HomeMy WebLinkAbout40-Planning
-
-
-
CITY ~F SAN BERNODINO
- REQUEST Fat COUNCIL ACTION
F~ Larry E. Reed, Director
D~ Planning and Building Services
Subject: Appeal of Condi ti ona 1 Use Permit No. 90-2
Date: October 8, 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.
On September 5, 1990, the Mayor and Common Council continued the appeal of
Conditional Use Permit No. 90-2 to October 1, 1990 upon the appellants request.
On October 1, 1990, the Mayor and Common Council continued the appeal of Conditional
Use Permit 90-2 to October 15, 1990 to allow Council time to inspect a similar
service station at University Parkway and Hallmark Parkway.
Recommended motion:
That the Hearing be closed and that
O and deny Conditional Use Permit No.
Planning Commission action).
the Mayor and Common Council deny the appeal
90-2. (Supports staffs recommendation and
OR
That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor and Common 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. (Support appellants request).
r:-:
S ignatu re
Contact person:
Larry E. Reed
Phone:
384-5357
3
Supporting data attached:
Staff Report
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. DescriPtion)
Finance:
cOl Notes:
75-0262
Agenda Item No.
40
-
CITY OP SAN BI!RNAOINO - REQUEST FOOCOUNCIL ACTION
o
o
o
~'4
,
,
STAFF REPORT
Subject:
Appeal of the Planning Commi~sion's 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
October 15, 1990
REOUEST
The applicant, Shell Oil Company, through their consulting
engineers, western Sensystem Engineering Company, is appealing
the denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 90-2 by the Planning
Commission. The appellant requests that 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
The Shell Service station was approved by the Planning Commission
on April 6, 1982. On February 7, 1984, the service station was
given approval by the Planning Commission to expand services by
adding a food market. On January 9, 1990, Conditional Use Permit
No. 90-2 was submitted to the City to add the carwash and storage
buildinq to the site. On May 31, 1990, the Environmental Review
Committee (ERC) determined that the project would not cause any
significant effect on the environment and recommended the
adoption of a Negative Declaration. The Development Review
Committee (DRC) discussed the site plan at the same meeting and
recommended several changes to bring the site plan into
conformance with the Municipal Code. On June 28, 1990, the
revised project site plan was reviewed by the ORC and, based upon
staff's finding that the site plan conformed to Municipal Code
standards, was cleared onto the Planning Commission. There was
no recommendation by the DRC for approval or denial of the
project at this meeting. A copy of the final Staff Report with
staff's recommendation for denial was mailed to the applicant on
August 3, 1990. The applicant was also notified by phone of the
recommendation the morning of August 6, 1990.
o
o
o
o
o
Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use
Permit No. 90-2
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of October 15, 1990
Page 2
The Planning Commission held a properly noticed hearing on
Conditional Use Permit No. 90-2 on August 7, 1990. During the
public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 90-2, 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 discussed the issue of compatibility of the proposed
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 compatible with
the character of adjacent development and not consistent with the
intent of the General Plan. Based upon 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 Planning Commission.)
ANALYSIS
Area Characteristics
Development in the area surrounding the site is characterized by
mUlti-story corporate office bUildings, and visually aesthetic,
high quality restaurants and hotels. The Waterman Avenue off-
ramp from the Interstate 10 freeway 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 (General Plan Element 5.0(C)(2)(a)(1), page 5-8).
Since major entry nodes often determine the initial impressions
of a city, it is important that development in these areas be of
the highest quality.
Project Design and Compatibility
The site of the proposal consists of 0.59 acres and is
rectangular in shape. The existing pumps and food mart are sited
near the center of the parcel with existing restrooms and storage
located along the northern boundary of the site. Existing
parking is also along the northern boundary to the east of the
restroom/storage bUilding. The applicant proposes to construct
the carwash and storage along the northern property line.
o
o
""
o
-
-
-
-
-
o
o
Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use
Permit No. 90-2
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of October 15, 1990
Page 3
The site plan as initially proposed did not comply with Municipal
Code circulation standards. The initial proposal was discussed
at the Development Review Committee Meeting of May 31, 1990. At
this DRC meeting staff discussed the inconsistencies of the
proposal with the Municipal Code, and expressed concern over the
projects compatibility with the adjacent hotel located to the
north, and with other projects in the Hospitality area. (See
Exhibit C - Letter of ERC/DRC action to applicant.) Based upon
staff's recommendation, the applicant subsequently revised the
site plan, bringing it into compliance with Municipal Code
circulation standards by placing the required parking adjacent to
the landscape strip parallel to Waterman Avenue.
Neither the proposal, nor the existing station, are
architecturally compatible with the surrounding development,
although each conforms to the standards of the Municipal Code.
The architectural design is that of a typical Shell service
station found in any city in any commercial district, yet it is
surrounded by high quality corporate architectural development.
By permitting an expansion of the eXisting station by the
addition of a carwash and storage area, the incompatible design
is intensified. .
The proposal could be redesigned and reconstructed to be
architecturally compatible with the development of the Tri-
City/Commercenter and Club Area. This would involve clearing the
site, redesigning the structures to convey an architectural theme
similar to that of surrounding development by combining the
carwash, storage and foodmart structures into a single structure,
and then siting this combined structure nearer to the corner in
order to screen the gasoline pumps and parking. A design of this
type would also place the carwash away from the adjacent hotel,
likely reducing the height of the required sound wall. This
design technique has been used successfully by other cities, such
as the City of Irvine, to upgrade the character of service
stations in their areas of corporate development. These
suggestions were not made to the applicant in the course of the
Conditional Use Permit process since application was made to add
a car wash and storage and not to reconstruct and upgrade the
existing station.
CONCLUSION
Given the significance of the area as a major entry node to the
City, it is important that proposed development in this area be
of the highest quality and architecturally compatible with the
corporate character of the surrounding development. The existing
service station is not architecturally compatible with the
o
o
o
o
o
Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use
Permit No. 90-2
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of October 15, 1990
Page 4
surrounding area and expansion by adding a carvash and st~rage
vill intensify the incompatibility. The service station and
carvash could be redesigned and reconstructed to convey an
architectural theme compatible with surrounding development ~y
combining and siting the buildings to screen the gasoline pumps
and parking, which vould result in the additional benefi: of
placing the carvash away from the adjacent hotel.
OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL
The Mayor and Council may deny the appeal and deny Condit:onal
Use Permit No. 90-2 or the Mayor and Council may uphold the
appeal and approve Conditional Use Permit No. 90-2 in concep: 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 appea: and
deny Conditional Use Permit No. 90-2.
