HomeMy WebLinkAbout36- Planning & building Services CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: Al Boughey, Director Subject: Appeal of the Planning Commission's Denial
of Variance No. 94-03 - Reuse of Two
Nonconforming Polesigns at 2nd and "H"
Streets.
Dept: Planning & Building Services
Date: March 23, 1995 MCC Date: April 3, 1995
Synopsis of Previous Council Action:
None
Recommended Motion:
That the Mayor and Common Council close the public hearing and uphold the Planning Commission's Denial
of Variance No. 94-03 based on the Findings of Fact.
.T)MIt'.. ; FrT r.rr1
A113ougWey
Contact person: Al Boughey Phone: 5357
Supporting data attached: Yes. Staff Report Ward: 1
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. Description)
Finance:
Council Notes:
'�,�� Agenda Item No. 34
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF
VARIANCE NO. 94-03
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL MEETING OF
APRIL 3, 1994
REQUEST/LOCATION
The project applicant, Fancher Development Services, Inc. is appealing the Planning
Commission's decision to deny Variance No. 94-03. The request is to vary from
§19.22.110(1)(B) and (4) to allow the reuse of a nonconforming freeway oriented pole sign and
the relocation and reuse of a nonconforming business identification pole sign for a fastfood,
drive-thru restaurant (Taco Bell). The two signs are all that remain of the previous land use on
the site - a service station. The two nonconforming pole signs exist on a 0.43 acre site located
on the southeast corner of 2nd and "H" Streets in the City's downtown area and in the CG-1,
Commercial General, General Plan land use designation. (See Attachment 1, Site Vicinity and
General Plan Land Use Designation Map)
The reasons for the appeal are outlined below under Appeal Issues (and in Attachment 3, Notice
of Appeal) and further addressed below under Key Points.
BACKGROUND
On February 21, 1995, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No.
94-08, Variance (VAR) No. 95-03 and Minor Exception (ME) No. 94-02. The CUP allows the
construction and operation of a 1,989 square foot fast food restaurant with a drive-thru window.
The Variance and Minor Exception requests are to eliminate the requirement for a loading zone
and to reduce the minimum 25 foot fast-food, drive-thru building setback by a maximum of 2.5
feet (a reduction of<_ 10%) for parking and on-site circulation. VAR No. 94-03 was denied by
the Planning Commission at the February 21, 1995 meeting.
Additional background information, including existing and proposed sign dimensions, is
contained in the February 21, 1995 Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 6).
Appeal Of The Planning Commission's
Denial Of Variance No. 94-03
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
April 3, 1995
Page 2
APPEAL ISSUES
The applicant's appeal is based on the following:
The project site is located approximately 50 feet below the freeway grade for the I-215
Freeway and without freeway signage, the fastfood restaurant will not otherwise be
visible to freeway traffic;
Many businesses in the City's downtown area close at 5:00 p.m. and the restaurant will
need a freeway sign to draw the evening and early morning business from the I-215
Freeway; and,
Because the nonconforming freeway oriented pole sign and nonconforming business
identification sign are existing, their reuse should not result in any environmental or land
use impacts on the surrounding area.
KEY ISSUES
There are several key issues identified as follows:
- Development Code §19.22.110(4) requires that non-conforming signs be brought
into conformance or abated in conjunction with any CUP or Development Permit
which is granted on the same site.
Pursuant to Development Code §19.22.110 (Non-Conforming Signs), sign copy
and sign faces may be changed on non-conforming signs when there is no change
in the use of the site;
The removal of the service station building and use and the establishment and
construction of a fast-food, drive-thru restaurant is clearly a change in land use
on the site and, as a result, both signs have lost their legal nonconforming status;
and,
The Sign Regulations also stipulate that a non-conforming sign shall not be
structurally altered so as to extend its useful life;
Replacing the existing sign canisters with smaller ones is an alteration that goes
beyond a sign face change;
Appeal Of The Planning Commission's
Denial Of Variance No. 94-03
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
April 3, 1995
Page 3
Similarly, relocating the non-conforming business identification sign is prohibited
by §19.22.110(1)(B); and,
Since the Planning Commission meeting on February 21, 1995, both sign
canisters have been removed from the poles thereby structurally altering the two
nonconforming signs.
The Development Code permits freeway adjacent signs for businesses on sites that
are located in the Freeway Corridor Overlay District and have at least 300 feet
of freeway frontage; and,
The project site is located in the Freeway Corridor Overlay District but does not
have the required 300 feet of freeway frontage.
The variance requests for the reface and reuse of the non-conforming freeway
oriented pole sign and the relocation, reface and reuse of the non-conforming
business identification pole sign are not consistent with the General Plan;
General Plan Policy 1.45.6 prohibits the development of pole signs at key entries
to the City; and,
For the reasons outlined above, neither sign can be brought into conformance and therefore,
abatement is indicated.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The appeal request has been determined to be exempt (Class 11 Categorical Exemption) from
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to §15311(a) of the CEQA
Guidelines and Discussions.
COMMENTS RECEIVED
No comments received to date.
Appeal Of The Planning Commission's
Denial Of Variance No. 94-03
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
April 3, 1995
Page 4
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission voted 8-0 (with no abstentions and 2 Commissioners absent) to
approve the CUP project and deny VAR No. 94-03.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council:
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's denial of Variance No. 94-03
based on the Findings of Fact (Attachment 4)
Prepared by: Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner
for Al Boughey, Director
Planning and Building Services
Attachment 1: Site Vicinity and General Plan Land Use Designation Map
Attachment 2: Site Plan (for CUP No. 94-08 - Taco Bell)
Attachment 3: Notice of Appeal
Attachment 4: Variance Request for Non-Conforming Pole Signs
Attachment 5: Findings of Fact for VAR No. 94-03
Attachment 6: Planning Commission Staff Report (February 21, 1995)
Attachments:
A. Site Vicinity and General Plan Land Use Designation Map * (See
Above)
B. Development Code and General Plan Conformance Table
C. Findings of Fact for CUP No. 94-08 *
D. Findings of Fact for VAR No. 94-03, VAR No. 95-08 and ME
No. 94-02 * (See Above - Findings of Fact for VAR No. 93-04)
E. Conditions of Approval for CUP No. 93-23/VAR No. 93-21
F. Standard Requirements for CUP No. 93-23/VAR No. 93-21
G. Site Plan * (See Above)
r
+w
Appeal Of The Planning Commission's
Denial Of Variance No. 94-03
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
April 3, 1995
Page 6
H. Floor Plan
I. Elevations
J. Variance Request for Non-Conforming Pole Signs * (See Above)
K. Initial Study (Exhibits not included) *
* Items not included unless otherwise noted.
I
III ■:. ' t ---r� /
r P, -
jr-
- i -
� :. IP
I 1011FA
M
. � �_ - - _ Z i �•tom•
-rrro'awme., r" Q
wtia some
■` � �' f y l i
N V 9d 1115 (• i
1
ATTACHMENT B
•••a +.
•
� �r la vin. � •a �. ..... ......) �
i •.
` a 1.�.. •rl —
Z 1/L.
0 on
cn
IL
NO
.i u)
0 1
N
` - y ENTER s . \ .}` �� •(?
I;m I 4 1 Ee CL rE
pa va DRIVE
- — T
L •�
1 Y
..•r
sz)
h •s- � i •: I ? i aid rh
c j s
-- 46-� ice. -�- Y
......
. + T—IA�Tar J�JIFT w
Ili a!1 !!!!!!!!1: ��wlj������l��l�itr �,►ii�,�i1�11 ��� j o ......=..
ATTACHMENT 3
----------------------------------------- FOR OFFICE USE ONLY -------- ---------
Departments Receiving Copies: Date/Time Stamp:
City Administrator's Office WARD��
City Clerk Lien Coordinator
O
Original to: 3 .b� Payment Information:
City Clerk' s Office
Administrative Operations
Supervisor II G^'�ED IN,O� Account 001-000-4303
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
NOTICE OF APPEAL
IMPORTANT INFORMATION: Pursuant to Council Action, the following fees will be
imposed relative to Mayor and Common Council Action: Appeals - $75.00 for all building,_
weed, and vehicle appeals; $122.00 for planning appeals. All Mayor and Common Council
appeals must be filed in the City Clerk's Office accompanied by the appropriate fee.
Complete All Information
Appellant Name D I G 4C.
& Address: �a/�IGHE� DEYEL PMT
Contact Person n f
& Address: PA& i
Contact Person Phone
Number: Day: 7 1�' a Sg -IBo 8 Evening: 714 �a� - °2 q O
Affected Property
Address & APN # 7q 7 �A' a Sire d APN 1-3t-337 -11
Type of Appeal - Check One
Mayor and Common Council Other Legislative Bodies
Planning Commission Board of Building Commissioners
Building Abatement Police Commission
Weed Abatement Other/Explain:
Vehicle Abatement Other/Explain:
(continue next page)
i
r
A
VALID APPEAL MUST INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION (SBMC 2.64):
1. The specific action appealed, and date of that action:
//0 9 4 n 3 IZf�-TE o f f�GT oN ��b,ee y al /99.5
2. The specific grounds of appeal: 7�q&IeE
oc.,A �-2iS.
� t�G�o �AGLs /n! A�r,J�1TortJ✓l� �� W Elf
BvSi n1�s GGos oz �Om ally T�tE�E- �s .4
) 6r-,
T
3. The actions(s) sought from the legislative body:
TelE CPU OJT vt�o v p L i 4 E
60/zIY7 FC1S5 0 A D �
V r ` lo 9g —0 3 .
