Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout23 Development ServicesCITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION From: Michael E. Hays, Director Subject: Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of CUP No. 98 -06 and Variance No. 98 -02 - A proposal to establish an indoor storage facility in an existing 11,500 square foot building, Dept: Development Services an outdoor vehicle impound yard, and a request for variances for setbacks and fence /wall heights at 197 S. "D" Street. Date: September 24, 1998 MCC Date: October 5, 1998 Synopsis of Previous Council Action: None ORIGINAL � Recommended Motion: That the Mayor and Common Council close the public hearing; deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 98 -06 and Variance No. 98 -02, based on the Findings of Fact, subject to the Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements. iop- 44 1 / Lve Mic el E. Hays Contact person: Michael E. Hays Phone: 384 -5357 Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward(s): FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (Acct. No.) N/A (Acct Description) Council Notes: Finance: Agenda Item No J3 1111617Y f, CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION From: Michael E. Hays, Director Subject: Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of CUP No. 98 -06 and Variance No. 98 -02 - A proposal to establish an indoor storage facility in an existing 11,500 square foot building, Dept: Development Services an outdoor vehicle impound yard, and a request for variances for setbacks and fence /wall heights at 197 S. "D" Street. Date: September 24, 1998 MCC Date: October 5, 1998 Synopsis of Previous Council Action: None ORIGINAL � Recommended Motion: That the Mayor and Common Council close the public hearing; deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 98 -06 and Variance No. 98 -02, based on the Findings of Fact, subject to the Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements. iop- 44 1 / Lve Mic el E. Hays Contact person: Michael E. Hays Phone: 384 -5357 Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward(s): FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (Acct. No.) N/A (Acct Description) Council Notes: Finance: Agenda Item No J3 1111617Y CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98 -06 AND VARIANCE NO. 98 -02 MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 5, 1998 APPELLANT APPLICANT /PROPERTY OWNER John Jensen Brenda & Michael Allen 444 Athol Street 206 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92401 San Bernardino, CA 92401 (909) 889 -6066 (909) 825 -8545 APPEAL, PROTECT PROPOSAL, AND LOCATION The City has received an appeal on the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 98 -06 and Variance No. 98 -02. The project is a proposal to establish a storage facility in an existing 11,500 square foot building with an outdoor vehicle impound yard. Items to be stored in the building include automobiles, miscellaneous furniture and appliances and office equipment. The proposed outdoor vehicle impound yard will be located at the north end of the site. The applicant also requests approval to vary from Development Code standards, as follows: 1. To reduce the 10 foot front and street side setbacks (along "D" and Athol Streets) to 5 feet and 4 feet, respectively; 2. To reduce the 10 foot interior side and rear setbacks to zero to accommodate the establishment of an outdoor vehicle impound yard (with a 6 foot screening wall along a portion of "D" Street); and, 3. To increase the maximum allowable fence and wall heights in the front and street side setbacks from 6 feet to 8 feet (along "D" and Athol Streets). The 0.73 acre project site is located at 197 South "D" Street, on the northeast corner of Athol and "D" Streets in the IL, Industrial Light General Plan land use designation (see Exhibit 1, Site Location Map; and, Exhibit 2, Site Plan/Floor Plan). The Planning Commission Staff Report (Exhibit 5) contains detailed background information and staff s analysis of the project proposal. KEY ISSUES The Appeal is of the Planning Commission's approval of the outdoor vehicle impound yard, and the variance requests to reduce setbacks. Other related issues are outlined in the Application for Appeal (see Exhibit 3). These issues were considered by the Planning Commission before action was taken on the project. Appeal - CUP No. 98 -06 & VAR No. 98 -02 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of October 5, 1998 Page 2 RELATED PROTECT INFORMATION At the August 4, 1998 Planning Commission meeting, several Commissioners and members of the public were concerned that the applicants would defer constructing the on -site and off -site improvements for the project. As a result, the Planning Commission continued the project to August 18, 1998 so that staff could meet with the project applicants and bring back information on potential financial assurance mechanisms, and a revised perimeter wall elevation. Staff's meeting with the applicants occurred on August 12, 1998. A summary of the meeting is contained in Exhibit 4. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERNIINATION Staff determined that the project proposal will not result in any significant environmental impacts to the site or surrounding area. Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines states such activities are covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 98 -06 and Variance No. 98 -02 to establish a storage facility in an existing 11,500 square foot building, and the proposed outdoor vehicle impound yard at the north end of the site in the front and side setbacks, and all variance requests as proposed by the applicants (see Exhibit 6, Planning Commission Action). Planning Commission Vote: Ayes - Durr, Garcia, Hendrix, and Suarez Nays - Schuiling and Thrasher Abstain - None Absent - Enciso and Lockett STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council: 1. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 98 -06, to establish an outdoor vehicle impound yard and storage facility in an existing 11,500 square foot manufacturing building based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit 6) and Standard Requirements (Exhibit 6); and, Appeal - CUP No. 98 -06 & VAR No. 98 -02 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of October 5, 1998 Page 3 2. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of Variance No. 98 -02, as follows: 1.) to reduce the 10 foot front and street side landscape setbacks to 5 feet and 4 feet, respectively; 2.) the to reduce the 10 foot interior side and rear setbacks; 3.) to reduce the front setback to accommodate the establishment of an outdoor vehicle impound yard; and, 4.) to increase the maximum fence and wall heights from 6 feet to 8 feet along the "D" and Athol Street frontages based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit 6) and Standard Requirements (Exhibit 6). Prepared by: Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner for Michael E. Hays, Director of Development Services EXHIBITS 1 Site Location Map 2 Site Plan/Floor Plan 3 Application for Appeal (September 9, 1998) 4 Memorandum to the Planning Commission (August 13, 1998) 5 Planning Commission Staff Report (August 4, 1998) Attachments: A Site Location Map * B Site Plan/Floor Plan C Development Code /General Plan Conformance Table D Conditions of Approval (Not included - see Exhibit 6) E Standard Requirements (Not included - see Exhibit 6) F Applicant's Variance Findings 6 Planning Commission Action * Included in Items 1 and 2, above EXHIBIT "I" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO CUP No. 98 -06 & VAR No. 98 -02 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION Adopted 6 -2 -89 Date f -Z� �� Site Location Map Panel No. G 4 Am- Y I ro � m C�o 0001 YARDS / CENTRAL Y (00 ' ' cILL HA AV E. c C1 T T G� J JI tT. =u i 1 i i• i I i � QJ �n9'• �+ �� C.(` ATM LN rELTA 4g�1�` 1 + fte I LN 5i`V - v 1 LLI - A s s tea. OAK ST � \ WO) OAK 'N GG'' voft i N EF Q L� 3 I Q IL FA 0 • z z cW ` O n U 4k ;r L R L L j L L i T ,4 S a O A � D � r x �+ FZ t9 d "o EXHIBIT 'T' IT G RICIIflRD I© d nsso(Iflits ?: TYPE 1 DEVELOPMENT' PERMIT SM PLAN $ CLA2401 iAMON APCAIff(TUO UR6AA DfsiGU ik - .r.vv AT, .16- mw .. -1wr, It" 19M. 1-It-17ML STREET IN n , F � i tit fit aft IT G RICIIflRD I© d nsso(Iflits ?: TYPE 1 DEVELOPMENT' PERMIT SM PLAN $ CLA2401 iAMON APCAIff(TUO UR6AA DfsiGU ik - .r.vv AT, .16- mw .. -1wr, It" 19M. 4= EXHIBIT 113" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 300 North 'D' Street, 3rd Floor, Sm CA 92418 Phone (909) 384 -5057 Far (909) 384 -5080 APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF A DIRECTOR DETERMINATION, DEVELOPMENT /ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE DETERMINATION OR PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION Appellant's Name, Address & o je ti Phone I AAC I - fW ce * RSA.ti &X i- W4 ck ,'..6 cg %2,101 Contact Person, Address & S A�%� f} S A6 Q14 Phone 9� 9) 90-606 � Pursuant to Section 19.52. 100 of the Development (Municipal) Code, all appeal must be filed on a City application form within 15 days following the final date of action, accompanied by the appropriate fee. Appeals are normally scheduled for a determination by the Planning Commission or Mayor and Common Council within 30 days of the filing date of the appeal. You will be notified, in writing, of the specific date and time. Date Appeal Filed Receipt No. •' PL 9 -9 0116 Received by Receipt Amount . 00 Appeal Application Page 2 The following information must be completed: Specific action being appealed and date of that action ,., a /2 .., c�.�.+i,ss;OXII Specific grounds for the appeal S "r C- e,,q J Action sought e c)SS'l'SSE X %<c- ,4 Je- -o v Ato Acciaci-)O.t, Additional information �� r d s e sEe A�tt"A c crX Areofp ll Date September 1, 1998 To: City Council and Mayor From: John L. Jensen — Property Owner, 444 Athol Street, San Bernardino Application for Appeal: CUP No. 98 -06 and Variance No. 98 -02 197 So. "D" Street, San Bernardino, CA 92401 Specific Grounds for the Appeal and Additional information Please see Exhibit "A" dated July 31, 1998. (9) Nine pages, William J. Ward- Attorney. 2. Excessive storage of vehicles on property will create a fire hazard and added liability to surrounding businesses. Increased fire and liability hazard created by this type of use will result in increased premiums for surrounding businesses. See attached Exhibit "B" dated August 25, 1998, (2) pages C. R. Cooper Insurance. 3. ADA handicap access to offices will be impaired or blocked by stored vehicles per operation description and plans submitted by Allens. 4. Allen's have been operating their business at this location for approximately two years without a Certificate of Occupancy and have created a "Public Nuisance ". See attached report, Exhibit "C ", dated 12- 02 -96, (1) one page. 5. Allen's current and future usage of utilizing city streets for their business operation was brought up by Joe Suarez, Planning Commissioner, at the August 18, 1998 hearing. Bill LeMann, attorney- representing Allens, verified that the Allen's intended to continue to use the city streets for loading and unloading of repossessed vehicles. Plans submitted verify this since they do not show any designated loading and unloading zones on premises. 6. Allen's have completed work inside the building without permits. See attached Stop - Work Notice, Exhibit "D ", dated 2- 26 -98, (2) two pages. 7. Allen's have a 20 -year history of non - compliance and refusal to co- operate with City of San Bernardino personnel. See Exhibit "E" dated May 7, 1997, (2) two pages regarding letter from Margaret Park to Tim Sabo. 8. The granting of setback reductions is not consistent with surrounding business that have larger setbacks in place. Page 1 of 2 9. Approving variances to create over - intensification of properties usage in a light industrial zone will cause surrounding property values to be devalued and difficult to sell. 10. City Attorney, James F. Penman, has declared a conflict of interest and has actively participated in pressuring Planning Staff to allow the Allens to develop property. See Exhibit "F" dated February 26, 1997. 11. Planning Commission did not follow Planning Staffs "Recommended Motion" when approving CUP No. 98 -06 and Variance No. 98 -02. See attached August 18, 1998, Planning commission Agenda, Exhibit "G', (3) three pages. 12. Planning Commission had two members absent (Enciso and Lockett) when vote was taken at August 18, 1998 meeting. Votes for Ayes would have changed outcome of action. 13. Building permit #102790 taken out by Allens' for improvements had expired on 9 -19 -97 with no completion or finals. Planning should have made Commissioners aware of this at August 18, 1998 hearing, and failed to do so. 14. Planning Commission Chairperson Thrasher's prudent urging that this matter be continued to see if the Allen's completed the requirements of CUP No. 97 -17 and Variance No. 97 -10 by October 21, 1998 was not taken into account. The Planning Commission granted the Allen's (6) six months to complete requirements of CUP 98 -06 and Variance No. 98 -02. A written history of long delays and noncompliance should have been considered and this matter should have been continued until Allen's showed they were in compliance without further delays. See Exhibits "H ", (1) one page. 15. Allen's have misrepresented their business operation. "Temporary Storage" was described by Mike Allen in terms of ONLY DAYS! See attached letter dated February 2, 1978 from Michael P. Allen to City of San Bernardino, Exhibit "1 ", (2) pages. Page 2 of 2 WARD @ WARD ATTORNEYS AT LAW ALEXANDRA S. WARD WILLIAM J. WARD July 31, 1998 4-x �+ i L I f fl° Planning Commission Members, City of San Bernardino San Bernardino City Hall 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 TWO CARNEGIE CENTRE 685 EAST CARNEG IE DRIvE SUITE 140 SAN BERNARDINO. CA 92408 TELEPHONE (909) 381 -8350 FACSIMILE: (909) 381 -8356 OUR FILE NUMBER J0005 -001 Re: Applications for Conditional Use Permit No. 98 -06 and Variance No. 98- 02; 197 S. I'D" Street, San Bernardino Dear Commission Members: I represent Western Door and John Jensen in connection with their objections to the above - referenced project. REQUESTED ACTION Western Door requests that the Commission deny these applications outright or, in the alternative, table the matters to a continued date for the purpose of evaluating additional conditions for the granting of these applications. SUMMARY OF POSITION Western Door's position can be summarized as follows: the applicants continue to store vehicles for years on their properties, even though such storage is a violation of City requirements. Attached hereto are two sets of photographs. The first set of photographs are pictures taken on February 19, 1997, of both the 197 S. "D" storage yard and the 206/208 S. "D" storage yard which are part of the business owned by Michael and Brenda Allen. Among other things, a truck can be seen in the upper right hand corner of the 206/208 S. "D" yard, and a red Camaro can be seen in the 197 S. "D" storage yard. WARD @ WA RD ATTORNEYS AT LAW Planning Commission Members, City of San Bernardino • July 31, 1998 • Page 2 The second set of photographs, taken on July 20, 1998 (a year- and -a -half later) show the same white truck in the upper right -hand corner of the storage yard, and the same Camaro shown in the 197 S. "D" storage yard. This is only an example of the continued, long -term storage operations being conducted by the Allens. The fact that the Allens persist in storing vehicles for years clouds the distinction between an auto repo ssessiorrbusiness (a permitted use), and a salvage yard or long -term storage business (not a permitted use). The applications before the Commission are essentially a business expansion of the operation currently located at 206/208 "D" Street. These two properties are inextricably intertwined in that they both have the same operation, namely, storage of vehicles, are part of the same business, and both have financial requirements which directly bear upon the compliance of these properties with zoning ordinances and the City's general plan. The representation that the Allens' business would be for temporary storage only is a promise that has been repeatedly made and broken. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98 -06 A. PROPOSED USE Is NOT PERMITTED AND WOULD IMPAIR INTEGRITY OF SUBJECT PLANNED USE DISTRICT The history of the Allens' business, including what is being conducted on 197 S. "D" Street, is the long -term, outdoor storage of vehicles. This is clearly in violation of the zoning requirements of a IL district standard. Certainly, the Allens are representing that storage is only temporary; however, in fact, they persist in storing vehicles for years, including the Camaro which presently sits on 197 S. "D" Street. P 5 e- 2- o� ? WARD @ WARD ATTORNEYS AT LAW Planning Commission Members, City of San Bernardino • July 31, 1998 • Page 3 The same misrepresentations were made by the Aliens in connection with 206/208 S. "D" Street. In the summary provided by your planning staff in connection with revocation of Conditional Development Permit No. 866 (hearing date July 8, 1997), your staff sets forth a chronology demonstrating the Allens' persistent refusal to comply with City requirements. In 1978, the Allens were allowed to use the yard for temporary storage of repossessed or broken -down vehicles. As your staff accurately states: "This type of use stores vehicles that will be released to the legal owner withilr a few days and not stored so long as to have tires go flat, to have wheels removed, and to have registration tags expire." (Summary of Revocation of CDP No. 866, p. 2 [emphasis added].) At that time, as noted, the Allens' 1978 CDP application states that the temporary storage "usually is accomplished within a few days after the vehicle is recovered." Since that time, however, the Allens have persisted in storing vehicles for years. Based upon the Allens' course of conduct, it is clear that the actual use to which they will put 197 S. "D" is for long -term storage of vehicles which is a zoning violation. When the City staff noted that the Allens had been storing vehicles with registration tags that expired as long as 15 years ago, the staff cited Section 8.36.010 of the Municipal Code. This section states, in pertinent part: "The accumulation of storage and abandoned, wrecked, dismantled, or inoperative vehicles or parts thereof on private or public property ... is a public nuisance which may be abated ...." The public nuisance which will be created should the Conditional Use Permit be approved for 197 S. "D" Street is something that the City should avoid. B. PROPOSED USE NOT CONSISTENT WITH GENERAL PLAN. General Plan Objection 1.32 states: "Retain, enhance, and intensify existing and provide for the new development of light industrial uses along major vehicular ... routes serving the City of San Bernardino." There are several businesses along South "D" Street in addition to Western Door which epitomize this objective. The long -term storage of inoperable vehicles substantially detracts from this objective. e_ 3 0 9 WARD @ WARD ATTORNEYS AT LAW Planning Commission Members, City of San Bernardino ® July 31, 1998 ® Page 4 When the Allens requested that they be allowed to enclose or build -out portions of 206/208 S "D" Street, this General Plan Objective was quoted by the planning staff. However, with regard to this permit application, 98 -06, there is no mention of this particular portion of the General Plan. Instead, General Plan Policy 1.32. 10 is quoted as identifying outdoor display and storage is a permitted use in the IL district. However, no one disputes the fact that long -term storage of vehicles is not a permitted use in an IL district. C. LOCATION, SIZE, DESIGN, AND OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS ARE NOT COMPATIBLE. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are not compatible with the existing and future land uses within the general area in which the proposed use is to be located. As stated, the existing area is for light industrial. Because the Aliens persist in long -term storage of vehicles, their use is not consistent. Further, the proposed development at 197 S. "D" Street does not provide for adequate area in which to load or unload vehicles. The loading and unloading of vehicles may take place on the public thoroughfare. This is an adverse condition which must be considered by the Commission. D. THE SUBJECT SITE IS NOT PHYSICALLY SUITABLE. As your staff has accurately noted, the 197 S. "D" Street is not physically suitable for the outdoor vehicle impound yard as proposed. Given the setback variances which are requested by the applicant, your staff has noted that there will be a "over - intensification of the site." This means that there will again be a great many cars stored outdoors, and the property will look horrible. This detracts from the City's overall goal of eliminating blight. Further, the applicant is proposing to have vehicles enter on Athol Street, instead of "D" Street. The applicant should be made to reconfigure this site so that vehicles can be brought in and loaded and unloaded off of "D" Street, making a zero setback unnecessary. Thus, as the site is currently configured, it is not suitable for the proposed use, and the Conditional Use Permit should be denied as proposed. �of'� WARD WARD ATTORNEYS AT LAW Planning Commission Members, City of San Bernardino • July 31, 1998 • Page 5 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE NO. 98 -02 A. PURPORTED SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT JUSTIFY VARIANCE. One factor in allowing for the issue of a variance would be that there are special circumstances applicable to a certain property which would deprive that property of the privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity under identical land use district classification. This factor does-not apply here. The other properties in this district are light manufacturing. The Allens wish to come into this district and have long -term outside storage of vehicles. This is at odds of the general nature of the neighborhood. Moreover, the Allens could reconfigure their property so that circulation would come from where the "D" Street side of the property. Granted, not as many cars could be stored; however, the Allens should not be storing all of these vehicles outside for extended periods of time. B. GRANTING OF VARIANCES NECESSARY FOR PRESERVATION OF SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY RIGHT. The Allens went in and began business operations on 197 S. "D" Street without a certificate of occupancy. Further, they began doing construction in the building without permits. The Allens now are attempting to say that they have some type of property right because they bought property, knowing the requirements in the area, and began to occupy and commence construction without entitlements. This property can be used for a great number of things other than on -site storage of vehicles. There is not significant property right at issue; rather, the Allens wish to have long -term storage of vehicles, which is not a permitted use, in an area where there shouldn't be such a use. Other appropriate uses can be made of this property, and the variance should be denied. The Allens purchased this property knowing the requirements, now they wish to have yet another exemption from what is required. C. GRANTING OF VARIANCE HARMS ESTHETICS. The City of San Bernardino, to its credit, has required landscaping setbacks throughout the City. These landscaping setbacks have enhanced the properties in the e s o WARD @ WARD ATTORNEYS AT LAW Planning Commission Members, City of San Bernardino • July 31, 1998 • Page 6 areas in which they exist. The City should consistently apply its goal of having landscape setbacks throughout commercial zones in the City. Other properties, including that owned by Western Door, have adhered to the landscaping setbacks in this area. Even the casual observer can note the difference between the legitimate business operations in this district and the long -term storage operations currently conducted on both properties owned by the Allens. The City should consistently apply its rules, and should further its goal of having adequate landscape setbacks. D. GRANTING OF VARIANCE CONSTITUTES A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE. Again, all the other businesses in the area have landscaping setbacks. To grant the variances requested by the Allens would be to accord them a special privilege which is not appropriate. E. VARIANCE WOULD FACILITATE AN UNAUTHORIZED USE. The history of the Allens' business demonstrates that they persist in storing inoperable vehicles for extended periods of time in violation of the City's zoning ordinances. This conduct should not be encouraged by providing variances which would allow the long -term storage of vehicles into setback areas. The Allens should be made to reconfigure their property to allow for ingress and egress off of "D" Street where a small or zero setback on Athol Street would not be required. As to the application for a variance for the landscape setback on "D" street, the Allens should be made to have a 10 -foot setback, so they are consistent with the other properties in the area. F. VARIANCE NOT CONSISTENT WITH GENERAL PLAN. The General Plan provides that this district is for light industrial uses. To grant a variance to allow storage of vehicles in a setback area without adequate landscaping, would be to highlight the fact that there is long -term storage of inoperable vehicles in a light industrial area. of q WARD @ WARD ATTORNEYS AT LAW Planning Commission Members, City of San Bernardino • July 31, 1998 • Page 7 CONCLUSION Western Door submits that the applications should both be denied in their entirety. However, as an alternative, the following should be considered: (1) before ruling on this application, determine whether the Allens are actually going to comply with the requirements Conditional Use Permit 97 -17, as specifically the completion of construction of certain buildings at 206/208 S. "D" Street by October 21, 1998 (only 90 days from now); (2) require that the Allens reconfigure their proposed plan for 197 S. "D" Street so that the setback variances are not needed; and (3) provide for adequate restrictions on how long vehicles can be stored on the outside of these buildings. DATED: July 31, 1998 Respectfully Submitted, 180005 -001 / PlanningCommissionMcmbersL .cttcr200 copy: John Jensen -T By: William J. Ward Attorneys for Western Door and John Jensen pvc 7 017 �t • 4 it r5a'9'+ i, ioy �r+arv_ ■ l ;• sI PHOTOS TAKEN 7 -20 -1998 206 / 208 SOUTH "D" STORAGE YARD AW --mss t �- LL' .: ;. � . .. _ - t' �..s, r 197 SOUTH "D" STORAGE YARD s� Y t'�< C. R. Cooper Insurance Brokerage Calif. Lic. #OA79680 215 North "D" Street, Suite 101 San Bernardino, California 92401 -1701 Ph: 909 -384 -1216 • Fax: 909- 384 -1632 8 -25 -98 �xI' l C !(�,, Ed English San Bernardino Glass and Mirror 167 South "D" street San Bernardino, CA 92401 RE: property and liability insurance Dear Ed; Pursuant to our last conversation this letter will confirm the potential negative impact to your property and liability insurance rates and ability to 'obtain insurance caused by a change of the occupancy of adjacent properties to your building. Building fire rates are based on the city's protection class, building age, construction, occupancy, housekeeping, frequency of losses, and adjacent building occupancies. Currently San Bernardino Glass has very low rates based on the above parameters of fire rating. We have control of all the above factors except frequency of outside loss and adjacent building occupancies. Frequency of outside loss is hard to monitor and the insurance companies adjust their rates and desire to provide insurance based on a building's surrounding properties. When a good business suffers numerous outside losses insurance companies will raise the rates and in some cases decline to offer coverage. During business hours an owner is able to monitor activities inside and outside their business and therefore prevent and minimize losses. Historically businesses that are adjacent to a 24 hour operation suffer more vandalism and malicious mischief do to public access. Further to the above, adjacent business occupancies with higher fire danger will effect the fire rates and availability of insurance for lower fire risks. San Bernardino Glass has a low fire rate do the type of business and lower fire hazard. Insurance carriers look at surrounding building occupancies to determine fires rates and obviously a building with a higher fire rating will effect the rates of others as fires do spread from one building to another. Along with fire safety concerns, insurance carriers also are concerned with premises liability. Businesses with a 24 hour operation traditionally have more losses do to increased "traffic ". Obviously adjacent business have the same increase in losses. pg 1 of 2 In summary, I am concerned about the changes in adjacent building occupancies. Your current insurance carrier has provided and rated your insurance based on a location without an increased fire risk. Your future rates and insurance availability will be placed in jeopardy by a change in adjacent building occupancies. Cordially Yours; C.Roger Coope f C. R Cooper Insurance Brokerage Calif. Uc. t OA796W City of San Bernardino Resident Service Request Public Information Office 300 North D Street - San Bernardino, Ca. 92418 (714) 384 -5211 )equest Number: 50303 D ,47-4:- 12 -02 -96 Mailer Y /N: No .equest Type: 122 Property Nuisance Unsightly Pr Projected Resolution referral Dept: 181 Building & Safety Date: 11 -22 -96 2ontact Name: Debra Daniels Ext: 5205 8u33cOpOl Code: 00 vocation: ,omplainant: ,ddress: Aty, State, ,hone: lard: ,aken By: G 197 S "D" STREET PLANNING - MARGARET Zip: 3 /BB FRANSKE Date: 11 -07 -96 Time: 12:18PM )escription: 3E -837 STORING JUNK /DAMAGED VEHICLES (BOATS, TRACTORS, TRAILERS) -THEN PERMIT WAS ISSUED FOR VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY (IN JUNE) _ZEQUIREMENT WAS FOR SUMBMITTAL & APPROVAL OF A DPI. STORAGE IS .XTERIOR. action Taken: ;losed Date: By: STOP - WORK NOTICE '0�_ hob f ���>> (u.ac.202) I CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, CA 92418 -0001 f (909) 384 -5071 • FAX (909) 384 -5463 LOCATION: /S \ / r DATE: -� OWNER: / / �LW ?C!'/ k/ ✓\/ ADDRESS: Y / �: � j � S�,►>E: 230- ODE: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO STOP WORK. YOU ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE. 15.04,020: PERMIT REQUIRED FO CONSTRUCTION ALTERATIO7 a (U.C. 301(a)) / f Description of Work: — o / /. < < // l T 9,1// U STS/ t ! s SPECIAL INVESTIGATION AND FEE REQUIRED (U.aC. 304(d)) PLANS REQUIRED OTHER The listed violations must be corrected within O days. Please notify an inspector of the Department of Planning and Building Services when corrections have been completed. If you have any questions, please call this Department. Thank You. /? ,, / I Phone: � � � .