HomeMy WebLinkAbout27- Plannig and Building Services CITY OF SAN BERN/ IDINO - REQUEST F( I COUNCIL ACTION
From: Al Boughey, Director Subject: General Plan Amendment No. 93-04 and
Conditional Use Permit No. 93-24 - to amend
Dept: Planning and Building Services the GP Land Use designation from DIP to CG-1
on 12.72 acres and to establish a drive-thru
Date: February 17, 1994 restaurant at Waterman/Mill Intersection.
MCC meeting of March 7. 1994
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
12/02/89 -- The Mayor and Common Council adopted the General Plan Land Use Plan which
designated the 12.72 acre site OIP, Office Industrial Park.
Recommended motion:
That the Mayor and Common Council close the public hearing; adopt the resolution
adopting the Negative Declaration and approving General Plan Amendment No. 93-04:
and, approve Conditional Use Permit No. 93-24.
AL 0 HEY i ture
Contact person: Al Boughey Phone: 5357
Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: 1 and 3
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: $30.00
Source: (Acct. No.) 772-171-24515
Acct. Description) County Fi 1 i ng Fee
Finance.
Council Notes:
75-0262 Agenda Item No. 42 7
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-04 AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 93-24
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL MEETING OF
MARCH 7, 1994
REQUEST/LOCATION
The applicant requests to change the General Plan land use
designation from OIP, Office Industrial Park to CG-1, Commercial
General to permit a drive-thru restaurant subject to the approval
of a Conditional Use Permit. The 0.52 acre site is located at the
southwest corner of Waterman Avenue and Mill Street. Under the
authority of Development Code Section 19.50. 030, staff is proposing
an alternative to the applicant's General Plan Amendment which
expands the amendment site to about 12.72 acres to include property
on each corner of the intersection. Throughout this Staff Report,
staff's proposed alternative amendment will be referred to as the
Alternative. (See Exhibit 1, Site Vicinity and Land Use
Designation Map)
Under the authority of Development Code Sections 19.06. 020, Table
06.01 (Commercial And Industrial Districts List Of Permitted Uses)
and 19.06.030(2) (H) (Land Use District Specific Standards for
Drive-Thru Restaurants) the applicant requests approval to
construct a 3,000 square foot restaurant with a drive-thru window
on the 0.52 acre site.
KEY ISSUES
There are several key issues identified as follows:
The applicant's proposal to change the General Plan land
use designation is not consistent with the General Plan
in that it would result in the creation of a 0.5 acre CG-
1 district consisting of a single commercial parcel.
This type of zoning is often referred to a "spot zoning"
and is discouraged under California State law.
General Plan Goal 1G(i) stipulates that development
patterns and uses be cohesive and uniform in nodes and
districts to prevent "leap frog" development.
The Alternative amendment proposal would result in the
creation of a 12.72 acre commercial node located at a
major intersection within a (largely) industrial area.
General Plan Amendment No. 93-04 and
Conditional Use Permit No. 93-24
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
March 7, 1994
Page 3
The Alternative amendment site contains a range of
existing commercial retail and service uses (see Exhibit
3, Attachment 3 - Staff Alternative Amendment Site
Existing Land Use Survey) .
The Alternative amendment is consistent with General Plan
Policy 1.3.8 which encourages the provision of commercial
area and uses to serve the short-term needs of visitors
to the City and enroute to or leaving the San Bernardino
Mountains.
The existing commercial uses within the Alternative
amendment site, which are nonconforming under the OIP
designation, would become conforming under the CG-1.
On January 5, 1994, the City received a letter from
Patricia Green of Vanir Development Company, Inc. Of
primary concern to Ms. Green is that the Alternative
amendment does not include two parcels (APNs 136-391-37
& 38) owned by Vanir Development Company, Inc. (The two
parcels are located east and adjacent to the northeast
portion of the Alternative amendment site and contain
about 8.8 acres of land. ) This is addressed in a
separate agenda item.
The proposed drive-thru restaurant is not consistent with
the land uses permitted by the OIP designation. The
proposed CG-1 (either amendment proposal) permits drive-
thru restaurants subject to a CUP.
The proposed drive-thru restaurant is in compliance with
all applicable Development Code standards and
requirements for the CG-1 designation and property
development standards.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study, prepared by staff, was presented to the
Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on December 9, 1993 (Exhibit
3, Attachment 12) . The ERC determined that no significant impacts
would result from the proposed drive-thru restaurant project, the
applicant's proposed amendment or staff's alternative amendment and
recommended a Negative Declaration. The proposed Negative
Declaration was advertised and the Initial Study was available for
public review and comment from December 16, 1993 to January 5,
1994.
General Plan Amendment No. 93-04 and
Conditional Use Permit No. 93-24
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
March 7, 1994
Page 4
COMMENTS RECEIVED
Comments submitted by Patricia Green of Vanir Development Company,
Inc. were discussed at the ERC and Planning Commission meetings.
A discussion of the concerns outlined in Ms. Green's letter is
contained in the Planning Commission Staff Report (Exhibit 3,
beginning on page 7) . A copy of the letter (dated January 5, 1993)
is included in Exhibit 3, Attachment 11.
Other comments received by staff just prior to the Planning
Commission meeting and to date are in favor of the Alternative
amendment. Copies of these comments are contained in Exhibit 5.
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OPTIONS
The Mayor and Common Council may:
1. Approve the Alternative proposal for General Plan Amendment
No. 93-04, adopt the Negative Declaration based upon the
findings in the resolution and approve Conditional Use Permit
No. 93-24 based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the
Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements.
2. Deny General Plan Amendment No. 93-04 and Conditional Use
Permit No. 93-24.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission voted [6 ayes (Affaitati, Romero, Stone,
Strimpel, Thrasher and Traver) , 0 nay and 4 absent (Cole, Gaffney,
Gonzales and Ortega) ] to recommend to the Mayor and Common Council
the adoption of the Negative Declaration and approval of the
Alternative amendment proposal (12.72 acres on all 4 corners of the
Waterman/Mill intersection) , and approval of Conditional Use Permit
No. 93-24.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council:
1. Adopt the Resolution adopting the Negative Declaration
(Exhibit 4) ;
General Plan Amendment No. 93-04 and
Conditional Use Permit No. 93-24
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
March 7, 1994
Page 5
2. Approve the Alternative amendment to change the land use
designation on 12 .72 acres at the Waterman Avenue/Mill
Street intersection from OIP, Office Industrial Park to
CG-1, Commercial General based on the Findings contained
in the resolution (Exhibit 4) ;
3. Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 93-24 to construct and
establish a drive-thru restaurant based on the Findings
of Fact (Exhibit 3, Attachment 2) , and subject to the
Conditions of Approval (Exhibit 3 , Attachment 9) and
Standard Requirements (Exhibit 3, Attachment 10) .
