn s, c A E 'c `-' G .n v �n h PG 'w QC7 Q o•� Yo `°Y�' '`o o �E_ .€m 5°S y .Q2S°', �E �A'�C � c S y o v u Y c u u o�._-•'o u'o c �°.e v 3 c Y o Y c c o Y a �o'o H� E �i >`s� �S uo CG S C e o 4n o i E ' m ° m 5 `0 5 •E a o Qo t e S O '� L p C � • � .QO $ - ' uYe � , o = - � � � 5 °° ;ergQ ° 9 `} � � (� � ,$ .°. y � ,�, f $ •S � E 3 � � 3 � :y E $ .. 'AVrv�° o !' a - 'CL C3 c � . � cftl U 9 0 c •� V N u a C1 7 N ° < 0 F- U U }ri F 4z = ox a� o � Qw a rA gz � w OF Q Ln Q g � U C'n u. tail U H„q a W � a L V Q �o z 0 U U u`. a W Boa � � a � a a^ y = u cod v Liz v c z ° � m a C4za !/1 o N U W T C7 v v u O a 79 W tnG Du .° 4 r u uo oC b E of o r C c c°o A c p 9 G u '—E p 3 y o v v e o p e u 3 >F o o WL -0 Q rn u u— a u b o 3 — °c .r ° v m ° c V Q o E iS fn ° ° �° u `dam y 3 J u r o c �p o v c m t� iy v v $ o v �° '0 o o v ° w 2 ° h t 'c 06 o w Z :� 0 0 9 o vi a vb o a o V � 0 p O § § � . z /§ § $ / � � � \ § � / \ \ � � � \ \ � � � 7 \ � U $ � \E � f2 {{ti-5 .6 );`}-■�IE��| �\w2! a:® «| =2§ =a5 ® 2 < � ` = % \ »eI7a, e�/` t=ƒe e2 \]& a�.■ ee ■ ) 5a » t - ■ © oe . . w \ < I/ \� # ; � %f � � t * a t� ■ � = % ) ! - ' � & & } a |I (� § » « - ■ , § . ■ } = ' ! k �� ~ � � ( � ` k « K � \ | \ f7t7t} t } £ � aau � . ■ [_ 2 � IaI � � IE £_ . _ �� � \ \ � 00 im 0 U U � a w Nz Sox a� o � a 0. w � � oa V1 LL1 zw z cr-Io o � LU H U w W U MCI Ow. W � a E ` •" 10 ° m o o -v �' a m� ° •a° a N '� :° u u =a .°, L E u � yv o S yak f.ta rj, m o u _ o 5va E E a'u S � vi c - Z L V o� 0 � a U ti W 7 � z j O a U. o. wv Lri zoa Z i W zw Z oz C7 E� U ti u. u U ~ a w � a 3 ry ti 2 tz ° 3 c c ° vi �° a 3 `d �d o°C °c c o o �° a u 3 0 3 _ o h L �Z Q W V 0 N O U k. a w � z pox a� o d wp R o °' C/1 W z Zo 0-4 � w c� U CA lil �. w U UU N ow., a W h a z u •z �o'E c° c `� ° E .6 p u E � " � � g ° �_ s �� •Kge °`° � _° ado ` " s < En 2 y (� w or •5i � �' E � $ c �b o 5 7 v u $ U �° •9 E V 'g " c u ° E E = E v ° u c c E E 75. �5 vti 5 . s d Zw Z v N z 0 � a U G+ a w � z 5ooc CIO a� o a V1 m y W Z ao O gg U H U C�� W a `o u a� a b o .. E vbi < v u go N v if > d� aa 'A b me 00omE ur � o N Q o o o p a § � � c uH vN � b' v V N N O � a V U � a W � z pox a� o a W V J CG rTl `i' o F- g 'z � W Z ao C7 E•r U �+- W U C�� W � a �o e a p u E s � a v � � M = N a O fi P e � < U M a > o •a U _ Z pox � 8 E ° ° < CL o C a s o � S z a y o VI < N U H W � C C6 ) to 0 E—� g g •o ,� 5 n W ate' E ►'1 d tY $ & o w h a a•o :E u $ 4" vy e Al 3 ° > 2 na o S v •- p L' o c E w w '� o E o w 3 w ?3 < EA o g p ° 9 E •°- `° E > z v 5�5 o o �u o �° Q m C9 pC> °o r� ° e `c gpp En Yg u � � 6UC5 't3 .° a 5a �a `o3i : � S a � .•; � € S'J 't3 sa E < S �5 •c :� T 3 W < o 0 h m N O � a U U u. W� j o oc € �r� a O 0 a a? u 9 C7 °c LM v cn Z _ ° Ro S v w O z ° b Qo �7 WdOG X30 U s u o v E Q h u e a € a ° ° i.-. u a° •3 off ° a � ova 'fR a L —o _ � a I k IY. { N FF� ; U u. W 7 CY 5 o . 6 u v 0 Ln Al z � a m Sza U u 5 ° z � z o � O < N Li Lt] •. 0 0 I••�1 y p(, � � o 6 O N 6 O T 5 �a$ � 3 � 6 ' � ° o � u`o' r' vo � IDwNt F o u o b E vi c 5 0 o T ■ c' $ o E � � E p 0. E 2 b r Vj L a x �Ol vbi 5 C c E � � Q Liu v �o N O U U u, Elf) z pox c'� o o � C. O Q � > V W C7 °c_ zoo € � z ` COO U W S Z Oz O Q O U V S r p u u °0 c _ h r O K W O 7 U ~ C6 n 5 0 U o � FV 6'O !•' e G �_ 5 : S o $ S > v — r� A ° 3 o c ° _ G S `^ o . $ S o a o ° a E Q En 0 o oL CC a o o V E a b o o c s� C E.m u S e a L o 4 S > p o u `o �L� 'o a — ° L p L ❑ S ¢ - c .� °e E B c v L .T> E o o oL. 3 S'-s v ° x � � ° S a ' °e $� t$ S ° : rl Q V N O � a U U t% a w 0 Sox � a v zoo � � o � N U W T a-j p z o 0 u h U L' u 0 zo: d sac = e V 00 N Z O 6 U a W aoa � CY 5 � a Y o. y � u v W (7 °c zoa � gza d W zW � a Z C) o G V d cl W W rJ O U o � n� o n u c T r� u rtl 2 a •- tS U u �i cJ x •E " > O � 'S `� C3 V A o u _ 5 O a O C p o E a _ rs ❑ ❑ o - < ° G ° < ° m a V c o c 3 ra a o v _ O u O � V � •� � � Q2 `a' F> �� � go 0. a.- _ ' 5 GE c 3 i 9 F- S E v �3 'a v� 'a 2i ❑ �i �a E W Z� Q W V o� N O � a U U � W C wQw �, E a 9 a a_ 03 �i v z a S `o U W u O c o u u u � 5 t% W � o •o a o a° a ��QQjj •� o u t C � �' T 'a O �cyy 5 a.��+ b o � E v `d L 2 �� „EE $ € m H ° �" � •= o o E- :°_ c d G 0 a Q� U ° :� o 0 o a u e E ❑ °° Z� W V 0 z 0 U � w pox � Q ao m Leioo € Gn gza n � o U W ° z Liz a Q c S !g W o € caw 9 O 7 a� � a t u$ z I V,a C L o e u -5 E Q ° a o f aZ F. „ $ o Q �« g g $ y Q W M O F � v U � W J Fr cA z 5oa a� o a m C7 N w z a ° rA N � ° a ° 5 _ U 'A u w a 0 3 V) a y 0 J� a E ° fbb s ^ E e 4 w o o m u e Q v=i V Q a N e�1 z 0 a w Nz Boa a� o a W V+ a/ Z u b m bG co b°G im OG Q � QN C, v1i C, v5i ba be w CJ CJ Z oz S U eo'> c.�.E b u c c y �FF v o u c v c LL LLl °'C u FE a O FBI ra c .$ o e'O u u L C.a u �•Ig w U0paso � E 'u FFxgp ._yy � p m 1X C as Y C 7}p� Y yC y m LO to C " E Z p A V 5 C 6 O O Y > G O ■ V 7 Y N Y }■ t c_ E > v = € o 3 !9 _m g Ly S v VQ a c 'R > s — vo � o o co 3 R a �N E o � _ � � a 0 6 0 re3 :� ° 3 c8 � wo � Q M M O Q U � a W °m °m 500 Bin a ° ° o O ° C C z F. W O O u V� x°j6 oNN w v v CA MWW 5 5 5 Q � 5ma 5m 56'0 ►�1 5� gg 215 2.1-0.c VC S c5 8 r. iil 6 O U ob e0 c v c c b a 5 m 0-4 mw. 0. CAL rJ- H 4 A o'D 'i O'V7.p.?u 'a O 'y O L sj• P _o u €c °Y c Vl t� t� N a �mStr3 °�u �vGS �c $ u ti u O O Q c i q � a g,p 0 •R o � g ° o z x '> '� u e 9 u s ' 6 a $ c S c o >m ae25 ua Q V � M O � a U w c om O L O y O OV � o� u D O F h. O � V V m $ 9 rA C) O Q C QQy, 5 � o�9 - 5� CLo Z ° y°. im b Co v CCC 3 � 3 � 3� 5 o 0 p o o a € -,E t1, c a m °- ia ril $ ? q e c b e v c .c Eo FpF u a E °ate y a F c .1 9 p 'inn o c u z ij `-' m 78 C u Q � b o _ � m c u •;S u �d k a o rJl � o o C o ° e $ " ko.a .0 `o o E c 33 g a a s �i •a c u o ° g a @ a c g E c,o m e ' Q a ' a � Q v en 0 � a U ri a w Nz 0 aFo haw w � W O � F ►„4 F w '2 u v 2 C o to 9 U rA " ti 5 5 A •t O C 1�1 nw M a, w ° a 1 c o W " a � o ° �3 C7Q � ' � ii •- v m ° , ° , T�i , s r� � S w � Q v � M O � a U U � a w W ° (tj u a� o a " a W O � � U R Z a 5 G] V W T U 6 O W 7 t Z � o 5 s � C) cal H Fg € uE g o � H ' u U � amp 5 a 0-4 W CL. s IE 0 ee V V n e+� 0 � a a Nz Boa a� o � Qw a w0 Q Lr, So °' W O � F Q ►�-1 � w E� U U c� w � a z 3 � .50 � w 5 � a E � ffi m o 3 c � � -� 'o ��'E � •4 0 '� � � r< = o � o a c€ 6 � � �.g eao� � `o u u �pe 6 � $ •° � 9.� e ' ° .° o r .. p2 '1 6r� a�•v 3 ° ° � ° = � �' 'S �' o � $ �v bt�4 � $ 8 �, o � +° v 00 M O a U � W 7 F� j O oG a� o o. V1 UZI W � N 0 C:7 E-+ U � .. u. tv uj U W � a � m c v a G €j ri 'S j •D 7 T.F '�i O 'G �u a a bo M O U U w a w ° � m 0 W.1 p U Al C) ° e eu v/ pc c2 V vA m c m z c m E-� g g •s:= C7 W C6 3 o E e U o u � � es�35 _ v s .a o 0 o h 9 u y` e u i+5 0 0° E m v ,7j o o s `� t ww u E s ig E CA ° ° d Q °c•`� me ° '`+05 ° � < osfSZ '� °a it g95 'dae € °a 6oS .4 aSy 6.E C7 M .a z 0 0 a U Uu`. a w � o � .L c Nz m � � o a E ° u m a w o ° Wd v U U z - a S� 5 � za o � as m u m r� rj CQ > S m $ E Q OF o 2 5 a s �� O •� U C m ° � � i. Y m Y Ui t c V1 UrA '� E•� m � ` Yi e G u �I U o °c yt ;L w E u� � Gr U v uv V Y e _ V L S d'u u E ° c a = 5 ` o om� a $ $ 5 c u '0-o. -0 o '3 fJ{ 07 Q cn 3 1° �•�'s ,�`o r� � u._ a � V £ �3 .] miSr+ u Y£ v E a � 2 `o m $ E a t 9 5 tt S c EE �E:5 oS � $ � w� �� S $41 .�i So•tea $ S E o> $ o 6o ra u2_ �t� o.Yi t5•5 .0 � Q o N - h� i v 0 a U �W w v F � m a5o o� o a � a � m 4 E•c h.a 0 Al .� U No � o om W a 0O z o c H � g om � c 09 H Z U � _ U o d u a u 5 L v eo a m 3 o 0 O �s" r mo3 � s X27 < S Gm.a �;•� � � �.� ` •• •� LE -�'m c �•- � Ep � c - ri � a N O � a U U � o m Sox 793 O 6 o, S 0 O m u � 5 N W S c. O Z m p c gom H9 arm uoc� `- Y a 5C ap �p rp E p R 3 ;G �' Y 5 €j 'yQ�•.tJ u pP�p• s C- T 1i Vi O N'L 6 p �4 Luc 3 y S c C op = O$ a p u 5io g e3tl c E >'B T L = C L5 a C7 �•.�m., �•c� e '� c v� a� $'� '� o a a 5 v � ae b... �Z E W f7 I M O U U � W c m c ago 0 � Q � m 0 tal C� U r' o zoM c > m Zz Z Fo O Q �, a 9a� 5 r m° u � s �st "1 CL v FFu a F� � F2 rr ig ° Q vii m b 5-o p v u o E o 9 em u •Q a o� � g a riE ci HE 'r= -cc •v 3 E E u $i 1 'E r vE 'o CZfi ae E E m 5 h `o o 0 2 �+ s aCg 6 9 .� a 6ora a° mid E x t3 rib J C C E Cg E C� 0 U w a W � m � z 500 o a� o V a � E � C7 zoo � gza � a W a O Cal 0 a v 000 E-� `o o o. C� 3 u A� O y a S cc C € � p U G Q vii � �a � SvSi g oa ot�t � K0F F'" p i Y e G • 7 C7 Lp• V ��r<t14AR C I T Y O F bernardino ^DED 1N RECEIVES"Ci P CLEP.� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES '97 OCT 24 A11 :18 M I C H A E L E . H A Y S D I R E C T O R October 23, 1997 Law Offices of Marlene A. Fox 2031 Orchard Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO UPHOLD THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE'S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TYPE II NO. 97-13; Phase I of Inland Center Mall Expansion (Robinson's-May); 500 Inland Center Drive (APN: 136-531-04). Dear Ms. Fox: Please be advised that the above referenced appeal has been scheduled on the Mayor and Common Council Agenda for Monday, November 3, 1997. The meeting will be held at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, First Floor City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino. Pursuant to San Bernardino Development Code §19.52.020, the City is required to provide notification of not less than 10 days prior to a hearing. The staff report to the Mayor and Common Council will be available on Thursday, October 30, 1997 after 3:00 p.m. You may pick up a copy of the report at the Planning and Building Services Department counter or a copy will be mailed to you by the end of said day. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (909)384-5057. Respectfully, Gustavo J. Romo Assistant Planner cc: DPII-97-13 Case File Rachel Clark, City Clerk Henry Empeno, Deputy City Attorney Gresham, Savage, Nolan & Tilden c/o Mark A. Ostoich 600 North Arrowhead Avenue, Suite 300, San Bernardino, CA 92401 3 0 0 N O R T H D ' S T R E E T , S A N B E R N A R D I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 4 1 8 - 0 0 0 1 (909) 384-5071 /5057 • F A X (909 ) 384 .5080 T JOHN K.MIRAU* 599 No. "E"St.,Suite 205 �A VIV O F F I C E S o f San Bernardino,CA 92401 MARK C.EDWARDS telephone: (909) 8880200 ROBERT W.CANNONt STANLEY A.HARTER* MIRAU, EDWARDS, CANNON, HARTER&LEWIN facsimile: (909) 384-0203 MICHAEL J.LEWIN A P R O F E S SI C:)N c o P T I N RC ' -� 6'e I�;(_F 4 'Certified Specialist,Taxation Law,The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization ^ t^ n 222 E. Olive Ave.,Suite 1 tCertified Specialist, Estate 'Q'7 NOV .S p«� �}q Redlands,CA 92373 Planning,Trust and Probate 9 L�e J 1 ,! �./ Law,The State Bar of California telephone: (909)793-0200 Board of Legal Specialization facsimile: (909) 793-0790 November 3, 1997 C1013-101 Ms. Rachel Clark, City Clerk City of San Bernardino 300 N. "D" St. San Bernardino, CA 92401 Re: Appeal to Common Council of Planning Commission Action; Development Permit Type II No. 97-13, Phase 1 — Inland Center Mall Expansion (Robinson- Mays) Appellate: Central City Company/Carousel Mall Dear Ms. Clark: The undersigned appeared at the Common Council meeting on this 3rd day of November, 1997, for the purpose of making a special appearance on behalf of Marlene Fox, who was unavailable to make the appearance. When the above-referenced agenda item was considered by the Common Council, 1 attempted to speak and make a special appearance on behalf of Marlene Fox. Prior to that time, I turned in a speaker's slip indicating my presence and desire to speak. At the council meeting I was denied the opportunity to make the special appearance. 1 stood up and attempted to speak, but Mayor Tom Minor refused to recognize me or permit me to speak. It was my intent at the meeting to read into the record the statement attached hereto, as well as the letter from Marlene Fox to the City of San Bernardino dated October 30, 1997. Request is made that the enclosed documents be included in the official records of the City. Also, request is made that a copy of the enclosed materials be delivered to each of the members of the Common Council. Very truly yours, MIRAU, EDWARDS, CANNON, HARTER& LEWIN A Professional Corporation By chae ewin C1013-101\Corres\City of S.B.OOI.doc /������ LAw o"zcrs of M.ARLzNz A. Fox A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION c�rs�t`,`/ ,.�^� 3031 ORCHARD DRIVE. SUITE 200 M•RI.CN Lr A. ♦OX RECEIVED--CITY CLERK NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92000 (7141 975-8444 ')7 f11(�Y 'mV -3 P F :12 PAX (714) 1175-8447 October 30, 1997 Mayor Minor and Members of g•EOUEST FOR CONTINUANCE the Common Council City of San Bernardino 300 North I'D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Re: APPEAL OF PLANNING co)MSSION'S ACTION TO UPHOLD THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COM IITTEE'S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TYPE II NO. 97-13; Phase I of Inland Center Mall Expansion (Robinson's-May) ; 500 Inland Center Drive (APN: 136- 531-04) ; Our File No. 09450 Dear Mayor and Council Members: Eight days ago, on October 22, on behalf of our client, the Central City Company, we submitted the Appeal identified above and the requisite Appeal fee. In our letter to the City Clerk, requesting that the matter be set for hearing before the Council for a date certain, we requested that it be set for a date certain after November 5, 1997 because of my unavailability due to scheduled surgery and the fact that the surgery would keep me off my feet and away from my Office and scheduled appearances for at least 10 to 12 days. In addition, we checked with the City Clerk's Office and were advised that by submitting the Appeal on the 22nd, there would be insufficient time within which to have the matter placed on the Council agenda for the first meeting in November and that the second meeting would take place on November 17th. At the time of submitting the Appeal I had every reason to believe that I would be unable to appear before the Council during the first week of November but that I would be sufficiently recovered to enable me to appear by the date of the second Council meeting, on November 17. Naturally, I thought it was unnecessary and inappropriate to include that level of detail in the original request that the Appeal be set for hearing before the Council for a date certain after November 5. Subsequently I was advised by letter that the appeal was scheduled to be heard by the City Council on November 3 . With that information I conferred with my doctors at the earliest possible time to find out if it would be possible and/or advisable to Mayor Minor and Members of the Common Council October 30, 1997 Page 2 postpone the already scheduled procedures. As soon as I had a final response to my inquiries, I contacted Mr. Romo on October 29 and advised him of the situation, again pointing out that the original request for Appeal hearing requested that the Appeal be set for a date certain after November S. The conversation with Mr. Romo was memorialized and formalized in my letter of October 29 requesting the continuance so that I could appear and my client could be afforded effective legal counsel at the Appeal hearing. originally I was advised by Mr. Romo that I would have a response to my October 29th letter immediately after an early morning meeting at the City today, October 30 between the Director of Planning, the Principal Planner and City Attorney. After several telephone inquiries to the City today, I finally received a response just prior to 4:00 p.m. from Mr. Romo, advising that the matter would be submitted to the Council on November 3 . That information placed me in the position that to go forward With the surgery meant that I would be doing so, absent knowledge of the Council' s decision on the continuance and whether our client would be denied its due process rights of effective representation at the Appeal hearing. Attached to this letter are copies of my letter of October 29 to Gus Romo and my Letter of Confirmation of this date, October 30, 1997 to Gus Romo, confirming his final telephone message me at 4:00 p.m. today. As the matter now stands, it is my understanding that it will be submitted to the Council for its determination on Monday, November 3 . In that regard I would point out to the Council that the request for the continuance to November 17 simply means that the matter will not be heard for an additional 10 business days and that the 10 business day delay in hearing the Appeal could have no possible detrimental or prejudicial effect on the Applicant pursuing the ICM Expansion. No prejudice can occur because the Applicant has not yet submitted the site specific geotecbnical report required by City Ordinance to determine Mitigation Measures necessary to respond to liquefaction problems on the site. The site specific study is also a mitigation required by the Mitigation Monitoring Plan that was approved April 1, 1996 . In addition to the fact that the geotechnical report has yet to be submitted for review and approval