4. Any additional information:
Signatur of Appellant:
A f-A /1) H12 izo r%
FANCHER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INC.
I--d Development Consultants
February 27, 1995
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, Ca. 92418
Attention: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Re: Variance No. 94-03
Taco Bell Restaurant- 797 W. 2ND Street
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
This letter shall serve as notice of our desire to appeal the Planning Commissions decision with respect
to the above referenced matter.
Enclosed is a check for $122.00, please set this for hearing at your earliest convenience. Feel free to
contact me if you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
FA CHER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC.
Ninu Raey
Project Manager
0
1342 Bell Avenue, Suite 3R. Tustin, California 92680. (714)258-1808. FAX(714)258-2401
l
ATTACHMENT 4A
a
0
G 0
�4 D�JMC� l '�
0
c"m,.�Nx� ILLU , ;l%D
p usT�ti� ?ot�E
I
HIGH RISE SIGN (EXISTING)
U
POLE SIGN ATTACHMENT 4B
C i W4
a3 D-=*
Zz HIF I(Fanw 7hPu i
GROUND MOUNTED SIGN (EXISTING)
pcGTu�l• A2EA s 30.9
l
ATTACHMENT 5
VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT
1. There are no special circumstances applicable to the property, with respect to shape,
topography and location, such that the strict application of the Development Code Sign
Regulations which prohibit the relocation and reuse of non-conforming pole signs
deprives the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and
under the identical land use district classification. The subject property does not have
the 300 foot freeway frontage required to establish a freeway adjacent pole sign; and, the
Sign Regulations contains provisions for the establishment of a street front monument
sign for business identification.
2. The granting of the variance to allow the reuse of the non-conforming freeway oriented
pole sign and the relocation and reuse of the non-conforming business identification pole
sign is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right
possessed by other property in the sam vicinity and land use district and denied to the
property for which the variance is sought in that the two pole signs have been abandoned
and are non-conforming.
3. The granting of a variance will be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and land use
district in which the property is located in that the reuse of the non-conforming freeway
oriented pole sign and the relocation and reuse of the non-conforming business
identification pole sign will allow illegal uses on the site.
4. The granting of a variance constitutes a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations
upon other commercial sites in the vicinity and land use district in which the property is
located in that the reuse of the non-conforming freeway oriented pole sign and the
relocation and reuse of the non-conforming business identification pole sign is not
permitted pursuant to Development Code §19.22.110(1) and (4).
5. The granting of the variance allows a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly
authorized by the regulations governing the subject parcel in that the reuse of the non-
conforming freeway oriented pole sign and the relocation and reuse of the non-
conforming business identification pole sign are not permitted pursuant to Development
Code §19.22.110(l) and (4).
6. The granting of the variance will not be consistent with the General Plan in that the reuse
of the non-conforming freeway oriented pole sign and the relocation and reuse of the
non-conforming business identification pole sign are prohibited by General Plan Policies
1.45.6 and 1.45.8.
ATTACHMENT 6
SUMMARY CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION
CASE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO X AGENDA ITEM: 5
95-01, HEARING DATE: 2-21-95
VARIANCE NO. 94-03, VARIANC E NO
AND MINOR EXCEPTION NO. 94-02 WARD: 1
APPLICANT: OWNER:
Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc.
Faucher Development Services, Inc. 10 Universal City, 4th Floor
1342 Bell Avenue, Ste. 3-K Universal City, CA 91608
Tustin, CA 92680 with
REQUEST /LOCATION-To permit the construction and operation
o 2nd and H" foot fast food
in the City's downtown
a drive-thru window on a 0.4 acre site located on the southeast
area. The project includes several requests to vary from the Development Code for setback, loading zone and sign
standards.
EXISTING LAND USE
PROPERTY LAND USE DESIGNATION
SUBJECT Vacant CG-1, Commercial General
NORTH Carousel Mall CR-1, Commercial Regional
SOUTH Best-Marshall Shopping Center CG-1, Commercial General
EAST Commercial Retail Store CG-1, Commercial General
WEST Fast-Food, drive-thru restaurant CG-1, Commercial General
GEOLOGIC/SEISMIC YES ❑ FLOOD HAZARD YES ❑ SEWERS: NO ❑
HAZARD ZONE: NO ■ ZONE: NO ■
HIGH FIRE HAZARD YES El AIRPORT YES ❑ REDEVELOPMENT YES ■
ZONE: NO ■ NOISE/CRASH NO ■ PROJECT AREA: NO 13 ZONE:
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
❑ Not Applicable ❑ E.I.R. w/ Significant ■ APPROVAL
❑ Exempt Effects
■ No Significant ■ CONDITIONS
Effects ❑ Significant Effects,
❑ Potential Effects, See Attached E.R.C. ■ DENIAL of VAR 94-03
Mitigating Minutes
Measures, ❑ CONTINUANCE
No E.I.R. TO:
�z-s
CUP NO. 94-08, VAR NO. 94-03,
VAR NO. 95-03 AND ME NO. 94-02
AGENDA ITEM: 5
HEARING DATE: February 21, 1995
Page 2
REQUEST
Pursuant to Development Code §19.06.020, (Table 06.01) the applicant requests approval of a
conditional --se permit to allow construction and operation of a 1,989 square foot fast food
restaurant with a drive-thru window in the CG-1, Commercial General, General Plan land use
designation.
The applicant also requests to vary from several Development Code Sections, as follows:
1. Variance (VAR) No. 94-03 - To vary from §19.22.110(1)(B) and (4) to allow the reuse
of a nonconforming freeway oriented pole sign and the relocation and reuse of a
nonconforming business identification pole sign, respectively;
2. Variance (VAR) No. 95-03 - To vary from §19.26.030 to allow the elimination of the
requirement for a loading zone; and,
j C 3. Minor Exception (ME) No. 94-02 - To vary from §19.06.030(2)(H)(8) to allow the
reduction of the minimum 25 foot fast-food, drive-thru building setback by a maximum
of 2.5 feet (a reduction of 5 10%).
SITE LOCATION
The subject property is an rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.43
acres located on the southeast corner of 2nd and "H" Streets in the City's downtown area. (See
Attachment A, Site Vicinity and General Plan Land Use Designation Map).
i
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) STATUS
An Initial Study was prepared by Staff and presented to the Environmental Review Committee
(ERC) on December 22, 1994. The ERC found that no significant impacts would result from
the project and recommended that a Negative Declaration be adopted. The Negative Declaration
was advertised and available for public review and comment from December 29, 1994 to
January 18, 1995. To date, no comments have been received. (Refer to Attachment J, Initial
Study).
LJ CUP NO. 94-08, VAR NO. 94-03,
VAR NO. 95-03 AND ME NO. 94-02
AGENDA ITEM: 5
HEARING DATE: February 21, 1995
Page 3
BACKGROUND
On September 28, 1994, the project received a preliminary review from the Development
Review Committee (DRC). The project was continued indefinitely for revisions to the building
design.
The project was reviewed by the D/ERC on several dates from December 22, 1994 through
February 2, 1995 to resolve design issues relating to site layout and Code compliance.
At the February 2, 1995, the DRC completed its review of the project and recommended that
the Planning Commission approve the request to construct and operate a fast-foot, drive-thru
restaurant (CUP No. 94-08), approve the variance requests to eliminate the requirement for a
loading zone (VAR No. 95-03) and to establish parking in the 25 foot fast-foot, drive-thru
restaurant setback (ME No. 94-02). The DRC recommended that the Planning Commission
deny the request to reuse the two non-conforming pole signs (VAR No. 94-03).
ANALYSIS
SPIE AND AREA CHARACIERIS77CS
The project site, located in the City's heavily urbanized downtown area, is flat and generally
rectangular in shape. The site is vacant with the exception of two nonconforming pole signs and
an existing refuse enclosure - holdovers from the previous gas station use. (See Attachment G,
Site Plan)
The land uses in the vicinity of the site consist of a mix of commercial retail and service uses.
North and across 2nd Street is Carousel Mall in the CR-1, Commercial Regional (Downtown)
land use designation. East, south and adjacent to the site is the Marshall/Best Shopping Center
in the CG-1 designation. West of the site and across "H" Street is a fast food drive-through
restaurant (In N Out) which is also located in the CG-1 designation. The I-215 Freeway and
associated northbound on and off ramps are located immediately west and beyond the In N Out
Restaurant.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The CUP request is to construct a 1,989 square-foot "Taco Bell" drive-thru restaurant on a 0.43
acre site located on the southeast corner of 2nd and "H" Streets. The site was previously
developed as a gas station. The gas station building and canopies were demolished in late 1994.
CUP NO. 94-08, VAR NO. 94-03,
VAR NO. 95-03 AND ME NO. 94-02
AGENDA ITEM: 5
HEARING DATE: February 21, 1995
Page 4
The applicant has designed a 20.25 foot high single-story building which is designed with a
Spanish architectural theme. At the DRC's request, the building elevations have been upgraded
in terms of architectural features due to the site's location along a major entry way into the City.
(See Attachment I, Elevations).
The building interior utilizes a typical Taco Bell floor plan and will have the capacity to seat
about 56 persons within the dining area. The balance of the building will be utilized for the
kitchen, serving, restrooms and storage. The applicant is not proposing any outdoor seating for
this location. (See Attachments H, Floor Plan)
The restaurant is proposed to operate twentyfour hours per day and is anticipated to employ fifty
persons with about eight persons on the site during the maximum shift.
