HomeMy WebLinkAbout35-Planning
C~TY OF SAN .BRNADINO - RBQUBST Fda COUNCIL ACTION
From: Larry E. Reed, Director
Subject: Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 90-2
Dept: Planning and Building Services
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
September 5, 1990
Date: August 22, 1990
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
On August 7, 1990, the Planning Commission denied by a unanimous vote Conditional
Use Permit No. 90-2, to allow a tunnel carwash and storage building to be constructed
at an existing gas station.
;.:~
'..' OIl
1...,.1 c>
C.'!
(',...)
., ~ .~-:,'
'.,) .~r.
'',OJ
Racommended motion:
That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor and Common Council deny the appeal and
deny Conditiona~ Use Permit No. 90-2. (Supports Staff recommendation and Planning
Commission's.action.)
or
That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor and Council approve Conditional Use
Permit No. 90-2 in concept and refer the matter back to Staff to develop positive
Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval. (Sup~s Appellant's request.
Larry E. Reed
Contact person: Larry E. Reed
Supporting data attached: Staff Report
Phone:
384-5357
3
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. DescriDtionl
Finance:
Council Notes:
75-0262
Agenda Item No
35
. CITY OF SAN BERNAflblNO - REQUEST FOf} COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
Subject: Appeal of the Planning Commissions denial of
Conditional Use Permit No. 90-2, requesting approv-
al of a tunnel carwash and storage building to be
constructed at 1930 South Waterman Avenue at an
existing service station.
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
September 5, 1990
REOUEST
The applicant, Shell oil company, through their consulting
engineers, Western Sensystem Engineering Company,
Incorporated, (WSECO) is appealing the denial of Conditional
Use Permit No. 90-2 by the Planning Commission. The
applicant requests the Mayor and Common Council approve
Conditional Use Permit No. 90-2, to allow the construction of
a self-service drive-thru tunnel carwash and storage building
at the existing Shell Service Station on the northwest corner
of Waterman Avenue and Hospitality Lane. (See Exhibit A -
Letter of Appeal.)
BACKGROUND
On April 6, 1982, the Shell Service Station was approved by
the Planning Commission. On February 7, 1984, the service
station was given approval to expand services by adding a
food market. Conditional Use Permit No. 90-2, to add the
carwash and storage building to the site, was submitted to
the City January 9, 1990. On May 31, 1990, the Environmental
Review Committee (ERC) determined the project. would cause no
significant environmental impacts and recommended the adop-
tion of a Negative Declaration. On June 28, 1990, the site
plan for the project was reviewed by the Development Review
Committee and was cleared onto the Planning commission. There
was no recommendation by the Development Review Committee for
approval or denial of the project.
75-0264
o
o
Appeal of the Planning commissions denial of Conditional Use
Permit No. 90-2
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of September 5, 1990
Page 2
On August 7, 1990, the Planning Commission held a properly
noticed public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 90-2.
During the public hearing, discussion ensued relative to the
intent of the General Plan which requires that buildings in
the Tri-City/Commercenter and Club Area (Commercial Regional-
3 land use designation) convey a high quality "corporate
park" character... (Policy 1.17.31). The Commission discuss-
ed the issue of compatibility of the proposed drive-thru
carwash with the high quality office buildings, hotels and
restaurants which surround the site. It was concluded that
the proposed changes at the service station Were not compati-
ble with the character of adjacent development and not
consistent with the intent of the General Plan. Based on the
discussion and in agreement with the Staff recommendation, a
motion for denial was made and seconded then carried by a
unanimous vote. (See Exhibit B - Staff Report to the Plan-
ning Commission.)
OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL
The Mayor and Council may deny the appeal and deny Condition-
al Use Permit No. 90-2 or the Mayor and Council may uphold
the appeal and approve Conditional Use Permit No. 90-2 in
concept and refer the item back to Staff to develop positive
Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Mayor and Council deny the appeal
and deny Conditional Use Permit No. 90-2.
Prepared by: Sandra Paulsen,
. Senior Planner
. for Larry E. Reed,
Director of Planning and Building Services
A - Letter of Appeal
Exhibits:
B - Staff Report to the Planning Commission
C - Official Notice of Public Hearing before
the Mayor and Common Council
M&CCAGENDA:CUP90-2M&CC
o
EXHIBIT "A"
o
ws~(:()
Covino. CA 91722
(8181 967.2625
FAX (8181 967-1846
August 9, 1990
10)0 re (i:l rs nIl!? r: riiI
LfO ~S ,t') IS 1I '.:.i l:, L!!)
AUG 1 4 1990 /
HON. MAYOR & COUNCIL MEMBERS
City of San Bernardino
300 North '0' Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Subject: Appeal for CUP 90-02 .
Fascia lift of existing SHELL Service Station and
addition of Free Car Wash and relocating the
storage Buildings at 1930 S. Waterman Avenue
CITY Of 3AN BcA;'JAP'~.ljNO
DEPP.P.TN~ENT l)~ PLANN!NG r..
e;;lLO~NC:: SC;;"/IC::S
HON. Sirs/Madams,
Shell Oil Company through their consulting engineers
Western Sensystem Engineering Company Inc. (WSECO) applied
for Conditional Use Permit 90-02 for upgrading their SHELL
SERVICE STATION located at 1930 S. Waterman Avenue crossing
of Hospitality Lane in the City of San Bernardino to a high
quality development complimenting the new development of the
neighborhood. This upgrading includes the fascia lift of
existing food mart and canopy, addition of a self serve
tunnel" Free Car Wash, relocating of existing Storage
building, closing of one driveway and converting this into
landscaping, additional landscaping on both Waterman and
Hospitality streets.
Since November 1989, we have several meetings with
Planning Department and attended EIR and OCR meetings; and
satisfied all their requirements including Traffic, Fire,
all Municipal Codes, Land use, Noise, Landscaping, Etc.
Further, We would like to point out that car wash is also a
permitted Land use for CR-3 Commercial Zone which is the
zoning of this parcel.
Pursuant to noise requirements of the city, we have
generated an acoustical study and as per their
recommendations, satisfied the City'S noise requirement by
eliminating the Blower/dryers from the car wash. However,
at the City's request we have also taken another additional
major to install a 10' high wall to further reduce the noise
level. City's planning department, in their staff report,
mentioned that "a block 10' high would detract from the high
quality development. II We hereby propose to delete this
proposed wall as it is not required as per Acoustical study.
Further, we are willing to take other majors as recommended
by the Acoustical study to make sure that this project will
be of a high quality development to upqrade the area.
Westem Sensystem Engineering Co. Inc.
613 Eeslbury Ave" Covine. CA 91723, Design Off,: 536 W. Arrow Hwy" Sulle 208. Covine. CA 91722
-.