by the City Geologist and City Engineer, construction plans have not been submitted to the Planning Department and Plancheck for the proposed demolition, construction of the department store and/or parking structure- Even if the finished working, engineering plans were submitted to the City sometime during the week of November 3, there is little likelihood that Plancheck and a thorough review of the geoteehnical information Mayor Minor and Members of the Common Council October 30, 1997 Page 3 could be completed within the 9 business days (remembering that the City is closed every other Friday) between Monday, November 3, and Monday, November 17, 1997. Under the facts and circumstances, there can be no prejudice to the Applicant by continuing the Appeal hearing from the 3rd to the 17th. On the other hand, our client, also an operating business and taxpayer in the City of San Bernardino, would be denied its due process rights if it is precluded the opportunity to have effective representation by having Counsel of its choice at the Appeal hearing. Finally, we make this request, asking for the same courtesy and consideration that has previously been afforded to the attorneys for the Inland Center, when Inland Center appealed the approval of the Downtown Theater Project in July 1997. At that time the 1CM, as Appellant, requested and was granted a continuance of the Appeal hearing from July 7, 1997 to the next regularly scheduled Council hearing on July 21, 1997. On behalf of our client, we respectfully request the same consideration be given in this instance. For all of the reasons set forth above, it is respectfully requested that the Council continue this Appeal hearing from Monday, November 3, to Monday, November 17, 1997. On behalf of our client and this Office, we thank the Council for its consideration of this request. Respectfully submitted, 7rt Ct. MARLENE A. FOX Attorney for Central City Company MAF/Lgl cc: Mr. Robert D. Curci DICTATED BUT NOT READ COPYLAW OYzces OF MARYxWE A. FOx A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 2031 ORCHARD DRIVE. SUITE 200 MARLENE A. £Olc _ NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92600 (714) 91S-8444 FAX (714) 073-6447 TRANSMITTED BY FAX October 29, 1997 Mr. Gustavo J_ Romo URGENT - RESPON$$ REQUESTED Assistant Planner Department of Planning & Building Services City of San Bernardino 300 North I'D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Re: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO UPHOLD THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE,S APPROVAL OF DEVSLOPMENT PERMIT TYPE 11 NO. 97-13; Phase I of Inland Center Mall Expansion (Robinson's-May) ; 500 Inland Center Drive (APN: 136-531-04) ; Our File No. 09450 Dear Mr. Romo: Our request for Appeal to the Common Council of the Planning Commission' s October 7, 1997 action, approving Development Permit Type II, No. 97-13, was delivered to the City Clerk by courier on Wednesday, October 22, 1997. In our Transmittal Letter, we requested that the Clerk schedule the Appeal for hearing before the Council "for a date certain after November 5, 1997 . " We then requested that we be advised of the date and the time when the Staff Report would be available for pick up. If you compare the October 21, 1997 letter to the Clerk to previous letters when we requested Appeal hearings, you will see that the October 21 letter was the first time I had ever requested that a hearing be set for a "date certain, beyond a specified date, i.e. after November 5. " The purpose of requesting that the hearing be scheduled for a date certain after November 5, was to enable me to be present for the purpose of representing my client, the Central City Company. Specifically, I requested that the matter be set for after November 5 since I knew that I would' be undergoing a medical procedure that has been scheduled for more than four months, on Friday, October 31, and that the scheduled medical procedure, is not voluntary, but necessary and will keep me off my feet at least through Wednesday or Thursday, November 5 or 6 . In fact, the letter to the Clerk for the Appeal to the Council, was prepared only after consultation with the surgeon involved. w Mr. Gustavo J. Romo Assistant Planner October 29, 1997 Page 2 Notwithstanding my specific request that the matter be scheduled for a date certain after November 5, I learned late in the day on Friday, October 24, that the Appeal had been scheduled for Monday, November 3, 1997 at 3 :00 p.m. The scheduling of the Appeal hearing for Monday, November 3, means either that the matter has been scheduled intentionally to deprive my client effective representation by Counsel of its choice, given my unavailability, or alternatively, I would have to cancel the scheduled medical procedure, against doctor' s advice thereby placing me in further jeopardy. This matter is further compounded given the information we have obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, regarding the "normal procedure" for scheduling an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to the Common Council. We have been advised by the Clerk's Office, that it normally takes 3 to 4 weeks for an appeal to be scheduled on the Council Agenda. Further, that ordinarily, an Appeal filed on the 21st or 22nd of any month, would "normally" be placed on the Council Agenda for the second Council meeting the following month, or in this case, on November 17, 1997 . Even more disturbing than the fact that Planning and Building Services determined to fast track this matter is the information that we obtained from the Clerk's Office that the Appeal filing deadline for Monday, November 3 Council meeting agenda was on or before October 17, 1997 and that any Appeals received after October 17, would normally have been scheduled for a Council meeting on November 17 or later. In my telephone conversation with you earlier this afternoon, I specifically asked why the date of November 3 was selected and secondly, why, given my request to the City Clerk when filing the Appeal that the matter be scheduled for a date certain after November 5, why this Office did not receive a call or inquiry as to our reason for making that request or my availability to appear at a Council hearing prior to the 5th. Since I was in Court through late Thursday, October 23, 1997, in San Bernardino, I did not become aware of your letter until the afternoon of Friday, October 24 . For your information, since that time I have been endeavoring to reschedule the medical procedure, to no avail. Thus I telephoned you today to advise you of the position in which both my client and the undersigned have been placed due to the expedited, fast track fashion that this matter has been scheduled for hearing before the Council . In addition to the foregoing, this letter will confirm that you suggested during our telephone conversation this afternoon that the matter may have been expedited at the request of the Applicant, so Mr. Gustavo J. Roma Assistant Planner October 29, 1997 Page 3 that the Applicant would not encounter delay. This letter will further confirm that I then asked if in fact the Applicant had completed "plan check" , had submitted all of the required geotechnical/liquefaction reports, that the reports had been reviewed and signed off by the various technical and engineering personnel on behalf of the City, thus putting the Applicant in the . position to pull a Building Permit immediately after November 3 . Your response to my inquiry was that the reports have not yet been submitted and in fact, the "plan check" procedure has not yet begun. At that point I asked how then could scheduling the Appeal for the next Council hearing, i.e. November 17, create delay for the Applicant. You responded that in fact, it could and would not. In light of the fact that continuing the hearing date from November 3 to November 17 will neither delay nor prejudice the applicant, but will cause severe repercussions for the Appellant and Appellant's Counsel, we are again requesting that the hearing date be get for a time certain, to a date after November 5, 1997. This would allow the Appellant to be represented by Counsel of its choice and Counsel who has at all times continuously represented Appellant in this matter and has the background necessary to afford Appellant adequate representation at the Appeal hearing. In addition, it would allow