COMPATIBILITY
Given that the surrounding land uses are a mix of commercial retail and service uses, the
proposed fast-food, drive-thru restaurant is considered to be a compatible use.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The proposed fast-food, drive-thru restaurant is permitted in the CG-1 designation subject to a
CUP. While General Plan Goal 1G(b) encourages infill and recycling of areas at their prevailing
scale and character, the relatively small size of the project site poses some development
constraints that translate into the need for variances from the Development Code requirements
for setbacks and loading zones. However, the Development Code does contain provisions for
such variances in §19.72.030(1)(E) and §19.72.030(3) if appropriate findings can be made.
The variance requests for the reface and reuse of the non-conforming freeway oriented pole sign
and the relocation, reface and reuse of the non-conforming business identification pole sign are
not consistent with the General Plan. General Plan Policy 1.45.6 prohibits the development of
pole signs at key entries to the City. Similarly, General Plan Policy 1.45.8 prohibits the use of
oversize signs which dominate the building, architecture and/or district in which they are
located.
DEVELOPMENT CODE COMPLIANCE AND THE VARIANCE REQUESTS
The granting or approval of a variance must clearly identify that there are exceptional or
extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the intended
use of the property, which would otherwise cause undue hardship upon the owner or to the use
CUP NO. 94-08, VAR NO. 94-03,
VAR NO. 95-03 AND ME NO. 94-02
AGENDA ITEM: 5
HEARING DATE: February 21, 1995
Page 5
of his property. It must be demonstrated that the variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The granting of the variance must
not be materially detrimental or injurious to neighboring property owners within the subject
parcel's surrounding area. And finally, the granting of the variance must not be contrary to the
objectives of the General Plan.
VAR No. 94-03. This request is for the reuse of a nonconforming freeway oriented pole sign
and the relocation and reuse of a nonconforming business identification pole sign. While the
project site is located in the Freeway Corridor Overlay District (§19.14.020), the subject
property is not freeway adjacent and does not have the 300 feet of freeway frontage required to
establish a freeway adjacent sign.
The non-conforming freeway oriented pole sign is 97 feet high, double faced with 140 square
feet of sign area per face. The current dimensional standards for a freeway adjacent sign is a
maximum height of 25 feet with a maximum sign area of 125 square feet (the sign copy may
only be 7 feet high). The applicant is proposing to utilize the existing sign pole but would like
to replace the sign canister with a new one having a sign area of about 122 square feet. The
proposed sign copy is over 13 feet high.
The non-conforming business identification pole sign is 26.5 feet high, double faced with 69
square feet of sign area per face. The Development Code allows the establishment of a double-
faced monument sign at a maximum height of 8 feet above grade or 4 feet above the top of a
planter or landscaped berm. The maximum area allowed per sign face is 32 square feet in the
CG designations. The applicant is proposing to relocate the existing sign from its current
location in the proposed driveway approach on 2nd Street to a landscape planter located on the
northwest corner of the site. The existing sign canister would be replaced with a new one
having a sign area of about 31 square feet.
Development Code §19.22.110(Non-Conforming Signs) states that sign copy and sign faces may
be changed on non-conforming signs when there is no change in the use of the site. The
previous citation also stipulates that a non-conforming sign shall not be structurally altered so
as to extend its useful life. Replacing the existing sign canisters with smaller ones is an
alteration that goes beyond a sign face change. Relocating the non-conforming business
identification sign is also prohibited by §19.22.110(1)(B). Finally, the removal of the service
station building and use and the proposed establishment and construction of a fast-food, drive-
thru restaurant is clearly a change in land use on the site.
Development Code §19.22.110(4) requires that non-conforming signs be brought into
conformance or abated in conjunction with any CUP or Development Permit which is granted
0
CUP NO. 94-08, VAR NO. 94-03,
VAR NO. 95-03 AND ME NO. 94-02
AGENDA ITEM: 5
HEARING DATE: February 21, 1995
Page 6
on the same site. For the reasons outlined above, neither sign can be brought into conformance
and therefore, abatement is indicated.
VAR No. 95-03. An additional request to vary from the Development Code is to eliminate the
requirement for a loading zone on site pursuant to Development Code §19.26.030. The
provision allows for the modification of the number and dimensions of parking area or loading
zone requirements. Because of the small size of the project site, redevelopment is constrained.
Provision of a loading zone on the subject property would necessitate its placement in a parking
area, circulation lane or landscape setback area. And, given the access points off of "H" or 2nd
Streets, the loading zone would be plar°.,d well away from the building entrance intended for
deliveries. For the reasons stated, it is L.,likely that the loading zone would be used. Therefore,
the project has been conditioned that daily deliveries shall occur either prior to or following peak
hours of operation.
ME No. 94-02. This request is to reduce the 25 foot building and parking setbacks required for
drive-thru restaurants by a maximum of 2.5 feet (? 10% of the dimensional standard) pursuant
to Development Code §19.06.030(2)(H)(8). The setback is measured from the face of curb on
both 2nd and "H" Streets. Ten required parking stalls along the two street frontages and the
curb radius at the exit point of the drive-thru lane encroach into the 25 foot setback area not
more than 2.5 feet. Adherence to the setback would eliminate required parking or required
landscaping.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
The site will be accessed by means of a new 26 foot driveway from 2nd Street and a new 26
foot driveway from "H" Street (see Attachment G, Site Plan). The applicant is proposing to
place the drive-through lane along the south, east and north property lines. The drive-through
lane shall be adequately identified as a one-way lane to insure proper circulation patterns.
The City Traffic Engineer reviewed the proposal and determined that a traffic analysis was not
necessary.
COMMENTS RECEIVED
No comments received to date.
CUP NO. 94-08, VAR NO. 94-03,
VAR NO. 95-03 AND ME NO. 94-02
AGENDA ITEM: 5
HEARING DATE: February 21, 1995
Page 7
CONCLUSION
The proposed fast food restaurant meets the Development Code requirements and is permitted
in the CG-1, Commercial General, General Plan land use designation, subject to the approval
of a conditional use permit. The requested variances for setback and loading zone requirements
will not be contrary to the intent of the Development Code or General Plan. However, the
requested variance for the reuse of a nonconforming freeway oriented pole sign and the
relocation and reuse of a nonconforming business identification pole sign is prohibited by
General Plan Policy and De-Plopment Code requirements. The proposed use will be compatible
with the existing uses in th, surrounding area. There is a proposed Negative Declaration.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1. Adopt the Negative Declaration;
2. Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 94-08, based on the attached Findings of
Fact (Attachment C), subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Attachment
E) and Standard Requirements (Attachment F); and,
3. Approve Variance No. 95-03, based on the attached Findings of Fact(Attachment
D), subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Attachment E) and Standard
Requirements (Attachment F) and, as shown on the Site Plan (Attachment G) to
eliminate the required loading zone;
4. Approve Minor Exception No. 94-02, based on the attached Findings of Fact
(Attachment D), subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Attachment E)
and Standard Requirements (Attachment F) and, as shown on the Site Plan
(Attachment G) to reduce the 25 foot building and parking setback by a maximum
of 2.5 feet to allow the establishment of 10 parking spaces and a portion of the
drive-thru lane; and,
CUP NO. 94-08, VAR NO. 94-03,
VAR NO. 95-03 AND ME NO. 94-02
AGENDA ITEM: 5
HEARING DATE: February 21, 1995
Page 8
5. Deny Variance No. 94-03, based on the attached Findings of Fact (Attachment
D) to reuse a nonconforming freeway oriented pole sign and relocate and reuse
a nonconforming business identification pole sign.
Respmtfmll ubmi t ,
Michael E. Hays, As stant Director
Planning and Building Services
C
Deborah Woldruff
Associate Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Site Vicinity and General Plan Land Use Designation Map
B. Development Code and General Plan Conformance Table
C. Findings of Fact for CUP No. 94-08
D. Findings of Fact for VAR No. 94-03, VAR No. 95-08
and ME No. 94-02
E. Conditions of Approval for CUP No. 93-23/VAR No. 93-21
F. Standard Requirements for CUP No. 93-23/VAR No. 93-21
G. Site Plan
H. Floor Plan
I. Elevations
J. Variance Request for Non-Conforming Pole Signs
K. Initial Study (Exhibits not included)
0
CUP NO. 94-08, VAR NO. 94-03,
VAR NO. 95-01 & ME NO. 94-02
AGENDA ITEM: 5
HEARING DATE: February 21, 1995
Page 1
ATTACHN ENT B
MUNICIPAL (DEVELOPMENT) CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Category Proposal Municipal General Plan
Code
Proposed Restaurant CG-1, w/ an CG-1, w/ an
Use w/ Drive- approved CUP approved CUP
Thru Window
Setbacks:
Front >10 feet Min. 10 feet N/A
Side (west) >10 feet Min. 10 feet N/A
Building *22 .5 feet Min. 25 feet N/A
Setback
Parking 20 Spaces M i n 2 0 N/A
Spaces Spaces
Handicapped 1 Space Min. 1 Space N/A
Spaces (HC Van Sp)
Loading Zone *None Min. 1 Space N/A
Landscaping 37% Min. 15% N/A
* Requests for variances from Development Code Standards.
CUP No. 94-08, VAR No. 94-03,
,
VAR Np. 95-01AGE�ANITEMs-OS
REARING DATE: February 21, 1995
page 2
C
FINDINGS
Anac FACT
CONDITIONAL USE PER'V f NO. 94-08
permitted within, and would not impair the integrity
use is conditionally Pe lies with all of the applicable
1. The proposed district and comp Permitted in the
and character of, the subject zoning restaurants are
provisions of this Development dCode in th alias food
p Commercial General tan
CG-1,
The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan to land o allows
district.