.:
, .
o
o
We believe that we have fulfilled all the requirements
of the City and being a good citizen of the City, should be
allowed to contribute for the betterment of the city and its
residence. Hence, we hereby appeal to the Mayor and Council
of the city of San Bernardino and request for approval of
this project of high quality development for betterment and
cleaner environment which will enhance the quality of life
and provide the convenience of free car wash to the local
residence and businesses. Further completion of this
project would provide unique and high quality architecture
design of the service station which is the forefront of the
industry and compliment the high quality development of the
neighborhood.
Thank you.
Very Truly Yours
For Shell Oil Company,
eC<--_~.-- -
P. Kumar
President, WSECO.
Enclosure: $100.00 Check No. 3284
Copy to: Mr. Mike Claudio
Shell Oil Company
o
EXHIBIT "B"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
..
'"......,
w
~
o
~
Hi
:;)
G
w
a:
-
SUMMARY
o
.....
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
WARD
8
8-7-90
3
..
APPLICANT: WSECO
536 West Arrow Hwy. #208
Covina, CA 91722
OWNER: Shell Oil Company
511 No. Brookhurst Street
Anaheim, CA 92803
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-02
.....,
To add a self-serve tunnel car wash and a stcrage building to the site
of an existing gasoline station/food mart uncer the authority of Municipal
Code, Section 19.83.300.
'-...I '"
/' "'"
PROPERlY
Subject
North
South
East
EXISTING
LAND LJ~?
Gas station ood mart
~lotel
Gas station
Multi-story Commercial
office
Motel
\..
HIGH FIRE 0 YES
HAZARD ZONE: lJiI NO
o EXEMPT
00 NO SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS
)(
~_tiJNG
CR-3
CR-3
CR-3
CR-3
c
~ Located on 0.59 acres on the northwest corner of Waterman Avenue and
C Hospitality Lane at 1930 South Waterman Avenue.
( ~~~~IC ~ ~~S
(
,.--...., /'
o NOT
APPUCABLE
..I
:!
Z0
WCJ
:2z
Z-
OO
a:~
-II.
>
Z
W
.. -- \.
CITY Of .... .......,
---
GENERAL PLAN
commerclfa~~T~~~l
Commercial Regional
Commercial Regional
Commercial Regional
Commercial Regional
( SEWERS:
Dl YES )
o NO _
lo/est
\
FLOOD HAZARD 0 YES 0 ZONE A
ZONE: %J NO 0 ZONE B
) r AIRPORT NOISE! 0 YES
CRASH ZONE:
'" Cl NO
-
o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS WITH
MmGATlNG MEASURES
NOE.I.R.
o HR. REQUIRED BUT NO
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
WITH MITIGATING
MEASURES
o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
SEE ATTACHED E.R.C.
MINUTES
Z
o
~
11.0
II.Z
CW
t;:2
!
fd
~
/'
I REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA:
'" Southeast Ind.
KJ YES
o NO
o APPROVAL
o CONDITIONS
CiiI DENIAL
o CONTINUANCE TO
PlAN-1I.D2 PAGE 1 OF 1 (-4-8D)
o
o
r'
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 90-02
8
8-7-90
2
..
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
,...
REQUEST
The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit under
the authority of Municipal Code Section 19.83.300, to add a self-
service car wash and storage building to an existing gasoline
station/food mart in the CR-3, Commercial Regional, General Plan
land use district.
SITE LOCATION
The site
corner of
described
of the proposal is 0.59 acres located at the northwest
Waterman Avenue and Hospitality Lane, and further
as 1930 South Waterman Avenue.
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposal is consistent with the Municipal Code and in
conformance with the General Plan as shown in Attachment A.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAl. QUAI.TTY ACT STATUS
An Initial Study was prepared by staff and presented to the
Environmental Review Committee on May 31, 1990. A Negative
Declaration was recommended. The Initial Study was made
available for public review and comment from June 7, 1990 to June
27, 1990. No comments were received.
BACKGROUND
The existing gasoline station
Conditional Use Permit No. 82-14
was subsequently approved in
gasoline station on February
Permit No. 84-01.
was originally approved under
on April 6, 1982. The food mart
conjunction with the existing
7, 1984, under Conditional Use
ANALYSIS
Permitted Use
The proposed self-service tunnel car wash and
conjunction with the gasoline station/food
uses in the CR-3, Co.mercial Regional, land
approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
storage building in
mart are peraitted
use district with
=-=.~ -
lro.
........ NGE 1 OF 1 (4oIQ
-
o
o
~
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
CUP 90-02
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
8
8-7-90
3
~
....,j
..
Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses
Development surrounding the site and along Hospitality Lane to
the west is characterized by high quality hotels/motels, multi-
story office buildings and restaurants. The Waterman Avenue off-
ramp from the Interstate 10 is located.less than one eighth of a
mile to the south of the project site. The General Plan
identifies this off-ramp as a major entry node which serves as a
major access to the Hospitality district as well as for the
entire city. As such, it is important that development in this
key area of the city maintain a high quality appearance and
compatibility with surrounding land uses.
The self-service car wash is compatible with the gasoline station
located across Waterman Avenue to the south. However, the self-
service car wash is not characteristic of the high quality
hotels/motels and restaurants found in the area and along
Hospitality Lane, and is therefore incompatible with the area
overall.
A pOint worthy of note is that drive-through restaurants,
although permitted in the CR-3 land use district, are expressly
prohibited from the area by General Plan Policy 1.17.10 because
they are considered to be incompatible with the eXisting
development in the Hospitality area. Although drive-through
self-service car washes are not specifically prohibited in the
area by the General Plan, they are similar enough to be
considered incompatible with the area for the same reasons.
Landscaping
The proposed internal planting
meets the requirements of the
required landscaped setbacks,
areas equal to 6 percent of the
Internal Circulation
and landscaping for the proposal
Municipal Code. Excluding the
the project proposed landscaped
total paved parking area.
Internal vehicular paths provided for on-site circulation are of
sufficient size to accommodate two-way traffic in conformance
with the minimum Municipal Code requirements of 24 feet.
Traffic
The proposal has been reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer
has determined that the project-generated traffic would
significantly impact the streets in the vicinity.
who
not
...
m&-
.....
___'llI'. _
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
OBSERVATIONS
CASE CUP 90-02
"""'l
..
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
8
!l-I-~U
4
parking
The 4 parking spaces depicted on the site plan are adequate and
fulfill the Municipal Code parking requirements for the proposal.
Noise
Noise generated from the car wash could result in increases in
the existing noise levels of the area and could expose people in
the motel adjacent to the site to exterior and interior noise
levels in excess of those permitted by the General Plan. An
acoustical study was prepared for the proposal by Gordon Bricken
and Associates. To reduce potential noise impacts to a level of
insignificance the project could be conditioned for the
following:
1. Eliminate the dryer/blower from the car wash to reduce the
levels of generated noise below 65 dB CNELi and
2. Provide a ten foot decorative sound wall extending along the
northern property line and a nine foot decorative sound wall
along the western property line.
Pursuant to section 19.62.010, the height of fences or wall
erected on the property lines in the CR-3 district shall not
exceed six feet in height. A variance concerning the height
could be pursued, however, a block wall ten feet in height would
detract from the high quality development along Hospitality Lane.