Prepared by: Michael R. Finn
Associate planner
for Larry E. Reed,
Director of Planning and Building Services
Exhibits:
A - Letter of Appeal
B - Staff Report to the Planning Commission
C - Letter of ERC/ORC Action to Applicant
o - Official Notice of Public Hearing befor~ :~e
Mayor and Common Council
o
o
o
. wsr:C()
o
EXHIBIT "A"
o
CovIna. CA 91722
11111967.2625
FAX 1818) 967.1846
August 9, 1990
m iC (iU ,.. n \"7 I? 00
W '" ,,~ ,;.. .; ~.' n
0.1 '-~ ,...) !.~; ~J :_i :,~ U
AUG 1 4 1990 ~!
HON. MAYOR & COUNCIL MEMBERS
city of San Bernardino
300 North '0' Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Ci ry OF :3.~.~,; ?;,;:.t\j....?.:ji;~()
OEf',A.r=:"";.:~C:H :';~ :';_),I.;I.j:~,ju :..
~ri:"':;~~~(;' ~i_n"'.'I(':::::3
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. SirsjMadams,
Subject:
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
permi tted 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." 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 upgrade the area.
Western Sensystem Engineering Co. Inc.
613 Eosfbury Ave" Covino. CA 91723. Design Off.: 536 W Arrow Hwy" Suite 208, Covino. CA 91722
o
o
o
o
o
We believe that we have fulfilled all the requirements
of the city and being a good citizen of the City, .hould be
allowed to contriDute for the betterment of the city and its
residence. Hence, we hereDY 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 wa.h to the local
re.idence and Dusine..... Further completion of this
project would provide unique and high quality architecture
design of the .ervice .tation which is the forefront of the
indu.try and compliment the high quality development of the
neighDorhood.
Thank you.
Very Truly Your.
For Shell oil Company,
el~_- -- -
P. Kumar
President, WSECO.
Enclo.ure: $100.00 Check No. 3284
Copy to: Mr. Mike Claudio
Shell Oil Company
t.^n.l.O.l.1 0
1""\
- .....
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 8
0 SUMMARY HEARING DATE 8-7-90
WARD 3
o
^ r
APPLICANT: WSECO
W 536 West Arrow Hwy. #208
en Covina, CA 91722
C CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-02 OWNER: Shell Oil Company
(,) 511 No. Crookhurst Street
\......i ?naheim, CA 92803
"......
To add a self-serve tunnel car wash and a stcrage building to the site
t- of an existing gasoline station/food mart un(er the authority of Municipal
fa Code, Section 19.83.300.
::I
0
W
a::
-
c
W Located on 0.59 acres on the northwest corner of Waterman Avenue and
a::
C Hospitality Lane at 1930 South Waterman Avenue.
'-' \.
r EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
PROPERTY LAND US7 ~_~NG commerc~~~~~T~~~l
SubJect Gas station/ ood mart
North l.lote1 CR-3 Commercial Regional
Sou th Gas station CR-3 Commercial Regional
East Multi-story Commercial CR-3 Commercial Regional
office
I~est Motel CR-3 Commercial Regional
"
l Gf~~'fa'dElWr1IC ~ YES I FLOOD HAZARD 0 YES 0 ZONE A ( SEWERS: ~ YES )
HAZA D ZONE: o NO ZONE: {] NO OZONE B o NO
( o YES ,,-
HIGH FIRE 11 AIRPORT NOISEI o YES REDEVELOPMENT KJ YES I
HAZARD ZONE: [iI NO CRASH ZONE: PROJECT AREA:
\.. Cl NO Southeast Ind. o NO
- - P~rlc
/
... o NOT o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z 0 APPROVAL
j! APPLICABLE EFFECTS WITH 0
MITIGATING MEASURES -
zen NOE.l.R. ~ 0 CONDITIONS
Wc:J lI.el
2z o EXEMPT o E.l.R. REQUIRED BUT NO ~ffi UI DENIAL
z- SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
Oel WITH MITIGATING t;2
a:: I MEASURES 0
-II. ~ CONTINUANCE TO
> ~ NO SIGNIFICANT o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
Z (,)
W EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E.R.C. W
L..\. I.. MINUTES G \.
~~l.r.;::
PLAN-I.D2 PAGE 1 OF 1 1'-10)
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
OBSERVATIONS
~E cUP 90-02
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
8
8-7-90
2
r
""""I
REQUEST
The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit under
the authority of Hunicipal Code Section 19.83.300, to add a self-
service car wash and storaqe buildinq to an existinq qasoline
station/food mart in the CR-3, Commercial Reqional, 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 GRNERAL PLAN CONFORMANCR
o
The proposal is consistent with the Hunicipal Code and in
conformance with the General Plan as shown in Attachment A.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT STATUS
An Initial Study was prepared by staff and presented to the
Environmental Review Committee on Hay 31, 1990. A Neqative
Declaration was recom.ended. The Initial Study was made
available for public review and comment from June 7, 1990 to June
27, 1990. No com.ents were received.
BACKGROUND
The existinq qasoline station
Conditional Use Permit No. 82-14
was subsequently approved in
qasoline station on February
Permit No. 84-01.
was oriqinally approved under
on April 6, 1982. The food mart
conjunction with the existinq
7, 1984, under Conditional Use
ANALYSIS
Permitted Use
c
The proposed self-service tunnel car wash and
conjunction with the qasoline station/food
uses in the CR-3, Commercial Reqional, land
approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
storaqe buildinq in
mart are permitted
use district with
~
=::.= = 'l"
~
~ "_,QF1 (....
o
o
c
o
o
CIlY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
OBSERVATIONS
CASE CUP 90-02
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
8
8-1-!:IU
3
...
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.
Traff ic
The proposal has been reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer who
has determined that the project-generated traffic would not
significantly impact the streets in the vicinity.
~
=.: III
__ ~_'OI' _
.0
o
::.: ..
o
o
,...
.....
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
OBSERVATIONS
CASE CUP 90-02
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
8
lj-I-~U
4
...j
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 CNEL; 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 from 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. 89-07J.
~'_'OI" ,.....
0 0
r ~
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE CUP 90-02
0 AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 8
OBSERVATIONS HEARING DATE 8-7-90
PAGE 5
...
,...
CONCLUSTON
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
c
Respectfully sUbm~ted,
Zcb''f .rL"c!./
Larr~1Ai:. Reed
Oir~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 0 - Site Plan and Elevations
Attachment E - Location Map
)
"'-
::.=. '=
-..01
~ ~10#1 .....