2.
restaurants in the CG-1, Commercial General, General plan
proposed use is in compliance with
3 The approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the P ro P°Act and Section 19.20.0300
the requirements of the California�nIn Initial Study�1�mPleted for the project.
of the Development Code in that
is n environmental quality and
4. There will be no potential significant negative
impacts upon
the use are mitigated by the
natural resources, and any potential negative impacts
requirements set forth in the Development Code and the Conditions of
standards and
Approval and Standard Requirements impo sed on the protect,
rating characteristics of the proposed drive-thru
5. The location, size, design, and ope g
restaurant use are compatible with the existing and future be 1�� and will not create
area in which the proposed drive-thru restaurant use be objectionable or
significant noise, traffic or other conditions or situations that may public interest,
detrimental to other permitted uses in the vicinity or adverse the P which consist in
health, safety, convenience or welfare is thus share similar characteri stics relating to
of a mix of commercial retail and services '
intensity of use;
suitable for the proposed drive-thru restaurant use in that the
6. The site is physically ndin adherence with the Conditions
applicable Development Requirements;e tandarar�a et pending
of Approval and Standard
0
cup NO. 94-08,, VAR NO. 94-031
VAR NO. 95-01AGEN�DANI -0
TEK4 5
HEARING DATE: February 21P 1995
Page 3
provisions for public access, water,
sanitation, and public utilities and
'7. There are adequate P ro sed drive-thru restaurant use would not be detrimental
services to ensure at etypinphat the project has been reviewed by the affected City
to public hey public agencies.
departments and p
i
i
CUP NO. 94-051 VAR NO. 94-03,
DAR NO• 9,5_01 N 94-02 S
REARIN4 DATE: pebruary 211 1995
Page 4
a D
n INGS OF FACT
VICV
VARIANCE NO. 94-03 (NON-CONFORMING POLE SIGNS)
A. with respect to shape,
sal circumstances applicable to the property,
l There are no spec lication of the Development Code Sign
topography and location. such that the strict app -conforming le signs
Regulations which prohibit the relocation and reuse of nonthe vicinity and
Reg of privileges enjoyed by other properties
deprives the subject property P ro does not have
establish a freeway adjacent pole sign; and, the
under the identical land use district classification. The subject p pe
the 300 foot freeway frontage provisions required
Sign Regulations contains provisions for the establishment of a street front monument
sign for business identification.
oriented
The ranting of the vanan ce to allow the reuse of the rming bu ines gide�ntification pole
2. g
pole sign and the relocation and reuse of the non-connote of a substantial PfOPenY right e
sign 1s not necessary for the preservation and enjoy
b other property in the sam vicinity and land use g denied andoned
possessed y in that the two pole
property for which the variance is sought
and are non-conforming.
of a variance will be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or
3. The granting ro or improvements in such vicinity and land use
welfare, or injurious to the property
district in which the property is located in that the reuse of the non-conforming business
oriented pole sign and the relocation and art die Site�e non-conforming
identification pole sign will allow illegal uses
sal privilege inconsistent with the limitations
4 The granting of a variance constitutes a spec p
upon other
commercial sites in the vicinity and land use district which le sign and the
located in that the reuse °e the
onconforming rming business W identification pole sign is not
relocation and reuse of th
permitted pursuant to Development Code §19.22.110(1) and (4).
h is not otherwise expressly
5 The granting of the variance allows a use or activity which that the reuse of the non-
authorized by the regulations governing the subject par
conforming freeway oriented pole sign and the relocatioi and to �e opment
conforming business identification pole sign are not perms Pursuant
CIIY NO. 949- 8,SO01 i MENN0.9940
VAR No. 02
AGENDA ITEM: 5
HEARING DATE: pebruary 211 1955
of the variance will not be consistent with a�General otio��d that
u�eof the
6• The granting freeway oriented pole sign an
of the non-conforming pole g rohibited by General Plan Policies
p
non-conforming business identification le si n are
1.45.6 and 1.45.8.
B. VXRLANCE NO. 95-03 (LOADING ZONE)
with respect to size, shape,
1 There are special circumstances applicable to the Property, with re of the Development
topography, location or surroundings suctthe subject property of privileges enjoyed
Code requirement for a loading zone deprives
in the vicinity and under the identicalland the� district e area,
by other properties ro rt in relation to P because Due to the small size of the subject p Pe Y
development on the site is constrained. Development is further o�o building and Paz S
property pm _
property is located on a corner and, therefore, subject to the 25 meat will
k on its two street sides. The elimination of the loading.on and landscaping which
setback kin adequate circulation allow for thee sate more functional and attractive.
will make the
zone requirement is necessary for
The granting of the variance to eliminate the loading right ssessed by other
the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property po for which
property in the same vicinity and land use district and denied to the Property
e variance is sought in that the required parking, adequate circulation and additional
� provided.
landscaping otherwise cannot be p
The ranting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to
ouch vicinity li ty and landety'�.
3 g or improvements or welfare, or injurious to the property
district in which the property is located in that the elimination of the loading zone
r uirement will allow the site to be developed with the fast-food, drive-thru restaurant,
eq
required parking, adequate circulation and landscaping.
4 The granting
of a variance does not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations upon other commercial sites in the vicinity and land use district in which the
is located in that the elimination of the loading zone requirement d gn for site property
compliance with other Development Code Standards relating to
The ranting of the variance does not allow a use or activity which is of fast-food,
5. g ---- nt%vPrninv the subieCt parse
CUP NO. 94-081 VAR NO. 94-03,
VAR NO. 95-OlAaE�ANITEMs-0S
REARINd DATE: February Page1995
drive-thru restaurant is permitted with an approved conditional use permit in the CG-1,
Commercial General land use designation and Section n ion of loading ng zone requirements
Code permits the modification of the number and ime
through the approval of a vanance application.
tin of the variance will not be inconsistent with1 Ge n ral lan in 9 3S.the
6, Z-he gran 8
overall site design meets the Intent of General Plan Po ACID
C. MIl�I
OR EXCEPTION NO. 9402 (25 FOOT BUII,DING/PARKING SETS
applicable to the property, with respect to sue, shape,
1, There are special circumstances aPP application of the Development
topography, location or surroundings such that the ntnSt�ePubject property of privileges
Code building and parking setback requirement deprives
b ocher properties in the vicinity and under the identical land use duct
enjoyed y in relation to other properties
classification. Due to the small size of the subject property
in the
area development on the site is constrained. Development�the 25 further constrained
building
because the property is located on a corner and, therefore, subject
parking setback on its two street sides. The reduction of ebupiladiig ��
and par g placement of required
setback requirement will allow for the p
circulation and landscaping which will make the site more functional and attractive.
of the Minor Exception to reduce the building and parking setback
2. The granting for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
requirement is necessary . the same vicinity and land use district and denied
right possessed by other property eq kin adequate
to the property for which the varian ce is sought in that the - parking,
circulation and additional landscaping otherwise cannot be provided.
The ranting of a Minor Exception will not be materially detrimental to ve�ty health'
3. g ro or improvements
safety, or welfare, or injurious to the property
use district in which the property
is located in that the reduction of the building and
setback requirement will allow the site to be developed with the fast-food, drive-
parking required kin adequate circulation and landscaping•
thru restaurant, req parking, �l
4 The g ranting of a Minor Exception does not constitute a special privilege inconsistent
with the limitations upon other commercial sites in the vicinity and a��district Y
which the property is located in that the reduction of the building
CUP NO. 94 O8, VAR
NO. 94-03,
VAR 140. 95-01AGENp!►NITEM4-OS
REARING DATE: February 211 1995
Page 7
requirement allows for compliance with other Development Code Standards relating to
overall site design.
Minor Exception does not exceed 10% of the 25 foot building and
Of the
5. The granting modified, or allow a use or activity which is not
parking setback standard being the subject parcel in that the
ressl authorized by the regulations governing
otherwise exp y permitted with an approved conditional use permit in
fast-food, drive-thru resta urant is
neral land use designation section uirements e
the CG-1, Commercial Ge through the approval
Development Code permits the modification of setback req
of a variance application-
with
The granting of the Minor Exception will not be inconsistent with the General Plan in
that the overall site design meets the intent of General Plan Policies 1.19.30 through
1.19.35.
cup NO. 94-08, VAR NO. 94-03,
OAR NO. 95-01 G KE NO.
HEARING DATE: February 211 1995
Page 8
ATTA+Ct KENT E
CONDITIONS OF APPRON A 9 -02)
(CUP NO. 94-08/VAR NO. 9S-03 i mE
ears of development approval, commencement of
two years the permit/approval
1, Within have In addition, if after
construction of shall �o
or
shall become null and
or a
construction, work is discontinued
commencement Of
then the permit/approval shall become null
ear, bases if preapproved by
period of one rojects may be built in phases roved
and void. if a project is built in ar efroom the
the review authority ent phase shall have one y
Ph
each
h subs date of construction commencement to have
previous P e=mit/approval shall become null and void.
occurred or the p
Project: conditional Use Permit No.