Prepared by: Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner
for Al Boughey, Director
Planning and Building Services
Exhibit 1: Site Vicinity and General Plan Land Use Designation Map
Exhibit 2 : Alternative Amendment Site
Exhibit 3: Planning Commission Staff Report (December 15, 1992)
Attachments;
1. Site Vicinity and General Plan Land Use
Designation Map (Not Included - See Exhibit 1)
2. Staff Alternative Amendment Site (Not Included
- See Exhibit 2)
3 . Staff Alternative Amendment Site Existing Land
Use Survey
4. General Plan Amendment Findings of Fact
5. Development Code and General Plan Conformance
(CUP No. 93-24)
6. Site Plan (for CUP No. 93-24)
7. Floor Plan and Elevations (CUP No. 93-24)
8. Conditional Use Permit Findings of Fact
9. Conditions of Approval for CUP 93-24
10. Standard Requirements for CUP 93-24
11. Letter (dated January 5, 1994)
12. Initial Study (Exhibits not included)
Exhibit 4: Resolution
Attachments:
A - Site Location Map
B - Legal Descriptions
Exhibit 5: Comments Received
RESOLUTION NO.
1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN
2 AMENDMENT NO. 93-04 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO.
3
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
4 SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:
5 SECTION 1. Recitals
6 (a) The General Plan for the City of San Bernardino was
7 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council by Resolution No. 89-159 on
8 June 2, 1989.
9 (b) General Plan Amendment No. 93-04 to the General Plan of
10 the City of San Bernardino was considered by the Planning
11 Commission on January 25, 1994, after a noticed public hearing, and
12 the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval has been
13 considered by the Mayor and Common Council.
14 (c) An Initial Study was prepared on December 9, 1993 and
15 reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee and the Planning
16 Commission who both determined that General Plan Amendment No. 93-
17 04 would not have a significant effect on the environment and
18 therefore, recommended that a Negative Declaration be adopted.
19 (d) The proposed Negative Declaration received a 21 day
20 public review period from December 16, 1993 through January 5, 1994
21 and all comments relative thereto have been reviewed by the
22 Planning Commission and the Mayor and Common Council in compliance
23 with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local
24 regulations.
25 e) The Mayor and Common Council held a noticed public
26 hearing and fully reviewed and considered proposed General Plan
27 Amendment No. 93-04 and the Planning Division Staff Report on March
28 7, 1994.
1
I (f) The adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 93-04 is
2 deemed in the interest of the orderly development of the City and
3 is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the
4 existing General Plan.
5 SECTION 2 . Negative Declaration
6 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by the Mayor
7 and Common Council that the proposed amendment to the General Plan
8 of the City of San Bernardino will have no significant effect on
9 the environment, and the Negative Declaration heretofore prepared
10 by the Environmental Review Committee as to the effect of this
11 proposed amendment is hereby ratified, affirmed and adopted.
12 SECTION 3. Findings
13 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council of the
14 City of San Bernardino that:
15 A. The proposed CG-1, Commercial General land use designation is
16 internally consistent with General Plan Goal 1G(i) in that it
17 will create a commercial node which contains a diversity of
18 commercial retail and service uses on the Waterman Avenue/OIP
19 corridor and the proposed designation is not in conflict with
20 the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan.
21 B. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public
22 interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City
23 in that the amendment area already contains existing
24 commercial uses that would be made conforming and compatible
25 with future commercial development of the site.
26
27
28
2
I C. The proposed amendment to change the land use designation on
2 12 .72 acres from OIP, Office Industrial Park to CG-1,
3 Commercial General would enhance the balance of land uses in
4 that existing and proposed development on the site would
5 provide commercial retail and services for the Waterman
6 Avenue/OIP corridor.
7 D. The 12 .72 acre amendment site is physically large enough for
8 uses permitted in the CG-1, Commercial General land use
9 designation and all parcels have or will have adequate access
10 to either Mill Street or Waterman Avenue.
11 SECTION 4. Amendment
12 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council that:
13 A. The Land Use Plan of the General Plan of the City of San
14 Bernardino is amended by changing approximately 12.72 acres
15 from OIP, Office Industrial Park to CG-1, Commercial General.
16 This amendment is designated as General Plan Amendment No. 93-
17 04 and its location is outlined on the map entitled Attachment
18 A, and is more specifically described in the legal description
19 entitled Attachment B, copies of which are attached and
20 incorporated herein be reference.
21 B. General Plan Amendment No. 93-04 shall become effective
22 immediately upon adoption of this resolution.
23 SECTION 5. Map Notation
24 This resolution and the amendment affected by it shall be
25 noted on such appropriate General Plan maps as have been previously
26 adopted and approved by the Mayor and Common Council and which are
27 on file in the office of the City Clerk.
28
3
I SECTION 6. Notice of Determination
2 The Planning Division is hereby directed to file a Notice of
3 Determination with the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino
4 certifying the City's compliance with California Environmental
5 Quality Act in preparing the Negative Declaration.
6
7
8
9
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
1 RESOLUTION. . . ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-04 TO THE GENERAL
2 PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
3
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly
4 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
5 Bernardino at a meeting therefore, held on the
6 day f
y 1994, by the following vote, to
7 wit:
8 Council Members AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT
9 NEGRETE
10 CURLIN
11 HERNANDEZ
12 OBERHELMAN
13 DEVLIN
14 POPE-LUDLAM
15 MILLER
16
17 City Clerk
18 The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this day
19 of
1994.
20
21 Tom Minor, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
22 Approved as to
23 form and legal content:
24 JAMES F. PENMAN,
Cityr,Attorney
25 B
y;
26
27
28
5
ATTACHMENT "A"
SITE LOCATION MAP
(BY ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER)
�G
�G
5
GAG
GJ� 136-391-36
136-271-43
39 27 OIP TO CG-1
MILL STREET
136-3 -02 = 07 136-393-14 15
dc
Z
Lu
05 06 13
Q
06 Q
Q '
3 . .
N
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-04
CITY OF BAN BERNARDINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-04
THE LAND REFERRED TO IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL A
APN 136-391-36 PARCELS 1, 2 AND 3 OF PARCEL MAP 8999, AS
(OIP to CG-1) RECORDED IN PARCEL MAP BOOK 100, PAGES 1
AND 2, RECORDS OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY.