0 0
"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE CUP 90-02
0 AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 8
OBSERVATIONS HEARING DATE 8-7-90
PAGE 6
... ...01
ATTACHMENT A
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Municipal
C~teqory ProDo~~l Cod~
Permitted Use Gasoline stationl Permitted
Food Mart with sub:lect to
0 tunnel car wash a CUP
Height 13.5 feet 4 stories
or 52 feet
Setbacks
Front 20 feet 20 feet
froll curb from curb
Side-Street 20 feet 20 feet
froll curb from curb
Floor Area Ratio 6\ 70\
parking 4 4 *
* 972 square feet at 1 parking spacel 250 square feet
972/250 . 3.9 or 4 parking spaces
::.: ~
General
Plan
NIA
4 stories
or 52 feet
NIA
NIA
70\
NIA
.......... "MIll 0# I .....
o
c
...
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 90-02
FINDINGS OF FACT
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
8
8-7-90
7
,.
~
ATTACHHENT B
~tNDINGS OF FACT
1. The proposed tunnel car wash and storaqe area in
conjunction with the qasoline 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 Reqional 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 alonq 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 qeneral welfare in that the
site can accomaodate 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, landscapinq, 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
Hunicipal Code Requirements.
S. The qrantinq of this Conditional Use Permit would be
detrimental to the peace, health and safety and qeneral
welfare of the citizens of the City of San Bernardino in
that the proposed use is incompatible with the surroundinq
-land uses of the Hospitality area, and could have adverse
i.pacts detrimental to the area in which the project .is
located.
m=..=
~P_'llI'l I.....
Applicant(s)
Aaaress
City, State
Zip
MISC:
IS PREPARATION
ke/9-1-89
... .
C'rv OF SAN BERNAR"~NO
...'- PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
ATTACHMENT C
Initial Stuay tor Environmental Impacts
For co...o..nool...... u..... 'l'€llo.,'" '10-02.
Project lfumber
Project aescription/Location TO ""II Ie ~fA4"-~1C4:.
TutW1i4 cAI2. lAI~ .4i.I, #c '!IT__ SIA'LDlo.)(,o ...0 or.... 5lTL OF AM
;a""'T..,U. 5.A~,cc. ST"fncM ...~ ON ""5. ~sr ~I!Q.. of
...J~ Av....L.lL ANb oIo~PIT"'''LT'I ~.
Date
M,t.... 2\ Iq'lO
I
Preparea tor:
wS~c
S"~(" UIIE4r AIllIOW 1I11r1lwA>i I SUITE 208
c.o......" cA "n:z.~
,
Preparea by:
Mlcll-~ It. ~loI.J
Name
~"'\AT" rl..lnJ'-lE.'t-
Title
City of San Sernaraino
Planninq Department
300 N. "0" Street
San Sernaraino, CA 92418
1
Y OF SAN BERNA INO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
o ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROYND
Application Number: Co"omotolA\.. 1.1-"I. ~\1" "o-ot.
Project Description: "'0 /loW .. <e.W-efQ;,/IC.E.,"'tUW~ CAll. IAIM... ~ 4 5~
9IJ.\I..l:l\NW TO .,..e. !ltTa of ...~ 6'll.IS1"lMc. se Il.IILC.E: s't",,"T\O~. .e.
I
.
Location: 0.'54 IrcR8S ~'tSSl otl.~ ~e6'T"~~ o~ uiA.'\"EbIMMAl/liWllG
1llolll ~Plt1lMl'l LAME.
Environmental Constraints Areas: A~ CIF .1lr'l1o.\&\.I4FActrclN ~l<tt,.
General Plan Designation: c~-~. 'CMM"'~I~ ~~~\..
Zoning Designation:
C~-~ c.D~*- R.tw~cw.t(...
.
B. ~~B~~~ 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
fill) of 10,000
more?
(cut and/or
cubic yards or
x.
b. Development and/or grading on
a slope greater than 15'
natural grade?
)(
Development
Alquist-Priolo
Zone?
d. Modification of any unique
geologic or physical feature?
c.
within the
Special Studies
x
x
REVISED 12187
PAGE 1 OF 8
o
o
o
-
es
No
Maybe
e. Soil erosion on or off the
project site?
f. Modification of a channel,
creek or river?
x.
x
g.
Development
subject
mudslides,
other similar
within an area
to landslides,
liquefaction or
hazards?
x
h. Other?
x
2. ~1B-RESQY~: Will the proposal
result in:
a.
air
upon
emissions or
ambient air
x
Substantial
an effect
quality?
b. The creation of objectionable
odors?
x
c. Development within a high wind
hazard area?
x
3.
~mB_ 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?
x.
x
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 hazar3s?
x
x.
')(
f. Other? \AI_A i'1.....U..., IhI MA..I.~
x
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 2 OF 8
e. No Maybe
0 4. BIOLOGICAUU9ll.BQJ I Could the
propo..l re.ult inl
a. Change in the number of any
unique, rare or endangered
species of plant. or their
habitat including stand. of
trees? X
b. Change in the number of any
unique, rare or endangered
species of animals or. their )C..
habitat?
c. Other? X
5. NOISE: Could the proposal result
in:
a. Increases in existing noise
levels? X
b. Exposure of people to exterior
noise levels over 65 dB or
0 interior noise levels over 45 X
dB?
c. Other? )<...
6. ~_-Y.n: Will the proposal
result in:
A change in the land ~.
a. ase as
designated on the General
Plan? X
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? )c..
o
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 3 OF 8
r
o
o
o\..
Q
7.
Will
. MAR-MAD. BAJ~Nl$1
projectl
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?
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. 1BA~fQBTATIO~~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, or demand for
new, parking facilities/
structures?
c. Impact upon existing public
transportation systems?
d. Alteration of present pattern.
of circulation?
e. Impact to rail or air traffic?
f. Increased saf~ty hazards to
vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
REVISED 10/87
the
~ J
0..
of
No
x
)(
')(.
)C.
)(
x
x
l(
l(
Mayb.
~
l(
)(
)(
~
PAGE 4 OF 8
o
o
o
11.
o
g.
A disjointed pattern
roadway improvements?
Other?
QYes
of
No
Maybe
't.
'i.
)(
'I..
)(
')(
If
X
\('
i...
'1t
X-
X
x::
x
x
PAGE 5 OF 8
REVISED 10/87
h.
10.
iYlL1~ SERVICES Will the proposal
impact the followin9 beyond the
capability to provide adequate
levels of service?
a.
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools li.e. attendance,
boundaries, overload, etc.)?
b.
I
c.
d.
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
e.
Medical aid?
f.
Solid waste?
g. Other?
UTILITIES:
Will the proposal:
a. Impact the following beyond
the capability to provide
adequate levels of service or
require the construction of
new facilities?
1. Natural gas?
2. Electricity?
3. Water?
4. Sewer?
5. Other?
b.