Should the car wash not be constructed, a block wall of such
height would not be required.
COMMENTS RECEIVED
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the site plan for
the proposal at their meeting of June 28, 1990. The site plan
was cleared on to Planning Commission for hearing.
Councilman ward 3
Councilman Flores, the councilman for Ward 3, has expressed
concern that the proposal would detract fro. the other first
class development in the area. The Councilman has indicated that
there are other car washes located on the south side of
Interstate 10, which would not inconvenience individuals in need
of having their cars washed, and that one was recently approved
on Redlands Boulevard [Conditional Use Permit No. 89-07].
=.c-
........ ItAGE' OF t .....
0 0
F" ~
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE CUP 90-02
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 8
OBSERVATIONS HEARING DATE 8-7-9U
PAGE 5
...
,... . "'I
CONCLUSION
The proposal is a permitted use subject to the approval of a
Conditional Use Permit. The project complies with all minimum
Municipal Code standards concerning landscaping, parking,
circulation, setbacks, elevations, and lot coverage. However,
the proposal is not compatible with the high quality
hotels/motels and restaurants characteristic of the Hospitality
Lane area and Southeast Industrial Park Redevelopment Area.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends
Use Permit No.
(Attachment B).
that the Planning Commission
90-02 subject to the attached
deny Conditional
Findings of Fact
R~ectfully sUbm~ted,
;lL~it9 / r- ~(!../
Larr YE. Reed
Dir ctor, Planning and Building Services
~R~
Michael R. Finn
Associate Planner
Attachment A - Municipal Code and General Plan Conformance
Attachment B - Findings of Fact
Attachment C -. Initial Study
Attachment .D - Site Plan and Elevations
Attachment E - Location Map
=-=.-
...
~ ....tOllt ftoIDI
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 90-02
,...
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
ATTACHMENT A
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
cate90rv
Municipal
ProDosal Code
Gasoline stationl Permitted
Food Hart with Subject to
tunnel car wash a CUP
13.5 feet 4 stories
or 52 feet
20 feet 20 feet
from curb from curb
20 feet 20 feet
froll curb froll curb
6\ 70\
4 4 *
Permitted Use
Height
Setbacks
Front
Side-Street
Floor Area Ratio
parking
* 972 square feet at 1 parking spacel 250 square feet
972/250 . 3.9 or 4 parking spaces
m.:. ~
8
8-7..90
6
General
PIBln
N/A
4 stories
or 52 feet
N/A
N/A
70\
KIA
,.,..... NIlE, OF t .....
o
o
r
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 90-02
8
8-7-90
7
FINDINGS OF FACT
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
..
-00II
r
ATTACHMENT B
FINDINGS OF F~CT
1. The proposed tunnel car wash and storaqe area in
conjunction with the qaso1ine station/food mart conforms to
the objectives of the City's General Plan, in that it is a
permitted use in the CR-3, Commercial Reqiona1 land use
district, subject to the approval of a Conditional Use
Permit.
2. The proposed use could adversely affect the adjoininq land
uses and the qrowth and development of the area in which it
is proposed to be located in that the proposal is not
compatible with the hiqh quality hotels/motels and
restaurants characteristic of Development a10nq Hospitality
Lane and in the Southeast Industrial Park.
3. The size and shape of the site proposed for the use is
adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use
in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to
the peace, health, safety and qenera1 welfare in that the
site can accommodate the proposed self-serve tunnel car
wash and storaqe in conjunction with the qas station/food
mart in conformance with all applicable standards
reqardinq setbacks, 1andscapinq, parkinq, and internal
circulation.
4. The City Traffic Enqineer has reviewed the project and has
indicated that the traffic qenerated by the proposed use
will not impose any undue burden upon the streets and
hiqhways desiqned and improved to carry the traffic in the
area. The parkinq provided is adequate in that it satisfies
Municipal Code Requirements.
5. The qrantinq of this Conditional Use Permit would be
detrimental to the peace, health and safety and qenera1
welfare of the citizens of the City of San Bernardino in
that the proposed use is incompatible with the surroundinq
-land uses o.f the Hospitality area, and could have adverse
i.pacts detrimental to the area in which the project .is
located.
~ ~
===
__ '_,OF, ......
..
CI
OF SAN BERNARD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
o
Applicant(s)
Address
City, state
Zip
MISC:
ISPREPARATION
ke/9-1-89
ATTACHMENT C
Initial study for Environmental Impacts
For COtJt>rT"'D,j'lt.- u.~;;. """-T" "lO-o"l,..
Project Humber
Project description/Location "TO ""II" '3f4"-SU\l~
'T"NN~ cACl. ""~ AN, ,.. <;m)jlAboQ. a"'\..1:>'o.)'" .,.0.._ 51T'li.. OF Aol
iOY.'''Tlolc. SEQ~\"'- STNI"lCtl '-OUlt'E.I> oil 'T\ta. ~ UlIl.>le4l.. of
uJ~ IW~...... AoIb IW>~PITI\"LT'f ...........
Date
~M '2.llq'lO
I
Prepared for:
wS'-t;.c
!>:.l<> W"T I\IlQOW IIlbllwtM "'\lITE 2.8
I
co",.... cA 'Ina
,
Prepared by:
MIC","~ t:I... ",,,,,)
Name
~O>C.UIoTlC. ?L.hlJhlEfL
Title
City of San Bernardino
Planninq Department
300 N. "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
..... .
r-. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO "
PLANNING OEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT CHECKLIST
-.. ~
,'.. . .
,- ""
A. BACRGROYND
Application Number: COlltlmo~AI.. \lhi. V~lr ",0-0'
Project Description: .,... Artm '" se..F - &ell.\IIc.l<."tWl_ CAll. I&IM~ Ao/l) A SIZl//I6e..
\lU.\I..tl\~'" -.0 .,.~e. ~IT2 f)r At!. e.'lC.I~rllol.fo. sell\flC.t: S1"....nD~. .0.
.
.
Location: 0.'54 AcReS ~ otl~ ~U.Tc..R.M.eItOt= u.J;"~,wliJll~
AllD ~SPlr"Ml'I LMlE..
Environmental Constraints Areas: A~ oF ...,"'" "-I&MI=Ac::nDt\l i'a'''-'T,,,,,-
General Plan Designation: cQ.-"!.. GOll\.....,"""I.. .R.ec.IoNlrl..
Zoning Designation: CR.-~ . GD~"'- R:e.cwloCW.t1-
B. ~~BQHB~~ IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a
separate attached sheet.
1. ~I.~h Resources Will the proposal result in:
Yes No Maybe
.
a. Earth movement (cut and/or
fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or
more? X.
b. Development and/or grading on
a slope greater than 15'
natural grade? )(
c. Development within the
Alquist-Priolo Special Studies
Zone? X
d. Modification of any unique
geologic or physical feature? )(
..... ~
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 1 OF 8
^
t"'\
Maybe
""'"
,
e. Soil erosion on or off the
project site?
f. Modification of a channel,
creek or river?