the undersigned to go forward with the necessary surgery, without additional, unnecessary stress regarding the conflict in the scheduling. May I please have the courtesy of a response to this request at the earliest possible time. Thank you for your anticipated courtesy and cooperation. very truly yours, 7UENE A. FOX MAF/Lgl CC: Mayor and City Council City Clerk Michael E. Hays, Director, Department of Planning and Building Services Henry Empeno, Deputy City Attorney Robert D. Curci ORIGINAL BY MAIL i nw o»cEs of MARLENE A. Fox A PROFESSIONAL COPPORATION 2031 ORCHARD DRIVE, SUITE 200 HAALENC A. FOX NEWPORT ®EACH, CA 02660 (7141 vas-04- FAX 1714) 076-6447 TRANSMITTED BY FAX October 30, 1997 Mr. Gustavo J. Romo LETTER OF CONFIRMATION Assistant Planner Department of Planning & Building Services City of San Bernardino 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Re: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO UPHOLD THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE'S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TYPE II NO. 97-13; Phase I of Inland Center Mall Expansion (Robinson' s-May) ; 500 Inland Center Drive (APN: 136-531-04) ; Our File No. 09450 Dear Mr. Romo: This letter will acknowledge the two telephone conversations we had yesterday on October 29, 1997 and the messages I left for you on this date, October 30, 1997, as well as the messages I received from you on this date. In our final telephone conversation yesterday afternoon, Wednesday, October 29, at approximately 5:25 p.m. , you advised me that the Director of Planning and Building Services, Michael E. Hays, and the City Attorney would have no response to my inquiry regarding continuing the November 3rd Council hearing for presentation of the Central City Company Appeal, notwithstanding my original letter to the City Clerk, until they had first reviewed the additional letter you requested during our first telephone conversation yesterday, the 29th_ Thereafter, we transmitted to you my letter of October 29, emphasizing that we had originally requested that the Appeal hearing be set for a date certain sometime after November 5, 1997 and the basis for making that specific request. Our three-page letter was transmitted to you by FAX at 5:35 p.m. yesterday, within five minutes after we spoke by telephone. You advised that the Planning Director and the City Attorney or his representative and the Principal Planner (unnamed) would meet first thing this morning to discuss this matter and that you would notify me of their decision I Mr_ Gustavo J. Romo Assistant Planner October 30, 1997 Page 2 sometime prior to Noon today. As I told you yesterday, it was necessary for me to go to Los Angeles, for certain preparatory work at UCLA today. I continuously checked with my Office for messages and when I learned that we had heard nothing from you this morning, I telephoned you at approximately 11:30 a.m. and left a message on your voice mail requesting information regarding the decision by the Director, the City Attorney and the Principal Planner on the requested continuance . Later this afternoon, I learned that our answer machine logged a call from you to our Office at 1:07 p.m. , advising that as of that time, you still had no response to my inquiry of Wednesday, the 29th and the letter that was FAXED requesting the continuance. At approximately 3 :20 p.m. today, I called again to inquire if there was a response to my inquiry and my letter, requesting that the matter be continued. You advised that you still had no information to provide but that you hoped to be able to get back to me by 4 :00 p.m. I again emphasized that I would need a response today and that I was approaching the "point of no return" with regard to the scheduled medical procedure. Finally, you called this Office and left a message at 3 :47 p.m. stating that you had been advised to inform me that the Director, the Administrator and the City Attorney have decided to refer the Central City Company request for a continuance to the City Council at the Monday, November 3, 1997 Council meeting. This means that the issue of continuance will need to be decided by the Council when it is presented to them on Monday, November 3 . Given the timing, the way this matter has been handled and the City's failure to either honor our original request or to respond to our request submitted both telephonically and in writing yesterday, October 29, I have been left with no choice but to advise my client that it is necessary that I go forward with the necessary medical procedure that has been scheduled. If all goes well and nothing unforeseen develops, I anticipate returning to my Office on either Thursday or Friday, November 5 or 6 . Unfortunately, because the Staff Report was not available until after 3 :00 p.m. today, there was insufficient time for anyone to pick up the Report, deliver it to this Office in time for review prior to my departure. It is my understanding, that my client will pick up the Staff Report and Federal Express the Report to our Office for delivery tomorrow, Friday, October 31. Of course, I will have no opportunity to review the Report until my return, when it may then be a moot point, depending on the Council' s action on Monday. i i i, Mr. Gustavo J. Romo Assistant Planner October 30, 1997 Page 3 Under the circumstances, the City's position is difficult to understand. We have at all times dealt in good faith and made every effort to cooperate as we pursue our Client' s rights as an operating business and taxpayer in San Bernardino. The expedited, fast track procedure being employed in this instance appears to be for the sole purpose of denying the Central City Company the right to appear and participate in the public hearing process through counsel of its choice. In the 25 years I have been working with governmental agencies, as special counsel, Assistant City Attorney and representing landowners, I have never before experienced an agency denying a requested continuance in such an arbitrary fashion - for the obvious purpose of doing everything and anything conceivable to prevent an effective appeal presentation. Thank you for your efforts to be courteous. Very truly yours, A&%b t a. F-ex MARLENE A. FOX MAP/T,gl ;dy Gd�(` DICTATED BUT NOT READ ORIGINAL BY MAIL cc: Mayor and Members of the Common Council City Clerk Michael E. Hays, Director of Planning Building Services Robert D. Curci JOHN K.MIRAU* 599 No. "E"St., Suite 205 MARK C.EDWARDS LAw O F F I C E S o f San Bernardino,CA 92401 telephone: (909) 888-0200 ROBERT W CANNONt STANLEY A.HARTER* MIRAU, EDWARDS, CANNON, HARTER&LEWIN facsimile: (909)384-0203 MICHAEL 3.LEWIN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 'Certified Specialist,Taxation _ Law,The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization 222 E.Olive Ave., Suite 1 tCertified Specialist,Estate �,v t.��� • Planning,Trust and Probate Redlands, 923 9) 0 Law,The State Bar of California telephone: (909)793-0200 Board of Legal Specialization „� P�12:45 facsimile: (909)793-0790 November 6, 1997 $97 NO'S C1013-101 Ms. Rachel Clark, City Clerk City of San Bernardino 300 N. "D" St. San Bernardino, CA 92401 Re: Appeal to Common Council of Planning Commission Action; Development Permit Type II No. 97-13, Phase 1 — Inland Center Mall Expansion (Robinson- Mays) Appellate: Central City Company/Carousel Mall Dear Ms. Clark: Enclosed you will find a declaration of the undersigned with various attachments pertaining to the Common Council meeting on November 3, 1997, Agenda Item No. 33. Request is made that the enclosed documents be included in the official records of the City. Also, request is made that a copy of the enclosed documents be delivered to each of the members of the Common Council prior to today's Council Meeting. Very truly yours, MIRAU, EDWARDS, CANNON, HARTER& LEWIN A Professional Corporation By,-, 'Michael J ewin C1013-101\Corres\City of S.B.OOI.doc • 1 DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J. LEWIN RE APPEARANCE AT CITY OF SAN B$RNARDINO 2 =MMON COUNCIL HEARING OF MONDAY, NOVE 0ER 3, 1997 3 4 I, MICHAEL J. LEWIN, declare: 5 1. That I am an attorney at law, licensed to practice before 6 all the Courts of the State of California and am associated with the law firm of Mirau, Edwards, Cannon & Harter. 