Result. in a
pattern of
extensions?
disjointed
utility
c.
Require the construction of
new facilities?
.""" .
Ye.
No
Maybe
0 12. ABftBE'l'ICla
a. Could the proposal result in
the obstruction of any scenic X
view?
b. Will the visual impact of the
project be detrimental to the X
surrounding area?
c. Other? lie
13. ~P~1~~--F~QURCF.S: Could the
proposal result in:
a. The alteration or destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site? ~
o
Adverse
impacts
historic
object?
c. Other?
'J(.
b.
physical or aesthetic
to a prehistoric or
site, structure or
x
14.
Mandatory Findings of Significance
(Section 150651
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 cOQmunity, reduc_
the number or restrict the
rang_ of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate
REVISED 10/87 PAGE 6 OF 8
o
o
e.
No
Maybe
b.
important example. of the
aajor periods of California
hi.tory or prehistory?
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?
')(
)l
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(Attach sheets as neces.ary.)
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 7 OF 8
o
o
o
o
o
project Number conditional Use Permit 90-02
Kay 21, 1990
c. DISCUSSION or BNVIRONKBHTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION
HBASURBS (continued).
1.9.
The site lies within an area of hi9h liquifaction potential. To
aiti9ate any potential impacts, the project shall comply with the
requirements of KC-676 concernin9 subaission of liquifaction
reports and miti9ation measures. to the city Public Works
Departaent.
J.a.
Project development may entail a change in drainage patterns, and
absorption rates as a result of the structural additions to the
site. En9ineerin9 Department standard Conditions and
requirements concernin9 drainage will reduce potential iapacts to
a level of non-si9nificance.
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 alterin9 the quality
of both surface and 9round waters. Release of hazardous
substances would be handled by the Bnvironmental Officer at the
San Bernardino City Water Departaent. The followin9 City of San
Bernardino Water Department Standard Requirements will reduce
these potential iapacts to a level of insi9nificance:
1. An industrial waste permit shall be required if any
type of hazardous aaterials 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 Bnvironmental Control Officer.
J.f.
To safe9uard water quality in existin9 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
o
o
o
project Hu.ber Conditional Use Per.it 90-02
Hay 21, 1990
C. DISCUSSION or IKVIROKHBNTAL IVALUATION AND MITIGATION
MIASURIS (continued).
5.a., and 5.b.
The proposal could result in increases in existin9 noise levels
and exposure of people In the motel adjacent to the site to
exterlor nolse levels In excess of those allowable by the General
Plan. An acoustlcal study was prepared for the project by Gordon
Bricken and Associates. The study found that the project as
desl9ned wlll produce nolse levels In excess of 65 dB CMIL. To
reduce these potentlal nolse lmpacts to a level of
lnsl9nlflcance, the project shall comply wlth the followln9
conditlons of approval:
1. Ellminate 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 extendin9 alon9
the northern property line and a nine foot decorative
sound wall alon9 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 En9ineer and does not meet the mini.u.
criteria for a traffic lmpact study as established in the Traffic
Policy Paper, or as determined by the Traffic En9ineer. The
additional trips from the proposed project are not sufficient to
cause a si9nificant impact on the adjacent street system. Total
traffic volume will be less than the street desi9n capaCity.
.
o
o
90/369
GORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ACOUSTICAL .nd ENERGY ENGINEERS
.
.
Hay 16, 1990
t . ~ 2 it. . t w
i t II II I
~lIlirv
~ 6 IS
~ ~ i II
. . " ~
~ !:
i t If
I ~ I If t I ~ . U ~
prepared t.or:
Go on Bric:lcen
President
."
MA. PAAHANANO KUHAR
KSacO -- Wee tern Seneyatem
Envineering Co. Inc:.
613 Eaatbury Avenue
e"v{.... "~lf.!~~,... 6' .,..."
/mmb
... ..--
1621 east Seventeentll Street, Suite K . Sante Ana, CaUfotnia 92701 . PIlOn. (714) 835.0249
FAX (714) 835.1957
. '. - - -
GORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ACOUSTICAL 8nd ENERGY ENQINEERS
.
.
i II ~ ~ t I I
...
.
.
The propo.ed car walh ha. be.n analyzed for qompliance
wit~ tho Ci~y'. requirement of 65 CNEL on the Idj.cen~ motel uae.
The project, al de.igned, will exceed the requirement. The
fOllowing four or~ion. for mi~igltion are Iv.ilable:
1. Ad~ automatic doors at the entrance and ~he
eAit, or
2. Add sound walls per Exhibit 8, or
3. Bliminate the dryer, or
4. Lillit the opeuei.ng hours to 7:00 A.M. to 7:00
P.M.
o
tlll'1 East Sevent..nth Street. Suit. K . Sanll AnI. California 92701 . Phon. (714) 835.0249
FAX (714) 835.1957
~
o
o
~0/36 ~
GORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ACOUSTICAL end ENERGY ENGINEERS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This study exa.ines the noise impact of the proposed
s.lf-s.rvice automated car wash on the aot.l adjacent to
the Shell site on which the car w.sh is located. Th. car wash is
. drive thry fMcility. The sit. is located as notod on Exhibit 1.
Th. plot plan of the site ia shown on ~xhibit 2. The Super 8
Motel is adjacent to the Shell sit. on a portion of the north and
west frontage. The distances to the building faces are mar~ed on
the Exhibit Z.
2.0 APPLICABLE NOlSS CRITEAIA
The City of San Bernardino wishes the car waSh to not
.xceed 65 CNEL on the motel sit.. As a practical
matter, since th.r. are par~ing lots immediately adjacent, this
can b. interpreted to m.an the building fac..
3.0 EXISTING NOI~~ LSVEL
Th. ar.. is clos. to tho 1-10 fr..way. Waterman is also
a fairly heavily trav.led street. A sit. visit wa. mad.,
and a short-t.rm .ea.ure..nt ta~.n. The ....ur...nt chart is
shown on Exhibit 3. Th. l.v.ls are v.ry constant. Th. avorage
level was 62 u~A. The ...sur.ment was e.~en at 8:30 P.M. The
typical 1-10 fr..way cycl. i. d.scrib.d by the plot of hourly
av.rAg. levels sho~n on Exhibit 4. Th. conversion from the
av.rag. hOurly level to CNEL for the 8:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. period
i. CNBL · Leq(hJ + 4. ThUS, the ..tiaated CNEL at this locaeion
!aU dU (6Z + 4 . (6). -
115~' faSI Sevefl,eenlh SI,oot, Suite K . Santa Ana. California em1 . Phone (714) 835.024e
FAX (714) 835.1957 ./
--
._---- .---.-.--------
o
o
o
..., -."
o
o
4.0 'ROJ~CT HOISa LBVB~
The proposed car wash is represented to be siailar to a
RreO syste. for which data was supplied by the client
fro. a field study done by Colia ACOustical Sngineering. The plot
sheets ar. snown On Exhibits 5 and 6. This data has been convert-
ed to a d8 versus distance chart, an~ is sho~n on Exhibit 7 and
prOJected OUt to the locations of the building fac.s without
accounting for any effects that may OCcur as a result of site
shhlding.