Development
subject
mudslides,
other similar
within an area
to landslides,
liquefaction or
hazards?
g.
h. Other?
2. ~IR WQ11~: Will the proposal
result in:
a.
air
upon
emissions or
ambient air
Substantial
an effect
quality?
b. The creation of objectionable
odors?
e. Development within a high wind
hazard area?
3.
~~B---RESOURCES:
proposal result in:
Will
the
a. Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the rate
and amount of surface runoff
due to impermeable surfaces?
b. Changes in the course or flow
of flood waters?
c. Discharge into surface waters
or any alteration of surface
water quality?
d. Change in the quantity or
quality of ground waters?
e. Exposure of people or property
to flood hazarjs?
f. Other? \AI_II. 1'1>......-., IN MAlol~
"'-
REVISED 12/87
Yes
x
No
x.
x
x
x
x
)(
x
)(
x.
x
x.
x
~
PAGE 2 OF 8
r
4.
^'
-
BIOLOGICAL-S~SOORCES:
proposal result in:
Could the
a.
Change
unique,
species
habitat
trees?
in the number of any
rare or endangered
of plants or their
including stands of
b.
Change
unique,
species
habitat?
in the number of any
rare or endangered
of animals or their
c.
Other?
5. NOISE: Could the proposal result
in:
6.
...
REVISED 10/87
a. Increases in existing noise
levels? X
b.
Exposure of people to
noise levels over 65
interior noise levels
dB?
exterior
dB or
over 45
c. Other?
1IAml_-Yn:
result in:
Will the
proposal
a.
A change in
designated
Plan?
the land nse as
on the General
b. Development within an Airport
District?
c. Development within "Greenbelt"
Zone A,B, or C?
d. Development within a high fire
hazard zone?
e. Other?
"
-
Yes
x
No
x
)C..
><-
)<..
x
)(
)(
)(
>-
Maybe
~
~
PAGE 3 OF 8
,.
Maybe
""
7.
Will
the
MAN-MADE HAJl!N>jl :
project:
a. Use, store, transport or
dispose of hazardous or toxic
materials (including but not
limited to oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
b. Involve the release
hazardous substances?
of
c. Expose people to the potential
health/safety hazards?
d. Other?
8. HQY~: Will the proposal:
a. Remove existing housing or
create a demand for additional
housing?
b; Other?
9. 1'BA~l'ORTATIOJUg~ATION: Could
the proposal result in:
a. An increase in traffic that is
greater than the land use
designated on the General
Plan?
b.
Use of existing,
new, parking
structures?
or demand for
facilitiesl
c. Impact upon existing public
transportation-systems?
d. Alteration of present patterns
of circulation?
e. Impact to rail or air traffic?
f. Increased saf~ty hazards to
vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
...
REVISED 10/87
y
No
x.
)(
"'-
){
)(
x
x
)(
l(
)(
J(
)(
~
PAGE 4 OF 8
or
Maybe
..,
""
o
g.
A disjointed pattern of
roadway improvements?
h.
Other?
10. ~~k SERVICES Will the proposal
impact the fOllowing beyond the
capability to provide adequate
levels of service?
a.
rire protection?
Police protection?
b.
c.
Schools (i.e. attendance,
boundaries, overload, etc.)?
d.
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
e.
Medical aid?
f.
Solid. waste?
g.
Other?
"
11. UTILITIES: Will the proposal:
a. Impact the following beyond
the capability to provide
adequate levels of service or
require the con.truction of
new facilities?
b.
c.
REVISED 10/87
1. Natural gas?
2. Electricity?
3. Water?
4. Sewer?
5. Other?
Result. in a
pattern of
extensions?
disjointed
utility
Require the construction of
new facilities?
,,-.
- ,
~s
No
'I..
'i.
Ie::
Ie::
~
x
Ie::
X
l(
x...
.,t
)(
Ie::
)(
)(
x
~
PAGE 5 OF 8
n
n
r
No
Maybe
"""'l
12. AESTBETI~:
a. Could the proposal result in
the obstruction of any scenic
view?
13.
b. Will the visual impact of the
project be detrimental to the
surrounding area?
c. Other?
CP~~~~--F~QURCES:
proposal result in:
a. The alteration or destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Could the
b.
Adverse
impacts
historic
object?
c. Other?
physical or aesthetic
to a prehistoric or
site, structure or
14. Mandatory Findings of Significance
(Section 15065)
...
REVISED 10/87
The California Environmental
Quality Act states that if any of
the following can be answered yes
or maybe, the project may have a
significant effect on the
environment and an Environmental
Impact Report shall be prepared.
a. Does the project have the
potential to degrade the
quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop
below self sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant
or animal cOQrnunity, reduce
the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate
Yes
)(
~
)(
)(.
~
x
~
PAGE 60F6
r
n
t'\
Yes
No
Maybe
""
important examples of the
major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the
potential to achieve short
term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact
on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively
brief, definitive period of
time while long-term impacts
will endure well into the
future. )
)(
x
c. Does the project have impacts
which are individually
limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (A project may
impact on two or more separate
resources where the impact on
each resource is relatively
small, but where the effect of
the total of those impacts on
the environment is
significant.)
d. Does the project have
environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
x
)(..
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(Attach sheets as necessary.)
~ ~
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 7 OF 8
o
o
project Number Conditional Use Permit 90-02
Kay 21, 1990
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION
MEASURES (continued).
1.9.
The site lies within an area of high liquifaction potential. To
mitigate any potential impacts, the project shall comply with the
requirements of MC-676 concerning submission of liquifaction
reports and mitigation measures to' the City Public Works
Department.
3.a.
Project development may entail a change in drainage patterns, and
absorption rates as a result of the structural additions to the
site. Engineering Department Standard Conditions and
requirements concerning drainage will reduce potential impacts to
a level of non-significance.
J.c., J.d., 7.a., 7.b., and 7.c.
The proposed project may involve the release of hazardous
substances into surface waters, conceivably altering the quality
of both surface and ground waters. Release of hazardous
substances would be handled by the Environmental Officer at the
San Bernardino City Water Department. The following City of San
Bernardino Water Department Standard Requirements will reduce
these potential impacts to a level of insignificance:
1. An industrial waste permit shall be required if any
type of hazardous materials are to be,released.
2. A Grease Trap (Sand Trap) shall be installed.
J. No Regenerative Water Softeners may be installed without
prior approval of the Environmental Control Officer.
J.f.
To safeguard water quality in existing water pipes and mains, an
R.P.P. Backflow Device is required at the water sevice connection
per City of ~an Bernardino Water Department Standard
Requirements.
o
o
Project Number Conditional Use Permit 90-02
Kay 21, 1990
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND HITIGATION
HEASURES (continued).
5.a., and 5.b.