7 2. Pursuant to a request by attorney Marlene A. Fox, 8 communicated to our Office on October 30, 1997, I attended the San 9 Bernardino Common Council hearing regularly scheduled for that date. 10 I arrived prior to the time that Agenda Item No. 33 was called for 11 consideration by the Council. 12 3. Prior to calling Agenda Item No_ 33, I was approached by 13 Deputy City Attorney, Henry Empeno, Jr. Mr. Empeno inquired whether 14 I intended to appear on behalf of the Central City Company and whether 15 Marlene Fox would be attending. I responded that I was present for 16 the purpose of making a special, limited appearance for Ms. Fox on the 17 issue of the continuance only and provided Mr. Empeno with a copy of 18 a letter to the Council from Ms. Fox, dated October 30, 1997, in 19 support of the continuance, which I intended to read and submit into 20 the Council hearing record. 21 4 . Prior to the time Agenda item No. 33 was called for 22 consideration, I filled out a "speaker slip", noting the Agenda Item 23 and identifying myself and submitted the speaker slip to a Clerk 24 present at the hearing. 25 5 . When Agenda Item No. 33 was called, I approached the podium but was waved back by Mayor Tom Minor_ The Mayor continued to address 26 Agenda Item 33 and then called for a vote to continue that item to 27 Thursday, November 6, 1997. 28 1 1 6 . Prior to a final vote on Agenda Item 33, I stepped up to 2 the podium and Mayor Tom Minor stated that he would not recognize 3 me. The Mayor then proceeded with the vote on the continuance of 4 Agenda Item 33 . I interrupted the Common Council and stated that 5 I had submitted a request to speak on the matter. Mayor Tom Minor 6 once again stated that he would not recognize me and that I had no 7 right to speak at a continuance. 8 7 . On or before the close of business on Monday, November 3 , 9 1 1997, I prepared and had an office assistant deliver to the San 10 Bernardino City Clerk, a copy of the letter attached hereto as 11 Exhibit "A" , together with a copy of the October 30, 1997 letter 12 from Marlene A. Fox to the Common Council, which I had intended to 13 read at the Council hearing during the deliberation of Item No. 33 14 and to then submit into the record as a part of the proceedings . 15 Attached hereto as Exhibit "B" is a Certified Court Reporter 16 Transcript of the City of San Bernardino Council hearing on 17 November 3 , 1997 regarding Agenda Item No. 33, Request for 18 Continuance of Appeal Hearing. 19 8 . I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is 20 within my personal knowledge, is true and correct, and if called as 21 a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto. 22 Executed this 6th day of November, 1997 at San Bernardino 23 California. 24 25 EA J. LE4VIN - Declarant 26 27 28 C JOHN K.MIRAU' EXHIBIT f1 F 599 No."E'St.,Suite 205 MARK C.EDWARDS ° �" San Bernardino,CA 92401 LA telephone:(909) 888 0200 ROBERT W CANNONt A '[.��p�'� p 1A1� facsimile:(909(384-0203 STANLEY A.HARTER' Uf 1VI I✓IAMR,&cI MICHAEL J.LEWIN A PROFESS CORPORATION 'CertiFied Specialist,Taxation Law,The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization 222 E.Olive Ave.,Suite I tC.rvfi.d Sp.ciah.t,Estate Redlands,CA 92373 Planning.Trust and Probate Low,The State Bar of California telephone:(909)793-0200 Board of Legal Specialization facsimile:(909)793-0790 November 3, 1997 C1013-101 Ms. Rachel Clark, City Clerk City of San Bernardino 300 N. "D" St. San Bernardino, CA 92401 Re: Appeal to Common Council of Planning Commission Action; Development Permit Type II No. 97-13, Phase 1 — Inland Center Mall Expansion (Robinson- Mays) Appellate: Central City Company/Carousel Mall Dear Ms. Clark: The undersigned appeared at the Common Council meeting on this 3`d day of November, 1997, for the purpose of making a special appearance on behalf of Marlene Fox, who was unavailable to make the appearance. When the above-referenced agenda item was considered by the Common Council, I attempted to speak and make a special appearance on behalf of Marlene Fox. Prior to that time, I turned in a speaker's slip indicating my presence and desire to speak. At the council meeting I was denied the opportunity to make the special appearance. I stood up and attempted to speak, but Mayor Tom Minor refused to recognize me or permit me to speak. It was my intent at the meeting to read into the record the statement attached hereto, as well as the letter from Marlene Fox to the City of San Bernardino dated October 30, 1997. Request is made that the enclosed documents be included in the official records of the City. Also, request is made that a copy of the enclosed materials be delivered to each of the members of the Common Council. Very truly yours, MIRAU, EDWARDS, CANNON, HARTER& LEWIN A Professional Corporation EXHIBIT Q I A win C1013-I0l\Corres\City of S.D.OOI.doc z ew omczs.or MAXaXNR A. Fox A PRQFESSIONAI CORPORATION 2031 ORCHARD DRIVE. SUITE 200 MAkpmeML A. IOrt NeWPORT BEACH. CA oa060, (714) 07i-0444 FAX(7t4)07i•0447 October 30, 1997 Mayor Minor and Members of REMST FOIL CONTINDANCF the Common Council City of San Bernardino 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92416 Re: APPEAL OF pLANNING COMMSSION,S ACTION To UPHOLD THE DEVELOPX3MT REVIEW COXKr=EE'S APPROVAL OF DEVELOP1= PERMIT TYPE I1 NO. 97--131 phase I of Inland Center Mall Expansion (Robinson's-May) ; 500 Inland Center Drive (APN: 136°531.°04) 1 Our File No. 09450 Dear Mayor and Council Members: Eight days ago, on October 22, on behalf of our client, the Central City Company, we submitted the Appeal identified above and the requisite Appeal fee. , In our letter to the City Clerk, requesting that the matter be set for hearing before the Council for a date certain, we requested that it be set for a date certain after November 5, 1997 because of my unavailability due to scheduled surgery and the fact that the surgery would keep Tie of f my f eet and away f rom my Of f ice and scheduled appearances for at least 10 to 12 days. In addition, we checked with the City Clerk's Office and were advised that by submitting the Appeal on the 22nd, there would be insufficient time within which to have the matter placed on the Council agenda for the first meeting in November and that the second meeting would take place on November 17th. At the time of submitting the Appeal I had every reason to believe that I would be unable toappear e beffore the Council during the first week of November but th at sufficiently recovered to enable me to appear by the date of the second Council meeting, on November 17. Naturally, I thought it was unnecessary and inappropriate to include that level of detail in the original request that the Appeal be set for hearing before the Council for a date certain after November S. Subsequently I was advised by letter that the appeal was scheduled to be heard by the City Council on November 3. with that information I conferred with my doctors at the earliest possible time to find out if it would be possible and/or advisable to Mayor Minor and Members of the Common Council October 30, 1997 Page 2 postpone the already scheduled procedures . As soon as I had a final response to my inquiries, I contacted Mr. Romo on October 29 and advised him of the situation, again pointing out that the original request for Appeal hearing requested that the Appeal be set for a date certain after November S. The conversation with Mr. Romo was memorialized and formalized in my letter of October 29 requesting the continuance so that I could appear and my client could be afforded effective legal counsel at the Appeal hearing. originally I was advised by Mr. Romo that I would have a response to my October 29th letter immediately after an early morning meeting at the City today, October 30 between the Director of Planning, the Principal Planner and City Attorney. After several telephone inquiries to the City today, I finally received a response just prior to 4:00 p.m. from Mr. Romo, advising that the matter would be submitted to the Council on November 3 . That information placed me in the position that to go forward with the surgery meant that I would be doing so, absent knowledge of the Council's decision on the continuance and whether our client would be denied its due process rights of effective representation at the Appeal hearing. Attached to this letter are copies of my letter of October 29 to Gus Romo and my Letter of Confirmation of this date, October 30, 1997 to Gus Romo, confirming his final telephone message me at 4:00 p.m. today. As the matter now stands, it is my understanding that it will be submitted to the Council for its determination on Monday, November 3 . In that regard I would point out to the Council that the request for the continuance to November 17 simply means that the matter will not be heard for an additional 10 business days and that the 10 business day deln in hearing the Appeal could have no possible detrimental or prejudicial effect on the Applicant pursuing the ICM Expansion. No prejudice can occur because the A"licant has not yet submitted the site specific geotscbnical report required by City Ordinance to determine Mitigation Measures necessary to respond to liquefaction problems on the site. The site specific study is also a mitigation required by the Mitigation Monitoring Plan that was approved April. 