The generation of CHIL value. require. a model of daily
opera Lions. The assumption here will be tnat the Car waSh is u.ed
80 percent of the time from 7100 A.M. to 7:0~ P.M., 40 percent of
tho time from 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.H., and 20 percent of the time
from 10:00 P.M. to 7:0U A.M. Ta~ing the data from Exhibit 7,
whicn-i. for continuous operation, and applying tne operational
model, re.ults in the value. given in Table 1.
TABLE 1
POTEH~IAL CHEL VALUES AT MorSL FACES
E'ACS
DOORS onN
DOOM CLOSED
North
iies t
72
71
67
65
It ia clear, that when the doors are left open, whiCh
would be the tipical condition, the level. could exceed 65 CHIL by
5 to 7 dBA.
Now, there are some mitigating factors. The design is
auch that fro. tho entrance to the west property line and a short
distance soutn of the nortn property line along the west property
line, tnere is a building structure. The calculations contained
in Appendix 1 indicate the effect that this structure has on the
noi.e levels. This J.s given in Table 2.
TABLE .2
ACTUAL CNEL VALUES AT HOT~L 'AC~
OP.oSITE StRUCTUReS
'. .
FACB ,..
North
iie. t
60
62
DOOR$ O'EN
DOORII C,t.OSED
5S
57
The expected actual levels will not exceed 65 CHEL on
tne west side except for tne unsnielded portions. the unahielded
o
o
o
.. ""J .JQ::I
portions will !!ill be 6 daA over the allo~d limit. 'or 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 -itLgacion will bo required.
5.0 .
.
HITIGATION
.
.
There are s.veral Options available tor prOducing
CO.pliance.' These are a. fOllow.:
1. Add dOor. to the car wa.h. Thi. Option
prOduce. 7 d8A on the north and lZ dSA on tho
we.t. 80th re.ult. would .a~e the car wash Comply a.
can be .een in TaDle Z.
2. Ada more SOund reducing structure. On the
north and west side.. this me.n. a ten (10)
foot wall extending from tne proposed termination of tho
wash oUilding to a POint opposite the edge of the Super
8 structure (please .e. Appendix 1). On the west sido.
the height is nine (9) f.et. The conditions are
S~etched On Exhibit 8.
3. Eliminate the dryer. The dryer noise data is
shown on EXhibit 10. The Curve is plotted on
Exhibit 7. Eliminating the drier reduc.. levels by 7
dBA, Which is adequate for compliance.
4.
Limiting houra of operation. Lf the hours of
operations were to be limited to 7:00 A.M. to
7100 P.M.. then, the CNEL levels would drop 7 dBA. This
is adequate to comply.
5.
Combine the various .itigationa. Hitigation
measur.s may be combined.
i fo- Mitigation anyone of
Thus. there are four opt ons ._
whiCh. .ay be uscd. These are:
1.
Add automatic doors at entrance and exit. or
Add sound wall. per Exhibit 8. or
2.
3.
Eliminata dryer. or
Limit operating hours to 7;00 A.H. to 7;00
P.. t!.
4.
o
o
;0
EXHIBIT 1
SITE LOCATION MAP
.
.
o
~,.
~y.
>.~
cr
~ ;.1'1-' -.....-.:..
..~
o
'1 T~ ",."'-'6'-"'6 ::r 21.90
..hllli... '.' I
, ! t J ...........!! I : I : !
d' ,or'" · ~
"0 j I 1,""',,111 · II · I
.: .
"'Q.
~< .
-2 . I
CD ..
-f- Il,
%0 1 l'
><..J ill
Wa..
& r
. ...
. r
l . ~I
.
. -..
z
EB
,
.. I
- I
0 . ~-..t"
:~~::=:j:::/
I
.i -:-. ..'j I
~. I
.; . . I.
.- I ..!t........ i
. -- 'l. , r
. l1li 1Rf
. , I
,
I , t
, i
( I
I I I
, , i
r
. j
,) i
. ., f
I, I
laJ II j
I --
. .'
J"4 . J
0 --.- - J ,
-.- .-.-..- . ~
"lIlft-'-...~. -". - ...
. ..
. .,
....-...
. ..... .'. ....- ..
-.-- ....
- "-" .--. -- .-
o
(
f '
a
o
...
#
...
~
~
-
CD
-
%
)(
w
I . I . I
-
. .
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
o
lO
o
..
0
Z
-
0
=
C
Z
0 II:
III
. II
... .
0 Z
... . C
... .. <C <<>>
10 .
.0
!.\!
'"
L Z
<<>> 0
-
t- III t-
III a: ... <C
... <C C 0
<C :I: 0 0
0 0 <<>> ...
-..
II 0 II
0 Q
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0
. II ... II 10 .. . II ... II 10 ..
I I I I I I I I I I I I
.
I !: ,
!
!
, '
.
o
00
.
o
II
o
...
II
a
I
. '!
o
II
. .
I
.
,
,.
i
'.
.'
: ,
!
!
i
. i
.,
I: ;
.
I: I
I:. ::r: : j'
" . I
I
,.
I
1
, .
I
Ii ,
I j.
"
"i I.' ;'1. , I
,
11 I .' , .0
"
..., I. , \'.
:, -
I I I I I I
0 0 0 0 0 0
. . ... II lO ..
II
a
I
o
.
I I I
000
. .....
Q
I I
o 0
. ..
- ~ 0
Ll
Z
ll.: -
(,., I
-
'0 W
.,j
0IIt ..J' .
.
t- W I v
-
CD ~ ('J
- r')
%
)( I C\l
W -' I '''1
(\1
I
I t'""
W N 0
~t;j 0'> (\j
"""
OU') CO
I' """
Zz
I """
w:J I (0
i """
I C)(/) I 14"')
l"'""
I V-
I
i ~~ !~ """ .
I l
0 I -
I N;
W .
..- .
.
~ 0 0
r- I ..-
I O'J
cc: OJ
-
:J I'
0 I ~
. I t
I I ~')
I I
I I ~
I
! V ! :'>')
I .C\J
, .."
, .
I . 1
.,-
, , ,
---- '-
.
.-. .... '-'. _.