� B NG INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE If you object to the determination concerning this STOP -WORK NOTICE, you muse file a written protest to the BOARD OF BUILDING COMMISSIONERS no later than ir !ten? days from the date of this notice, however, no work may proceed until the board has acted upon the appeal. Failure to correct the listed violations may result in the City placing a Notice of Pendancy upon this property until the violations are corrected. Compliance with this notice, before, on, or after the above compliance date, does not prevent prosecution by the City Attorney's Office on any of the above violations of the San Bernardino Municipal Code. Violators maybe punished by a fine of up to $500 or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period Of six (6) months or by both fine and imprisonment. DW r1t=UTXM: WW E - MAIL TO OWNER / CANARY • INSPECTOR / PINK • RLE / MARD coPY - POST /-I T PLAN -16.05 110-931 i F, , r M1� ��. nt- 77 01 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO Department of Planning and Building Services Memorandum TO: Tim Sabo, Sabo and Green FROM: Margaret Park, Associate Planner RE: Chronology of events on Michael Allen project DATE: May 7, 1997 COPIES: Mike Hays, Director Valerie Ross, Principal Planner 208 S. "D" File This chronology is based on information in the high density file for 208 South "D" Street and the file for CDP #1866. - 1/6/78 Letter re: Minor Variance 2/2/78* Letter re: description of CDP project 2/13/78 Minor Variance application date 3/1/78 Initial Study checklist prepared, Negative Declaration recommended 3/18/78 Letter of objection from Frisone 3/20/78 Letter of objection from Pollock 4/18/78 Letter of objection from Martin Business Machines 4/18/78 Letter of objection from Di -Line Corp. 4/19/78 P.C. approval 5/1/78* M.C.C. approval 1978 Date unknown -written note of compliant about business 8 YEAR VOID 8/18/86* Memo to file from Planner Norton documenting that he was refused entry to the property by the owner. 1986 Date unknown- written note to file re: complaint 5 YEAR VOID 1990? Date unknown -Ross met with Allen, then item was pulled from BBC agenda 8/21/91 * Letter to Allen from Al Williams re: compliance with Code and CDP 11/4/91 Note in Code Compliance file that Allens failed to respond to the correction notice (8/21/91 letter) 11/15/91 Notice of Pendency of Administrative Proceeding /Correction Notice -10 day P,4jP- I o� 2— compliance request 3/23/92* Letter to Allen from Boughey /Nolfo re: hearing date before BBC 3/24/92* Letter to BBC from Allen re: request for continuance 4/3/92 BBC: request for continuance denied, abatement costs imposed ($373) 4 YEAR VOID 6/11/96* Letter of complaint from Jensen 7/10/96* Memo to Donaghe/Paulsen from Ross re: status of Di -Line Bldg. 7/10/96* Memo to Ross from Donaghe re: applicant aware of requirement for DPI 12/17/96* Letter to Allen re: compliance with the CDP; states that site must be cleaned up by January 21, 1997. 1/21/97 No clean -up done at site. 2/6/97 Meeting with Allens, J. Thompson, S. Paulsen; Mr. Allen agrees to submit a Development Permit by March 8, 1997. 2/11/97* Memo to Hays re: summary of 2/6/97 meeting - DPII required in lieu of CDP conditions fulfillment 3/8/97 No Development Permit application submitted as agreed. 3/25/97* Letter to Allen from Hays re: revocation of CDP i C I T Y O F an bernardino O F F I C E O F T H E C I T Y A T T O R N E Y J A M E S F P E N M A N C I T Y A T T O R N E Y 26 February 1997 Mr. John Jensen Western Door & Window 444 Athol Street San Bernardino, CA 92401 RE: Your letter of 25 February 1997 Dear Mr. Jensen: Thank you for your letter of 25 February 1997 regarding "the Al lens" . This office declared a conflict some time ago when the matter of City of San Bernardino vs Michael Allen was brought to my attention by Code Enforcement. I referred the matter to the Mayor at that time and I would encourage you to contact his office in regard to your complaint. once a conflict has been declared it is impermissible for the department declaring the conflict to even inquire, yet alone intervene or attempt to influence any city action, investigation or decision on the matter in any way. PAje- / 0�- 4 PRIDE IN PROGR SS 3 0 0 N O R T H D S T R E E T. S A N 9 E R N A R D I N 0 C A L I F 0 R N I A 9 2 4 1 8 - 0 0 0 1 (9 0 9) 3 1 •- 5 3 S 5 Mr. John Jensen 26 February 1997 Page Two I have forwarded your letter with its enclosures to the Mayor. Yours Very Truly, James F. Penman City Attorney cc: Mayor's Office Councilwoman Rita Arias San Bernardino Glass Dixon Wheel Service Ralph Affaitati Truitt Westbrook Sanborn Fire Protection Circle -North American Steuart Goodwin Pipe Organs Courtney Motors Page Electric Company United Moving and Storage P ,15 e _9 o 12- ��Y% ► I CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 300 North 'D" Street, San Bernardino, California 92418 Phone 909.384.5057, Fax 909.384.5080 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FINAL AUGUST 18, 1998 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL COMMISSIONERS D URR, Kenneth ENCISO, Alfredo GARCM, Ernest HENDRIX, Wayne LOCK=, Evelyn SCRMING, Walter SUAREZ, Joe THRASHER, Carol TIDE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO RECOGNIZES ITS OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE EQUAL ACCESS TO PUBLIC SERVICES TO THOSE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES. PLEASE CONTACT THE DIRECTOR OF FACILITIES MANAGE (3845244) 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING WITH ANY REQUESTS FOR REASONABLE.... ACCOMMODATION, TO INCLUDE SIGN INTERPRETERS. Decisions of the Planning Commission are final concerning Conditional Use Permits, Development Permits, Tentative Tract Maps and Variances, unless appealed to the Mayor and Council. Appeals to the Mayor and Council must be made in writing, stating the grounds of the appeal, and must be submitted to the Planning and Building Services Department along with the appropriate fee within fifteen days of the decision. General Plan Amendments and Amendments to the Municipal (Development) Code will automatically be forwarded to the Mayor and Common Council-for final action. If you challenge the resultant action of the Planning Commission in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Planning Division at, or prior to, the public hearing. Individual testimony on agenda items will be strictly limited to five minutes per person. • CALL TO ORDER • SALUTE TO THE FLAG • PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT On each item before the Planning Commission, we will first hear a report from staff and then the public hearing will be opened. Commissioners may ask questions of any speaker. i Aye- 3 Anyone in the audience wishing to speak must be sworn in and also fill out a request to speak form. The forms are located on the table near the door. When your name is called, come forward and speak into the microphone giving your name and address for the taped record. The applicant will present his or her case. Next, members of the public will be allowed five minutes to speak. After all have spoken, the applicant will be allowed to summarize. The public hearing will then be closed. The Planning Commission is anxious to hear the concerns and views of all persons wishing to give testimony. However, it is requested that each speaker try to add new information and not repeat points which previous speakers have made. • ADMINISTRATION OF OATH •PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA *PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA • CONSENT AGENDA -- Planning Commission Minutes of June 3, 1998 and July 7, 1998. CONTINUED ITEMS: 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 98-06 AND VARIANCE NO. 98-02 (Continued from 7/7/98, 7/21/98 and 8/4/98) - To establish a storage facility in an existing 11,500 square foot building in the IL, Industrial Light, land use district, under authority of Code Section 19.08.020, Table 08.01(16). Items to be stored in the building include automobiles miscellaneous furniture and a liances and office equ_ip_mgnt. Proposed is an outside) vehicle impound yard located at the north end of the site in the front and -side _ ard+ The applicant also requests approval of a variance of Code Section 19.08.030, Table 08.02 and 19.20.030(8)(A), Table 20.01(2), to reduce the 10 foot front and side yard setbacks to zero to accommodate placement of the outside vehicle impound yard; reduce the 10 foot front yard setback to 5 feet along "D" Street, reduce the 10 foot side yard setback to zero along Athol Street; and increase the maximum allowable fence/wall height from 6 feet to 8 feet in the front and side street setback areas. The subject property is a rectangularly- shaped parcel of land consisting of about 0.73 acres located at the northeast corner of Athol and "D" Streets, having a frontage of about 225 feet on the east side of "D" Street and a frontage of 142 feet on the north side of Athol Street and further JM� described as bein g located at197 South "D" Street. a-L� Environmental y e � � t'� 4f - lwij Determination: l Exempt from CEQA, Section 15061(b)(3) Owner: Michael & Brenda Allen Applicant: Paul Toomey, Toomey & Associates Ward: 3 Planner: Deborah Woldruff — tp c c� �u � � ��_ 4 e 4'2 4't --- " RECOMMENDED MOTION: That the he4iring be closed and that the Planning Commissi�i approve Conditional Use Permit No. 98 -06 and Variance No. 98 -02 to reduce the 10 foot front and street side setbacks to 5 feet and 4 feet, respectively, and the 10 foot interior side and rear setbacks, based on the Findings of Fact, subject to the Conditions of Approval (Attachment "D ") and Standard Requirements (Attachment "E "); and deny the variance requests to reduce the front setback to accommodate the establishment of an o tdoor vehicle impound yard and to increase a /L o 2 y��I' / 8/18/98-Final J\ .I /. w the maximum fence and wall heights from 6 feet to 8 feet along the "D" and Athol Street frontages, based on the Findings of Fact. 2. TENTATIVE TRACT NO 15743 (Continued from 8/4/981 - To establish a 38 lot single family residential subdivision with a minimum lot size of 10,800 square feet in the RL, Residential Low, land use district. The subject property is an irregularly- shaped parcel of land consisting of about 14.45 acres located at the southwest corner of Palm Avenue and Washington Avenue, having a frontage of about 1,386 feet on the south side of Washington Avenue and a frontage of 708 feet on the west side of Palm Avenue. Environmental Determination: Negative Declaration Owner: Verdemont Ranch, L.L.C. Applicant: David E. Mlynarski, MAPCO Ward: 5 Planner: Joe Bellandi RECOMMENDED MOTION: That the hearing be closed and that the Planning Commission adopt the Negative Declaration and approve Tentative Tract No. 15743, based on the Findings of Fact, subject to the Conditions of Approval (Attachment "D ") and Standard Requirements (Attachment "E "). NEW ITEMS: 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-18 - To permit a private preschool and outdoor playground at an existing church, in the RU -2, Residential Urban, land use district, under authority of Code Section 19.04.020(6)(C). The subject property is an irregularly- shaped parcel of land consisting of about 1.4 acres located at the northeast corner of Arrowhead Avenue and 10th Street, having a frontage of about 275 feet on the east side of Arrowhead Avenue and a frontage of 272 feet on the north side of 10th Street, and further described as being located at 1001 N. Arrowhead Avenue. Environmental Determination: Exempt from CEQA, Section 15301(e)(2) Owner: First Christian Church Applicant: Cothran Management Ward: 2 Planner: Margaret Park RECOMMENDED MOTION: That the hearing be closed and that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 97 -18, based on the Findings of Fact, subject to the Conditions of Approval (Attachment "D ") and Standard Requirements (Attachment "E "). 4. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO, 98-03 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-14 - To amend the General Plan land use plan from the PF, Public Facilities designation on the north side to the PCR, Public /Commercial Recreation designation; and on the south side from the PF, Public Facilities designation to the CG -1, Commercial General designation; and a request for a conditional use permit to permit a golf course, hotel, conference center, retail center, restaurants, driving range, and sports bar, under authority of Code Sections 14�,4jZ 3 c94— 3 8/18/98 -Final l� fI Df Y� �F SpN cEQLA^�NtNG 3 'p3TMDNNG SEp \J'�CES IXY grants delay in blight case ■ San Bernardino delays action against company operating In violation of a conditional use permit. By LYNN ANDERSC,w SUNDAY. July 13, 1997 SAN BERNARDINO — The view from John Jensen's down- town warehouse is hardly attrac- tive. When the president of West- ern Door surveys his surround- ings, he sees junk, a whole lot of it — an asphalt plot of battered, busted old cars. "Some of those cars have been there at least seven years," Jen- sen said Friday. "They have Do- bermans in there that hit the fence and send your hair flying." Sick of the trouble at 208 South D St., a car - storage lot owned and operated by Michael P. Allen and Associates, Jensen and 10 other downtown business owners petitioned city officials to clean up the place. When Planning Department staef looked c oser. however, thev Found the business had been oneratin� illegally sinrS Tabout �1978. when the Planning ommmission approved a condi- tional development permit al- lowing temporary vehicle stor- age only. "I think it looks like a junk yard." Planning Director Mike Hays said of the Allen and Asso- ciates car lot. "There are cars there that have registration stickers from the late '80s." At a Planning Commission meeting last xcek. members con- templated revoking the Allen and Associates permit but agreed to a 45 -day extension after an attorney and a represen- tative of the San Bernardino Area Chamber of Commerce re- quested a 90 -day reprieve. °tThe Allen and Associates property) looks more like a used - car lot without the lot boy wash- ing, the cars every day." said .Judi Thompson. chamber of com- nfrrce executive director. Thompson s husband. City At- torney Jim Penman. told the _„m :nu ;uin he had a conflict of' SAN BERNARDINO interest and could not advise the group because he had received political campaign contributions from the :Alen family. Thompson's defense of the company angered Jensen. "; feel like what she did was totally inappropriate, totally un- ethical," he said. "I feel line I'm caught up in a political situation. I plan to take it to the (chamber of commerce) board." For their part, city officials are embarrassed. "Yes, it just seems that this one just fell through the cracks," said J. Lorraine Velarde, the mayor's executive assistant. Of all the conditional use per- mits distributed throughout the city, the planning department can't check on all of them, Hays said. "We have to go by the honor system. Businesses say they will abide by the permit and 99 per- cent follow through." When Jensen brought the is- sue to the planning department last fall, Hays sought resolution. The planning director wrote to lot owner Michael P. Allen in December, notifying him that his business was not in compliance. Certain changes, including re- moval of some of the cars and fresh landscaping, were request- ed. "It is estimated that there are approximately 150 cars and trucks stored in the yard." Hays wrote. "This is more than twice the number authorized. (Also) there are stacks of old tires, a junked storage shed. a jacuzzi and other assorted items visible from the street." Still. major improvements to the site didn't happen, said Hays, who visits the car lot at least twice a month."They have re- moved some of the cars but they haven't done enough." If by the end of the 45 -day ex- tension. .Alen and Associates still hasn t cleaned up the lot, Flays said he -ill push for permit revocation --Forty-five d.iys is ample