PARCEL_.a A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND
(OIP TO CG-1) EGRESS OVER THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 1 OF
PARCEL MAP NO. 1624, AS RECORDED IN
PARCEL MAP BOOK 13, PAGE 94, RECORDS OF
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2 AND THE EAST
LINE OF WATERMAN AVENUE, AS SHOWN ON SAID
MAP;
THENCE NORTH 0° 29' 32" EAST 30.00 FEET
ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF WATERMAN AVENUE;
THENCE SOUTH 89° 30' 28" EAST 25.00 FEET
TO A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE
SOUTHWEST AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 30 FEET;
THENCE EASTERLY AND SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID
CURVE, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 47.12 FEET
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90° 00' 00",
THENCE NORTH 89. 30' 28" WEST 55.00 FEET
TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
ALSO KNOWN AS 433-435 S. WATERMAN AVENUE,
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA AND VACANT
LAND APN *136-391-36, 37638.
ATTACHMENT "B"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-04
THE LAND REFERRED TO IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
ARC
APN 136-391-27 A PORTION OF LOT 7, BLOCK 45, AS SHOWN ON
(OIP TO CG-1) THE MAP OF THE RANCHO SAN BERNARDINO, IN
THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 7
OF MAPS, PAGE 2 IN THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED
AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE
CENTERLINE OF WATERMAN AVENUE WITH THE
CENTERLINE OF MILL STREET; THENCE NORTH
00 DEGREES 29 MINUTES 32 SECONDS EAST
ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF WATERMAN AVENUE
230.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 22
MINUTES 36 SECONDS EAST PARALLEL WITH
SAID MILL STREET 55.000 FEET TO A POINT
ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF WATERMAN
AVENUE, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT
OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; THENCE
SOUTH 00 DEGREES 29 MINUTES 32 SECONDS
WEST ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE 159.90
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 55 DEGREES 35 MINUTES
43 SECONDS EAST 27.16 FEET TO A POINT ON
THE NORTHERLY LINE OF MILL STREET, SAID
POINT BEING DISTANT 55.00 FEET FROM THE
CENTERLINE OF MILL STREET; THENCE SOUTH
89 DEGREES 22 MINUTES 36 SECONDS EAST
ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE A DISTANCE OF
152.46 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 29
MINUTES 32 SECONDS EAST PARALLEL WITH
WATERMAN AVENUE 175.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH
89 DEGREES 22 MINUTES 36 SECONDS WEST
PARALLEL WITH MILL STREET 175.00 FEET TO
THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
ATTACHMENT "B"
CITY OF BAN BERNARDINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-04
THE LAND REFERRED TO IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL
APN 0136-392-02 ALL OF THAT PORTION OF LOT 41, BLOCK 54,
(OIP TO CG-1) RANCHO SAN BERNARDINO, IN THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER PLAT RECORDED
IN BOOK 7 OF MAPS, PAGE 2, RECORDS OF
SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT 55 FEET WEST AND 205
FEET SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF THE
CENTER LINE OF MILL STREET AND WATERMAN
AVENUE;
THENCE SOUTH 89° 34" 19" WEST, PARALLEL
WITH THE CENTER LINE OF MILL STREET, A
DISTANCE OF 150 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 0° 30' 5" WEST, PARALLEL
WITH THE CENTER LINE OF WATERMAN AVENUE,
A DISTANCE OF 150 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 89° 34' 19" EAST, PARALLEL
WITH THE CENTER LINE OF MILL STREET, A
DISTANCE OF 150 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 0° 301 54" EAST, PARALLEL
WITH THE CENTER LINE OF WATERMAN AVENUE,
A DISTANCE OF 150 FEET TO THE POINT . OF
BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING THE INTEREST CONVEYED TO THE
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, A BODY
CORPORATE AND POLITIC, BY DEED RECORDED
JANUARY 25, 1961, IN BOOK 5334, PAGE 464,
OFFICIAL RECORDS.
ATTACHMENT "B"
CITY OF BAN BERNARDINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-04
THE LAND REFERRED TO IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL
APN 0136-392-05 OK SUN CHANG, AN UNMARRIED WOMAN AS TO
(OIP TO CG-1) AN UNDIVIDED 1/2 INTEREST AND DO KYONG
KIM, A SINGLE MAN AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 1/2
INTEREST.
PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 3045, IN THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, COUNTY OF SAN
BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER
PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 27 OF PARCEL MAPS,
PAGE 45, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, BEING A
DIVISION OF A PORTION OF LOT 41, BLOCK
54, RANCHO SAN BERNARDINO, RECORDED IN
BOOK 7 OF MAPS, PAGE 2, RECORDS OF SAID
COUNTY.
ATTACHMENT "B"
CITY OF BAN BERNARDINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-04
THE LAND REFERRED TO IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
ARC
APN 0136-392-06 PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 3045, IN THE
(OIP TO CG-1) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK
27 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 45, RECORDS OF
SAID COUNTY, BEING A DIVISION OF LOT 41,
BLOCK 54, RANCHO SAN BERNARDINO, RECORDED
IN BOOK 7 OF MAPS, PAGE 2, RECORDS OF
SAID COUNTY.
ATTACHMENT "B"
CITY OF BAN BERNARDINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-04
THE LAND REFERRED TO IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL
APN 0136-393-06 A PORTION OF LOT 8, BLACK 46, RANCHO SAN
(OIP TO CG-1) BERNARDINO, IN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO,
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK
7 OF MAPS, PAGE 2, IN THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED
AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
SAID LOT 8; THENCE SOUTH 0 DEGREES 26
MINUTES 20 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE WEST
LINE OF SAID LOT 8, A DISTANCE OF 173.75
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 23 MINUTES
13 SECONDS EAST PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH
LINE OF SAID LOT 8, A DISTANCE OF 8.75
FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF
WATERMAN AVENUE AS CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY
OF SAN BERNARDINO, BY DEED RECORDED MARCH
29, 1961, IN BOOK 5389, PAGE 250, OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, SAID
POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 89 DEGREES 23
MINUTES 13 SECONDS EAST PARALLEL WITH
t SAID NORTH LINE, 165.00 FEET TO A POINT
173.75 FEET FROM SAID WEST LINE OF LOT 8,
THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 26 MINUTES 20
SECONDS EAST PARALLEL WITH SAID WEST
LINE, A DISTANCE OF 160.00 FEET TO THE
SOUTH LINE OF MILL STREET AS CONVEYED BY
SAID DEED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN
BERNARDINO; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 23
MINUTES 13 SECONDS EAST (RECORDED NORTH
89 DEGREES 39 MINUTES 33 SECONDS EAST)
ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 126.25 FEET TO A
POINT 300.00 FEET FROM SAID WEST LINE OF
LOT 8; THENCE SOUTH 0 DEGREES 26 MINUTES
20 SECONDS WEST, PARALLEL WITH SAID WEST
LINE, 286.25 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89
DEGREES 23 MINUTES 13 SECONDS WEST,
PARALLEL WITH SAID SOUTH LINE OF MILL
STREET, 291.25 FEET TO SAID EAST LINE OF
WATERMAN AVENUE; THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES
26 MINUTES 20 SECONDS EAST, ALONG SAID
EAST LINE, 126.25 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT
OF BEGINNING.