'-' '- ; . ..., f.... ,-. .-.
r. - - '-' - -' , ,
" ,.. --
, '.., ~; - .... ..,
'.. . J " ~ -
0 i o:alJ
-
--
o
o
lD
to-
-
&II
-
:c
)(
w
:cz"
0W
co.
.0
a:0
Ca:
uO
o
00
u
>-
a:
o
: ....
" .
.- :,,---
... .
~..r: ;
'"
....
"
.,.
.--~-...
-------...-, ..
. ~. ."
1-
.
'.
I~
'.
.
~-: :.:
......,. - .
'\'. '.
.... .
"',,. .
1;'" ",
...
.:.of.
..
,
'I~
1',
~
.
~..
l
....
0.:
.'
. .
l"-
.
l"-
I"-
:...
~"
.
~. ;.,.,
"'~
,
'.
f"
.
. .
., ...
.. .
~,
."'-
.
..
. .
"
.
.
r~'
;
e
..
..
~
..
...
I"-
,
N
I"-
.---.. -- .-- .
. ". ..
I .. :..
'-- .----.
. . .
. . .
.. .. ..
..
. ... ..
. "If
:B .
:
. :-"-"'-y -
I · .....
... -
-
. "', .
I Ie il fir: :.",
.. . I
I /~ ~
.. .
... '..
. .
I ~/ .. ,"
..
I
I . ,
.
I : 'C"". '11
1 ...
. of.
!
.
0 '.
r ·
.
o
.. ..
'.---. -.'
.
'.
-.-'..
. :."'~~..
"
...
.,'
," .
. .~..
. ;'~,,'-: .
:.....,....
. .-":""
"
,'"... ..;......
I.: ,':.
.' . ....
. ~ ...;,'
"f'.
I ,".:.
/:. '.
.
c: ,
Ie /:
,
n
N ,
..: /i .
.
./:' .
r:
..e -: c!.
. '.: it ~
'L..._._.-.-.._ I_
.. . .' .0
... . . .
. IW .. .
..
.10.
,
.
.
..
. ---. . -... .
. .0 .'
. . .
.. .. .
.. .. . ~
..
. ..
...
...
.-
....
.
~.
=
.-.-....
. . .
. . .
.. .. .
.
., .;
~"' ...
.. "
i,
..
II", ....
.. ...
,
,
:,:
,,,
,
.
.
..
o
o
1_._.
. . .
. . .
- .. -
.
.
l"I
10
0-
i
.."
...
,~~- ~.:- ~/
.. .. . /
..
"
Ii! /~
-
/i
0-
i/f
.
.
-
.
,
o
, ,
10. :,.
~
.
'..
I~
"
'..
O.ll'
~
"
f"
.
t1'. ~..
1-
"
'.
,..
.
r",
-
.
~
..
," .s
..
...
..
IIQ
-
.
:.
;. "
~
.
'.
,.
I
... ,,,"
~
I
'.
r ·
"
-. i~'
~
.
,-,-
, ,
"
" ,
"," .
""
....
"
. /.'
, ,
, .
..
. .
1/:
0-
.
N
...
.
/i
.
/i
A
.
.
.
-
.
...
. ..'
Ii!
N
.
:I
. -.-...-.-.-.-
.. . .0 ..
.... . . .
l!II .. ... .
.
~
t"
1_.--..--.
.0 _ .0 ..
. . . .
- ... .. -.
.
-~. --
-~
ti
N
,
,..,
10
.-
'..
.-.----.----.----.-
.. . . .
.... . . .
-IDa, .. .
~ti
"I
='\ '"
. .
i,\ :I
..
.. ,
~,.
.
.
.
..
.-
."
.
o
IS
80
75
o 70
o
dBA
IS
eo
- ..1.
10
10
"
.
,
.
.
. .
o
'"
_I
EXHIBIT 7
dB~ERSUS DISTANCE
(NOTE - DOORS OPEN
FOR ENTRANCE
aUITRACT IdBA FOR EXIT)
.0.
I
~
. ~
] I lrfrlli
'00
DISTANCE FROM IUILDING
,
I I. .-. ,-,
Q
'. I dl==:. J 0
,. -ll~
.
~ ... !!!!!!-. · i · : I
C00 I .... :: I
...z . . j I lIo/'Jl11' : ,I
-0 . : I
CD-
- l- I aMJlimll .."
:c~
)( 0
W 0 .
..J
..J 1
.... jl
c
~
c
z ~
::::)-
0 . .
c:. I.
0 -
--
o
I
(
I
I
I
· " f
)1
I. G
..~ ~ .J
.~..'--....---,
--i'
~I
z
EB
~
I ~
I
I J.
. I
i
i
I
I
I
!
I
i
o
;;1
I ·
f
--.-....-.--.-- ~
.-.-.--.1.. l
'"lNfI" . ...-.'
.....;.;rleo-A.. .-.--
.-.-.-.-.. . ,.
II
..
'.
- -
::0
.'
o
o
CI :z:m . .
Q)W . .~~.~;.'
t: .
<> " .
m ~a: :~'. .' .
."
- I," . ~
:z: Q :,!l::'"
)( CCo :"t'. .
W ~~.~.
~z ' -'
...~~~~.! :1
0 "
,.' "
() .0 .~
> "
CC ,.
"
.. ..,
..
S'
o'
..
N
.
\I
.'
.
o
, "
o
.
~
~,
"
"
.
~
~, .
.. \I
..
.
tf\
..
~,
.....
.
-
.- .~'-.
. . . '.
l = :..
.-.-.
. . .
. . .
.. .. ..
...
. / .
:cl i
.
"
'.
-
.
;
/i
..
"
.
.
"~ill-
.
-.
. I~
.
"'. i"
~,
.
I."
~ "
1, je..
.
.
'.
I"
. , ..
l
,-
.
8
.
..
...
,s.
-
o
f/\. {.",.
~
.
'.
,"
..._ o.
.,.
'"
oli
.
,
.t.
.-.--- .'-.
. . . ~/
:I : :':;'-
\0
.
tf\ .I.
. '.
-
_.
.
'.
J ..
.
.
t'. r'~'
"'
.
j..
o
..
...
1:1
-
-....... "
. -,
....
... .
~/=
.
/S'I'
.. . '
./.
N I .
\0 .
A .
.
. ~ ..
. ~ .
. $ $
..
. -.-.-.- ,--,-
" . .. '0 .'
..... · I · ·
'!II" .--
.
.'
.
..
.---.-.
.. .. '0
. :I ·
.. .
.
h
.
-. -
....
. .-
$
....
.
It\ .
..
.-
....
.._6 ._.
.... .. . .
."'.. -
. ,
~$
- '.
