Council denies appeal of Park Avenue five‑unit project over lack of legal street access

The Loma Linda City Council on Feb. 14 denied an appeal of staff comments on a proposed five‑unit attached multifamily development on Park Avenue and upheld the city’s finding that the parcel lacks legal access to a public street.

City planning staff told the council the 0.4‑acre parcel is landlocked and the applicant’s only proposed entry is an existing alley about 20–21 feet wide that fails to meet the city’s local‑street standards, which call for a 60‑foot right of way and a 36‑foot curb‑to‑curb street section. Staff also flagged outstanding items that would be required at entitlement, including grading and drainage plans, NPDS documentation, parking and trash enclosures, landscaping, elevations and a formal fire access plan. Staff recommended the council deny Appeal No. 20250002 and require a revised, code‑compliant application.

“The public works department determined that the project does lack legal access to a public residential street, as required by the municipal code,” planning staff said during the presentation. Fire services also raised concerns about the ability to meet required turning radii for emergency access without further design work.

The applicant, who identified himself in the record as Mr. Ayesh, asked the council to reverse the Planning Commission’s decision. He argued prior developments nearby were approved with similar access conditions and cited a 20‑foot minimum in a fire‑access provision, saying the city has accepted comparable configurations in the past. “By ignoring prior approvals with identical characteristics, the planning commission effectively applied a more restrictive and subjective standard to our development application,” he said.

Fire Marshal Tom Ingalls responded that the state did not adopt International Fire Code Section 503 wholesale, giving local jurisdictions latitude to set their own access standards. Ingalls told the council that an official fire determination would require a formal entitlement submittal and a fire access plan showing turning radii and vertical clearance for apparatus access.

Councilmember Diane Robbins and others said the matter before the council was an appeal of preliminary staff comments rather than a final entitlement denial, noting that shortcomings in the preliminary review do not by themselves create a permitted project. Robbins recommended denying the appeal and upholding staff comments; Councilmember Obesco moved to deny the appeal. The clerk recorded the motion as carried.

The practical effect is that the council upheld staff guidance: the applicant may pursue a formal entitlement application but will need to demonstrate legal access or secure private easements or other measures that satisfy the city and fire department. The council and staff advised the applicant to work with adjacent property owners on access easements and to submit a complete entitlement package so technical issues such as turning radius and drainage can be evaluated.

Next steps: the applicant may submit an entitlement application with a fire access plan, grading and drainage documentation and any easements or agreements needed to establish legal access. The council’s action was to deny the PDR‑stage appeal and to leave unresolved technical determinations to the formal entitlement review.