time.' he.iaid rr _' n ATTACHMENT "C" MICHAV P. KLEN & &W.,ATEinpa February 2, 1978 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESCRIPTION OF OPERATION: r We intend to develop the property that is located on Athol Street, South side, between the streets of "D" and Stoddard in a method that agrees with all re- quirements of the City of San Bernardino. The property is to be used for -the TEMPORARY STORAGE of repossessed motor vehicles. Our clients range from local Credit Union's to the largest bank in the world, Bank of America. After the motor vehicles are recovered, it is necessary to secure the unit's within a protected compound until the personal effects are removed, paper work is com- pleted and a decision is reached in regards to the collateral property's dis- position. This usually is accomplished within a few days after the vehicle is recovered. The development of this property is required since our current loca- tion at 1320 East Baseline Street, San Bernardino, California is no longer large enought to secure the amount of vehicles that are being repossessed by our agency. The volume of our buisness has grown over 100% since the summer of 1977. We intend to develop the westerly portion of the property initially. We are following this procedure since our office building will be built on the easterly portion facing "D" Street. We have intentions of establishing our numerical address as 200 South "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. The office building will hopefully be completed in approximently one year. We will temporarily establish an office within a standard type office lease trailer. We also have intentions of building a storage and garage type building to store equipment and personal effects that have been removed from the repossessed automobiles. Such a building is necessary until the debtors contact our office to redeem their personal effects. We have not deceided at this point whether the buildings will be metal or block. Rest assured, the build- ings will be developed with-the general area in mind. The area will be secured with a chain link fence and several mercury type lights. The area will be paved with asphalt and concrete will be installed in appropriate areas. ALSO, after the property is developed the area will be maintained in a clean and organized manner. As stated F P. 0. BOX 5411, SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92412 • TELEPHONE (714) 886 -3136 �` P.O. BOX 1414, RIVERSIDE, CALIFORKA 92502 TELEPHONE (714) 683 -4205 ` a Ca1110fW& St+te UC*nS* Nwnbtr f-401 February 2, 1978 Page Two DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESCRIPTION OF OPERATION CONTINUED: above the building should be completed- within one year from the date of our occupancy. Yary truly yours, Hichael P. Allen EXHIBIT "4" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Memorandum TO: Planning Commissio FROM: Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CUP No. 98 -06 and VAR No. 98 -02 - Financial Assurances Information and Revised, Colored Elevations DATE: August 13, 1998 COPIES: Michael E. Hays, Director; and, Project Files BACKGROUND INFORMATION This project was continued by the Planning Commission on August 4, 1998 to the August 18, 1998 meeting, and staff was directed to bring back information on potential financial assurance mechanisms and a revised wall elevation. On Wednesday, August 12, 1998, Planning and Public Works staff met with the Allens to review the draft cost estimates of the project's on -site and off -site improvements that were prepared by applicants' consultant, Mr. Paul Toomey. A cooperative discussion between staff and the applicants resulted in the inclusion of some off -site improvement costs that had been overlooked. The estimated improvement costs and types of financial assurances are outlined below. FINANCIAL ASSURANCES Financial Assurance Methods Development Code §19.30.220 allows applicant's to use any approved types of financial assurances. Three most commonly used types of financial assurances are described below: 1. Escrow Account - requires that the applicant deposit the full cost of improvements. The money sits in the account until the improvements are completed by the applicant or the money is withdrawn by the City to complete the improvements. 2. Performance Bond - requires that the applicant pay a percentage of the face value of the improvement costs each year that the bond is active. Planning Commission Memorandum RE: CUP No. 98 -06 and VAR No. 98 -02 August 13, 1998 Page 2 3. Letter of Credit - requires that a lending company guarantee the full cost of improvements to the City. If the applicant does not complete the improvements, the lender must pay the City and pursue reimbursement from the applicant. The Allens have indicated that if a financial assurance is required, they will most likely provide a Letter of Credit to cover the improvement costs. Project Improvements Costs If the Planning Commission requires a financial assurance from the applicants, it will need to cover the construction /material costs of the following project improvements: 1. landscaping and irrigation system; 2. ornamental wrought iron fencing (with gates); 3. concrete block pilasters; 4. decorative concrete block wall (with gate); 5. modify driveway approaches on "D" and Athol Streets; and, 6. removal of existing driveway approach on "D" Street (replace with sidewalk, curb and gutter). The total cost of the improvements is estimated at $26,100. A listing of the individual costs is shown on Attachment A. REVISED, COLORED ELEVATIONS The applicant submitted a revised, colored elevation of the proposed wall and fence. The Planning Commission had requested that the wall be constructed from masonry block materials that match the building construction. They also requested that the fence pilasters be spaced 16 feet on center. Both of the changes have been made and the proposed wall, fence and landscaping meets the Design Guidelines in the Development Code. It is important to note that the proposed height and location of the wall and fence still do not meet Code. ATTACHMENT: A. Construction Cost Estimate ATTACIEMENT "A" CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE SCREENiNGALANDSC"E IlVIPROVE UUM - CUP 98-06 Mflw/Brenda A&R, Owners DescriR& —n Unit Coat Quantity _ C09t Landscape and irrigation System, $2.75/s.£ 2,464 s.f. $60775 per city stadatda OrnamcnW iron Fcncmg $16/Lf. 245 LE 3,920 6 "x8 "xl6" Concrete Block Wall per plan. S35/Lf. 73 Lf 2,555 8"x16 "x16" Cone.. Block P&Acrs $600 ea 17 10,200 Driycway modi katioa% parking lot staping. .L=p sum 2.635 Total Contraction Cost $26,180 Improvenents witkin public right -of -way: ,p and irtign $2.75/s.f. 1,000 s.f. $2,750 EXHIBIT "5" S Y CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION CASE: Conditional Use Permit No AGENDA ITEM: 2 HEARING DATE: July 7, 1998 WARD: 3 APPLICANT: Paul Toomey Toomey & Associates 34590 County Line Road #5 Yucaipa, CA 92399 (909) 795 -1899 98 -06 and Variance No. 98 -02 OWNER: Michael and Brenda Allen 206 South "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92401 (909) 825 -8545 REQUEST / LOCATION - A request to establish a storage facility in an existing 11,500 square foot building with an outdoor vehicle impound yard. Items proposed to be stored in the building include automobiles and recreational vehicles, miscellaneous furniture and appliances, and office equipment. The variance requests are to: reduce the front and street side yard setbacks; reduce the interior side and rear setbacks to accommodate the establishment of an outdoor vehicle impound yard; and, increase the maximum fence and wall height requirements in front and street side setback areas. CONSTRAINTS /OVERLAYS ern ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: • Not Applicable • Exempt, Section 15061(b)(3) general rule • No Significant Effects • Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring /Reporting Plan STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ■ APPROVAL ■ CONDITIONS ❑ DENIAL ❑ CONTINUANCE TO: CUP No. 98 -06 & VAR No. 98 -02 Hearing Date: 07/07/98 Page 2 REQUEST, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit to establish an storage facility in an existing 11,500 square foot building with an outdoor vehicle impound yard. Items to be stored in the building include automobiles, miscellaneous furniture and appliances and office equipment. The proposed outdoor vehicle impound yard will be located at the north end of the site. The applicant also requests approval to vary from Development Code standards, as follows: 1. To reduce the 10 foot front and street side setbacks (along "D" and Athol Streets) to 5 feet and 4 feet, respectively; 2. To reduce the 10 foot interior side and rear setbacks to zero to accommodate the establishment of an outdoor vehicle impound yard (with a 6 foot screening wall along a portion of "D" Street); and, 3. To increase the maximum allowable fence and wall heights in the front and street side setbacks from 6 feet to 8 feet (along "D" and Athol Streets). The 0.73 acre project site is located at 197 South "D" Street, on the northeast corner of Athol and "D" Streets in the IL, Industrial Light General Plan land use designation. (See Attachment A, Site Location Map; and, Attachment B, Site Plan and Floor Plan) SETTING /SITE CHARACTERISTICS The site is developed with an 11,500 square foot industrial building and associated site improvements. The is relatively flat and rectangularly- shaped. It is surrounded by a mix of light industrial uses and commercial services in the middle of an IL district that is bounded by Mayfield Avenue on the east, Mill Street on the south, Stoddard Avenue on the west, and Rialto Avenue on the north. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) STATUS The proposed conversion of the 11,500 square foot manufacturing building and site to a storage facility with an outdoor vehicle impound yard will not result in any significant environmental impacts to the site or surrounding area. Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines states such activities are covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty CUP No. 98 -06 & VAR No. 98 -02 Hearing Date: 07/07/98 Page 3 that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. BACKGROUND In April 1997, Michael and Brenda Allen were cited for establishing an illegal vehicle storage use at 197 South "D" Street. The Allens' filed a Development Permit Type I (DPI No. 97 -34) to establish the use on May 22, 1997. A Variance Application to reduce required setbacks and increase allowable fencing heights was submitted on November 4, 1997. DPI No. 97 -34 and VAR No. 97 -20 were deemed abandoned by the City on December 21, 1997. On February 13, 1998, the Allens' submitted Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 98 -06 for the storage use with an outdoor vehicle impound yard, and VAR No. 98 -02 to address setback and fence /wall height issues. The original proposal for DPI No. 97 -34 was for indoor storage of vehicles, and office equipment and furniture, only. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS Outdoor Vehicle Impound Yard and Storage Use 1. The proposed use is conditionally permitted within, and would not impair the integrity and character of the subject land use district and complies with all of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The proposed storage facility with an outdoor vehicle impound yard is conditionally permitted in the IL, Industrial Light land use designation. Other than the request to vary from specified Development Code standards, the site plan is in conformance with the IL district standards and requirements. (See Attachment C, Development Code /General Plan Conformance Table) 2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. General Plan Policy 1.32.10 identifies outdoor display and storage as a use permitted in the IL district. The policy also states that similar uses, characterized by the location of their predominant activities in enclosed buildings, are permitted in the IL. The outdoor vehicle impound yard can be categorized as a similar use. 3. The approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed use is in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Section 19.20.030(6) of the Development Code. CUP No. 98 -06 & VAR No. 98 -02 Hearing Date: 07/07/98 Page 4 Planning staff conducted a preliminary review (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15060) to determine the presence and extent of any environmental issues that could result from implementation of the project. The project proposes indoor storage of vehicles and office equipment and furniture, and outdoor storage vehicle storage. Neither vehicle repair or dismantling are proposed for this project. And in fact, vehicle dismantling is not permitted as an outdoor use in the IL district. Based on the project description, site and surrounding area, staff s review did not identify any significant environmental impacts. The CEQA Guidelines §15061(c)(3)(b) states that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. This project is covered by the general rule and, as such, is not subject to CEQA. 4. There will be no potentially significant negative impacts upon environmental quality and natural resources that could not be properly mitigated and monitored. The project is not anticipated to result in any potentially significant negative environmental impacts. S. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses within the general area in which the proposed use is to be located and will not create significant noise, traffic or other conditions or situations that may be objectionable or detrimental to other permitted uses in the vicinity or adverse to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. The operational characteristics of the proposed use have been evaluated for compatibility with the existing and future land uses in the area. The site and building design are similar to the existing light industrial and commercial service facilities located on "D" Street in proximity to the project. And, the proposed use is similar to other uses in the area. Based on staff's evaluation, the project will not be objectionable or detrimental to other permitted uses in the area or adverse to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. 6. The subject site is not physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed. The site is not physically suitable for the outdoor vehicle impound yard, as proposed. The encroachment of the outdoor vehicle impound yard into the front setback area appears to be an over- intensification of the site. Development Code § 19.08.030(2)(3) requires that outside storage be confined to the rear of the principal structure or the rear two- thirds of the site, whichever is more restrictive. The existing development on the site precludes placement of the outdoor storage in the rear yard. As a solution, staff recommends that the outdoor vehicle storage yard CUP No. 98 -06 & VAR No. 98 -02 Hearing Date: 07/07/98 Page 5 be limited to behind the front elevation of the building. The required screening would extend north of the front building elevation to the north property line. 