94-OS,
AF I Variance No. 95-03 i
minor Exception No. 94-02
February 21, 1997
Expiration Date: filed 30 days
may, upon application being grant one
2. The review authorisation date and for good cause,
prior to the exp The review authority
time extension trig to he cproject ocomplies with all current
shall ensure provisions.Development Code p challenged, the
3 . In the event that this approval is legally
licant of any claim or action
City will promptly notify the app
once
and will cooperate fully in the defense of the matte and hold
applicant agrees to defend, indemnify,
notified, the app agents and employees from any
harmless the City, its officers, of San
claim, action,
or proceeding against the City
Bernardino. The applicant further agrees to reimburse the
B costs and attorney's fees which the City Y
City of any a as a result of such action, but
required by the court to pay applicant of his
such participation his condition elieve the
obligation under
in Commission. Minor
Construction shall be in substantial conformance with the
4 ' a roved by the Planning royal by
plan(s) PP plan(s) shall be subject to app
modification to the p permit process. Any
the Director through a minor modification p allowable
modification which exceeds 10$ of the following ire the
measurable design/site considerations shall r hearing
refining of the original application and a subsequent hear
the appropriate hearing
review authority, if applicable-
by
and
a. On-site circulation and parking, loading
CUP NO. 94-081 VAR NO.
94-03,
VAR NO. 95-OlAGEND!►NITEKs- 0S
REARING DATE: February 211 1995
b.
Placement and/or height of walls, fences and
structures;
figuration of architectural features,
Recon
C. and/or modification of finished
including colors,
theme land, or compromise the
materials that do
previously approved
An increase or reduction in density or intensity of
a development project.
ect.
5. This permit or approval is subject to all the applicable time of
prowisions of the Development code•20n effect erty Development
approval. This includes Chapter 1
standards, and includes: dust and dirt
emission control control iof
Stan rading activities; late
construction and g pollution; Q
fumes, vapors, gases and other forms of air p
control; exterior lighting design and control; noise cndtoff-
c , signs, off-street parking
odor control ; off-
screening;9 vibration control. Screening and sign
street loading; and, ortant considerations to the
regulations compliance ar wil P delay the issuance of a
developer because they until they are complied with. Any
Certificate of occupancy went, or utility transformers, boxes,
exterior structural equip screened by
ducts or meter cabinets shall be architecturally building design
wall or structural element, blending round.
and include landscaping when on the g
This requirement also includes any applicable Land Use
District Development Stan degardin rminimumllot area r minimum
industrial developments reg g maximum
lot depth and width, minimum setbacks, maximum height,
lot coverage, etc.
with all requirements of the San
6. The applicant shall comply
Bernardino County Department of Environmental Health Services
(DEHS) , as applicable.
7 . This project shall be required to maintain a minimum of 19
standard off-street parking spaces and 1 handicapped
file.
accessible van space as shown on the approved plan( )
oriented pole sign and non-
e . The non-conforming freeway pole sign shall be removed
conforming business identification p or grading
from the site prior to issuance of building
permits.
r 6
k
CUP NO. 94-08, VAR NO. 94-03,
VAR NO. 95-01 i ME NO. 94-02
AGENDA ITEM: 5
HEARING DATE: February 21, 1995
Page 10
9. Daily deliveries to the site shall occur either prior to or
following peak hours of operation for the fast-food, drive-
thru restaurant.
10. This permit or approval is subject to the attached oonditions
or requirements of the following City Departments
Divisions:
Public Works (Engineering) Department
XX Development Services Division of the Planning and
Building Services Department
XX Water Department
XX Fire Department
XX Refuse Division, Public Services Department
ATTACHMENT F
} ��RD RE UIREMENTS
ST AN D CASE NO.= 94 0�
1 -
HEARING DATE
DESCRIPTION: _ AGENDA ITEM
T A T HEARING DATE
LOCATION: PAGE NO:
Tans are required, the applicant is
rate Engineering p to the Engineering Olvision. They
NOTE TO APPLICANT Wthe Engineering plans directly
responsible for submitting
prior to submittal of Building Plans
may be submitted .
Draina a and Flood Control
1. the development shall be directed to an approved public
a) All drainage from drainage facilities and easements
drainage facility. If not feasible, proper
Engineer.
shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City 9
shall mitigate on-site storm water discharge rge sus cie Pew
b) Applicant s NPDES Storm Water maintain compliance with the City' " shall be filed with the State Water
Requirements. A"Notice of Intent (NOI) 5 acres of more of land.
Quality Control Board for construction disturbing
An Erosion Control Plan shall be approved by
the City Engineer prior to
ci approval. The plan shall be designed to control erosion due grading plan app dui, during all phases
to water and wind, including blowing to be
construction, including graded areas which are not proposed
immediately built upon.
2. Gradin is proposed, the siteplloagd ding grading
a) If more than 1' of fill or 2' of cut
Registered Civil Engineer
drainage plan shall be signed by prepared in strict
permit will be required. The grading plan shall be P re P
with the City's "Grading Policies and Procedures" the
accordance " unless otherwise approved by CitY
City's Standard Drawings",
Engineer.
RE U IRE IMENTS
STAN D`IC WO R CASE NO.
HEARING DATE
Lid, AGENDA ITEM
DESCRIPTION: r _
F HEARING DATE
LOCATION: —OF PAGE NO:
�/
a tree removal permit
b If more than 5 trees are to be removed f Section 19 28 090 of the Development
conforming
to the requirements
shall be obtained from the Department of Planning
permits.Building
Code grading or site de p
Services prior to issuance of any g
rovement Plan is required for this project. Where� on lto
c)
An on site lmp rading plan and s
this plan shall be incorporated with the gll *Grading
all requirements of Section 15.04-167 of the Municipal Code(See
Policies and Procedures")-
d) The drive-through lane and the parking area adjacent t the
rou drive-through shall ment. The
be constructed of PCC concrete pea e n mum) on straight sections.
be 12' wide on curves and 11 w d
e) The on-site Improvement Plan shall be approved by the City Engineer. Site
with all requirements of The Califomia Building Code,
Design shall comply parking and accessibility, including retro-
Title 24, relating to handicaa c points for handicap accessibility. if
fitting of existing building
applicable.
provided from the public
A handicap accessible
'la nh entrance by shall
Where the path of travel crossed a
sidewalk to the main building path shall be delineated by decorative
drive aisle or drive-through lane, the p pedestrian crossing.
colored pavement and shall be signed to warn of
project Landscape Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City
9) The p grading Engineer prior to issuance of a g 9 Pe rmit. Submit 5 copies to the
Engineering Division for Checking.
An easement and covenant shall be executed on behalf of'the City to allow h) required landscaping the City to enter and maintain Sect on for execution by the property owner
neglect. The Real Property
NiDARD RE Lj1 MENTS
TSTAI CASE NO. OCR,/ /Q�&�---
. nT1lFIV 1 OF P��g�-I 1/A L7 4�/1� at I�E�'F-Sl4_�—
SLR
� oxt4 HEARING DATE
DESCRIPTION: _ AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
LOCATION: PAGE NO:
owner or subsequent owner(s) fail to
and shall ensure that , if the property will be able to file appropriate
properly maintain the landscaping, the City fish the required landscape
liens against the propertY in order to accomplish
tenance. A document processing fee in the a ocess ng 2�� This
main Section to cover p
be paid to the Real Property the property owner prior to
easement and covenant shall w Se executed
allowedb by the Director of Public
plan approval unless
Works/City Engineer.
U
3
ti
. lities
a) Des g
i n and construct all public utilities to serve the site in a�l�,a�ce with
City Code, City Standards and req uirements of the serving
gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer and cable TV.
"ewer main extensions required to serve the site shalom constructed nd
°) �' expense. Sewer systems shall
the Developer's expe
constructed in accordance with the City's "Sewer Policy and Procedures
and City Standard Drawings.
c) perpetually
A grease and sand interceptor shall be installed a odtletti 9 to
maintained on site to intercept grease and particles p the
City's sewer system.
d)
utility services shall be placed underground and easements provided as
required.
Existing Utilities which interfere with new construction shall be relocated ad at
e1 g the City Engineer, Pt
the Developers expense as directed by
lines, if required by provisions of the Development 2003 to non
undergrounded. See Development Code section
subdivisions) or Section 19.30.110 (subdivisions).
ry E U IRENIENTS
9
CASE NO. CUP 94-0-&—
HEARING DATE
' °R4 �� AGENDA ITEM
DESCRIPTION: r W
HEARING DATE
LOCATION: 'T`� PAGE NO'
H
4 Street Im rovement and Dedications
a) Construct Driveway Approaches roaches per City Standard No. 204, Type II,
including Handicap by-pass. Remove existing driveway approaches that
are not part of the approved plan and replace with full height curb & gutter
and sidewalk.
wa approach onto 2nd Street shall be constructed 0 lane. de
b) The driveway space for traffic exiting the drive-through
to allow additional turning p
sufficient ri ht-of-µraY shall be dedicated on 2nd Street to provide a uniform
�) Suff g
8.25 feet wide parkway on the south side.
ate sufficient right-of-way at the southeast corner of 2nd Street and
d) Dedie ramp.
"°H" Street to accommodate the handicap
5, Required Engineering Permits
a) Grading permit.
b) On-site improvements construction permit(except buildings - see Planning
I and Building Services), including landscaping.
I
c) Off-site improvements construction permit.
N D ARD RE UIRENIENT S
ST CASE NO. L• r
�T•�E 24-
INEER
oR4 SF j�n HEARING DATE
DESCRIPTION: _W AGENDA ITEM
�,,, HEARING DATE
ILOCATION: 1nF ,.,f. ..H • T T PAGE NO:
6.
q licable En ineerin Fees fees subiect to Chan a without notice
a) Plan check and inspection fees for off-site improvements - 4% and 496,
respectively, of the estimated construction cost* of the off-site
improvements.