ATTACHMENT "B"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-04
THE LAND REFERRED TO IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL 1
APN 0136-271-43 THAT PORTION OF THE EAST 3/5 OF LOT 6,
(OIP TO CG-1) BLACK 7, RANCHO SAN BERNARDINO, IN THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, AS PER PLAT
RECORDED IN BOOK OF 7 MAPS, PAGE 2,
RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, LYING
SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE PROPERTY CONVEYED TO
THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
DISTRICT BY DEED RECORDED APRIL 2, 1959,
IN BOOK 4778, PAGE 139, OFFICIAL RECORDS.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED
TO THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO BY DEED
RECORDED APRIL 12, 1961, IN BOOK 5401,
PAGE 400, OFFICIAL RECORDS.
PARCEL 2
APN 0136-271-43 THAT PORTION OF THE EASTERLY 100 FEET OF
(OIP TO CG-1) THE WEST 2/5 OF LOT 6, BLOCK 7, RANCHO
SAN BERNARDINO, IN THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK
7 OF MAPS, PAGE 2, RECORDS OF SAID
COUNTY, LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE PARCEL
OF LAND CONVEYED TO THE SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, BY DEED
RECORDED JUNE 29, 1960, IN BOOK 5173,
PAGE 387, OFFICIAL RECORDS.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE SOUTH 55 FEET,
MEASURED FROM THE CENTER LINE OF MILL
STREET, 82.5 FEET IN WIDTH, AS CONVEYED
TO THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO BY DEED
RECORDED MAY 31, 1961 IN BOOK 5444, PAGE
350, OFFICIAL RECORDS.
ATTACHMENT °B"
CITY OF BAN BERNARDINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-04
THE LAND REFERRED TO IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
ARC
APN 0136-271-39 THAT PORTION OF LOT 6, BLOCK 7, RANCHO SAN
(OIP TO CG-1) BERNARDINO, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK
7 OF MAPS, PAGE 2, RECORDS OF SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO GERTRUDE
POLICANO, ET AL. , RECORDED OCTOBER 17,
1946, IN BOOK 1967, PAGE 184, OFFICIAL
RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, LYING SOUTH OF
THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND
CONVEYED TO SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD
CONTROL DISTRICT BY DEED RECORDED JUNE
29, 1960, IN BOOK 5173, PAGE 387,
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE EAST 100 FEET AS
CONVEYED TO MAY COMPANY, A PARTNERSHIP,
BY DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 27, 1961, IN
BOOK 5361, PAGE 131, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF
SAID COUNTY.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE SOUTH 55
FEET AS CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN
BERNARDINO, BY DEED RECORDED JULY 5,
1962, IN BOOK 5728, PAGE 375, OFFICIAL
RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY.
ATTACHMENT "B"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-04
THE LAND REFERRED TO IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL
APN 0136-393-15 PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 9945, IN THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, COUNTY OF SAN
BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER
MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 129, PAGES 16 AND 17
OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
ATTACHMENT "B"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-04
THE LAND REFERRED TO IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
ARC
APN 0136-393-14 PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 9945, IN THE
(OIP TO CG-1) CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, COUNTY OF SAN
BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER
MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 129, PAGES 16 AND
17, OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
: o
ATTACHMENT "B"
CITY OF BAN BERNARDINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-04
THE LAND REFERRED TO IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL
APN 0136-393-13 PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO 9945, IN THE
(OIP TO CG-1) CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, COUNTY OF SAN
BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER
MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 129, PAGES 16 AND
17, OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
ATTACHMENT "B"
CITY OF BAN BERNARDINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-04
THE LAND REFERRED TO IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL
APN 0136-393-07 A PORTION OF LOT 8, BLOCK 46, RANCHO SAN
(OIP TO CG-1) BERNARDINO, IN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO,
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK
7 OF MAPS, PAGE 2, IN THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED
AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
SAID LOT 8; THENCE SOUTH 0° 26' 20" WEST
ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 8, A
DISTANCE OF 300. 00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°
23' 13" EAST PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE
OF SAID LOT 8, A DISTANCE OF 8.75 FEET TO
A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF WATERMAN
AVENUE, AS CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN
BERNARDINO, BY DEED RECORDED MARCH 29,
1961, IN BOOK 5389, PAGE 250, OFFICIAL
RECORDS, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT
OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 89°
23' 13" EAST PARALLEL WITH SAID NORTH
LINE, 291.25 FEET TO A POINT 300.00 FEET
FROM SAID WEST LINE OF LOT 8, THENCE
i NORTH 0° 26' 20" EAST PARALLEL WITH SAID
WEST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 286.25 FEET TO
THE SOUTH LINE OF MILL STREET, AS
CONVEYED BY SAID DEED TO THE COUNTY OF
SAN BERNARDINO, BY DEED RECORDED MARCH
29, 1961 IN BOOK 5389, PAGE 250, OFFICIAL
RECORDS; THENCE NORTH 89° 23' 13" WEST
(RECORDED NORTH 89° 39' 33" EAST) ALONG
SAID SOUTH LINE, 271.25 FEET TO AN ANGLE
POINT THEREIN; THENCE SOUTH 45° 31' 35"
WEST 28.24 FEET (RECORDED NORTH 43° 44'
31" EAST 28.57 FEET) TO AN ANGLE POINT IN
SAID EAST LINE OF WATERMAN AVENUE; THENCE
NORTH 0° 26' 20" WEST (RECORDED NORTH 0°
30' 54" WEST) ALONG SAID EAST LINE,
266.25 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
ATTACHMENT "B"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-04
PARCEL
APN 0136-393-07 EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION, AS
(CONTINUED) CONVEYED TO JIMMY R. NICKELL, ET UX. , BY
DEED RECORDED MARCH 16, 1972, IN BOOK
7887, PAGE 936, OFFICIAL RECORDS.
TOGETHER WITH ALL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES
APPURTENANT THERETO AND ALL BUILDINGS AND
LAND IMPROVEMENTS THEREON; BUT SUBJECT TO
THE LIENS OF ALL TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS
FOR THE YEAR 1979-80 AND SUBSEQUENT
YEARS, TO ALL EASEMENTS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY,
RESERVATIONS , RESTRICTIONS AND
ENCUMBRANCES OF RECORD, TO ANY EXISTING
TENANCIES, TO ALL ZONING LAWS AND
ORDINANCES, AND TO ANY STATE OF FACTS AN
ACCURATE SURVEY OR INSPECTION OF THE
PREMISES WOULD ALLOW.