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. The project was reviewed by the Development Review Committee to ensure that the site design includes adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and services. (See Attachment D, Conditions of Approval; and, Attachment E, Standard Requirements) Front and Street Side Setbacks The subject property is developed with the building placed in the ten foot rear setback (along the east property line), and with the parking and circulation areas in the ten foot front and street side setback areas along "D" and Athol Streets. The existing improvements along "D" Street include a ten foot planter of which five feet are located in the public right -of -way. 1. There are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this Development Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical land use district classification. Due to the existing site layout, the requirement for 10 foot setbacks along the street frontages would eliminate required parking and on -site circulation. Adequate on -site parking and circulation are necessary to ensure that the use and site are functional. 2. The granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and land use district and denied to the property for which the variance is sought. Strict application of the Development Code requirement for ten foot landscape setbacks along "D" and Athol Streets would remove required parking and circulation and render the site unusable. 3. The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in the such vicinity and land use district in which the property is located. CUP No. 98 -06 & VAR No. 98 -02 Hearing Date: 07/07/98 Page 6 A reduction of the 10 foot front and street side landscape setbacks will not pose any threat to the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of San Bernardino. 4. The granting of the Variance does not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and land use district in which such property is located. The project site is located in an older area wherein many buildings and sites do not conform to current Code requirements. While the landscape planters (both existing and proposed) along "D" and Athol Streets do not meet Code requirements, they will still provide enhancement to a site that is largely bereft of any design features. S. The granting of the Variance will not allow a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject parcel. The reduction of the front and street side setback areas will not affect the nature and /or intensity of the proposed use which is conditionally permitted by Development Code §19.08.020, Table 08.01(16) in the IL, Industrial Light district. Storage facilities are permitted by Development Code §19.08.020, Table 08.01(39) in the IL district. 6. The granting of the Variance will not be inconsistent with the General Plan. The reduction of the front and street side setback areas does not change the industrial character of the property, or the nature and /or intensity of the proposed use. Therefore, the granting of this variance would not be inconsistent with the provisions in the General Plan for the IL land use designation. Other Setback Issues The project proposes to establish the outdoor vehicle impound yard in the 10 foot front, interior side, and rear setback area at the north end of the site. 1. There are no special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this Development Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical land use district classification. There are no special circumstances relating to the property that can be applied in this instance other than the applicant would like to establish the outdoor use in this area of the site. Staff does not support the encroachment of the outdoor use into the front setback along a 72 foot stretch of "D" street because of the screening requirement. The Development Code requires that CUP No. 98 -06 & VAR No. 98 -02 Hearing Date: 07/07/98 Page 7 outdoor uses be screened to a minimum height of 6 feet. The applicant proposes to screen the impound yard with an 8 foot block wall placed behind the landscape planter. This would place the wall only 5 feet from the public right -of -way which is not appropriate along "D" Street. Staff does support the encroachment of the outdoor use into the interior side and rear setback areas, behind the front face of the building. Given the existing development, the site does not have a rear yard in which outdoor uses could be established. 2. The granting of the Variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and land use district and denied to the property for which the variance is sought. The majority of industrial properties in the area do not have outdoor uses that encroach into the front setback along a major street frontage. 3. The granting of the Variance will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and land use district in which the property is located. The granting of the variance may be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare in that it will result in a negative visual impact along "D" Street. Staff would support establishment of the use behind the front face of the building. 4. The granting of the Variance does constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and land use district in which such property is located. Approval of the variance would constitute a special privilege in that other properties in the vicinity do not have outdoor uses in front yard areas. The side yard area, located behind the front face of the building, has over 6,000 square feet available for the outdoor use. It should be noted that the subject property is located in a blighted area. The implementation of the Development Code standards, particularly along its major corridors, would greatly benefit the area. Staff supports the request to reduce the 10 foot interior side and rear setbacks with the outdoor use located behind the front face of the building. 5. The granting of the Variance will allow a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject parcel. CUP No. 98 -06 & VAR No. 98 -02 Hearing Date: 07/07/98 Page 8 The IL district does conditionally allow the outdoor vehicle impound yard but only in the rear yard. Given the configuration of the existing site, placement of the outdoor use in the interior side yard, behind the front of the building face, is a reasonable alternative. 6. The granting of the Variance will be inconsistent with the General Plan. General Plan Policy 1.32.10 stipulates that the manufacturing and warehousing uses permitted in the IL, Industrial Light land use designation be characterized by the location of their predominant activities in enclosed buildings. This policy is implemented through the Development Code which requires that outdoor storage and other uses be placed behind the rear face of the building or the rear two - thirds of the site, whichever is more restrictive. Based on the preceding, placement of the outdoor vehicle impound yard in the front setback area is inconsistent with the General Plan. However, staff does support placement of the yard behind the front face of the building and in the interior side and rear setback area. Fence and Wall Heights 1. There are no special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this Development Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical land use district classification. The Development Code allows open work fencing up to a maximum height of 6 feet in front and street side setback areas in industrial districts. The project proposes an 8 foot fence along the "D" Street and Athol Street frontages. Also proposed is an 8 foot screen wall for the outdoor vehicle impound yard along the northern 72 feet of the "D" Street frontage. The applicant feels that the additional height is needed to provide adequate security for the site. Staff does not support the variance requests for the additional fence and wall height, or for the solid screen wall adjacent to "D" Street. A 6 foot open work fence along the entire length of both street frontages would provide adequate security given that the building and the outdoor yard can be secured behind the perimeter fence. 2. The granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and land use district and denied to the property for which the variance is sought. As previously discussed, the building and outdoor yard area can be secured independent of the perimeter fencing. Typical security measures for the building and yard (i.e., building alarm system, security lighting, and locks for doors, windows and gates) combined with a 6 foot perimeter fence should provide adequate security for the site. The visual impacts of an 8 foot CUP No. 98 -06 & VAR No. 98 -02 Hearing Date: 07/07/98 Page 9 fence and /or wall must be weighed against any additional security benefits the structures might provide. 3. The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in the such vicinity and land use district in which the property is located. The proposed fence and wall will be constructed in conformance with all applicable City requirements and as such, will not pose any threat to the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of San Bernardino. 4. The granting of the Variance does constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and land use district in which such property is located. Other uses in the City are able to comply with the fencing standard which calls for a 6 foot open work fences in front and street side setbacks. The proposed 8 foot fence is excessive along "D" and Athol Streets. Security fencing that high might be needed along rear and interior side property lines that are obscured from public view and vulnerable to intruders. However, the frontages along "D" Street and Athol Street have adequate street lighting and high visibility. The proposed 8 foot wall along a portion of the "D" Street frontage is to provide adequate screening for a storage use that is not appropriate or permitted in the front yard. Therefore the variance request for additional fence and wall heights does constitute a special privilege. S. The granting of the Variance does allow a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject parcel. The approval of the 8 foot screen wall would permit an outdoor use (outdoor vehicle impound yard) that is not permitted in the front setback. The purpose of the proposed 8 foot open work fence is to provide security for the site, only. Therefore, the approval would not result in the establishment of a land use that is not permitted in the district. 6. The granting of the Variance will be inconsistent with the General Plan. The request for additional fence and wall height is inconsistent with the General Plan. Policies 1.32.30 and 1.32.32 call for buildings and sites to be designed to convey visual interest and character, and to provide extensive landscape setbacks along principal street frontages. An 8 foot fence would make the site look like a compound. CUP No. 98 -06 & VAR No. 98 -02 Hearing Date: 07/07/98 Page 10 CONCLUSION The proposed outdoor vehicle impound yard and storage facility are conditionally permitted in the IL district. The applicant has included several variance requests in the project proposal. Staff supports the proposed reduction of the front and street side landscape setbacks because the reductions are necessary for the provision of adequate on -site parking and circulation. Staff does not support the variance requests to reduce a portion of the front setback to accommodate the placement of the outdoor use in the front yard area. However, placement of the outdoor use in the interior side and rear setback areas behind the front face of the building is appropriate given the physical constraints of the site. Finally, the proposal for additional fence and wall height along "D" and Athol Streets will give the site a compound -like appearance. For this reason, staff does not support this element of the variance request. RECOMMENDATION Staff proposes that the Planning Commission take the following actions: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 98 -06, to establish an outdoor vehicle impound yard and storage facility in an existing 11,500 square foot manufacturing building based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the Conditions of Approval (Attachment D) and Standard Requirements (Attachment E); and, 2. Approve Variance No. 98 -02, to reduce the 10 foot front and street side setbacks to 5 feet and 4 feet, respectively, and the 10 foot interior side and rear setbacks based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the Conditions of Approval (Attachment D) and Standard Requirements (Attachment E); Deny the following variance requests based on the Findings of Fact: 1.) to reduce the front setback to accommodate the establishment of an outdoor vehicle impound yard; and, 2.) to increase the maximum fence and wall heights from 6 feet to 8 feet along the "D" and Athol Street frontages. Respectfully submitted, -_ MICHAEL E. HAYS Director of Planning and Building Services �� / �/ a � � BORAH WOLDRUFF Associate Planner CUP No. 98 -06 & VAR No. 98 -02 Hearing Date: 07/07/98 Page 11 ATTACHMENTS A Site Location Map B Site Plan /Floor Plan C Development Code /General Plan Conformance Table D Conditions of Approval E Standard Requirements F Applicant's Variance Findings Attachment C (CUP No. 98 -06 & VAR No. 98 -02) DEVELOPMENT CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE Category Proposal Develoament Code General Plan Proposed Outdoor Vehicle Conditionally Permitted Use Impound Yard & Permitted (Similar Use) Storage Facility Building Setbacks: Front 5 Feet Min. 10 Feet N/A Side (Street) 4 Feet Min. 10 Feet N/A Side (Interior) 0 Feet Min. 10 Feet N/A Rear 0 Feet Min. 10 Feet N/A Landscaping 16 Percent Min. 15 Percent N/A Parking 11 Spaces Min. 11 Spaces N/A (1 HC Space) (Min. 1 HC Space) I Variance Findings ATTACHMENT " 1 Allen DP-1 VARIANCE FINDINGS 1. There are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of this Code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical land use district classification; The project site has a Land Use designation of IL and is located on the northeast comer of 'D' Street and Athol Street. With two sides of the site bounded by public streets, where front and side street yard setbacks are required, and an existing building occupying over one -third of the site, there would be special circumstances applicable to the property. In addition, there are limitations created by site design. To satisfy site operational needs the drive aisles and space in front of the roll -up doors must accommodate the tow -truck maneuvering for building access. Any further reduction in the building or drive aisles by landscape planters would impact the site circulation and facility operations. This is most obvious at the south roll -up door and gate access from Athol Street. With only 26 feet of space between the building and property line /fence this entire distance is required for the maneuvering of towed vehicles upon entering the Athol Street gate. There are examples of light industrial buildings in the immediate vicinity and same land use with fencing within 5 feet of the property line. The first is a similar building located directly across 'D' with a 5 foot setback provided on Athol Street; the second is located on the northwest comer of 'D' and Athol Streets where a chain link fence is apparently located on the property line adjoining Stoddard Street. Although it is most likely that these buildings were constructed prior to the adoption of the current City Development Code, these properties provide examples of the relative minor impact to adjacent properties caused by the setback reduction. 2. That granting the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinitv and land use district and denied to the property for which the Variance is sought; It is the development standards of the district, not a particular land use, to which the Variance request is related. Other industrial properties have been permitted Variance Findings Allen DP -I to reduce the setbacks along the public ways where limited space is available for efficient operation of the business. The setback reduction will permit an existing building to house vehicles that are currently stored outside on another site, which will improve an existing, successful business. 