Plan check and in fees for on-site improvde 3% (esxpec tv ly of the
b) 2% an
See Planning and Building Services) -
estimated construction cost' of the on-site improvements, including
landscaping.
c)
Plan check and inspection fees for grading (If permit required) - Fee
Schedule available at the Engineering Division Counter.
d) Drainage fee in the approximate amount of ,S,3 330 -
system fee in the estimated amount of $ 15.724 . Exact amount nt
e) Traffic ys the City Traffic Engineer at time of application shall be determined by tY
Building Permit.
fl Sewer Connection fee in the approximate amount of 21
g) Sewer inspection fee in the amount of 1�7.82 per connection.
h Street or easement dedication processing fee in the amount of U-00—.00
per document.
Estimated construction cost is based on schedule of unit prices on file with the ctty Engineer.
: CUP NO. 94-08
AGENDA ITEM: 5
HEARING DATE: February 21, 1995
Page 1
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
BLUDING AND . .Y DIVISION
111eeT.
1• Submit plans prepared
by a Registered Building Architect or Civil or Structural Eng
b a Registered Civil or
2.
Submit a complete lateral and structural analysis prepared y
Structural Engineer or Architect.
California Title 24 Energy Calculation Forms for non-residential
I Submit State of liance statement.
buildings including a signed comp
4. Submit calculations and structural drawings, prepared
by a Registered Civil Structural
Engineer or Architect.
5. Submit five (5) complete sets of construction plans including:
a Copy of conditions (3).
b. Soils report.
C. Energy Calculations (3).
d Structural calculation (3).
' le line drawing of the electrical service• Show all equipment, conduit and
6. Submit a sing round size and grounding electrode•
wire sizes and types. Show the service g
7. Submit panel schedule(s) and electrical Plans-
.
of the heating, ventilating or air conditioning syseef�(a(Clearly identify�d
g. Submit a plan equipment and the sizes and material o
location and rating of the equip mechanical ventilation as
the location of all fire dampers). Show means of providing
required by the 1991 Uniform Building Code.
9, Sub mit g as i loads, sizing calculations.and isometrics-
j0.
Provide a plot plan showing the location of the proposed sewer system.
i
• CUP NO. 94-08
AGENDA ITEM: 5
HEARING DATE: February 21, 1995
Page 2
the cold and hot water and drain waste and vent systems
11. Submit isometric plans of .
handicapped ut the following: Ruhsf
12. Show Compliance with Title 24 for the physically menULM Id xj
v
in nt r r
AJ2..&
13. Submit plans approved by
the County Health Department.
14. City of San Bernardino named as certificate holder for WorYer's Compensation
Insurance.
15. Assessor's Parcel Number: 134-337-11
16. Contractor's City license.
17. Contractor's State license.
18.
Sewer capacity rights from Water Department, 384-5093, Neil Thomsen.
19. School fees from Unified School District, 381-1179.
i k w
20. Other: 1 h B
is a r xim
lan h k at
21. Deposit: $687.33.4-
Plan Check fees required for development. If project is to be phased, Plan Check fees are to be paid at each phase.
22. Waste water permit required.
• SAN BERN
ARDINO MMCIpAL WATER DEPARTMENT
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
Date Compiled:
of Conditional Use Permilart No. 94'08 Compiled By: ,P• -� � —
Texaco Refining
Review ° and ' keting, Inc.
Owner/Developer:
Project: Number of Units:
To const. a "Taco Bell" drive-throu h Rest.
Type Of Second and 11H" Streets.
Location: Southeast corner of
E—IR phone: 3 84 - �� �-- Fax: 3 off. Z
WATER DEPARTMENT EN IIvE
Contact: lations of the Water Department.
Water Services are Subject to the Rules,.& Regu rD I
Note: All
Adjacent the Project' r' i„� Hydrant Flow®20 psi: >�pt.
❑ Size of Main e. Z4 .s �
p P51 Elevation of Water Storag • �— �� `„1 •-J N •1
❑ Approximate Water Pressure:
°
❑ Type, St ,
Location, and Distance to Nearest '.re Hydrant: v„ I
Size, iA
„ C �0 ST
❑ pressure Regulator Required °° CuSLO°�r�s Side on the Meter-
(3
Facilities Required-
130 `
ff-site Water Department. �+ Vt •
13 Area Not Served by San Bernardino Municipal p�
� r
'1I comments:
WATER_ OLtALiTY CONTROL pie: 3 ¢.G,3 Fax: 3 84"55 3 L
Contact: Connection'
`�
Contact'
Backflow Device Required at Service Conn
evice Required COnpOCtton
❑ Double Check Backflow D
❑ Air Gap Required at Service Connection.
❑ No BackflOW Device Required at This Time.
ENVIItONMENTAL COl�1'IROLI1r1Dt1s'IRIAL WAS► Phone: 3 S 4.0 }1 5 Fa: 87
Contact: be Installed.
Note: No Regenerative Water Softeners May
)g Industrial Waste Permit Required.
XGrease Trap Required.
❑ Pre-treatment Required.
?1
CTY NQMA Fax:
SEWER APAI IF phona
Contact: V t Prior to Issuance of tie Building Permtt-
Note: Proof of Payment Must be Submitted to the Building do Safety
❑ No Sewer Capacity Fee Applicable at This Time.
Gallons Per Day, Equivalent Dig Ututx--
❑ Sewer Capacity Fee Must Be Paid to the Water Department for
ce of Building Permit.— Nttr� �dc�.�•4�OV�c,•� 1 h
Subject to Recalculation of Fee Prior to the Issuan ? `
Breakdown of Estimated Gallons Per Day:
CUP NO. 9408
AGENDA ITEM: 5
HEARING DATE: February 21, 1995
PAGE 1
STA,'WAIZD .r_...
GENERAL REQLTERFAMNTS:
BUII,DING: roved location in
Address numerals shall be installed on the building i Comore c al and my d fly ��
1. The color
such a manner as to be visible from the frontage
numerals
shall be 6 inches tall, single family address numerals �4 inches tall•
of the numerals shall contrast with the color of the background. nimum rating
prior to the building being occupied. The
2. Fire Extinguishers must be installed p extinguishers must be
for any
fire extinguisher is 2A 10B/C. Minimum distribution
stance from fin extinguisher-
such that no interior part of the building is over 75 feet travel beginning
*3. Submit Plans for the fire protection system to the Fine Department Prior to
construction of the system.
changes to Fire Department requirements.
Note: The applicant must request, in writing, any
/duct exhaust system, shall be equipped with automatic fire suppression. Submit
*Cooking area hood royal and permit.
plans to Fire Department for app
t.7
AUG 1 7 1994
CITY OF SAN EEQIREMENTS REFUSE N
RANSMITTALIO
CITY OF SAN BE-5NAFOIN0 DRC/ERC REQUIREMENTS
DEPABUMEr PLANNING &
NG SE? CES
ING AND BUILDING SERVICES q
TO: pL DATE:
project planner GVe
qN-0$ BY:
project No.
ublIC Services Department is responsible for
�_� - The City of Sasal, and recycling of solid wast and b rOd�c th�e�� ice
proper eollection, disposal ents are theretor• required to plan
within the city. Developments
arran ement$ marked below, and to ablicoh�maienceme t of construction reemodelling, or
g 909) 384-5335 prior rovided containers are available to the
by calling ( ro ect. ether city-p
occupation of this p j for construction debris a• aid well- by ad singleiaccountr
applicant's contra
commercial or resideatiant occupants the property owner. Service fees will
ultimate responsibility for P Y
be charged according to those in effect at the time of service.
- Refuse and/or recyclable collection will be made at the curb.
RESIDENTI le roan for store a of all containers out of street view.
9
Development must have amp r unit).
❑ Residents to supply their own 32 gallon maximum containers (limit 3 pe
ntainer and possibly one 90 gallon city to supply detached dwelling unit or pair of multiple units.
❑ recycling cont one 90 gallon retuse container per
RC - Refus• and/or recyclable collection will be made from either City kept-owned
gr, p,� IAL City crews. Container(e) lan. Container
or customer-owned containers services by Y roved site p into or
enclosures) accessible to city trucks soshown Enelosur• gates may not swing
access shall no an with shall have a minimum of 6 feet wide
directly Y area in front of gate(@) for
by 12 feet long paved, level (less than 2t grade)
I/ containers) to be serviced from. overhead wires, signs, and obstructions shall not
be located over container service area(s). Driveway chains must be abut must
lock the enclosure(@) or driveway gate(s) so
reflective material. Customer may or provide a key or gate card. rd
either unlock by S:OOam on service ay(s) locked only with standard
electronic transmitters will be accepted- Sins may r irements
padlock numbers assigned at start of service account. The following OV
apply if checked: plan.
I ❑ Truck access not safe or sufficient. Please rearrange as shown on site
Buck access sufficient as shown on site plan.
O'Construct __j__ enclosure me
s) per standard drawing 508 for comrcial/industrial
application. Enclosure siz ,J !/ 508 with rear pe destrian access
❑ Construct enclosure(s) per standard drawing
added. pedestrian access to be 60 higher access pavement on which container rests.
Enclosure size plus pedestrian
�wditional mama s
� OKD-e[LOCyP�= •� -w-vC�G. _ �rMf3..l [ !f ..