The proposal could result in increases in existing noise levels
and exposure of people in the motel adjacent to the site to
exterior noise levels in excess of those allowable by the General
Plan. An acoustical study was prepared for the project by Gordon
Bricken and Associates. The study found that the project as
designed will produce noise levels in excess of 65 dB CNEL. To
reduce these potential noise impacts to a level of
insignificance, the project shall comply with the following
conditions of approval:
1. Eliminate the dryer/blower from the car wash to reduce
the levels of generated noise below 65 dB CNEL.
2. Provide a ten foot decorative sound wall extending along
the northern property line and a nine foot decorative
sound wall along the western property line.
9.d.
Project development could alter or change the present traffic and
circulation of the area. The proposed project has been reviewed
by the City Traffic Engineer and does not meet the minimua
criteria for a traffic impact study as established in the Traffic
Policy Paper, or as determined by the Traffic Engineer. The
additional trips from the proposed project are not sufficient to
cause a significant impact on the adjacent street system. Total
traffic volume will be less than the street design capacity.
.
o
o
90/369
GORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ACOUSTICAL end ENERGY ENGINEERS .
.
.
HIlY 16, 19911
o ~ ~ Y i I . . t v
i t II II I
iU11r1r
~ 6 IS
f till
wI" .
~ t
i t If
I f I I t I 2 1 If ~
PrepAred for:
Go on Briclcen
!'re.ident
.~
HR. PARHANAND KUHAR
KSacO -- W..tern Senay.tam
Bnyineering Co. Inc.
613 E..cb~y Avenge
..eovi". ~1I1J.f...!"..' - Cl' .....
/ IIJIAb
1621 East Seventlentll Street. Suite K . Santa Ana, CallfOlnla 92701 . Phone (714) 835-0249
FAX (714) 835.1957
o
o
90/369
GORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ACOUSTICAL end ENERGY ENGINEERS
.
.
illlH1ilI
.e.
I
.
The proposed car wash has been analyzed for ~ompliance
with tho Ci~Y'8 requirement of 65 CNEL on the adjacen~ motel use.
The project, as designed, will exceed the requirement. The
fOllowing four options for mitigation are available:
1. Ad~ automatic doors at the entrance and the
exit, or
2. Add sound walla per Exhibit 8, or
3. Eliminate the dryer, or
4. Limit the operating hours to 7:00 A.M. to 7:00
P.M.
115" East SlMlnlHnlh SIr.. Suite K . Senl8 Ana. California 82701 . Phone (714) 835-0249
FAX (714) 835-1957
~
....... """ ,'''''''''''' ....... ...."".......,
'l.:l.~ _..., "",,'-, ;,'.....,., "........
o
o
90/369
GORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This study examines the noise impact of the proposed
self-service automated ear wash on the motel adjacent to
the Shell site on which the car wash is located. The car wash is
a drive thru f~cility. The aite ia located aa noted on Exhibit 1.
The plot plan of the site is shown on ~xhibit 2. The Super 8
Motel is adjacent to the Shell site on a portion of the north and
west frontage. The distances to the building faces aremar~ed on
the Exhibit Z.
Z.O APPLICABLE NOiSE CRITERIA
The City of San Bernardino wishes the car wash to not
exceed 65 CNEL on the motel site. AS a practical
matter, since there are par~inq lots immediately adjacent, this
can be interpreted to mean the building face.
3.0 EXISTING NOl~~ ~EVE~
The area is close to the 1-10 freeway. Waterman is also
a fairly heavily trAveled street. A site visit was made,
and a short-term measure.ent eaken. The measurement chart is
ahown on Bxhibit 3. The levels are very constant. The average
level was 6Z d~A. The meAsurement was t.ken at 8:30 P.M. The
typical 1-10 freeway cycle is described by the plot of hourly
average levels shown on Exhibit 4. The conversion from the
average hourly level to CNBL for the 8100 P.M. to 9100 P.M. period
is CNSL . Leq(h) + 4. Thus, ehe eatiaated CNEL at this location
is .66 dBA (62 +4 . 66).
162t ~1I111 Seventeenth Stroot, Suite K . Santa Ana. California e2701 . Phone (714) 835-0249
FAX (714) 835-1957
-- --_. ----.-.
o
o
...., -...
4.0 paOJ~CT NOISe LEVEL~
The proposed car wash is represented to be similar to a
arco system for which data was supplied by the client
from a field study done by Colia Acoustical Engineering. The plot
shee~s are snown On EXhibits 5 and 6. This data has been convert-
ed to a dB vera US distance chart, and is sho~n on EXhibit 7 and
proJected Out to the locations of the building faces without
accounting for any effects that may Occur as a result of site
shielding.
The generation of CNit values requires a model of daily
opera Lions. The assumption here will be tnat the car wash is used
80 percent of the time from 7100 A.M. to 7:0~ P.M., 40 percent of
the time from 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M., and 20 percent of the time
from 10:00 P.M. to 7:0~ A.M. Ta~ing the data from Exhibit 7,
which-is for continuous operation, and applying the operational
model, results in the value. given in Table 1.
TABLE 1
POTEN~IAL CNEt VALUES AT MOTEL rACES
FACE
DOORS OPEN
OooM CLOSED
North
illest
72
71
67
65
It is clear, that when the doors are left open, whiCh
would be the tipical condition, the levels could exceed 65 CNEL by
5 to 7 dBA.
Now, there are Some mitigating factors. The design is
such that fro. tho entrance to the west property line and a short
distance Soutn of the north property line along the west property
lin., there is a building structure. Th. calculations contained
in Appendix 1 indicate the effect that this structure has on the
noise levels. This i. given in Tabl. 2.
TASLE 2
ACTUAL CNEL VALUES AT MOT~L 'AC~
OPPOSITE S~RUCTUR'S
'. .
FACE
North
"est
DOOM OPEN
60
62
DOORS c.c.oSEO
55
57
Th. expected actual levela will not exceed 65 CNEL on
the w.a~ aide except for tne unsni.lded portions. Tne unahielded
o
portions will still be 6 dBA Over the allowed limit. ror the
locations not shielded by tho building on the north Side at tho
exit end, the levels will still exceed the design figure by 7 daA.
Additional mitig~tion will be required.
o
90/369
5.0 .
.
.
MLTIGATION
There are S.veral Options available for producing
compliance.' These are as follows:
1. Add doors to the car wash. This option
produces 7 dSA on the north and 12 dSA on the
west. Both results would ma~e the car wash comply as
can be seen in Taole 2.
2. Ada more sound reducing structure. On the
north and west Sides, this means a ten (10)
foot wall extending from tne proposed termination of tho
wash oUi14ing to a point opposite the edge of the Super
8 structure (please see Appendix 1). On the west sido,
the height is nine (9) feet. The conditions are
S~etched on Exhibit 8.
J. Eliminate the dryer. The dryer noise data is
shown on Exhibi t 10. The curve j.s plot ted on
Exhibit 7. Eliminating the drter reduces levels by 7
dBA, Which is adequate for compliance.