1, 1996 . In addition to the fact that the geotechnical report has yet to be submitted for review and approval by the City Geologist and City Engineer, construction plans have not been submitted to the Planning Department and Plancheck for the proposed demolition, construction of the department store and/or parking structure. Even if the finished working, engineering plans were submitted to the City sometime during the week of November 3, there is little likelihood that Plancheck and a thorough review of the geotechnical information Mayor Minor and Members of the Common Council October 30, 1997 Page 3 - could be completed within the 9 business days (remembering that the City is closed every other Friday) between Monday, November 3, and Monday, November 17, 1997. Under the facts and circumstances, there can be no prejudice to the Applicant by continuing the Appeal hearing from the 3rd to the 17th. On the other hand, our client, also an operating business and taxpayer in the City of San Bernardino, would be denied its due process rights if it is precluded the opportunity to have effective representation by having Counsel of its choice at the Appeal hearing. Finally, we make this request, asking for the same courtesy and consideration that has previously been afforded to the attorneys for the Inland Center, when Inland Center appealed the approval of the Downtown Theater Project in July 1997. At that time the ICM, as Appellant, requested and was granted a continuance of the Appeal hearing from July 7, 1997 to the next regularly scheduled Council hearing on July 21, 1997. On behalf of our client, we respectfully request the same consideration be given in this instance. For all of the reasons set forth above, it is respectfully requested that the Council continue this Appeal hearing from Monday, November 3, to Monday, November 17, 1997. On behalf of our client and this Office, we thank the Council for its consideration of this request. Respectfully submitted, W el. MARLENE A. FOX Attorney for Central City Company MAF/Lgl CC: Mr. Robert D. Curci U �' DICTATED BUT NOT READ -_-- COPYLew oyxcss OF N1ABI.sNE A.. Fox a PROFESSIONAL. CORPORATION *021 ORCHARD DRIVE. SUITE 200 MARLCME A. FOX , NEWPORT BEACH. CA 02600 (7141 075-6444 • FAX(714) 070.0447 ZWSMITTED BY FAX October 29, 1997 Mr. Gustavo J. Romo URGENT - gESPONSR REMSTED Assistant Planner Department of Planning & Building Services City of San Bernardino 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Re: APPEAL OF PLANNING CoMMISSION16 ACTION TO UPHOLD THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMU-1-XB$'S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TYPE II NO. 97-13; Phase I of Inland Center Mall Expansion (Robinson's-May) ; 500 Inland Center Drive (APN: 136-531-04) ; Our File No. 09450 Dear Mr. Romo: Our request for Appeal to the Common Council of the Planning Commission's October 7, 1997 action, approving Development Permit Type II, No. 97-13, was delivered to the City Clerk by courier on Wednesday, October 22, 1997. In our Transmittal Letter, we requested that the Clerk schedule the Appeal for hearing before the Council "for a date certain after November 5, - 1997. " We then requested that we be advised of the date and the time when the Staff Report would be available for pick up. If you compare the October 21, 1997 letter to the Clerk to previous letters when we requested Appeal hearings, you will see that the October 21 letter was the first time I had ever requested that a hearing be set for a "date certain, beyond a specified date, i.e. after November 5. " The 'purpose of requesting 'that the hearing be scheduled for a date certain after November 5, was to enable me to be present for the purpose of representing my client, the Central City Company. Specifically, I requested that the matter be set for after November 5 since I knew that I would* be undergoing a medical procedure that has been scheduled for more than four months, on Friday, October 31, and that the scheduled medical procedure, is not voluntary, but necessary and will keep me off my feet at least through Wednesday or Thursday, November 5 or 6 . In fact, the letter to the Clerk for the Appeal to the Council, was prepared only after consultation with the surgeon involved. Mr. Gustavo J. Romo Assistant Planner October 29, 1997 Page 2 - Notwithstanding my specific request that the matter be scheduled for a date certain after November 5, 1 learned late in the day on Friday, October 24, that the Appeal had been scheduled for Monday, November 3, 1997 at 3 :00 p.m. The scheduling of the Appeal hearing for Monday, November 3, means either that the matter has been scheduled intentionally to deprive my client effective representation by Counsel of its choice, given my unavailability, or alternatively, I would have to cancel the scheduled medical procedure, against doctor's advice thereby placing me in further jeopardy. This matter is further compounded given the information we have obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, regarding the "normal procedure" for scheduling an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to the Common Council. We have been advised by the Clerk's Office, that it normally takes 3 to 4 weeks for an appeal to be scheduled on the Council Agenda. Further, that ordinarily, an Appeal filed on the 21st or 22nd of any month, would "normally" be placed on the Council Agenda for the second Council meeting the following month, or in this case, on November 17, 1997. Even more disturbing than the fact that Planning and Building Services determined to fast track this matter is the information that we obtained from the Clerk's Office that the Appeal filing deadline for Monday, November 3 Council meeting agenda was on or before October 17, 1997 and that any Appeals received after October 17, would normally have been scheduled for a Council meeting on November 17 or latex. In my telephone conversation with you earlier this afternoon, I specifically asked why the date of November 3 was selected and secondly, why, given my request to the City Clerk when filing the Appeal that the matter be scheduled for a date certain after November 5, why this Office did not receive a call or inquiry as to our reason for making that request or my availability to appear at a Council hearing prior to the 5th. Since I was in Court through late Thursday, October 23, 1997, in San Bernardino, I did not become aware of your letter until the afternoon of Friday, October 24 . For your information, since that time I have been endeavoring to reschedule the medical procedure, to no avail. Thus I telephoned you today to advise you of the position in which both my client and the undersigned have been placed due to the expedited, fast track fashion that this matter has been scheduled for hearing before the Council_ In addition to the foregoing, this letter will confirm that you suggested during our telephone conversation this afternoon that the matter may have been expedited at the request of the Applicant, so Mr. Gustavo J. Romo Assistant Planner October 29, 1997 Page 3 that the Applicant would not encounter delay. This letter will further confirm that I then asked if in fact the Applicant had completed "plan check", had submitted all of the required geotechnical/liquefaction reports, that the reports had been reviewed and signed off by the various technical and engineering personnel on behalf of the City, thus putting the Applicant in the . position to pull a Building Permit immediately after November 3 . Your response to my inquiry