YG.2e
TMll oa1►Q!v ivs � '�..o�...-.v�:w: � ��• � �a a L i [
1'is 0 3
c �!i=G !/
Ifi i E eil
AL i
ua 7J,
.! o
i t O
EE �PiiE s� �
'• E I �l
e
"`_7
t C
V
jX;t
o
U 6 6- '
� Y
o _�
O . 3
d
v
• v+
z
W
4
7
ATTAiCFt ENT H W
•
S1�I�lEaC• � -
•'a7i
j r•. yam, '�_• \l;r• .T ,■
-'s � U�II�' ;►' -� :.'-�--ice
-•�,• �i-;�� �� � _;;� `-; CIS _ _�iz=
JL
YY ill`�r, dd 1►1. �w.
mot• •�- 1 •� ,•►
c•.
w
.r/
■
E-rq-
4
azi
! 111116TO_ „mix t
f
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 94-08
Prepared For:
City of San Bernardino
300 N. "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Prepared By:
Deborah Woldruff
Associate Planner
ATTAC•HN ENT K
OWN
City of San Bernardino
Initial Study: CUP 94-08
December 22 , 1994
Page 2
INITIAL STUDY
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICATION NUMBER AND NAME:Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 94-08
APPLICANT: Fancher Develo ment Services Inc.
OWNER: Texaco Refinin g And Marketin Inc.
CITY CONTACT AND PHONE NUMBER: Deborah Woldruff Assocciate384a5n5r
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION/ZONING: CG-1 Commercial General
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 94-08 is a request to construct a
1, 989 square foot Taco Bell" drive-through restaurant on a 0.43
acre site located at the southeast corner of 2nd and "H" Streets in
the CG-1, Commercial General Land Use Designation. The restaurant
site was formerly a Texaco Service Station site (797 West 2nd
Street) and is north of and adjacent to the Marshall/Best Shopping
Center (See Exhibit A, Site Vicinity and General Plan Land Use
Designation Map)
The design of the fast food restaurant utilizes a typical Taco Bell
floor plan with upgrades to the building elevations in terms of
architectural features (see Exhibits C and D, Floor Plan and
Elevations, respectively) .
The restaurant is proposed to operate twentyfour hours per day and
is anticipated to employ fifty persons with about eight persons on
the site during the maximum shift.
The project includes requests to vary from the Development Code for
the reuse of a nonconforming freeway oriented pole sign and a
nonconforming business identification pole sign. The application
number for the variance requests is VAR No. 94-03 .
City of San Bernardino
Initial Study: CUP 94-08
December 22, 1994
Page 3
SITE AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS
The project site the two nonconforming pole shape)igns. (See Exhibit iBh
the exception of
Site Plan)
The land uses north of the site and across 2nd Street are a mix of
commercial retail and services in the CR-1, Commercial Regional
(Downtown) land use designation. South and east and adjacent to
the site is a commercial shopping center (Marshall/Best Shopping
Center) in the CG-1 designation. West of the site and across "H"
Street is a fast food drive-through restaurant (In N Out) in the
CG-1 designation with the I-215 Freeway located immediately west
and beyond.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING (INCLUDING CONSTRAINTS)
The project site is located in the City's downtown which is heavily
urbanized. With regard to environmental constraints, the site is
in the Urban Archaeological Area (General Plan Figure 8) and in an
area subject to high liquefaction susceptibility (General Plan
Figure 48) and potential ground subsidence (General Plan Figure
51) . And, while the site is not in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zone (General Plan Figure 54) , it is in close proximity to a
suspect fault identified by Fife and Rodgers (1974) (General Plan
Figure 47) .
SUMMARY
The responses to the checklist questions indicate that the proposed
fast food, drive-through restaurant project will not result in any
significant impacts. No cumulative impacts resulting from the
proposal have been identified.
City of San Bernardino
Initial Study: CUP 94-08
December 22, 1994
Page 4
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial study,
XX 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
environment, although there will not be 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.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
Michael E. Hays, Assistant Director
N a Title
S ignagt r
IZ
Date
City of San Bernardino
Initial Study: CUP 94-08
December 22, 1994
Page 5
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain "Yes" and "Maybe" answers on a
separate attached sheet. "No" answers are explained on this
checklist. See Attachment "A" Preliminary Environmental
Description Form, where necessary.
Yes No Maybe
1. Earth Resources: will the proposal
result in:
a. Earth movement (cut and/or fill)
on slopes of 15% or more based on
information contained in the
Preliminary Environmental
Description Form No. D. (3) ? X
b. Development and/or grading on a
slope greater than 15% natural
AF A grade based on review of General
F Plan HMOD map, which designates
areas of 15% or greater slope in
the City? X
c. Development within the Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone as
defined in Section 12 . 0-Geologic
& Seismic, Figure 47 , of the
City's General Plan? X
d. Modification of any unique geologic
or physical feature based on field
review? X
e. Development within areas defined
for high potential for water or
wind erosion as identified in
Section 12 . 0-Geologic & Seismic,
Figure 53 , of the City's General
Plan? X
f. Modification of a channel, creek
or river based on review of
USGS Topographic Map (Name)
L) San Bernardino North Quadrangle? X
City of San Bernardino
Initial Study: CUP 94-08
December 22, 1994
Page 6
Yes No Maybe
g. Development within an area
subject to landslides, mudslides,
subsidence or other similar
hazards as identified in Section
12 . 0-Geologic & Seismic,
Figures 48 , 51, 52 and 53 of the
City's General Plan? X
h. Development within an area
subject to liquefaction as shown
in Section 12 . 0-Geologic &
Seismic, Figure 48, of the
City's General Plan? X
i. Other?
2. Air Resources: Will the proposal
result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or an
effect upon ambient air quality
as defined by South Coast Air
Quality Management District, based
on meeting the threshold for
significance in the District's,
"CEQA Air Quality Handbook"? X
b. The creation of objectionable
odors based on information
contained in Preliminary
Description Form, No. G. (3) ? X
c. Development within a high wind
hazard area as identified in
Section 15. 0-Wind & Fire, Figure
59, of the City's General Plan? X
3. Water Resources: Will the proposal
result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the rate
and amount of surface runoff
due to impermeable surfaces
that cannot be mitigated by
Public Works Standard
Requirements to contain and
NOW
0
City of San Bernardino
Initial Study: CUP 94-08
December 22, 1994
Page 7
Yes No Maybe
convey runoff to approved
storm drain based on review
of the proposPI site plan? X
b. Significant alteration in the
course or flow of flood waters
based on consultation with
Public Works staff? X
c. Discharge into surface waters
or any alteration of surface
water quality based on
requirements of Public Works
to have runoff directed to
approved storm drains? X
d. Change in the quantity or
quality of ground water? R
of people e. Expos ure p P le or property
to flood hazards as identified
in the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's Flood
Insurance Rate Map, Community
Panel Number 060281 0020-B
and Section 16. 0-Flooding,
Figure 62 , of the City's General
Plan? X
f. Other?
4. Biological Resources: Could the
proposal result in:
a. Development within the Biological
Resources Management Overlay, as
identified in Section 10. 0-
Natural Resources, Figure 41,
of the City's General Plan? X
1. Change in the number of any
unique, rare or endangered
species of plants or their
habitat including stands of
trees based on information
contained in the Preliminary
Environmental Description
City of San Bernardino
Initial study: CUP 94-08
December 22, 1994
Page 8
Yes No Maybe
Form No. B. (1) and verified
by on-site survey/evaluation? X
2 . Change in the number of any
unique, rare or endangered
species of animals or their
habitat based on information
contained in the Preliminary
Environmental Description
Form No. E. (8) and verified
by site survey/evaluation? X
3 . Impacts to the wildlife
disbursal or migration
corridors? X
b. Removal of viable, mature trees
AVON based on site survey/evaluation
and review of the proposed site
plan? (Trunk diameter of 6" or
greater at 4' above the ground. ) X
c. Other?
5. Noise: Could the proposal result in:
a. Development of housing, health
care facilities, schools,
libraries, religious facilities
or other noise sensitive uses
in areas where existing or
future noise levels exceed an
Ldn of 65 Db(A) exterior and an
Ldn of 45 Db(A) interior as
identified in Section 14 . 0-Noise,
Figures 57 and 58 of the City's
General Plan? X
b. Development of new or expansion
of existing industrial,
commercial or other uses which -
generate noise levels above an Ldn
of 65 Db(A) exterior or an Ldn of
45 Db(A) interior that may affect
areas containing housing, schools,
health care facilities or other
sensitive uses based on
J
City of San Bernardino
Initial Study: CUP 94-08
December 22, 1994
Page 9
Yes No Maybe
information in the Preliminary
Environmental Description Form
No. G. (1) and evaluation of
surrounding land uses No. C. , and
verified by site survey/evaluation? X
c. Other?
6. Land Use: will the proposal result in:
a. A change in the land use as
designated based on the review
of the General Plan Land Use
Plan/Zoning Districts Map? X
b. Development within an Airport
District as identified in the
Air Installation Compatible Use
Zone (AICUZ) Report and the Land
Use Zoning District Map? X
c. Development within Foothill Fire
Zones A & B, or C as identified
on the Development Code Overlay
Districts Map? X
d. Other?
7 . Man-Made Hazards: Based on
information contained in Preliminary
Environmental Description Form,
No. G. (1) and G. (2) will the project:
a. Use, store, transport or dispose
of hazardous or toxic materials
(including but not limited to
oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) ? X
b. Involve the release of
hazardous substances? X
c. Expose people to the potential
health/safety hazards? X
d. Other? Former Gas Station Site X
City of San Bernardino
Initial Study: CUP 94-08
December 22, 1994
Page 10
Yes No Maybe
8. Housing: will the proposal:
a. Remove existing housing as verified
by a site survey/evaluation? x
b. Create a significant demand for
additional housing based on the
proposed use and evaluation of
project size? X
c. Other?