=,
. I It\
-'- ..;
..,,~
.
.
:,.
'-.'
. .
. .
. ..
=,
.
.
.
.
.
.d
o
GORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ACOUSTICAL Ind ENERGY ENGINEERS
..
.
.
'821 E..I Sev,nl"flth Str"L Suit' K . Santa Ana. California 12101 . Phone (7'4) 835.0241
FAX (714) 835.'157
APPBJfDIX 1
WALL CALCULATIONS
.
.,
o.
-
T<:) No.818-967-1846
0' 21.90
BAR~I~k NOISE ~fDUCTION ANALYStS
F.~o.JECT . . . . . . CAR WASH ..
DESCI(IF'nON. .1il-'FEC;r Al "lIl1.DING ON Wi:;;T
SOURCE ElEVAtION....... 0
RECE'tVER e:1.~',IATION..... 0
~ARRIt~ ELEVATION...... 0
RF.Ce:IVE~ HF.l~HT........ 5
DISTANI~I; TO SOURCE..... 6:5
DISTANCE TO RECEIVER... 40
!l;'.'''RCE NO I Si LEVEL..... 71. 0('
WALL HEIGIH
C) . en)
1. (.n
2.(\0
3. (.n
4.00
~. (U)
6.0i,
7. (.(\
O~.no
9.0n
11). (H)
11.('(1
1~.(J(J
13.(.(.
14.00
15.C.0
16.0('
o
NOISE LEVEl.
7 1. (Ill
71. (.(.
"1.00
71.0('
71.0('
7 1. (\0
71.00
as. 8.~
.!Ii.:!~
64.64
"'~~. 93
63.07
b2.16
4ot.27
4st,).4"2
5".63
tsCf.90
INSERTION LOSEl
0.00
O. (1(.
0.00
0.(10
0.0;,..",
~).O(,
().l)(I
~.17
!5.77
..~b
7.07
7.93
8.84
9.7~
IO.sa
11. 37
12.10
9:18 P.Ol
-
- -
o
-
o
o BARFtIE'k NOISE RF.DUCTlON ANAL VaIS
PR~lECT......CAR WASH
D~~RIF-fltIN. .E'FFEC:T OF 8UBII DING STRlICTl...." ON NORTH
.
li:OURCF- EI.EVATION....... (l .
~El~El'Jr-.R F.. EVA! ION..... 0
9AR~IER ELiVATION...... 0
RECEIVER MEIGHT........ 5
DISTANCf! TO SOllRCE..... !-;
OHHANC:F. TO RECEIVr,R... 75
SC\lJRCF. NO I SE l.E'.'EI...... 72. 00
WAl L HI::: I al~l
CI.ClO
1.00
2.()()
3.C)O
4. ('>(1
~.I'O
6.(u)
1. (u)
&I. ')(1
Q.fu)
10.00
O'.'X,
2. (.(.
13.&"u..
14.0';'
I!'.. 00
16.0('
o
NOllPE LfVEL
72. (It)
72.1)('
72.(".'
7":!.O('
72. (.n
72.00
7*;'.00
7:". ~'....
ob.96
"'~.71
e:l.97
6~'.Ct4
400.4'"
!".Q.(.~
57.98
57.09
5~.44
.0.
INSERTION LOSS
0.00
0.00
0.(1(1
0.0('
(1.00
f'. ()(.
f). (J('.
(). l)C)
5.04
..29
&.1)3
Q.Qb
II. ~(I
12.Q4
14. t)'
14.Q2
lS.~40
.. .
o
DE'l'ERMIIfAl'JQ}1
On tbe b..i. of this initial study,
~ The propo.ed 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 mea.ures described above have
been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
O The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
D.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CI~ OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
Avt", 1.ll.t..,CYl- fhh~ 56\,e-t ~b.nl1e\
I
Na? and Title
L(AA~J ,;0.A.JO:'YI- f;A ~y_
Signature
Date: rV ~ i/J )990
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 8 OF 8
-~~-
. I o!!.... I I
...,.... .
-11. . IiIo.lloI... I 0 I .. I
k J ............. · : .. .
0 ! I I I 0 II : l
i Ii 111111111'1 :: I
I dllHliill1I
.
N
\
<:)
\r
Q.;.
j
tJ
1lII.
--
I z
.
I EB
I
- - ~
" ~,
~) J
:~ I
...... ,,#
, "
, ffi:~ =
I J,
" . I
I \ i
I , i
/
( !
I ! i
I
I I( i
i
i
i
i
~
I~
-
--
..
.
.
o
Q
t
I-
z:
....
:E
:z:
u
<
l-
I-
<
o
-"lllW'f-----lJIW""udIiiN-i-------------
,
A
... at _... __ .__ ~
, .
o
~
o
er-
a.
~I
(;1
I
o
o
I r'---j
I .
.
.
.
.
I
I
r-,
,
.- ;
.
.
..
.
.
.
zEB
.
a
1
I
~tJ
if
I
.
..... - .---
-.. ..
--..--
, .
~
II
II
o
EB
z
. .
:1
. I
::
l!l
~
r
I
I
.
()
s:
~
~
o
I
~ .-
f
--
o
o
o
, .
o
ATTACHMENT E
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LOCATION
AGENDA
ITEM #
CASE CliP 90-0:1
HEARING DATE 8-7-90
8
~
~
I
\
!
I :
-...-
I
,
I
C".&..l"
G
Ir
.
T
C~.
....\.'. T.
o
o
o
o
EXHIBIT "e"
o
CITY OF
San Bernardino
DEPARTIIENT 0' 'LANNING AND 8UILDIHG I.RVIC.S
LARR Y E. REED
DtRECTOR
June 4, 1990
Mr. Parmanand Kumar
WSECO
613 Eastbury Avenue
Covina, CA 91723
RE: Northwest corner of Waterman Avenue and Hospitality
Lane/to add a self-serve car wash and storaqe buildinq
to an existinq service station and mini-market.
Dear Mr. Kumar:
On May 31, 1990, the above Conditional Use Permit application
was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC). The
ERC has recommended a mitiqated neqative declaration for your
project.
Additionally the project was discussed by the Development
Review Committee (DRC) at the same meetinq. The ORC has
continued your project to allow you time to prepare a revised
plan which addresses the items listed on the enclosed Issue
Identification Form.
The Initial study and recommended mitiqated neqative
declaration for the proposal are subject to public review
from June 7, 1990 to June 27, 1990. The first possible date
DRC can take action on your proposal is June 28, 1990.
Should you wish to be scheduled for this meetinq, 15 copies
of the revised site plan must be submitted to the Planninq
Department no later than 4:00 p.m. June 19, 1990.