4. Limiting noura of operation. lf the hours of
operations wero to be limited to 7:00 A.M. t~
7:00 P.M., then, the CNEL levels would drop 7 dBA. Th~s
is adequate to comply.
Combine the various mitigations. Mitigation
measures may be combined.
Thus, there are four options for mitigation anyone of
whiCh. may be usod. These are:
d exit, or .
Add automatic doors at entrance an
1.
Add sound walls per Exhibit 8, or
5.
2.
J.
illminat. dryer, or
Limit operating hours to 7:00 A.M. to 7:00
P.. K.
4.
.
o
o
EXHIBIT 1
SITE lOCATION MAP
.
.
~~.
>..~
cr
~ .~'--u._
..,
....1
WO'... ,.
. . "")
. .
. j. '.- ". .
. r,. _'.,''''
.. ..!' .' --
....,. '1 _..
..... 'r., t'
'\ ~. ..
..f'J'.-. ur!" "
... ~., .
#'\i.._ ' "" 1'101'......" ,
t -r-I~' .. ~,... ..,.,...~._--.........
..
-...;L
j: . .;
'....,' I ~
i'!.,...~~~i.~.~ .:;':.::" i'_J
::.4,0, ,.. .~. ~~ . "-41' o.J
..~~."",..t' I.li.., ~"a i
'i"~ ~~_.. , .=c .,.il:l;.~';,,'
- -,. I OJ ~.. ~
. . -,,_ ~l~"";;" ~I
.c;.... ;'.. "
~'. : .... t ;
.. . :~! ~ . ' : 1'.
~ ........ : "t
. 00\
..' .
0.818-967-1846 Ma~1.90
r; I L i !!!!!!!!!::h i : I .
.. ,
.. .
. I I ""'1111 . = .1 .. I
: k
~ I dMlliiull .. /I
. II
.
(\IQ.
....< .
.
-~
rD
-,...
%0 ( jl
X..J
WQ.
& , r ...
I ~l
I
.
-...
"
. ~
, Z
. a [ I EB
I- iii
~ I g . II
~- 1I . . ,
..- I
... ... I
. ~....... 'j
._ct. I .:: I
...~ -::-. .. j I I
,/ :~. I.
- jt~.'l ,
.- I
, -- '\ , ! -.-.......'
lID iRif..
. I . ~1
I f t
. .\ i
( I
I I
f f i
I
" f i
i
)1 i
. Is I
IJ IJ i
---... I
--
, ~.
J..~ . J
.-.- --- ._._.._J. """--1JI"~-'" _ ,
.
.
I
.. . ..... .'_ _.._ N_ :
- .... .-.--..-
. __ - On
--_.. ...-. --- ----
o
III
..I
CJ
CJ
...
CJ
at
I
I
00
at
(I)
~
-
a:I
-
:r:
)(
w
I . . . I
-
. .
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
o
.
o
"
II
a
o
.
o
.
o
..
o
.
1
III
a
o 0
" .
I .
o
..
1
III
a
o 0
~ CI
1 ,I
o 0
to ..
1 I
o
at
I
o
.
I
o
to
I
I
"!'
, ,
I
!
, i
i
I
I
I
I,
j
"
0 : ''/' "
z I ' !
, t, .
- "
0 , I ii, I
CC , !
c i:
z 'I '
, .
a: .
0 III I. I
at II j' ;i
.... I
0 E Z Ii I
... c I i.
.... II!
to C CD ",
4~ I.",.., " r,l
j' ,,' '
0 ..., !, I 9.
III i~ w
'"
II. Z
CD 0 , ,
-
~ III ~
'" cc ..I C 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I I I I
... C C U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C :I: U 0 . . .... . to .. . . .... . to ..
0 Co) CD ..I
0 Q
cO 0
-,
LJ W
Z I
ll.; -
(,., I
-
W
-i
-1' .
"It .
f- W I 'It-
- ~ (\j
CD rt)
-
:c C\l
)( I C\l
w --1 I (\j
I ~
w I N 0
~~ 0> (\j
~ CO
OC/) I' .-
Zz I .-
l.D
W:J If) ~
I
I <.?C/) I ~ o;t
I i~ ""cc
i ~~" I :>
I N/'l
I .....
W '-I
>0 0
<(,...... ~
I
I 0>
crJ.. OJ
I
:J I ,....
0 ';D
I t{)
I V
I v ~')
I .C'J ,,,\'
. .
I . 1 .-
. I
I ~ ,
-- .
,.-. ,.... '-. :-. .:1 ~'. ,-' .-'
,-' '- . ,
- - ... '- -' --
r. .'. ,.. -;- .... ..' -
, .~ ..; . J '.~
O:SI:J - i
-
-
--
II)
...
-
m
-
:z:
)(
W
:z:z "
(lJW
cea..
~o
a:::(IJ
cea:::
uO
o
00
u
>-
a:
: ..""
., .
.. :~.....o-
...' .
~,. ~
.'::..
"
.,
.;7.~'.: ,::.
.t< :'.
:~. .
Ji'I: ....
..'
.;". .
..:
. ,
o
I~L No,dld-~D(-ld4D
...--:----
:...
o
fi
..
.'.
o
r0-
O
ro-
...
~,
.", .
~, ~
- .
~,
.~'
.
-
, ,
...
.
N
...
--. -- .- .
. It' ...
I .. :_
'--., --.--
.. . .
. . .
- - -
10
.
:B
.
...
.
I
I..-~~ ":-y:.
-. -
..
i ".
-
...
. ..
;::;r :
o
-
:
o
/~
-
----, ..
i". I'~
+
.
o.
,"
....
.
-.
t'. ,,'I'
~
o
j-..
.
~. ;.~.
~
.
'.
f'"
"
.
o
r~'
;
=
..
.5
..
.-
~
-
.
.- t....
'" I
~
o
o.
I"
-
c-'. :..
i-
.
'.
r ..
-
Ma~ -"l,:lu
o
':;l:15 P.'Jl
.. .. .'
.... .- - ---
.
---w:"o
. .::;~..~: ..
. .~...', M
';1:'-: .
:, ~.~~~.~. O.
r iii: ';'" :'
.' . ....
. ~ #.'"
',,',
. .":'
/i. ..
,
"
.
10
o 0
Ie /:
.
n
N/~
..: I
10
./:' ..
r:
0" 0
- . .
. '.: ~ ~
.~.-.-..-..-..- I-
.'O . .' .0
-.. . . .
,. .., ~ .
..
.1 "
,-.----.--. .
. .. .0 .0
. . . .
- ... ~ ..
- ...-
.. .
. .-
-
...
0- -
.... ~..
I
.-.-.~
..' · i
10" ..
....... .
~"' ...
- "
:,
II!
t\ ;:;!
.
.
='\:
"
.
..
.
-
o
-.-
(g :co -,
, . ,
0W , " '
... ':,~ ;
<0 '.