9. Transportation/Circulation: Could
I the proposal, in comparison with the
Circulation Plan as identified in
Section 6. 0-Circulation of the City's
General Plan and based on the
conclusions of the City Traffic
7ngineer and review of the Traffic
Study if one was prepared, result in:
a. A significant increase in traffic
volumes on the roadways or
intersections or an increase that
is significantly greater than the
land use designated on the
General Plan? X
b. Use of existing, or demand for
new, parking facilities/
structures? X
c. Impact upon existing public
transportation systems? X
d. Alteration of present patterns
of circulation? - X
e. Impact to rail or air traffic? X
f. Increased safety hazards to
vehicles, bicyclists or
�. pedestrians? X
g. A disjointed pattern of roadway
improvements? X
i
City of San Bernardino
Initial Study: CUP 94-08
December 22, 1994
Page 11
Yes No Maybe
h. Other?
10. Public Services: Based on the
responses of the responsible
e agencies or departments, will the
proposal impact the following
beyond the capability to provide
adequate levels of service?
a. Fire protection? X
b. Police protection? X
c. Schools (i.e. , attendance,
boundaries, overload, etc. ) ? X
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities? X
e. Medical aid? X
f. Solid Waste? X
g. Other?
11. Utilities: Will the proposal:
a. Based on the responses of the
responsible Agencies,
Departments, or Utility Company,
impact the following beyond the
capability to provide adequate
levels of service or require the
construction of new facilities?
1. Natural gas? X
2 . Electricity? X
3. Water? X
4 . Sewer? X
5. Other?
City of San Bernardino
Initial Study: CUP 94-08
December 22, 1994
Page 12
Yes No Maybe
b. Result in a disjointed pattern
of utility extensions based on
review of existing patterns
and proposed extensions. X -
12 . Aesthetics:
a. Could the proposal result in the
obstruction of any significant or
important scenic view based on
evaluation of the view shed
verified by site survey/
evaluation? X
I
b. Will the visual impact of the
project create aesthetically
offensive changes in the
existing visual setting
AF A
based on a site survey and
evaluation of the proposed
elevations? X
c. Other? Main Street Overlay District
i
13. Cultural Resources: Could the
proposal result in:
a. The alteration or destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site by
development within an
archaeological sensitive area
as identified in Section 3 . 0-
Historical, Figure 8, of the
City's General Plan? X
b. Alteration or destruction of
a historical site, structure
or object as listed in the
City's Historic Resources
Reconnaissance Survey? X
c. Other?
Ar
I
City of San Bernardino
Initial Study: CUP 94-08
December 22, 1994
Page 13
Yes No Maybe
14. Mandatory Findings of Significance
(Section 15065)
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. Based on this
Initial Study:
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
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory? X
b. Does the project have the
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
..r. relatively small, but where the
effect of the total of those
�3
a,
City of San Bernardino
Initial Study: CUP 94-08
December 22, 1994
Page 14
Yes No Maybe
impacts on the environment is
significant. ) x
d. Does the project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly? X
B. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
1. Earth Resources
a. Grading will result in the movement of
approximately 50 cubic yards of earth which is not
considered significant.
i
b. The site is relatively flat and does not contain
any significant slopes.
C. The project site is not within the boundaries of
the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.
d. There are not unique geologic or physical features
on-site.
e. The project site is not within the boundaries of
the wind and water erosion areas as shown in the
City's General Plan.
f. There are no rivers, channels or creeks on-site, or
in the immediate vicinity.
g. The project is not located in an area identified as
having a moderately high to moderate potential for
liquefaction as shown in the City's General Plan.
2 . Air Resources
a. There will not be an effect upon ambient air
quality as defined by the AQMD or substantial air
emissions due to the imited size of the project.
b. No objectionable odors will be created due to the
type of project involved (food service) .
City of San Bernardino
Initial Study: COP 94-08
December 22, 1994
Page 15
C. The project site is not within the high wind hazard
area as shown in the City's General Plan.
3. Water Resources
a. Development of the site will minimally increase the
impermeable surfaces on site. Impermeable surfaces
are identified as driveways and drive aisles,
sidewalks, building pads and parking areas. The
result is that absorption rates will be further
decreased thereby increasing surface runoff to a
negligible degree.
Public Works Department Standard Requirements
regarding conveyance of drainage and runoff to an
approved public drainage facility will reduce
potential impacts to a level of insignificance.
b. The project will not alter the flow of any flood
waters due to its limited size.
C. The project will not discharge nor impact surface
waters at all.
d. Ground water will not be impacted by this project.
e. The Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No.
060281 0020-B (Map Revised February 2 , 1994) was
consulted to determine the potential for flood
hazards on the site. The site is in Zone X (shown
as an unshaded area) which is an area determined to
be outside of the 500-year flood plain. The
location of the theater expansion is in the
unshaded area of Zone X. As such, significant
flood hazards are not anticipated, so that standard
building practices will mitigate any potential
flood hazards.
4. Biological Resources
a. The project site is not within the boundaries of
the Biological Resources management Overlay as
identified in the City's General Plan.
b. The site was previously developed with a gas
station that has since been removed. The proposed
project will not result in the removal of any
trees.
City of San Bernardino
Initial Study: CUP 94-08
December 22, 1994
Page 16
S. Noise
a. The project is commercial in nature and is not
considered a "noise sensitive" use.
b. The project is a fast food restaurant which will
not generate noise levels above an Ldn of 65 Db(A)
exterior and 45 Db(A) interior on noise sensitive
uses.
6. Land Use
a. The proposed fast food drive-through restaurant
will not alter the current land use designation of
CG-1, Commercial General and is permitted subject
to an approved Conditional Use Permit.
b. The project site is not located within an Airport
District as identified in the AICUZ Report and as
E shown on the Development Code Overlay Districts
Map.
C. The project site is not located within Foothill
Fire Zones A & B or C as shown on the Development
Code Overlay Districts Map.
7 . Man-Made Hazards
a. The project will not use, store, transport or
dispose of any hazardous or toxic materials.
b. The project will not release any hazardous or toxic
materials.
o. The project will not expose people to potential
health or safety hazards. The project will adhere
to the sanitary requirements of the State
Department of Health which are required by State
Law.
d. The site was previously developed as a gas station
which has since been removed. The underground
tanks have been removed and any associated soil or
ground water contamination has been remediated as
required by the San Bernardino County Department of
Environmental Health Services and the California
Regional water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana
Region.
City of San Bernardino
Initial Study: CUP 94-08
December 22, 1994
Page 17
8. Housing
a. i b.
The project is commercial in nature and will not
have any impact on the City's housing stock.
9. Transportation/Circulation
a. The proposed fast food drive-through restaurant
would not generate a sufficient number of trips to
cause a significant impact on the adjoining street
system due to its minimal size. Potential impacts
are considered insignificant.
b. The project will create a demand for 20 new parking
spaces. The project, as proposed, provides 20
spaces which will adequately mitigate the potential
impact.
c. Due to the limited size of the project, there will
not be any significant impacts to the public
transportation system.
d. The project will not alter the present circulation
patterns of the immediate area except for creating
two access points on 2nd and "H" Streets.
Potential impacts are considered insignificant.
e. Due to the nature of the project not impacts to
rail or air traffic are anticipated.
f. The project will create two driveways which could
potentially increase safety hazards to vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians. The driveways will be
built to City standards and sight clearances will
be maintained. Potential impacts are considered
insignificant.
g. Both 2nd and "H" Streets are improved to full width
and no impacts are anticipated.
h. Due to the minimal size of the project, no
significant increases to traffic volumes are
anticipated.
City of San Bernardino
Initial study: CUP 94-08
December 22, 1994
Page 18
10. Public services
a. through f.
The project will not have a significant impact on
any public service due to its minimal size.
11. Utilities
a. The project will not have a significant impact on
any public utility, or create the need for new
facilities due to its minimal size.
b. Utilities are available to the site. The project
will not require utility extensions beyond normal
hook-up.
C. The project will not require the construction of
new facilities due to its limited size.
12 . Aesthetics
a. The project site is just west of the I-215 Freeway,
which is raised through this area of the City.
Construction of the project will not obstruct any
scenic views.
b. Based on a site survey and the proposed elevations,
the project is consistent with the surrounding
commercial area.
C. The project site is located on the western edge of
the MS (Main Street Overlay) District. The site
and building design incorporate all applicable
standards for the MS District, the CG-1 and Land.
Use District Specific Standards for fast-food
drive-through restaurants. Because the site is
located at a major entry point into the City, the
building design also includes certain architectural
and design upgrades to the cornices, bulkheads,
windows and ("Taco Bell") arch columns.
13. Cultural Resources
a. The project site is located in the Urban
Archaeological District as shown in the City's
General Plan. However, impacts to historical
archaeological resources of 19th century San
City of San Bernardino
Initial Study: CUP 94-08
December 22, 1994
Page 19
Bernardino are not anticipated. The site was
previously developed as a gas station which
necessitated subsurface excavation for installation
and later, removal of the gas tanks. The proposed
project will require minimal excavation for removal
of paving material and grading to clear the site.
b. The project does not impact any historical site,
structure or object.
14. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a. through d.
The project proposes to construct and establish a
1, 989 square foot fast-food, drive-through
restaurant on a 0.43 acre site located at the
southeast corner of 2nd and "H" Streets and north
of and adjacent to the Marshall/Best Shopping
Center. The responses to the checklist questions
indicate that the project will not result in any
significant impacts. Additionally, no cumulative
impacts resulting from the proposed project have
been identified.
EXHIBITS: "All - Site Vicinity and General Plan
Land Use Designation Map
"B" - Site Plan (CUP No. 94-08)
"C11 - Floor Plan (CUP No. 94-08)
uDu - Elevations (CUP No. 94-08)