300 NORTH 0 STREET, SAN BERNAADINO.
CALIFORNIA 92418-0001 (714)'.....0711...7
o
o
o
.-
o
o
-'
Mr. Parmanand Xumar
June 4, 1990
Paqe 2
Should you have any questions, please call me at (714) 384-
5057.
Sincerely,
~R~-=
Michael R. Finn
Associate Planner
jke
cc: Shell Oil Company
511 N. Brookhurst Street
Anaheim, CA 92803
CUPN090-02
ISSUE t:5)ENTIFICATION)- FO~M
PROJECT NO.. CoN'DIT/oNA-L. 1.l5E, fWlMrr 'to-o"Z--
Th. follcnrilll i..u.. w.r. addr....d ae eh. DevelOpaullle a.view Co_ice.. lII..einl
of $"/31J"IO alld are ineelld.d co a.dse eh. applicane in pr.padng an ..nd.d de.
plan.
ISSUES:
1. Sic. Plan lay-oue I Buildinl Ori.neaeion:
-
2. El.vaeions:
3. Setback.: ~O' ~WM CI,.lA.e; RfQ'D. ?ROv,t:>(D s,;oBAc~~ A-R.tf (....L<€:A-T~ TH-.bJ
;to!
4. Lot Cov.rag.:
ItD20!\1 \.~) : 25".(<>00 (....ell):. .ou~ P~D5e!:>
., ~b
s. Circulation: O/'lt- tAl"" be-lit AHL& "......,... ll(. Isr' M'N.
(Il~ltr 's IlJffPU~otr4..1 e.lU- illll1IC: ,,J & 'I
\ 0 ' 011 wu.r t;,ID oF- F~
t-WT<t; G~' u.;.+'i
1'5"' t'~ SBA\~ ,v.:o iJJl<..{-2.<./I?<02 SB(r'\C
)
6. Parking: vJ....'i.u. S"TO?S . oJ ?~i<:IN6 $Tit" ~
"P~o~' 1 L ...~ ~ +'\.1.."'5 ~~- 0;: STItt..L
,...1 Ito-.J 10 I ~( "<' ,4,SL.t.
~ ~€.ctc 'In ~ ~ Y..so
1/.J~LI.tTt, 5P~ t:DP- ?A0UIIIEr
/)tlleT M 14- ~ I,.,J 6F 3. I ,.:et'))'l\ \AJ~/
k. Q.O' FRcrM WJh.L.. vJH-'c.i+ fU.su..(...'S
3.'1 oll. L{ -t
Mb c /IrQ.. I.'I>'Ii5t+.
I_I OA-D ,NI:-
Aye. ".. ..,
ILlU:. 'OR" E
_.,0.4
.~7. Handicappe~ parking~cess:
o.
o
8. Landscaping: t>Qov'Da> I.,",~ ~
T?P:- ~S.~OO(~\T[) - 1'l~4 '~E~eAcK')-
, ,
.oSy Tt'i'= ,05"">' 2201(0 -::: 1\01 ~
, I
1(,,20 (BLL-G) =
,
ktQ () LIS
22.0110
.
.oB I.../S
-':'ROII\ t!.!)
9. Walls & Screening: 10 ' <;0 <M\IL> W ~
10. Refuse Container Location & Access: oNE. wAY 't)1<\v(. AIS~1t IS of ItJl'tb€aIPtT'L
"",'nTH "0" i<tFUSf ,(hl<= AC<:.~55, .::>TO <;7'\s< Ft-:l12 !(4,f-v.~ -F...JCi n(\J.p5_
.
011.
Geology & Liquefaction:
SEt. ,,,,,Tlof-(., 5'l'\AS>'/
2. Grading:
13. Engineering: .!.i.) ~ I /ti)DmoN"I-L. bF-.D/r.A7'IIJ.J Au>rJl7 vI,f"jot[{2m-tJ.
(-;'> ~MINA=r1 1\Q.\Vff'. ;;.Nrl2y A-r 'S €c. of SIT€..
o '> -ry~.1r 'b(t,v(. WAr'" It-T 5 vJc. O~ '5'utC.. -"'?OSS. Bl..-I REL-<X....of-TE:.
.0 c.c:.,.r.Jl.+t... J'\-IZ~ 0+= c:;:;,...TH~Jef\.~ ~~i'{ L..'N~ ,0 ;::~ILI r,(n::.-
Cot Q. C.\..A.l..-..rTl..:-~
AUe. ... ."
1<' :C
1lolI.C. 'ORIl I:
PAn I OF ..
,14. Fire: TWO vJA1c:ile.C...J.I..If'r/c:..J .INAv.?{.)u4-/{JO'
o
15. Water' Sewer:
16. 'schools:
17. Police:
,
18. Building , Safety:
19. Redevelopment Area: se.l? R'\:)A AQt..A : "i>D=(a" IS SuB3of.<."'-To MPuc~L.~
\.."U\t... ,STkT'f.. AN.D F~4"f- CO~$ AT "'Io.lt(.. ~. b-i.\I(,<.op",4,.,l'r
, ,
20. San Bernardino State College:
21. Flood Control District / Hazard:
AUI. '.. ..,
Me. 'OIl" I
_110'.
.
o.
o
22: Airporc ~Ildua. J)1.cricc:
23. Ocher: ---..EQo~c::r t"'~PATle'LIT" wmt At):I"~ Ho'tf.L \...4.J1:)
u.~ o'l. C!Sf~~ ~o~~.,.s IN Ik:F-"Prrl/u"'o( L""-" ~,
I. as applicanc or desisnated represencative for the above referenced projecc,
acknowledse receipc of chis form.
Sianature
Appl:l.cant
Dace
AUO. '.. ..,
au POI" I
,.... . .. .
J L
o
EXHIBIT "D"
o
OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE 'THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
APPEAL OF Conditional Use Permit No. 90-2
THIS IS TO INFORM YOU THAT THE FOLLOWING ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL BY Applicant
SUBJECT:
Conditional Use Permit No. 90-2
WARO .-
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 LOCATION: SAN BERNARDINO CITY HALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
300 NORTH "0" S I ra:.e I
SAN BERNARDINO, CA. 92418
HEARING DATE AND TIME: September 5, 1990 2:00 p.m.
A ll!TAILED 1lDCR11IT1ON OF THE PROPOSAL IS ON FILE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT CITY
HALL. II' YOU WOUlJ) LIKI I'UImtIII IN'ORMATION AIOUT THIS PROPOSAL. PIII0R TO THE PUILlC
EAIIING, PLEASE CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN PERSON 011 1'1' PHONING
(714) 384-5057.
THANK YOU.
j., ,- ..,
-