3. That granting the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and land use district in which the property is located; Although the front setback is 50% of the required distance, the amount of landscaping provided in the parking area exceeds the minimum amount required by the city. Total landscaping (proposed and existing) amounts to 1,610 feet, which is 16% of the parking and circulation area. The Development Code requires the percentage of landscaping in the parking area to be 15 %. The distance available for vehicles stopped in the driveways along `D' Street (between curb and gate) is 16 feet which is generally sufficient to permit vehicles to clear the traffic lanes in the street. The reduction /elimination in the setback does not restrict access to the building nor do they create a hazardous design. 4. That granting the Variance does not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and land use district in which such property is located; The reduction in the front yard setback is the minimum necessary to meet the operational requirements of the auto impound facility and efficient site design. In addition, where a new, similar business is proposed and given the size of the parcels in the immediate area vicinity, other properties are subject to similar constraints and would need the same remedy to achieve a viable development under the current standards. 5. That granting the Variance does not allow a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject parcel; Granting this variance only provides for the reduction on setback area, a development standard issue, not permitting additional uses in the IL district. An Variance Findings Allen DP -I indoor storage use is permitted in this district by approval of a development permit and no additional unpermitted land uses are considered pert of this project. 6. That granting of the Variance will not be inconsistent with the General Plan. Goal 1 H states: Continue existing and establish new residential, commercial, industrial, open space, and public districts which are uniquely characterized by their functional role, permitted uses, density /intensity, and physical form. Under this goal, Objective 1.32 of the Light Industrial section includes language to retain, enhance, and provide for new existing light industrial uses. In addition, the proposed project is consistent with all the implementation policies, including the Design and Development Guidelines sections 1.32.10, 1.32.30, and 1.32.31. Through consistency with these goals, policies, and objectives, the proposed variance can be found consistent with the General Plan. As a result, the granting of the Variance does not violate, directly or indirectly, the goals, objectives or policies of the General Plan. TOOMEY & AISOCIATES Paul Toomey Planner 3 City of San Bernardino EXHIBIT 116" STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING CONOMSION ACTION PROJECT Number: Conditional Use Permit No. 98 -06 and Variance No. 98 -02 Address: 197 S. "D" Street Applicant: Paul Toomey, Toomey & Associates Owner: Michael and Brenda Allen Description: To establish a storage facility in an existing 11,500 square foot building. Items to be stored in the building include automobiles, miscellaneous furniture and appliances and office equipment. Also proposed is an outside vehicle impound yard located at the north end of the site in the front and side yards. Variance requests are to: reduce the 10 foot front and street side yard setbacks along "D" and Athol Streets to 5 feet and 4 feet, respectively; reduce the 10 foot interior side and rear setbacks to 0 to accommodate the establishment of an outdoor vehicle impound yard (with a 6 foot screening wall along a portion of "D" Street; and, increase the maximum allowable fence and wall heights in the front and street side setbacks from 6 feet to 8 feet along "D" and Athol Streets. The 0.73 acre site is located on the northeast corner of Athol and "D" Streets in the IL, Industrial Light, land use district. ACTION: APPROVED Meeting Date: August 18, 1998 The Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 98 -06 and Variance No. 98 -02, based on the Findings of Fact, subject to the Conditions of Approval (Attachment "D ") and Standard Requirements (Attachment "E "), to include a financial assurance 11 /z times the estimated value of the total construction cost, posted with the City within 15 days of the Commission's action, and that work shall be completed within 6 months. VOTE Ayes: Dun, Garcia, Hendrix and Suarez Nays: Schuiling and Thrasher Abstain: None Absent: Enciso and Lockett The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless a written appeal is filed, with the appropriate fee, within 15 days of the Planning Commission's action, pursuant to Section 19.52.100 of the Municipal (Development) Code. I hereby certify that this Statement of Official Action accurately reflects the final determination of the Planning Commission of the City of San Bernardino. Valerie C. Ross, Principal Planner Date(/ Enclosures cc: Applicant/Owner, Plan Check, Public Works /Engineering, Case Files, Department File, Address File ATTACHMENT D CUP No.98 -06 & VAR No. 98 -02 Hearing Date: 07/07/98 Page 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERNUT NO. 98 -06 & VARIANCE NO. 98 -02 * 1. Within six months of this development approval, establishment of the use shall have occurred or the permit/approval shall become null and void. The applicant shall submit a financial assurance 11h times the cost of the on- and off -site improvements ($26.100 x 11h = $39.150) within fifteen (15) days of this approval. Construction of all required improvements shall be completed within 6 months of project approval. In addition, if after commencement of construction, work is discontinued for a period of 6 months, then the permit/approval shall become null and void. Project: CUP NO. 98 -06 & VAR NO. 98 -02 Expiration Date: FEBRUARY 18, 1999 2. The review authority may, upon application being filed 30 days prior to the expiration date and for good cause, grant a one time extension of time not to exceed 12 calendar 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 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 attorney's fees which the City may be required by the Court to pay as a result of such action, but such participation shall not relieve the applicant of his or her obligation under this condition. 4. Construction shall be in substantial conformance with the plan(s) approved by the 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; *.Amended per Planning Commission on 8/18/98. ATTACHMENT D CUP No.98 -06 & VAR No. 98 -02 Hearing Date: 07/07/98 Page 2 C. Reconfiguration of architectural features, including colors, and /or modification of finished materials that do not alter or compromise the previously approve theme; and, d. A reduction in density or intensity of a development project. 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 of Occupancy. 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 lighting 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 compliance is obtained. Any exterior structural equipment, or utility transformers, boxes, ducts, or meter cabinets shall be architecturally screened by a wall or structural element, blending with the building design and include landscaping when on the ground. A sign program for all new commercial, office and industrial centers of three or more tenant spaces shall be approved by the Department prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 7. This development shall be required to maintain a minimum of 11 standard off - street parking spaces (which includes 1 HC van space) as shown on the approved plan(s) on file. 8. This Conditional Use Permit is for the storage facility with an outdoor vehicle impound yard which is used in conjunction with the existing auto /collateral property repossession business located at 206 South "D" Street. The property at 197 South "D" Street shall be used for the TEMPORARY STORAGE of repossessed motor vehicles, and office equipment and furniture, only. Any motor vehicle, other than those used in the transaction of business, shall be "turned over" as soon as is legally possible. ATTACHMENT D CUP No.98 -06 & VAR No. 98 -02 Hearing Date: 07/07/98 Page 3 9. Only vehicles or other property required to be licensed by the Department of Motor Vehicles or related agency may be stored outside. All other collateral property shall be stored within an enclosed building. Outside storage shall be limited to repossessed vehicles (as described above) in the process of being liquidated. 10. 11 12. This facility shall not be used as a dismanteling yard or repair facility, either as a primary and /or accessory use. The applicant is responsible for ensuring that the project complies with all applicable requirements of federal, State and County agencies. This permit or approval is subject to the attached conditions or standard requirements of the following City Departments or Divisions: XX Public Works /Engineering Department XX Development Services Division XX Water Department XX Fire Department XX Parks, Recreation & Community Services Department ATTACHMENT "E" STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS /ENGINEERING CASE NO: CUP 98-06 & VAR DESCRIPTION: ESTABLISH STORAGE FACILITY IN 98 -02 AN EXISTING 11.500 SF BUILDING APPLICANT: TOOMEY & ASSOCIATES. LOCATION: EIS "D" STREET NIS ATHOL STREET ♦ 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) 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. b) Applicant shall mitigate on -site storm water discharge sufficiently to maintain compliance with the City's NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit Requirements. 2. Grading and Landscapinq 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) 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 "). Page 1 of 5 Pages April 16, 1998 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS /ENGINEERING CASE NO: CUP 98-06 & VAR DESCRIPTION: ESTABLISH STORAGE FACILITY IN 98 -02 AN EXISTING 11,500 SF BUILDING APPLICANT: TOOMEY & ASSOCIATES. LOCATION: EIS "D" STREET NIS ATHOL STREET c) A refuse enclosure constructed in accordance with City Standard Drawing No. 508. The minimum size of the refuse enclosure shall be 8 feet x 15 feet, unless the Public Services Department, Refuse Division, approves a smaller size, in writing. d) 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. e) 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 provide 1 foot - candle of illumination uniformly distributed over the surface of the parking lot during hours of operation and 0.25 foot - candles security lighting during all other hours. f) 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. g) 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. Page 2 of 5 Pages Apdi 16, 1998 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS /ENGINEERING CASE NO: CUP 98-06 & VAR DESCRIPTION: ESTABLISH STORAGE FACILITY IN 98 -02 AN EXISTING 11,500 SF BUILDING APPLICANT: TOOMEY & ASSOCIATE'S. LOCATION: EIS "D" STREET NIS ATHOL STREET h) 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. i) 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) Utility services shall be placed underground and easements provided as required. c) A street cut permit, from the Director of Public Works /City Engineer, will be required for utility cuts into existing streets where the street is not being repaved as part of the required improvements. Page 3 of 5 Pages Apd 16, 1998 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS /ENGINEERING CASE NO: CUP 98 -06 & VAR DESCRIPTION: ESTABLISH STORAGE FACILITY IN 98 -02 AN EXISTING 11,500 SF BUILDING APPLICANT: TOOMEY & ASSOCIATES. LOCATION: E/S "D" STREET N/S ATHOL STREET d) Existing Utilities, which interfere with new construction, shall be relocated at the Developer's expense as directed by the City Engineer. 4. Street Improvement and Dedications a) Construct Handicap Ramps in accordance with City Standard No. 205 at the northeast corner of °D° Street and Athol Street. Dedicate sufficient right -of -way at the corner to accommodate the ramp. b) Modify existing drive approaches per City Standard No. 204 to include Handicap by -pass. Remove existing driveway approaches that are not part of the approved plan and replace with full height curb & gutter and sidewalk. 5. 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 4 of 5 Pages April 16, 1998 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS /ENGINEERING CASE NO: CUP 98 -06 & VAR DESCRIPTION: ESTABLISH STORAGE FACILITY IN 98 -02 AN DOST/NG 11,500 SF BUILDING APPLICANT: TOOMEY & ASSOCIATES. LOCATION: EIS "D" STREET NIS ATHOL STREET 6. Applicable Engineering Fees' a) Plan check and inspection fees for off -site improvements - 4% and 4 %, respectively, of the estimated construction cost2 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 cost' of the on -site improvements, including landscaping. I All Fees are subject to change without notice. EEstmmated Construction Cost for Off -Site Improvements is based on a list of standard unit prices on file with the Department of Public Works/City Engineer. 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 5 of 5 Pages April 16, 1998 CITY OF SALT BERNARDINO STANDARD REQUIREMENTS Case No.: CUP No. 98 -06NAR No. 98 -02 Hearing Date: July 7, 1998 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION Page 1 1. Submit plans prepared by a Registered Building Architect or Civil or Structural Engineer. 2. Submit State of California Title 24 Energy Calculation Forms for non - residential buildings including a signed compliance statement. 3. Submit floor plan of existing structure. Label all uses and existing materials of construction. 4. Submit four (4) complete sets of construction plans including: (Five (5) complete sets for expeditious review). a. Copy of conditions. (3) b. Energy Calculations. (3) 5. 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 Uniform Building Code. 6. Show compliance with Title 24 for disabled access. 7. City of San Bernardino named as certificate holder for Worker's Compensation Insurance. 8. Assessor's Parcel Number: 0136 - 122 -67. 9. Contractor's City license. 10. Contractor's State license. 11. Other: Plan Check time is approximately 3 weeks. Expeditious Plan Check time is approximately 10 working days. Contact Development Services at (909) 384 -5071 for possible expeditious plan check. 12. If applicable, submit plans for sprinkler T.I. 13. Contact Development Services for Plan Check fee prior to submittal of plans. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO STANDARD REQUIREMENTS Case No.: CUP No. 98 -06 /VAR No. 98 -02 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION Hearing Date: July 7, 1998 14. Additional 25 % Plan Check fee required for expeditious review. 15. If project has more than 4 employees, 2 restrooms required for each sex. 16. Ventilation required for storage of vehicles. -< t 06/17/98 SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL WATER DEPARTMENT STANDARD REQUIREMENTS CUP No. 98 -06 & VAR No. 98 -02 �--� Review of Plans: / t Date Compiled: Owner/ Developer: r "'t / C �A�(i U f PA At -L-6d Compiled BY: �- F / . l Type of Project: �(r S1 i►G/ ,l)/ -L gt -� Ae 3 0(' %LG Number of Units: Location: /yG �i' �,� %,•/Q7i�( 197 SD, WATER DEPARTMENTT2 ENGINEERING: Contact: a l i - ar- A6J Phone: iii' 5 -391 Fax: -AS 4c� rI' 5 3 Z Note: All Water Services are Subject to the Rules & Regulations of the Water Department. C3 Size of Main Adjacent the Project: rS r, C ! !' n /,✓ It b- • Approximate Water Pressure: 1cQ PSI evatio�ntof Water Storage: 1200 FT Hydrant Flow @ 20 psi: %P�.J� /% • Type, Size, Location, and Distance to Nearest Fire Hydrant: i� �L.Ji�Lf /�f}Ci�/ S i —s Q/y !V - . - ^ t , N "/ e' A-,-, , *Pressure Regulator Required on Customer's Side on the Meter. ❑ Off -site Water Facilities Required. ❑ Area Not Served by San Bernardino Municipal Water Department. ❑ Comments: ` 7TE0,6c— A ?