1
1
i
ATTACHMENT "B"
CITY OF SAN BERNAR. EXHIBIT #1
S= VICIN rY AND
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION Adopted 6 j
Date �-��- �'3 FOR � No. 93-74/CPA No. 93-04 (and
Altive) Panel No.
��
KM
*?'f-'L Am
f
L
3
u
ftEj
�� , I
E4
sr
Ip
0 �
� rte•� ���r
► 0 110
I
,. cN
EXHIBIT #2
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
ALTERNATIVE SITE
oIP
OIP GAG
PFC .
OIP TO
OIP IL
CG-1
OIP TO
CH CG-1
MILL STREET
OIP T W
OI TO CG-1
CG- 1 i
IL Z IL
4 OIP
TOIP W
a
3
N
EXHIBIT #3
LAN'D OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
UILD ING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM #8
SUMMARY HEARING DATE January 25, 1994
WARD-5 1 and
General Plan Amendment No. 93-04
[APPLICANT: Susan Johnston/Carton Dev.N and Conditional Use Permit 330 North "D" Street, Ste #110 No. 93-24 San Bernardino, CA 92401 ER: Vickie & Bill Kazaltzes
1018 Grossmont Drive
Whittier, California 90601
he applicant requests an amendment of the General Plan from the current OIP,
Office Industrial Park designation to the CG-1, Commercial General designa-
tion. Under the authorit of Development Code Section 19.50.030 staff is
WF' proposing an "Alternative' to the applicant's General Plan Amendment request,
which would expand the amendment site to about 12.72 acres to include property
on each corner of the intersection of Waterman Avenue and Mill Street. The
O
applicant also requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit under authority
of Code Section 19.060.020 (Table 06.01) to permit a restaurant with a drive-
thru window. The subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
Q consisting of about 0 .52 acres, located at the southwest corner of Waterman
LU Avenue and Mill Street, having a frontage of about 150 feet on the west side
cc of Waterman Avenue and a frontage of about 150 feet on the south side of Mill
Q Street.
ENVIRONMENTAL RECOMMENDATION: PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
PROPERTY LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION
Subject Vacant OIP Office. Industrial Park
North Vacant Commercial Building "
South Liquor Store and Welding Shop "
East Auto Repair Shop & Vacant Lot "
West Multi-tenant Industrial Center "
GEOLOGIC/SEISMIC ❑ YES FLOOD HAZARD ❑ YES ❑ ZONE A SEWERS: ® YES
HAZARD ZONE: 33 NO ZONE: IR NO ❑ ZONE B
❑ NO
=H= ❑ YES AIRPORT NOISE/ ❑ YES REDEVELOPMENT ❑ YES
E: NO CRASH ZONE: PROJECT AREAL
IS NO ® NO
J ❑ NOT ❑ POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z ® APPROVAL Of CUP and
Q APPLICABLE EFFECTS WITH 0 Staff's Alternative GPA.
Z N
MITIGATING MEASURES
W C7 C ® CONDITIONS
M Z_ ❑ EXEMPT ❑ E.I.R.REOUIRED BUT NO IL Z
O c WITH SIGNIFICANT 41C W ❑ DENIAL
Z .2
— LL.
MEASURES rA 2 ❑ CONTINUANCE TO
Z ® NO SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS V
W EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E.R.C. W
MINUTES IZ
o:nw.n..n.ew ws - .
PuN4Dt PAGE 1 OF 1 INO1
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-04 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 93-24
AGENDA ITEM: #8
HEARING DATE: January 25, 1994
Page 2
REQUEST AND LOCATION
The applicant requests to change the General Plan land use
designation from OIP, Office Industrial Park to CG-1, Commercial
General to permit a drive-thru restaurant subject to an approved
Conditional Use Permit. The 0.52 acre site is located at the
southwest corner of Waterman Avenue and Mill Street. Under the
authority of Development Code Section 19.50.030, staff is proposing
an alternative to the applicant's General Plan Amendment which
would expand the amendment site to about 12.72 acres to include
property on each corner of the intersection. Throughout this Staff
Report, staff's proposed alternative amendment will be referred to
as the Alternative. (Attachment 1, See Site Vicinity and Land Use
Designation Map)
Under the authority of Development Code Sections 19.06.020, Table
06.01 (Commercial And Industrial Districts List Of Permitted Uses)
and 19.06.030(2) (H) (Land Use District Specific Standards for
Drive-Thru Restaurants) the applicant requests approval to
construct a 3,000 square foot restaurant with a drive-thru window
on the 0.52 acre site.
GENERAL PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE CONFORMANCE
The applicant's amendment proposal is not consistent with certain
provisions in the General Plan pertaining to patterns and
distributions of land uses [General Plan Goal 1G(i) and Policy
1.3.8] . The Alternative is consistent with the provisions
specified. A detailed discussion of this issue is included in the
Analysis section of this Staff Report.
The project site is located in the OIP, Office Industrial Park
which does not permit drive-thru restaurants. However, drive-thru
restaurants are permitted in the CG-1, Commercial General
designation subject to a Conditional Use Permit. As such, approval
of either the applicant's proposed amendment (GPA No. 93-04) • or
staff's Alternative amendment proposal will alleviate the project's
inconsistency with the General Plan.
The proposed drive-thru restaurant complies with the Development
Code standards for the CG-1 and all other applicable standards in
terms of site layout and design. [See Attachment 5 (CUP No. 93-
24) , Development Code and General Plan Conformance Table] " `
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-04 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 93-24
AGENDA ITEM: #8
HEARING DATE: January 25, 1994
Pag* 3
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEOA) STATUS
An Initial Study was prepared by staff and presented to the
Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on December 9, 1993
(Attachment 12) . The ERC determined that no significant impacts
would result from the proposed drive-thru restaurant project, the
applicant's proposed amendment or staff's alternative amendment and
recommended a Negative Declaration. The proposed Negative
Declaration was advertised and the Initial Study was available for
public review and comment from December 16, 1993 to January 5,
1994.
Comments were submitted by Patricia Green of Vanir Development
Company, Inc. The letter was read into the record at the January
61 1994 ERC meeting and some discussion occurred. The ERC
recommended that Ms. Green's concerns be addressed in the Staff
Report to the Planning Commission. A copy of the letter (dated
January 5, 1993) is included in Attachment 11. Staff's response is
contained in the Comments section of this Staff Report (beginning
on page 7) .
BACRGROIIND
The project was reviewed by the Development Review Committee (DRC)
on November 18, 1993, December 9, 1993 and January 6, 1994. At
their meeting of January 6, 1994, the DRC recommended that the
Planning Commission recommend to the Mayor and Common Council the
approval of CUP No. 93-24, denial of GPA No. 93-04 as proposed by
the applicant and approval of GPA No. 93-04 as proposed by staff.