- ... ,',
m ~o i " .
. '.
- ',- .
:c ... :~~:
)( a:o
<0 " '
w '"
00: ", '.
...... "
- ,
00 ....
"
00 ~
.
>0 :&
a: ~,
. t'l
i'\ .
...
....
." .., ~,
..
...
, . ,',
\! :s .
..
. .-.. -- ... ,
+ . . ' , ,
I I: . ..
..
,__ a-..-,.
, , ,
. . .
.. .. ..
.
.
:
0-
,
:s
..'
...
,~~--~.~~/
- .. ..,
...
.
~ ;'~
-
/i
0-
'/ .
I i
.
.
~
.
,
, ,
... .....
~
.
...
I
.
'..
O. 1"1'
If.
.
:.
1.
.
cr, ill.,.
A"
'"
.
'.
I"
.
r;,
..
i
..
," r5
..
...
..
IIQ
-
I,
.
'.
~ ,';
r.
~
.
'.
,..
.
... ...
~
.
'.
f ·
.
,
-, r..,
~
,
..~
o
.,
'.'
",
'"
, .
.....
"
. ~
.
/.:
0-
,
N
....
~
. .
1/=
.
/i
.
/i
/1
.
.
.
..
.
....
. 0"
~.
N
.
l!
.-.-....--,.- --
~. ;, It 0"
o = .. .. .
..
.
t..
'-.-.~.
." .. .. ..
. . . .
. .... ~ -.
-,.. ---
-':,.
2
.-
....
N
.
...
."
'-'_1-
.: : :
~Ii
-,
=, ....
. ,
i' l!
..
. "'
~,.
.
r-
..
.-
.,-
,
o
o EXHIBIT 7
dBA VERSUS 018T ANCE
CNOTE - DOOR8 OPEN
FOR ENTRANCE
SUBTRACT 5dBA FOR EXIT)
.
. .
.
80
...... . \ - -.
~~-"- i\' ..-
f
- - .-' -.-- ..
~ \ -.
~ ~ll\
-. '- .......... ~
4.." ~ ~ '- .---
~ ',S>-\~ ...~ ~
~~''''''' Of · '-
~j( -........ ....... ...... ~.. .. ,..... ~
"- ~ uAl. ~ 1-...
. ..... -
f, "
~~ ~,~ ---...~ ~
~
-
4.')" ""- 'f4::.<_~~-~~
--
..;;::::=o....~~
. ---"" ~;s ~
~~ ~-~
~ ~.
';0 ro-
- .-- ~_._-.. .'
~l. 11
15
80
75
70
dBA
85
- '...
10
10
100
DISTANCE FROM BUILDING
,oc
.
, .
. .
_I
. '" .-.,.
TEL No.S1S-967-1846 Matj1,90 9:16 P.Ol
. ! ~:.." I
I
-lid Ii "n_ .
h'III'.. .
i ............! I : I : I
.. .
,. i I I""'" :.1 . I
ClO(/) . ~
. I uJlllliinli ~"
I- Z . . I
.
-0 .
ca-
-I-
:E: .c
)(0
w 0 JI
..J
..J 1
-'
.c
3: & I
~ .
c ~ ,- ~l
.
z
::) --
0
(/)
z
183
, ~
- ~
I
I (
.
I I
. I
i
( i
I i I
I
f . I
.
" I
)1
la
. IJ
ItJ
""'iIi:;; "~-.-l
I --
- ... ~ l'
--.- ....-.--.--.---1.'"}iifI" . "'- ......,.........-.-.-.--.-.-..
.A,,;:".
~
..,
"
Q :J:m
,
t: (l)W , . ~..
.........
m <> ,. .:::
~" :i;', ....
- ....
:J: :- ~ .~.
C "ll ."
)( "0 :\ '.
W !~. !t:"
~z ' H'
'. .
......,
'.:~-"': ."~
0 '.' "
0 ,. .i
>
a: ..
.
.. ,..,
'.
I'
.t
..
..
.
;
o
, "
.. ,
.
o
.
~
.'
..'
.
~,
. ..
~, .
.. :z
~,
..
....
.
-
..
.
~
.-..- -.- .- "
. . . ..
I = :..
--.-.
. . .
. . .
.. .. -
...
.
~
.
c"; jfC.
~
.
'.
I~
.
".. i~
~
,
.
r-.
~'.
~~..
~
'.
I"
. , ..
J'
,-
.
I
~
,s.
.-.-.'-.
i = :. ~
\It
.
'" .I.
. '.
-
_.
o'
.
...
. /.
~ :
.
~
..
/.
=
'.
.
.
"'II (.,.
t)
....... ...
.
.
o. ."
,.
./Ii
.
t'. ~,
~
.
.
I If.
-
.
"
,
.
.'
~
...
tl&
o
-
... .
'/0
'" .
.. ..
.
/i. I'
.. . '
:: /i.
. .
/: .
.
. ..
0 . .
. IS
-
--. . ',-,
. ......~.
....
,
" '.
. .... ,:...
/t.~:.:.
.' "
./t.. "
.,
....
o
IS
.-.-.-.-.-.-
.. . .. .0 .'
... '. . . . .
'!II ... " · ..
..
h
---. --- ...-. .
.0 .0 .. .0
. . . .
- '" .. .
.
-' -
"'::,
I
.-
....
...
1I'i'
..
.--'-'--.--
. . . .
If"" " . '"
. ,
~lS
- '.
=,
. ,'''
it' ..;
..~..
.
:,.
.
=,
.
o
.
..
o
o
GORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ACOUSTICAL Ind ENERGY ENGINEERS
..
.
.
APPBlfDIX 1
WALL CALCULATIONS
1821 East Sevent.."th Street Suite K . Santa Ana. California i2101 . Phone (714) 83S.024i
FAX (714) 835.1957
T~o.818-967-1846
;i
er.RF:IEk NOISE RfDUCTICJN ANAL. VSlS
F'~O.JECT . . . . . . CAR WASH
DESCRIF' nON.. EJ:FEC, T AT 5cllJI.DING ON WEST
$OURCE ELEVAtION....... 0
RECEIVER EI.E',IATION..... 0
~ARRIE~ ELEVATION...... 0
RECEIVE~ HEI9HT........ 5
DISTANI~r,: TO SClURCE..... bt5
DISTANCE TO RECEIVER... 40
SOURCE NOI$E' LEVEL..... 71.0(1
WALL HEIGHT
0.00
1 . on
2.00
3.(.(.
4.0(,
5.00
6.0i,
7.0('
1;1.00
9.0n
1\).(111
1 I.l)('
1:l.')u
13.0(.