�/ 13Lc' /3Z — O/, Z5� �Sr,.J 4o2Je ' t7� ;d,4 416o 25Y ALLra65 C JC!g7—/ 7 � V9 97.10 WATER QUALITY CONTROLe ^ QQn Contact: rCC I Y Phone: 7 3Q Fax: *- 2nt/.P.P. Backflow Device Required at Service Connection.--D G KDouble Check Backflow Device Required at Service Connection. i Zo �1¢7-101J QYBackflow Device to be Inspected Before Water Service can be Activated. 1 e 4^,0L1 C,4ZLE ❑ No Backflow Device Required at This Time. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL /INDUSTRIAL WASTE: Contact: -D I o w`) (&Im4p Phone: '5 84 zr50 % Fax: 3�54 Fs-7 Note: No Brine Regenerative Water Softeners May be Installed, Unless Holding and Hauling is Provided for the Brine. All Interceptors ill be a 1200 Gallon Capacity with a Sample Box Included. *04illstrial Waste Permit Required. ❑ Grease Interceptor Required. ❑ Pre - treatment Required. ❑ Sand /Oil Inter :eptor Required. 'o Z1,sues at this Time. SE% ER CAPACITY INFORINIATION: Contact: Will /T+0 AA Phone: 59+ X 93 Fax: ?J � 4 Note- Proof of Payment Must be Subnutted to the Building & Safety Department Prior to Issuance of the Building Pennit. � Sewer Capacity Fee Applicable at This Tune. ❑ Sewer Capacity Fez Must Be Paid to the Water Departmeru for ❑ Subject to Recalculation of Fee Prior to the Issuance of Building Permit. Breakdown of Estimated Gallons Per Day: MRGQCIA FRSt 1 ?:47) Gallons Per Day, Equivalent Dwelling Units: _ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO FIRE DEPARTMENT STANDARD REQUIREMENTS Case:���j' Date: Q • I(/ ' ��_ Reviewed By: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: i Provide one additional set of construction plans to Building and Safety for Fire Department use at time of plan check. 0 Contact the City of San Bernardino Fire Department at (909) 384 -5388 for specific detailed requirements. ❑ The developer shall provide for adequate fire flow as computed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. Minimum fire flow requirements shall be based on square footage, construction features, and exposure information supplied by the developer and must be available prior to placing combustible materials on site. WATER PURVEYOR FOR FIRE PROTECTION: It The fire protection water service for the area of this project is provided by: San Bernardino Munic ^al A'I" 0' -re: t Engir> -=ring ( ?991 384 -53 "1 u East valley Water District - Engineering 1909) 888 -8986 ❑ Other Water Purveyor: Phone: PUBLIC FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES: ! Public fire hydrants are required along streets at intervals not to exceed 300 feet for commercial and multi - residential areas and at 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 pressure are required for residential areas. ❑ Fire flow requirements may be met from the combined flow of two adjacent fire hydrants. 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 purveyor. Fire hydrant materials and installation shall conform to the standards and specifications of the water purveyor. ❑ Public fire hydrants, fire services, and public water facilities necessary to meet Fire Department requirements are the developer's financial responsibility and shall be installed by the water purveyor or by the developer at the water 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. The routes shall be paved, all weather. ❑ Provide an access road to each building for fire apparatus. Access roadway shall have 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 story buildings. ❑ Extend roadway to within 50 feet of the exterior wall of all multiple -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. Sec 15.16 ". ❑ Dead -end streets shall not exceed 500 feet in length and shall have a minimum 40 foot radius turnaround. ❑ The names of any new streets (public or private) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval. SITE: ❑ All access roads and streets are to be constructed and usable prior to combustible construction. ❑ Private fire hydrants shall be ;nstalled to orotect each building located more than 150 feet from the curb line. No fire hydrants should be within 40 feet of any exterior wall. The hydrants shall be Wet Barrel type, with one 2'/2 inch and 4 inch outlet, and approved by the Fire Department. Fire hydrants shall be desigrated as a "NO PARKING" zone by painting an 8 inch wide, 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 and multi family address numerals shall be 6 inches tall, single family 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. ID Fire Extinguishers must be installed prior to the building being occupied. The minimum rating for any fire extinguisher is 2A 108 1C. Minimum distribution of fire extinguishers must be such that no interior part of the building is over 75 feet travel distance from a fire extinguisher. ❑ Apartment houses with 16 or more units. hotels (motels) with 20 or more units, or apartments or hotels (motels) three stories or more in height shall be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers designed to NFPA standards. 2 All buildings, other than residential, over 5,000 square feet, shall be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system designed to NFPA standards. This includes exisrng buildings vacant over 365 days. i Submit plans for the fire protection system to the Fire Department prior to beginning construction of the system. Tenant improvements in all scr!nklered buildings are to be approved by the Fire Department 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 isprinkler system/ standpipe system) shall be required at Fire Department approved location. Note: The applicant must request, in writing, any changes to Fire Department requirements. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: � �� I t,1 v_ d0Z l S (L f J /h Ili S 3 0:011 • eev1 r5lneq cone Std P56 HFrr. - 1,3 C. L.cr� S , VJ t?,-721e oY'PL't CA V6 �3 FPS 170,11 941 CITY OF SAN BERNARr_NO PARKS, RECREATION & COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT STANDARD REQUIREMENTS GENERAL REQUIREXWS : (>(] Commercial Industrial and multi-Unit (� ] Assessment District ] 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: Case•r_[�t) q3 -a'o Date: 5 G Reviewed By: h� Gy [ ) Maintenance of landscape areas ( Planter Areas [ Interior Planter Areas ()() Irrigation Systems [ ) Setback Areas [ ] Slope Areas [ J Ground Cover and Bedding Material [ ) Erosion Control ( ) deed Control PLANT MATERIALS [ J Plant list and climatic conditions Street Trees [ Plant Material Size Requirements and Ratios INSPECTION AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS ( J Irrigation System [ Landscaping ( ] Hardccape Items [\v,] Street tree Specifications [f) Arboriat Report [ ] Removal or destruction of trees [ J Screening Requirement (City, Dev.Code) Note: The applicant must request, in writing, any changes to the Parks, Recreation and Community Services r quirements. Additional information 2 US: jj SENT BY :SGHAEFER 9 -29 -98 ; 2 :40PM ; FULLERTON LEMANN 8& 9093845060;# 2 LAW orF10K" FULLERTON, LEMANN, BCNAEFER & DOMINIUK, LL.P THOMAS W. DOMINICK 2 15 NORTH D STR@[T. FIRST FLUOR OF OOUNDEL WILFRID O. LEMANN MAN ■ERNARDING, DALIFCRNIA 91.aq 1.1 71 $ OBERT V. FULLERTUN* NANDY NLINHAROT A ROFFAMONAL 0ORPONATION MlOHAEL R. 9UMAEFFR TEL[PHUN[ (SaOVI 111190-2169t TELEDOPIER (90-31 011110-9 1 19 NOMO MIRA6! QFFIOE BRIAN LL 13IMPB13N ONA14 E. WILOON (760) 770-4576 VIA TELECOPY (909) 3845080 S E P 2 9 1998 AND U.S. MAIL CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & BUILD 'G SERVICES September 29, 1999 Michael E. Hays, Director Development Services Department City of San Bernardino 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 -0001 Re: Michael and Brenda Allen Conditional Use Permit Number 98-06 and Variance Number 98 2 197 South "D" Street, San Bernardino, California Dear Mr. Hays: We spoke with Deborah of your office regarding the date which is currently set f r hearing on the appeal in the captioned matter. The appellate documents were delivered to o office last week. In reviewing my calendar with Deborah, I explained to her that I will prepare " >�e matter for presentation to the City Council and will start that process immediately. However, in looking at my calendar, I note that I am in court in Indio on Monda , October 5, 1998 and likewise unavailable for the City Council meeting on Monday, October 19, 1998. We are advised that the next meeting is Monday, November 2, 1998. Therefore, re q est is made that you grant a thirty (30) day continuance of the appeal. I will be available to present the matter at the City Council meeting on Monday, November 2, 1998. The appellant is not jeopardized in any way inasmuch as the project cannot go for appeal is heard. There is no prejudice to the appellant in hearing the matter on 1998. trd until the Iovember 2, F ��0 SENT BY :SCHAEFER ; 9 -29 -98 ; 2 :40PM ; FULLERTON LEMANN &-+ I 9093845080;# 3 Michael E. Hays September 29, 1998 Page two Request is made that you present our request with your acquiescence and approval ' the meeting of the Council of October 5, 1998. We thank your department, particularly Deborah and Margaret, for their Courtesy and cooperation. II Very truly yours, FULLERTON, LEMANN, SCHAEFER & DOMZNICK, ilfrid C. Lem WCL/tc cc: Michael and Brenda Allen Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner Margaret E. Park, Senior Planner Members of the San Bernardino City Council (via telecopy) s Icnlhgys tr.92998 CITY OFSA-_NFBERNARDINO MISCELLANEOUS CASH RECEIPT Date Received From It 19 1 The Sum of %j ��� /. Dollars Cents J For n +'jV / T / �/� /fin atch -3 L 6 ! A (� Batch: pera o Trans. stub Department � �_ v No. 7o2ab5 ACCOUNT NO. AMOUNT 210 2 ran 358 5:00:05 PM o Station SF A unt: 75.00 TOTAL DISTRI BUT ION: White —Customer; Canary — Cashier; Pink —Department; Goldenrod — Dept. Numeric Control WESTERN DOOR AN EMPLOYEE -OWNED COMPANY 444 ATHOL STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 (909) 889 -6066 FAX (909) 889 -1786 DATE: October 26, 1998 TO: Michael Hays FROM: John Jensen FAX COVER SHEET Number of pages including cover sheet: _3_. Please notify if you don't receive total pages listed. A copy of this transmission is being made for our records. Message Dear Michael, Mike & Brenda Allen's project at 206/298 So. "D" Street was not completed by the October 21, 1998 completion date stipulated in "Conditions of Approval of CUP No. 97 -17 & Variance 97 -10A & 10B. Conditions for failure to complete are spelled out explicitly for the above CUP & Variance to become null and void. Work continues as of this date. Shouldn't a "Stop Notice" be issued? This is written notice to inform you that I intend to take legal action against The City of San Bernardino if they fail to enforce the requirements set forth in the "Conditions of Approval ", dated October 21, 1997. (See attached: "Attachments E ") Entered into Record at CcuncillCmyDevCms Mtg: GI , city of .Shci pi;1 Id�Li�i Respectfully, �z3 Conditional Use permit No. 97 -17 Variance No. 97 -10 Hearing Date: 10 -21 -97 Page 13 ATTACHMENT E CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit No. 97 -17 & Variance No. 97 -10A & 10B 1. Within two years of development approval, construction on improvements shall have been completed or the permit/approval shall become null and void. In addition, if after commencement of construction, work is discontinued fort � construction/development shall be as follows: �� become null and void. Phasing of proles Project: Conditional Use Permit No. 97 -17 & Variance No. 97 -10A &B Phase I: Within 4 months of development approval, building permits shall have been pulled or the permit/approval shall become null and void. Within 12 months of development approval, all buildings in Phase I shall be com leted or the rnut/a roval shall become null and void. All required landscaping and fencing shall be installed (with appropriate permits) prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy. If Phase I buildings are not constructed, all required landscaping and fencing shall be installed within 4 months of development approval. Landscaping within required setbacks shall be consistent with Development Code Section 19.28.040(3)(A) [Opaque Screen, Type A]. If either option of Phase I is not complct e expiration date,- CUP 97 -17 & VAR 97 -10 shall become null and void. Phase II: Within 4 months of completion of Phase I, building permits shall have been pulled or the permit/approval shall become null and void. Within 12 months of completion of Phase I, all buildings in Phase II shall be completed or the permit/approval shall become null and void. If Phase 11 buildings are not constructed, all required landscaping and fencing shall be installed within 4 months of completion of Phase I. Landscaping within required setbacks shall be consistent with Development Code Section 19.28.040(3)(A) (Opaque Screen, Type A]. If either option of Phase II is not completed by the expiration date, CUP 97 -17 & VAR 97 -10 shall become null and void. 2. The review authority may, upon application being filed 30 days prior to the expiration date and for good cause, grant a one time extension not to exceed 12 months. The review authority shall ensure that the project complies with all current Development Code provisions. 3. Upon approval of CUP No. 97 -17 and VAR No. 97 -10, CDP 866 shall become null and void. STATFI�1ENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMAUSSION ACTION PROJECT Number: Conditional Use Permit No. 97 -17 and Variance No. 97 -10 Address: 206 South "D" Street Applicant/ Owner: Michael and Brenda Allen Description: To construct additional buildings for an existing auto repossession business. Two 2,105 square foot auto storage buildings are proposed for Phase I; a 4,800 square foot covered parking building is proposed for Phase H. Also requested is a reduction in the north side yard setback to 5 feet and the south side yard setback from 10 feet to 0 feet. The property is a 38,200 square foot site located at the southwest comer of the intersection of Athol Street and South "D" Street in the IL, Industrial Light, land use district. ACTION: APPROVED Meeting Date: October 21, 1997 The Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 97 -17 and Variance No. 97 -10A and 97 -10B, based on the Findings of Fact, subject to the Conditions of Approval (Attachment "E ") and Standard Requirements (Attachment "F "). VOTE Ayes: Hamilton, Lockett, Reilly, Schuiling, Suarez and Thrasher Nays: None Abstain: None Absent: Enciso, Gonzalez and Quiet The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless a written appeal is filed, with the appropriate fee, within 15 days of the Planning Commission's action, pursuant to Section 19.52. 100 of the Municipal (Development) Code. I hereby certify that this Statement of Official Action accurately reflects the final determination of the Planning Commission of the City of San Bernardino. Michael (E. Hays, Dgelior Planning and Building Services Enclosures o 1 L� Date cc: Applicant/Owner, Plan Check, Public Works/Engineering, Case File, Department File, Address File n K (TQ � ~� V n V/ r� �f Vn O O I ^r O CIO V ti N 00 e f-111prod into Record at Mtg: fe 'tell) City CferkICDC Secy City of San Bernardino F--N, x lu Ju < lu O (n , pri O z LU O < N uj V n J. J n � O DC oC J. J � O DC oC li �I pl Li —r' r_ Q X W W �Q Q� lu V � mLE 0 �o o�Y IL ; u'� o I Q O h i � � I I ; I i I I d O W V/ Q t t' O� � p o ~Q FROM FARMERS INS FARRIS lo.