(See Attachment 6, Site Plan; Attachment 7, Floor Plans and
Elevations; and, Attachment 21 Staff Alternative Amendment Site)
A NA' LYSIB
SITE AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS
The 0.52 acre amendment and project site, located at the southwest
corner of Waterman Avenue and Mill Street, is a flat, vacant,
rectangular-shaped lot. It should be noted that both Waterman
Avenue and Mill Street are classified as major arterials on the
Circulation Plan.
The expanded site for the Alternative (12.72 acres) is relatively
flat and includes property on all four corners of the Waterman
Avenue and Mill Street intersection. The northwest corner of the
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-04 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 93-24
AGENDA ITEM: #8
HEARING DATE: January 2S, 1994
Page 3
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY ACT (CF.OA) STATUS
An Initial Study was prepared by staff and presented to the
Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on December 9, 1993
(Attachment 12) . The ERC determined that no significant impacts
would result from the proposed drive-thru restaurant project, the
applicant's proposed amendment or staff's alternative amendment and
recommended a Negative Declaration. The proposed Negative
Declaration was advertised and the Initial Study was available for
public review and comment from December 16, 1993 to January 5,
1994.
Comments were submitted by Patricia Green of Vanir Development
Company, Inc. The letter was read into the record at the January
6, 1994 ERC meeting and some discussion occurred. The ERC
recommended that Ms. Green's concerns be addressed in the Staff
Report to the Planning Commission. A copy of the letter (dated
January 5, 1993) is included in Attachment 11. Staff's response is
contained in the Comments section of this Staff Report (beginning
on page 7) .
EACKGROIIND
The project was reviewed by the Development Review Committee (DRC)
on November 18, 1993, December 9, 1993 and January 6, 1994. At
their meeting of January 6, 1994, the DRC recommended that the
Planning Commission recommend to the Mayor and Common Council the
approval of CUP No. 93-24, denial of GPA No. 93-04 as proposed by
the applicant and approval of GPA No. 93-04 as proposed by staff.
(See Attachment 6, Site Plan; Attachment 7, Floor Plans and
Elevations; and, Attachment 2, Staff Alternative Amendment Site)
ANALYSIS
SITE AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS
The 0.52 acre amendment and project site, located at the southwest
corner of Waterman Avenue and Mill Street, is a flat, vacant,
rectangular-shaped lot. It should be noted that both Waterman
Avenue and Mill Street are classified as major arterials on the
Circulation Plan.
The expanded site for the Alternative (12.72 acres) is relatively
flat and includes property on all four corners of the Waterman
Avenue and Mill Street intersection. The northwest corner of the
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-04 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 93-24
AGENDA ITEM:#8
HEARING DATE: January 25, 1994
Page 4
intersection contains a vacant commercial building and a vacant lot
is located adjacent and to the west. Both lots are included in the
expanded site. The northeast corner contains a service station and
convenience store with a commercial strip center located adjacent
and to the north. Both lots are included in the expanded site. On
the southeast corner is an automotive repair shop with vacant land
located immediately to the south and west and a commercial strip
center adjacent and to the east. All five lots described are
included in the expanded site. The southwest corner includes the
0.52 acre project site for the proposed CUP, a liquor store and a
welding supply store. All three lots are included in the expanded
site. (See Attachment 3 , Alternative Amendment Site Existing Land
Use Survey)
The area surrounding the project site and the Alternative site is
made up of some vacant parcels, equipment rental and storage and
building supply uses in an area designated as OIP (see Attachment
1, Site Vicinity and Land Use Designation Map) . The OIP district
includes much of the property fronting on Waterman Avenue between
3rd Street and the Santa Ana River Wash. In the vicinity of the
project site and the Alternative site, the OIP district is
bracketed by the IL, Industrial Light district to the east and the
CH district to the north. To the north is the Warm Springs Flood
Control Channel in an area designated PFC, Public Flood Control.
To the south, the OIP district along Waterman Avenue is surrounded
by the IL district.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Applicantos Amendment Proposal and Drive-thru Restaurant
The applicant requests to change the General Plan land use
designation from OIP, Office Industrial Park to CG-11 Commercial
General to permit a drive-thru restaurant use. Concurrently, the
applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to
construct the 3,000 square foot drive-thru restaurant.
The restaurant will have 1,370 square feet of dining area with
seating for about 79 persons. About 1,500 square feet will be used
for the kitchen, service, storage room and restrooms. (See
Attachment 7, Floor Plan and Elevations)
The restaurant will operate from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. , 7 days a
week. Meals cooked to order will be served for breakfast, lunch
and dinner with drive-thru window service available for phone-in
and drive-up orders from the menu.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-04 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 93-24
AGENDA ITEM: #8
HEARING DATE: January 25, 1994
Page 5
The restaurant will employ about 20 persons with a maximum of 5
employees on the site at any given time.
The Alternative Amendment Proposal
The Alternative to the applicant's amendment proposal is to expand
the amendment site to about 12.72 acres to include property on each
corner of the Waterman Avenue/Mill Street intersection. The land
use designation would be changed from OIP to CG-1 on all of the
property included in the Alternative site (see Attachment 2, Staff
Alternative Amendment Site) .
EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATION
The purpose of the OIP, Office Industrial Park land use designation
is to meet the City's objective, as follows:
"Establish the Waterman Avenue corridor and other appropriate
areas as distinctive office parks and corporate centers
serving the San Bernardino community and region." (General
Plan Objective 1.31)
The OIP designation permits a diversity of corporate office, light
manufacturing and research and development uses. Supporting retail
uses are also permitted but must be located in corporate office
industrial park structures. (General Plan Policies 1.31.10 and
1.31.32)
PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATION
The purpose of the CG-1, Commercial General land use designation is
to meet the City's objective, as follows:
"Provide for the continued use, enhancement, and new
development of retail, personal service, entertainment, office
and related commercial uses along major transportation
corridors and intersections to serve the needs of the
residents; reinforcing existing commercial corridors and
centers and establishing new locations as new residential
growth occurs. " (General Plan Objective 1.19)
As indicated, the CG-1 should occur along major arterials and
intersections such as Waterman Avenue and Mill Street to provide
commercial services to the surrounding industrial developments.