14.00
15.('0
16.00
NOIS' LEVEL
71.00
7 1. (.(,
'/1.00
71.('('
71.0('
71.00
71.00
65.8.~
.~.23
. 64.64
"~.93
63.07
#>2.16
6t.27
60.42
S'it.63
ts~.90
INSERTION LOSS
0.00
0.(1('
0.00
0.00
0.1,)(,
O.OC'
ft.l)()
5.17
!5.77
6.~
7.07
7.93
8.84
49.73
10.58
11.37
12.10
Ma~1.90 9:18 P.OI
o
o
BARFlIFk N01SE REDlICTION ANALVSIS
PROJECT......CAR WASH
DES;<CRIF> rIUlj. . FFFEC:r OF BUS II DING STRlICTlIRIi' ON NORTH
.
SOURCE EI.EVATION....... 0
FlECEl'JI'.R FI.EVAlIClN..... 0
BAR~IER ELEVATION...... ('>
REC~JVER HEIGHT........ 5
DIS"ANCf: TO SOllRCE..... ~
DHrrANC:F.: TO REC:EIVI;R... 75
SClIJRCF. NO I SE l.EVEL..... 72. 00
WALL HI::IGl.fl
(l. (.(1
1.00
2.(uJ
3.(>>0
4.('>(1
!l'i.OO
6.(n)
1.0')
e. i)(.
q.I.O
10.00
11.00
12. (.e.
13.'-u.)
14.0c)
1!"..OO
16.0('
NOISOE LE=VEL
72.00
72.00
72.(11"
7~~. 00
72.00
72.00
7-;~.OO
"":?(Ifl
06.96
"~.71
0:;.91
6~'.C,4
. '4-0. 4(.
~.Q . o#.
57.98
57.0S
50.44
INSERTION I.OSS
0.00
0.00
0.00
1).01.
(1.00
0.0(1
0.0(.
0.1)(1
5.04
&.29
&.03
Q.q6
11 . 40(1
12.Q4
14.0~
J4.Q2
IS.~
...
I
..'
r
o
o
.
"""Ill
D.
DETERMI~11Qlt
On the basis of this initial study,
~ The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
~ environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
The proposed project could have a significant effect on the
O environment, although there will not be a significant effect in
this case because the mitigation measures described above have
been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
D
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
Av..1fI Uu<;m1- P-".Ihlx 5€Nt,t'!1 :P~l1he\
. )
Na? and Tltle
L{ ~A ~ - ,:;0..A '" o:Yl- B A J~y_
Signature
fV1~. I DD
Date: U ill )-, 10
""
~
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 8 OF 8
...
- ")
- "
J I
.'
n J I
,
"
n I I J.
I ,
I I
( i
I
I .1
I
t ~ I I
.
., I
~I
J~
c IJ ..
t-
z:
.....
:IE
:J: --
'-'
ee
t-
t-
ee
,
.~ I ,II
I ;::.:n I I
11. . lil:.::il.. . 0
I k ~ ............! I : I : I
.. .
. I .. II : ~
i Ii 1111;111I11 ::
I dllliliillll II
,
..
N
\
C
I.t"
Q.:.
oj
U
...,
--
. A1J1W......,.;i
.
II
III
ill
z
E9
,
.,..... - ,-- -
.".,~-
N
I -
C
\r
Q..
~:
ui
-I r'---j
- i
I
-J
.
.
.
.
.
.
_.. ..
" ""
.
..
..
o
.
-. "'!llr
~.
I
n
III
;11 "
zEB
,
I
I
t
: it
r-"
I
,
.
I
I
I 3
I
-- ----
I
;
-
. .
I
II
II
EB
z
.
.
!,
I
.
..
..
'"
~
E
I:
o
..
..
..
r
I
,
.~
()
~
~
~
o
I
tJ .-
, 4 "
c:> ATTACHMENT E
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AGENDA
ITEM #:
LOCATION
CASE CliP qO-O?
HEARING DATE 8-7-90
8
IF
.
.
~
c:a.LIY ~'T
G
, " 'j~....
o
EXHIBIT "C"
o
OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE 'THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
APPEAL OF Conditional Use Permit No. 90-2
T
THIS IS TO INFORM YOU THAT THE FOLLOWING ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL BY Applicant
( SUBJECT : J WARD =#:
Conditional Use Permit No. 90-2 3
PROPERTY
LOCATION :
Subject property consists of .59 acres located at the northwest
corner of W&terman Avenue and Hospitality Lane.
\..
PROPOSAL:
To remodel an existing service station and to construct a self-serve
drive-thru tunnel carwash and storage building.
PUBLIC HEARING L.OCATION: SAN BERNARDINO CITY HALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
300 NORTH "0" STREET
SAN BERNARDINO, CA. 92418
HEARING DATE AND TIME: September 5, 1990 2:00 p.m.
A DETAILED DESc:ltIPTlON OF THE PROPOSAL IS ON FILE IN THE PLANNING OEPARTMENT /IJ CITY
HALL. IF 'IOU WOULD LIKE I'URTHER IN'ORMATION ABOUT TlIS PROPOSAL PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC
HEARING. PLEASE CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN PERSON OR BY PHONING
(714) 384-5057.
THANK 'IOU.
l
ill, .- ..,
, ~
'.
o
o
Covino, CA 91722
(8181967-2626
IiAX (818) 967.1846
W~I:(;()
september 4, 1990
HON. MAYOR & COUNCIL MEMBERS
city of San Bernardino
300 North '0' street
San Bernardino, Ca. 92418
subject: Appeal for CUP 90-02
Fascia lift of existing sHELL service station and
addition of Free Car Wash and relocating the storage
Buildings at 1930 S. Waterman Avenue.
Hon. sirsfMadams,
w. will very much appreciate, if you can provide us continuance
to october 1, 1990 for Council Hearing of above CUP Appeal, which
is scheduled now for September 5, 1990 meeting, as we are having
a meeting with councilman Flores on September 10, 1990 to discuss
this matter and resolve some of the issues.
Your cooperation in this matter will be highly appreciated.
Thank you.
~erY truly yours,
~,. --
. . 1<umar
President
Copy to: Sandra Paulson, Sr. Planner, city of San Bernardino
Mike Claudio, Shell
J. Holland, Shell
CUP9002/SWS
Western Sensystem Engineering Co. Inc.
613 Eo,tbury Ave.. Covino, CA 91723. Design Off.: 536 W Arrow Hwy., Suite 708, CovinO. CA 91772
fFS.
~
o
o
TEL No.8l8-967-l846
Sep. 4,90 9:25 P.Ol
WSI:W
'90 SEP -4 A 9 :39
CoYlnCl, CA 91722
(ltl) 9674626
MX (8181 967.1&46
iECEI';cr -- "'-, v ;"U:p:
TELECOPY COVER SHEET
Please deliver the followins pages to:
Firm Name: HON. MAYOR & CDUNCIL MEMBERS/CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Attention of:' DIANE, CIlY CLERK
Number called: (714)384~5468
From; 1'. KUM~RlWsECD
Subj ec t: APPEAL fUR CUP90-02
Total Number of Pages, Including Cover Sheet: 2
"
Date:
9/04/90
Time:
9:35 AM
COlDDien ts :
If you need any further information,
please call (818) 967~2625.