was that the reports have not yet been submitted and in fact, the "plan check" procedure has not yet begun. At that point I asked how then could scheduling the Appeal for the next Council hearing, i.e. November 17, create delay for the Applicant. You responded that in fact, it could and would not. In light of the fact that continuing the hearing date from November 3 to November 17 will neither delay nor prejudice the applicant, but will cause severe repercussions for the Appellant and Appellant's Counsel, we are again requesting that the hearing date be set for a time certain, to a date after November 5, 1997. This would allow the Appellant to be represented by Counsel of its choice and Counsel who has at all times continuously represented Appellant in this matter and has the background necessary to afford Appellant adequate representation at the Appeal hearing. In addition, it would allow the undersigned to go forward with the necessary surgery, without additional, unnecessary stress regarding the conflict in the scheduling. May I please have the courtesy of a response to this request at the earliest possible time. Thank you for your anticipated courtesy and cooperation. Very truly yours, i SNB A. FOX MAF/Lgl CC: Mayor and City Council City Clerk Michael E. Hays, Director, Department of Planning and Building Services Henry Empeno, Deputy City Attorney Robert D. Curei ORIGINAL BY MAIL z nw omczs of MARLmn A. Fox A PROFESSIONAL. COPPORAT1oN 2021 ORCHARD OR)VE,SUITE ZOO NAOLCN[ A. /OX NEWPORT 6EACH. CA otedo (741 vas-sue. FAX(714) 076.64.67 77MSXITTED BY M_ October 30, 1997 Mr. Gustavo J. Romo OTTER OF QQNFIRMATION Assistant Planner Department of Planning & Building Services City of San Bernardino 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Re: APPEAL OF PLANNING COX=sSION'S ACTION TO UPHOLD THE DEVELOpMENT RgvIEW CoZWTTEE18 APPROVAL OF DEVSLOPMENT PERMIT TYPE 11 NO. 97-13; Phase I of Inland Center Mall Expansion (Robinson's-May) ; 500 Inland Center Drive (APN: 136-531-04) ; Our File No. 09450 Dear Mr. Romo: This letter will acknowledge the two telephone conversations we had yesterday on October 29, 1997 and the messages I left for you on this date, October 30, 1997, as well as the messages I received from you on this date. In our final telephone conversation yesterday afternoon, Wednesday, October 29, at approximately 5:25 p.m. , you advised me that the Director of Planning and Building Services, Michael E. Rays, and the City Attorney would have no response to my inquiry regarding continuing the November 3rd Council hearing for presentation of the Central City Company Appeal, notwithstanding my original letter to the City Clerk, until they had first reviewed the additional letter you requested during our first telephone conversation yesterday, the 29th. Thereafter, we transmitted to you my letter of October 29, emphasizing that we had originally requested that the Appeal hearing be set for a date certain sometime after November 5, 1997 and the basis for making that specific request. Our three-page letter was transmitted to you by FAX at 5:35 p.m. yesterday, within five minutes after we spoke by telephone. You advised that the Planning Director and the City Attorney or his representative and the Principal Planner (unnamed) would meet first thing this morning to discuss this matter and that you would notify me of their decision Mr. Gustavo J. Romo Assistant Planner October 30, 1997 Page 2 sometime prior to Noon today. As I told you yesterday, it was necessary for me to go to Los Angeles, for certain preparatory work at UCLA today. I continuously checked with my Office for messages and when I learned that we had heard nothing from you this morning, I telephoned you at approximately 11:30 a.m. and left a message on your voice mail requesting information regarding the decision by the Director, the City Attorney and the Principal Planner on the requested continuance. Later this afternoon, I learned that our answer machine logged a call from you to our Office at 1:07 p.m. , advising that as of that time, you still had no response to my inquiry of Wednesday, the 29th and the letter that was FAXED requesting the continuance. At approximately 3:20 p.m. today, I called again to inquire if there was a response to my inquiry and my letter, requesting that the matter be continued_ You advised that you still had no information to provide but that you hoped to be able to get back to me by 4 :00 p.m. I again emphasized that I would need a response today and that I was approaching the "point of no return" with regard to the scheduled medical procedure. Finally, you called this Office and left a message at 3 :47 p.m. stating that you had been advised to inform me that the Director, the Administrator and the City Attorney have decided to refer the Central City Company request for a continuance to the City Council at the Monday, November 3, 1997 Council meeting. This means that the issue of continuance will need to be decided by the Council when it is presented to them on Monday, November 3 . Given the timing, the way this matter has been handled and the City's failure to either honor our original request or to respond to our request submitted both telephonically and in writing yesterday, October 29, I have been left with no choice but to advise my client that it is necessary that I go forward with the necessary medical procedure that has been scheduled. If all goes well and nothing unforeseen develops, I anticipate returning to my Office on either Thursday or Friday, November 5 or 6. Unfortunately, because the Staff Report was not available until after 3 :00 p.m. today, there was insufficient time for anyone to pick up the Report, deliver it to this Office in time for review prior to my departure. It is my understanding, that my client will pick up the Staff Report and Federal Express the Report to our Office for delivery tomorrow, Friday, October 31. Of course, I will have no opportunity to review the Report until my return, when it may then be a moot point, depending on the Council's action on Monday. Mr. Gustavo J. Romo Assistant Planner October 30, 1997 Page 3 Under the circumstances, the City' s position is difficult to understand. We have at all times dealt in good faith and made every effort to cooperate as we pursue our client's rights as an operating business and taxpayer in San Bernardino. The expedited, fast track procedure being employed in this instance appears to be for the sole purpose of denying the Central City Company the right to appear and participate in the public hearing process through counsel of its choice. In the 25 years I have been working with governmental agencies, as special counsel, Assistant City Attorney and representing landowners, I have never before experienced an agency denying a requested continuance in such an arbitrary fashion - for the obvious purpose of doing everything and anything conceivable to prevent an effective appeal presentation. Thank you for your efforts to be courteous. Very truly yours, A a4-&,r.e a. RWW MARLENE A. FOX MAP/Lgl DICTATED BUT NOT READ ORIGINAL BY MAIL cc: Mayor and Members of the Common Council City Clerk Michael E. Hays, Director of Planning & Building Services Robert D. Curci 11/05/.97 X714 875 8447 IIAFNE OX 001 EXHIBIT B CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO LU CITY COUNCIL MEETING RE: PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ) � I TO UPHOLD THE DEVELOPMENT ) REVIEW COMMITTEE'S APPROVAL } L•.• o OF DEVELOPMKNT PERMIT TYPE ) o II NO. 97-13, LOCATED AT 500 ) INLAND CENTER DRIVE. ORIGINAL Eo O " V TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS W 5... San Bernardino, California Monday, November 3, 1997 un W . Sarnoff Deposition Service, Inc Los Angeles Tel 213.938.2461 Fax 213.931.3016 800.6401461 Orange County Tel 714.834.1571 Reported by: Fax 714.834.9235 : JULIE KEARNS 800.888.6949 CSR No. 5825 EXHIBIT B San Diego JOB No. 487605 Tel 619.544.9955 Fax 619.544.9901 a E -11105/9T 1U:54 p/14 V i b 6447 MA*k&ivz n rue �uu:f 1 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 3 4 RE: PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ) TO UPHOLD THE DEVELOPMENT ) 5 REVIEW COMMITTEE'S APPROVAL ) OF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TYPE ) 6 II NO. 97-13, LOCATED AT 500 ) INLAND CENTER DRIVE. ) 7 ) 8 9 10 11. 