The CG-1 permits a diversity of community-serving retail and
service uses, entertainment uses, and professional and financial
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-04 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 93-24
AGENDA ITEM: #8
HEARING DATE: January 25, 1994
Page 6
offices. With the exception of one lot, all of the lots included
in both amendment proposals meet the minimum lot size requirements
for the CG-1 designation. [The exception noted is a small, sliver-
shaped lot that is located on the southeast corner of the
intersection, east and adjacent to the auto repair shop (APN 136-
393-15) . (See Attachment 2, Staff Alternative Amendment Site) ]
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The applicant's amendment proposal is not consistent with the
General Plan in that it would result in the creation of a 0.5 acre
CG-1 district consisting of a single commercial use. This type of
zoning is often referred to a "spot zoning" and is discouraged
under California State law. General Plan Goal 1G(i) stipulates
that development patterns and uses be cohesive and uniform in nodes
and districts to prevent "leap frog" development. A single lot
containing a single use commercial can not be considered a
district. A commercial district (or a node) generally provides a
diversity of services to the adjacent and surrounding areas.
The Alternative amendment proposal would result in the creation of
a 12.72 acre commercial node located at a major intersection within
a (largely) industrial area. As indicated on Attachment 3 (Staff
Alternative Amendment Site Existing Land Use Survey) , the
Alternative amendment site contains a range of existing commercial
retail and service uses. This is consistent with General Plan
Policy 1.3.8 which encourages the provision of commercial area and
uses to serve the short-term needs of visitors to the City and
enroute to or leaving the San Bernardino Mountains. It should be
noted that the existing commercial uses, which are nonconforming
under the OIP designation, would become conforming under the CG-1.
A total of 2.03 acres within the Alternative amendment site are
vacant and constitute 3 lots. The proposed drive-thru restaurant
site (0.52 acres) will be built on one of the vacant lots.
The proposed drive-thru restaurant is not consistent with the land
uses permitted by the OIP designation. The proposed CG-1 (either
amendment proposal) permits drive-thru restaurants subject to a
CUP.
DEVELOPMENT CODE COMPLIANCE
With the exception of one lot, the lots -included in both amendment
proposals meet the minimum lot standards for the CG-1 designation.
[The substandard lot (APN 136-393-15) is a "sliver-shaped" lot
located on the southeast corner of the intersection, east and
adjacent to the auto repair shop (see Attachment 3) . ]
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-04 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 93-24
AGENDA ITEM:#8
BEARING DATE: January 25, 1994
Pag• 7
The proposed drive-thru restaurant meets all of the Development
Code standards for the CG-1 and the district specific standards for
drive-thru restaurants in terms of site layout and design.
COMPATIBILITY
The both amendment proposals and the proposed drive-thru restaurant
are compatible with the surrounding area and uses. The majority of
the Alternative amendment site is already developed with commercial
uses. The surrounding area consists of some vacant land and
industrial and commercial heavy uses for which the existing,
proposed and future commercial uses will provide commercial
services.
COMMENTS RECEIVED
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
(DENS)
DEHS comments stipulate that the applicant shall submit plans to
DEHS for their review.
SAN BERNARDINO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
The District stipulates that prior to construction of the project,
school facility fees (as established by the Board of Education)
shall be paid.
CITY'S TRAFFIC DIVISION
The Traffic Engineer's comments indicate that all proposals
relative to the project do not meet the minimum criteria for a
traffic study. The additional trips from the proposed project are
not sufficient to cause a significant impact on the adjacent street
system.
PATRICIA GREEN, VANIR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
In her letter of January 5, 1994, Ms. Green was concerned because
property owners adjacent to the site for the drive-thru restaurant
and general plan amendment (applicant's amendment proposal) had not
yet received notification of the project. An informational letter
which described the applicant's amendment and project and the
Alternative amendment was sent to the property owners (of lots
within the Alternative amendment site) on December 6, 1993. The
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-04 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 93-24
AGENDA ITEM08
HEARING DATE: January 25, 1994
Page 8
E/DRC reviewed the Initial Study and the project plans on December
9, 1993. The Notice of Preparation for the Negative Declaration
was published in the San Bernardino County Sun Classified Ads
Section on December 16, 1993. The ad included a description of all
elements of the project and the 21 day CEQA public review period
which began on December 16, 1993 and ended on January 5, 1994.
During that period, the Initial Study and project files were
available for public review and comment. It should be noted that
pursuant to State law, the project was not required to have a
public hearing prior to the Planning Commission's review.
Ms. Green's primary concern is that the Alternative amendment does
not include 2 parcels (APNs 136-391-37 & 38 - both owned by Vanir
Development Company. The 2 parcels are located east and adjacent
to the northeast portion of the Alternative amendment site and
contain about 8.8 acres of land. During staff's land use survey
for the Alternative proposal, the 2 lots in question were reviewed
for inclusion in the amendment.
The purpose of the Alternative amendment proposal is to create
commercial node at the Mill Street/Waterman Avenue intersection
that will serve the surrounding industrial areas. Coincidentally,
the Alternative amendment will make the existing non-conforming
commercial uses (within the Alternate site) conforming, permitted
uses under the CG-1 designation. Approval of the Alternative
proposal also would preclude the approval of a "spot zoning" such
as the applicant's proposal. As such, the properties included in
the Alternative amendment site are largely comprised of lots
developed with sxisting commercial uses. There are 3 vacant lots
included in the Alternative site which total 2.03 acres - less than
16 percent of the total site. The small amount of acreage limits
the development potential of the vacant land. It should be noted
that 1 of the 3 vacant lots is the 0.5 acre site for the proposed
drive-thru restaurant.
Staff's review indicated that inclusion of the 2 parcels would
result in an intense commercial area (rather than a node) of about
21.52. acres. The development potential of 8.8 acres under the CG-
1 could result in the establishment of some fairly intense
commercial uses in conjunction with the existing commercial uses on
the Alternative site. The floor area ratio (FAR) for the CG-1 is
0.75 which calculates into 287,496 square feet of commercial space
on 8.8 acres.
The 2 parcels in question are situated between the Alternative site
(proposed as CG-1) and vacant land in the IL, Industrial Light
district. North and adjacent is a commercial storage and equipment
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-04 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 93-24
AGENDA ITEM: #8
BEARING DATE: January 2S, 1994
Page 9
rental operation in the OIP district. As such, a proposal for
redesignation of the 8.8 acres should evaluate the appropriateness
of the CG-1, IL or OIP designation.
CONCLUSIONS
The applicant's amendment proposal for a single parcel is not
consistent with the General Plan because it would result in the
creation of commercial area containing a single commercial use. In
addition, it would result in a disjointed land use pattern and is
inconsistent with General Plan Goal 1G(i) . The Alternative
amendment proposal is consistent with General Plan and General Plan
Goal 1G(i) because it would result in the creation of a commercial
node containing a diversity of commercial retail and service uses.
It is also consistent with General Plan Policy 1.3.8 which
encourages that commercial services be available to short-term
users either visiting the City or enroute to or from the San
Bernardino Mountains. The Alternative amendment proposal would
make the existing commercial uses permitted and conforming under
the CG-1 designation.