�;0.1956 11 ;26 a 1 Tarmers Insurance 0 up Or camrANIKS I. GLYN L FARRIS 6682 DEL ROSA AVE SAN ERNARDINO CA. 92404 (909 384.1246 MICR EL AND BRENDA ALLEN P.O. BOX 4511 SAN ERNARDINO CA, 92412 I FARMS INSURANCE GROUP OF COMPANIES HAS B ,Et TN JRINC THE BUILD�NG IN YOUR REPOS ESSION BUSINESS SINCE 1991, ll WITH ITTLE OR NO CONCERN ABOUT FIRE FROM STOItti;E VEHICLES. 1 WILL SAY THAT CONST UCTION Of' PAIVACY WALL SHOULD ENHANOE l,OPtkATION OF YOUR BUSINESS WITH SECURITY AS Wf_LL AS APPEARANCE. I WE UNJFRSTAND VEHICLES ARE STORIED INSIDE BUT1.OINGS "if INSURE. OUTSIDE WOULD BE E :N LESS CONCERN, i ; I 1 SINC tLY GLYN I. FAR"RI S � I i I I j 1 I, i i I I •i � i FAST, FAIR," I[N(X.Y SERVICE 1 � i ** *END * ** P. 1 I INSURANCE FIRM OF ALTER C. CAGLEY INSURANCE 3625 THOUSAND OAKS BLVD. SUITE 228 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNL-k 91362 TELEPHONE: (818) 889 -4400 • (805) 497.2141 FAX (805) 379.9729 October 08, 1998 RE: 197 South D Street, San Bernardino Hours of operation: M -F 8:30 am to 5:30 pm Dear Brenda Allen: WALTER C. CAGLEY In my experience as an insurance agent for the last 38 years and a specialist in repossession insurance for 18 years, I have never had an experience of an auto blowing up or causing any kind of serious fire damage in this business. I am a licensed agent in 40 states and write repossession insurance throughout the states. I feel that I a1n considered an expert in this type of business. There is no repair, engine work, or other types of mechanical work done on vehicles that are repossessed. Therefore, that eliminates all chance of fire or explosion damage. I insure hundreds of repossession agencies and I have never had an occasion where the insurance was turned down from any occupancy located next to a repossession agency. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Walter C. Cagley SENT EY: XEROX 3006; 9 -14 -58 4:20PM; 9313812734 => / « MID STATE SHARPTQN i tV s U R A N C E vZROW11EAD FN'' RPR1S =.S, I.' D. t'0 Box 4 .5411 ',,an Bernadinci, CA 92412-5-111 BRENDA ALLEN Fax )01)-38 1-5044 14 September, i 9C)8 RF' Privacy Wall Dear F3rettda This is ro contirtYt our phone convcrsatlon today regarding your desires to construct the architectural privacy walU fence that vclu have had designed for the location of your bueincss operation Specl6caily, 1 can say that an action such as this would be veto l'avoi -able for �Crur business security, which we obviously insure in several capacitles. Generally, and in respunse to your comments regarding adjacent properties, I would concur that a billy protected and constantly monitored property such as the one you operate would 'bC an advantage to the neighborhood 1, as an insurance agent, would consider it vicinity with select twenty -four hour business activity, and examples of personal ;ceurity measures being practiced a safer environittent for both property and personnel. 1'1case advise me as to the completion of your proposed property improvement 5111(:CrCGiV, 13tick Young; Iii 1 / 1 IeJ CARNIACK BOUI.�:VARO, COLUMBIA, TENNcsSEE 38401 rF.t.cPF;OYC 911 388•HJJZ (K I Rho 8s1-B1l7 PAX 131 3V 734 10/36/1998 17:40 90937039'13 gE3TE'ABE :'3ER PA3E 01 we- sIgnberger insurance 2086 S. "E" St., Ste. 203 San Bernardino, CA 92408 (909)370 -3853 Fax (909)370 -3923 •-..: 6 R Brenda Allen Re: Storage of Vehicles Brenda, Per our phone conversation of today, in my 16 years as an insurance agent specializing in automotive repair garages and automobile sales agencies I have never had a client submit a claim involving an explosion of any vehicles that were stored at his place of business. This type of risk presents no additional safety concerns. With regard to a security wall, the security wall would be an asset to any business of your kind, it adds extra security, looks better to the surrounding businesses and provides a barrier protecting your business. If I can be of any further assistance, do not hesitate to give my office a call Regards, /to�— ?111 Westen W BW/bw E Entered into Record at CITY OF SAN BE RNA R iiM16my0evCms Mtg: ! Ae INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM re Agenda�ltem TO: Mayor and Common Council L FROM: James F. Penman City ClerkICDC Seey City Attorney City of San Bernardino DATE: October 1, 1998 SUBJECT: Appeal of CUP 98 -06 and Variance 98 -02; 197 South "D" Street. In 1996 -97, (I'm unsure of the exact date) I was contacted by Code Compliance Officers for legal advice regarding a potential case they were working, hereinafter referred to as the potential City of San Bernardino v. Michael Allen case. Although no legal conflict ewisted, Mr. Allen had supported my re- election in 1995, and, to avoid the appearance of a conflict, I advised Mayor Tom Minor that he should arrange for another attorney to provide legal advice to Code Compliance. Mayor Minor then arranged for attorney Timothy Sabo to do so. In February of 1997. I sent a letter to Mr. John Jensen, the complainant, in response to his request that I take action against Michael Allen based on Mr. Jensen's allegations. My letter to Mr. Jensen clearly states that the conflict I declared was in the matter of City of San Bernardino v. Michael Allen, (involving property located at 206 and 208 South "D" Street). I later learned that Planning was seeking a revocation of Mr. Allen's 1978 Conditional Development Permit. (In 1978, what we now call a CUP was termed a CDP.) This revocation was still, in my opinion, an action against Michael Allen. Therefore, our office continued to abstain throughout this process. This matter was never filed in court because. I was informed later, Code Compliance, Planning and the conflict attorney, Timothy Sabo, resolved the matter by having Michael Allen apply for a new Conditional Use Permit and Variance. In 1997, Mr. Allen's new CUP application and variance were approved. That matter has been resolved and is not at issue in the item on the October S Council agenda. An entirely different matter, not involving the property at 206 and 208 South "D ", will be on the Council agenda for Monday. October 5. 1998. This application, now before the City Council, involves property located on the other side of the street, 197 South "D ". As I have previously discussed with the Mayor and Council on several occasions throughout my years as City Attorney. I routinely abstain on matters where the appearance of a conflict might exist provided my abstention does not result in significant cost to the City. Since there is no legal requirement that I abstain on matters similar to the then - potential City v. Allen case, I decided years ago to do so only in situations where it would not work a financial hardship on the City. I did not Z 3 a Mayor and Common Council Memo Appeal of CUP 98 -06 and Variance 98 -02 October 1. 1998 Page two believe, based on what the code officers had told me, that a significant amount of legal time would be needed on the Allen investigation. After Code Compliance and Mr. Sabo determined there was no need to file a complaint, Mayor Minor contacted me and advised me that Michael Allen was now going to submit an application for a new CUP and variance (at 206 and 208 South "D" Street). Mayor Minor asked that my office handle the legal advice at this point because there was not going to be a prosecution of Mr. Allen and because Mr. Sabo's time spent on the matter was far greater than anticipated and his bill had become significant I agreed, as I believe I was legally bound to agree, to the Mayor's request. I then took two actions: First, I met with Mr. Sabo and asked him to withdraw his previously submitted bill to the City and to consider that work a donation to the City of San Bernardino. Mr. Sabo agreed, and, to the best of my knowledge, his firm never received remuneration for his legal services on that matter. Second, I advised Deputy City Attorney Henry Empeno, who was, and is, the regularly assigned attorney for the then Department of Planning and Building Services (now the Development Services Department), of the Mayor's request. I instructed him to proceed to advise the Department and the Planning Commission on the 1997 action involving 206 and 208 South "D" Street by Mr. Allen. At the same time, I made the determination that if the matter reached the Mayor and Common Council for a final decision, I would ask Mr. Sabo to again step in. Since the Council has the authority to override the Planning Commission and the Department, any appearance of a conflict that might otherwise exist, would be nullified by Mr. Sabo being the attorney to advise the Council on Michael Allen's application for a new CUP and variance at 206 and 208 South "D" Street. However, neither Mr. Jensen nor anyone else appealed that matter to the Mayor and Council. There is no legal conflict by the City Attorney's Office in the matter now before the City Council which involves different property at 197 South ``D" Street and is not a possible prosecution of a former campaign supporter as the initial issue potentially was. Once again, to avoid even the appearance of a conflict, at this final decision level in the review process, I have asked Mr. Sabo to step in to advise the Mayor and Council, which he has again agreed to do at no additional charge to the City. Respectfully submitted, ,fames F. Penman -/City Attorney November 16, 1998 Fn►prnd into Record at Mtg: re A4enO Item aZ,3 From: John L. Jensen, 444 Athol Street, San Bernardino 92401 T (it Council Members City of San Bernardino ° y City ClerkICDC Secy City of San Bernardino Summary 1989: (HISTORY) signed lease for 444 Athol and immediately applied for a SBA Loan. Property value was de- valued because of the poor state of adjacent businesses. Ester Estrada got the Allen's to straighten up there 206 So. D Street property. I applied with a different lender and had to pay the $2,500.00 appraisal fee again. The delays caused Western Door to rent additional buildings at a cost of over $10,000.00. 1996: Projected we would outgrow our present facility and listed property for sale. We have grown from 10 to 22 million and added 100 jobs. We now have a parking problem and have created a situation where we don't have enough space to unload multiple trucks. Often they have to wait out on D Street until the loading on -site area is clear. We have started a car- pooling program and have looked into renting parking spaces from the City of San Bernardino in the multi level downtown parking structure. 1996 -98: 197 So. D Street has been used illegally for almost two years. There is no certificate of Occupancy or valid business registration license. The property has been designed to allow for Over - Intensification usage. 1998: 2061208 So. D Street. Is in violation of "Conditions" set forth in C.U.P. 97 -17 and Variance No. 10A and 10B. Also Planning Commission went against Planning Staff's "Findings of Fact" when they voted for full approval. Allen's continue to store vehicles for many years even though they were suppose to dispose after legal problems were resolved. 1998: 334 So. Arrowhead. Allen's application and Staff Report states that property is to be used for storage of privately owned vehicles only. Parking area in front is being used for outdoor storage of repossessed vehicles. The Allen's CUP 93 -07and Variance No. 93 -03 does not approve the property to be used for outdoor storage. The Allen's do not have a valid business registration on record with the City Clerk for this address as of November 12, 1998. NOTE: Allen's have a 20 year history of misrepresentation their business and non - compliance with the City of San Bernardino. They have fought with this city every step of the way and have not complied with most of there agreements. The Allen's have expanded their business to multiple locations and have misrepresented on applications the intended usage. It is time to revoke the Allen's CUP's and Variances and force them move into a zone that doesn't require CUP's and Variances and is more appropriate to there business operation AIWW AW"--AMMOV M� IP, Sonoma. . . . . . . . ..... P 'AN ---------- ---------- p ------------ 777: AIWW AW"--AMMOV M� IP, Sonoma. 9:23 C I T Y O F an Bernardino R A C H E L C L A R K C I T Y C L E R K November 17, 1998 Mr. John Jensen 444 Athol Street San Bernardino, CA 92401 Dear Mr. Jensen: At the meeting of the Mayor and Common Council held on November 16, 1998, the following action was taken regarding your appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 98 -06 and Variance No. 98 -02, relative to property located at 197 South "D" Street: "That the Mayor and Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 98 -06, to establish an outdoor vehicle impound yard and storage facility in an existing 11,500 square foot manufacturing building based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the Conditions of Approval (Attachment D) and Standard Requirements (Attachment E) of the Planning Commission's Staff Report dated July 7, 1998; that Variance No. 98 -02, to reduce the 10 -foot front and street side setbacks to five (5) feet and four (4) feet respectively, and the 10 -foot interior side and rear setbacks based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the Conditions of Approval (Attachment D) and Standard Requirements (Attachment E) of the Planning Commission's Staff Report dated July 7, 1998, be approved; and that the following variance requests, based on the Findings of Fact, be denied: 1) to reduce the front setback to accommodate the establishment of an outdoor vehicle impound yard; and 2) to increase the maximum fence and wall heights from six (6) to eight (8) feet along the "D" and Athol Street frontages.11 P. O. B O X 1 3 1 8, S A N B E R N A R D 1 N O, C A 8 2 4 0 2 3 0 0 N O R T H D' S T R E E T S A N R 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 ( 9 0 9) 3 8 4 - 5 0 0 2 ( 9 0 9) 3 8 4 - 5 1 0 2 F A X -( 9 0 9) 3 8 4- 5 1 5 8 T D 0 I T T Y ( 8 0 9) 3 8 4 - 5 5 4 0 Mr. John Jensen Page 2 November 17, 1998 If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, Rach 1 G. Clark City Clerk cc: Michael Hays, Director of Development Services Brenda & Michael Allen, Applicant /Property Owner � L3 C I T Y O F an bernardino R A C H E L C L A R K C I T Y C L E R K November 3, 1998 Mr. John Jensen 444 Athol Street San Bernardino, CA 92401 Dear Mr. Jensen: At the meeting of the Mayor and Common Council held on November 2, 1998, your appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 98 -06 and Variance No. 98 -02, relative to property located at 197 South "D" Street was continued to November 16, 1998. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, Rachel G. Clark City Clerk cc: Michael Hays, Director of Development Services Brenda & Michael Allen, Applicant /Property Owner P. O. B O X 1 3 1 8, S A N 8 E R N A R D I N 0, C A 9 2 4 0 2 3 0 0 N O R T H D S T R E E T S A N 8 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 ( 9 0 9) 3 8 4- S 0 0 2 ( 9 0 9) 3 8 4 - 5 1 0 2 F A X -( 9 0 9) 3 8 4 -S 1 5 8 T 0 0/ T T Y ( 9 0 9) 3 8 4- 5 5 4 0 Y a ' �~ 11 C I T Y O F an Bernardino R A C H E L C L A R K C I T Y C L E R K October 7, 1998 Mr. John Jensen 444 Athol Street San Bernardino, CA 92401 Dear Mr. Jensen: At the meeting of the Mayor and Common Council held on October 5, 1998, your appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 98 -06 and Variance No. 98 -02, relative to property located at 197 South "D" Street was continued to November 2, 1998. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, Rachel G. Clark City Clerk CC: Michael Hays, Director of Development Services Brenda & Michael Allen, Applicant /Property Owner P. O. 8 0 X 1 3 1 8, S A N B E R N A R D I N O, C A 9 2 4 0 2 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 ( 9 0 9) 3 8 4- S 0 0 2 ( 9 0 9) 3 8 4 - 5 1 0 2 F A X -( 9 0 9) 3 8 4- 5 1 5 8 TD D/ T T Y - (9 0 9) 3 8 4- S S 4 0