12 Transcript of Proceedings, taken 13 on behalf of Appellant, at City Council 14 Chambers, 300 North "D" Street, San 15 Bernardino, California, beginning at 16 3 :40 p.m. and ending at 3 :48 p.m. on 17 Monday, November 3, 1997, before JULIE 18 KEARNS, Certified Shorthand Reporter 19 No. 5826 . 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 .11105/97' . 10:50 U714 V10 6441 a rue iu uu4 1 APPEARANCES : 2 3 SAN BERNARDINO CITY COUNCIL: 4 TOM MINOR, Mayor EDWARD F. NEGRETE, Council Member (Not present) 5 FREDERICK CURLIN, M.D. , Council Member RITA C. ARIAS, Council Member 6 DAVID OBERHELMAN, Council. Member JERRY DEVLIN, Council Member 7 BETTY DEAN ANDERSON, Council Member NORENE MILLER, Council Member 8 9 10 On Behalf of Appellant: 11 DANIEL LEWIN, Attorney at Lary 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 I 11/05/al LU;04 0441 n rv.& 1 San Bernardino, California, Monday, November 3 , 1997 2 3 :40 p.m. - 3 :48 p.m. 3 4 THE MAYOR: We've got one left on the green 5 one. That' s item 33 . This is an appeal hearing, and 6 it' s a Planning Commission action to uphold the 7 Development Review Commission's approval of 8 Development Permit Type II No. 97-13 located at 500 9 Inland Center Drive . 10 I need to explain why we 're going to 11 attempt to take the action that I 'd like to take. I 12 had them set the hearing for 3 o' clock today at our 13 regular council meeting. I did not know -- I had not 14 been informed by the member of the planning department 15 that received the letter from Marlene Fox that she had 16 requested a date certain after the 5th of November. 17 When I became aware of that, I contacted the Inland ' 18 Center Mall representative to see what we could do to 19 work something about because they expected to go , 20 today. I believe that they have agreed to accept the 21 continuance until the 6th of November, and I believe 22 that meets the requirements of Marlene Fox in setting 23 a date after the 5th. So what I would like to do is 24 accept the motion to continue this to the 6th of 25 November at 1 :00 p.m. I 4 -11/05/97' . 10:55 X714 975 8447 MAAW4h A ruA igjuun 1 I've got a motion and a second. Take the 2 second off for a minute so Dave can speak- 3 COUNCIL MEMBER OBERHELMAN: As I explained 4 earlier this morning, I have a commitment . 5 THE MAYOR: And I knew you had. 6 COUNCIL MEMBER OBERHELMAN: And I would like to 7 be able- to participate in this. I recall that when an 8 appeal on the other side came up and the other side' s 9 attorney had -- somebody sent a communication that 10 they had had a death in the family, that we continued 11 it to the next regularly scheduled meeting, and I feel 12 that ' s appropriate in this particular case, and I will 13 be able to participate in the next regularly scheduled 14 meeting. And so I would ask that the same courtesies 15 be extended, that we continue this to the next 16 regularly scheduled meeting. 17 THE MAYOR: I understand your concern and the 18 courtesy requested, but I think it' s important to go 19 ahead with the time and date I requested. Did you put 20 your second back on? 21 COUNCIL MEMBER MILLER: Yes . 22 THE MAYOR: Okay, we have a motion and a 23 second. Continued to 1 :00 p.m. Sorry. It' s a motion 24 and a second on continuance. No discussion on 25 continuances. That' s why I removed the second so 5 •11/05/97 10:55 $714 975 8447 MA'tENE A FOX 10 007 1 Mr. Oberhelman could express his concern. 1 :00 p.m. 2 on the 6th of November. 3 Call for the question. 4 I'm not going to recognize you on a 5 continuance. This is either up or down. 6 Okay, it passed. I think that completes 7 our agenda. This will be continued to 1: 00 p.m. on S the 6th of November here in the council chambers. 9 COUNCIL MEMBER ARIAS : Mayor, I just had one 10 question. Are we going to have enough members here to 11 have a meeting? 12 COUNCIL MEMBER CURLIN: That ' s right . I can' t 13 be here on the 6th. That ' s why I voted no. 14 THE MAYOR: All right. I'm sorry. Had you 15 been there this morning, you would have realized what 16 we found out because I announced then what I was going 17 to do this afternoon. 18 MR. LEWIN: Excuse me. I just want to -- 19 THE MAYOR: I 'm not going to recognize you, 20 sir. It' s been continued. That' s the end of the 21 item. 22 (Unintelligible conversation. ) 23 THE MAYOR: Do you change the rules because 24 something has been continued? Do you continue to 25 recognize people after the continuance? I asked this 6 11/05/97 10:55 '$714 975 8447 XAjENE A FOX C uu8 1 counsel to give me some direction. 2 COUNCIL MEMBER CURLIN: You didn' t ask who 3 would be here, who could make it on Thursday. We have 4 commitments . It would have been a courtesy to ask if 5 everyone could be here. 6 COUNCIL MEMBER OBERHELMAN: This is a public 7 hearing. 8 THE MAYOR: I did hold the public hearing. I 9 asked -- I told you what the thing is going to be and 10 what needed to be done and I asked for a motion and a 11 second and I've got it, and the vote was taken and it 12 was continued to that date. 13 COUNCIL MEMBER CURLIN: Are you sure you' ll 14 have a quorum on Thursday? 15 THE MAYOR: Well, I hope I will, Doc. 16 COUNCIL MEMBER CURLIN: I didn' t hear that 17 everybody could make it . 18 THE MAYOR: I hope I 'll have a quorum. 19 With that, Rachel? 20 CITY CLERK: The only answer 1; have is if we 21 don' t have a quorum there are some items and ballot 22 issues that need to placed on the February ballot, and 23 the deadline for those -- 24 THE MAYOR: That ' s right . We've got those 25 ballots on there at the same time. I forgot about 7 • 11/05/91 • 10:56 $714 975 8447 XLWd ENE A F01 1&09 1 that . So we stand adjourned now until 1:00 p.m. on 2 Thursday, November the 6th. 3 COUNCIL KDOER CURLIN: May I ask the city 4 clerk 5 THE MAYOR: Stand adjourned- 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8 '11/05/97 - 10:56 $714 975 8447 L41MM A FOX U010 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss 2 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 3 4 T, the undersigned, a Certified Shorthand 5 Reporter of the State of California, do hereby 6 certify: 7 That the foregoing proceedings were taken 8 before me at the time and place herein set forth; that 9 any witnesses in the foregoing proceedings, prior to 10 testifying, were placed under oath; that a verbatim 11 record of the proceedings was made by me using machine 12 shorthand which was thereafter transcribed under my 13 direction; further, that the foregoing is an accurate 14 transcription thereof . 15 I further certify that I am neither financially 16 interested in the action nor a relative or employee of 17 any attorney of any of the parties_ ' 18 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have this date subscribed 19 my name. . 20 21 Dated: NOV 0 4 67 22 23 JUL KEARNS 24 CSR No. 5826 25 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM CITY CLERK'S OFFICE RECORDS & INFORMATION MANAGEMENT (RIM) PROGRAM DATE: October 2, 1998 TO: All Clients FROM: City Clerk's Office RE: SCANNING DOCUMENT PROBLEM NOTICE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 3, 1997 ITEM #: #33 DESCRIPTION: Appeal hearing -Planning Commission action to uphold the Development Review Committee's approval of Development Permit Type II #97-13, located at 500 Inland Center Dr. Owner: Mano Management Company,500 Inland Center Dr, San Bernardino, CA 92408. Applicant: Gresham, Savage, Nolan & Tilden, C/O Mark Ostoich, 600 N Arrowhead Ave, Suite 300, San Bernardino, CA 92401. Appellant: Central City Company/Carousel Mall. Request/Location: The appellant is appealing the Planning Commission's October 7, 1997 action to uphold the Development Review Committee's September 11, 1997 approval of Development Permit Type II #97-13 , a proposal to initiate Phase I of the Inland Center Mall expansion project by constructing a 2 level 165,000 square-foot anchor department store to be occupied by Robinson's-May and 4 level parking structure. The appellant is asking to overturn the development permit approval.The project is located at 500 Inland Center Drive within the CR-1,Commercial Regional (Malls), land use district. ACTION: That the matter be continued to November 6, 1997. NOTICE OF: Bad Quality Original. X - Document. Map. X - Hand Written Original. FOR ASSISTANCE: Should you have any questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact either the records management staff or the Administrative Operations Supervisor at (909) 384-5002.