The proposed drive-thru restaurant is not permitted in the existing
OIP land use designation but is permitted in the proposed CG-1
designation (either amendment proposal) with an approved CUP. The
proposed drive-thru restaurant meets all applicable Development
Code standards and design guidelines.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the
Mayor and Common Council the:
1. Adoption of the Negative Declaration;
2. Approval of Staff's Alternative amendment proposal for
General Plan Amendment No. 93-04 as shown on Attachment
2 and based on the attached Findings of Fact (Attachment
4) ; and,
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-04 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 93-24
AGENDA ITEM: #8
HEARING DATE: January 25, 1994
Page 10
3. Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 93-24, based on
the attached Findings of Fact (Attachment 8) , subject to
the attached Conditions of Approval (Attachment 9) and
Standard Requirements (Attachment 10) .
Respect lly witted,
A o r
Plann Buildi ices
Deborah Woldruff
ssociate Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Site Vicinity and General Plan Land Use Designation Map
2. Staff Alternative Amendment Site
3. Staff Alternative Amendment Site Existing Land Use Survey
4. General Plan Amendment Findings of Fact
5. Development Code and General Plan Conformance (CUP No. 93-24)
6. Site Plan (for CUP No. 93-24)
7. Floor Plan and Elevations (CUP No. 93-24)
S. Conditional Use Permit Findings of Fact
9. Conditions of Approval for CUP 93-24
10. Standard Requirements for CUP 93-24
11. Letter (dated January 5, 1994)
12. Initial Study (Exhibits not included)
ATTACHMENT 1 - SITE VICINITY AND GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION
MAP
AND
ATTACHMENT 2 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROPOSAL ALTERNATIVE SITE
NOT INCLUDED - SEE EXHIBITS 1 AND 2, RESPECTIVELY
EXISTING LAND USE SURVEY
ALTERNATIVE SITE
GG COMMERCIAL
STORAGE &
VEMICAL RENTAL
VACANT
GAG
Q� RETAIL CENTER
C7 VACANT
i
VACANT BLDG
I
GAS STATION
VACANT VA4 ANT b CONV STORE
PROPOSED RESTAURANT MILL STREET
CUP 93-24 SITE
AUTO
VELDIN ? RETAIL CENTER
REPAIR
W INDUSTRIAa VACANT
C ENTER Z
Q
2 COMMERCIAL STORAGE
c.
W
Q
3
N
ATTACHMENT #4
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-04 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 93-24
AGENDA ITEM: 7#'8
BEARING DATE: January 25, 1994
Page 1
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-04
A. Applicants Proposal (Negative Findings)
1. The proposed amendment to change the 0.52 acre project
site for CUP No. 93-24 from OIP, Office Industrial Park
to CG-1, Commercial General is not consistent with the
General Plan [Goal 1G(i) ] in that it will create a small,
isolated single use commercial district.
2. The proposed amendment could be detrimental to the public
interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the
City in that it would result in a disjointed pattern of
land use.
3. The proposed amendment would create an isolated, single
use, commercial parcel surrounded by nonconforming
commercial uses in the OIP, Office Industrial Park
district and as such, would do little to support the
balance of land uses in the City.
4. The 0.52 acre site is suitable for the proposed drive-
thru restaurant use (CUP No. 93-24) but physically
limited to be a commercial district. The site could not
support a diversity of retail and commercial uses that
would be needed to provide services to the surrounding
uses which are largely office and light industrial uses.
B. Staff's Alternative (Positive Findings)
1. Staff's amendment proposal to change the land use
designation from OIP, Office Industrial Park to CG-1,
Commercial General on approximately 12.72 acres is
internally consistent with the General Plan [Goal 1G(i) ]
in that it will create a commercial node which contains
a diversity of commercial retail and service uses on the
Waterman Avenue/OIP corridor.
2. The Alternative amendment proposal would not be
detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
convenience, or welfare of the City. that the area
already contains existing commercial uses that would be
made conforming and any conflicts associated with the
establishment of the drive-thru restaurant use (CUP No.
93-24) have been minimized through project review.
ATTACHMENT #4
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 93-24
AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-04
AGENDA ITEM: #8
HEARING DATE: Januarp 25, 1994
Pag•2
3. The Alternative amendment to change the land use
desigantion on 12.72 acres from OIP, Office Industrial
Park to CG-1, Commercial General would enhance the
balance of land uses in that existing and proposed
development on the site would provide commercial retail
and services for the Waterman Avenue/OIP corridor.
4. The 12.72 acre site is physically large enough for uses
permitted in the CG-1, Commercial General land use
designation and all parcels have or will have adequate
access to either Mill Street or Waterman Avenue.
Attachment
(CUP No. 93-24)
MUNICIPAL IDEVE PMENT) 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 10 feet N/A
Side (east) >10 feet 10 feet N/A
Side (west) <10 feet 0 feet N/A
Rear <10 feet 0 feet N/A
Parking 29 Spaces (Min. ) 29 N/A
Spaces Spaces
Handicapped 2 Spaces (Min. ) 2 N/A
Spaces (1 van sp) Spaces
Landscaping 38% (Min. ) 15% N/A
* The restaurant use (w/ drive-thru window) is not permitted in
the existing OIP, Office Industrial Park land use designation.
The project includes a request to change the General Plan land
use designation from OIP to CG-1 to accommodate the proposed
use.
Ae v
= i a O B t a ® A
R 3 �� C O i
bo m . 3
> m
i --_•- - -i to
w O
• s• 1. —4
l� 1 1 l-1 �¢ .♦
z t.r.L •� „� '
Zr
ZA
tf �— •�
sj �=
A_= WATERMAN AVENUE '
-- o ;ta; no �: $tom lllIl
fit" sits ' ti������. 1; •� � =
Ell`.
Vicky's Restauraat
SOZ S.Waterman Ave. s o ■ ■ ■ ■ f _�
San Bernardino,CA ..�
• �•--ter- • ] � ;
i �
•aAV tM=21eM 'S ZOS
I I I � 'aLm=sa'H s,AOlA l Il l l 1,
,
F �
- -- -
---�-A--mot
= O I
Wi I !
Q�
OI
ZI
L • I: I- i
r r I`
o El
Z
- - - I
-
z; of = z
°! o
~i <! _ ® t-
II >i �_ W .. ® >
Ii WI Ji W
JI W ` J
W I _ -� i W
°, sib • } } � f + aol
z. � ; • � � � 3i � ' ' � Wi G of <,
Uyii
Y:GOOC20^; •0O C T1)T
i
CONDITIONAL USE PERKIT FINDINGS OF FACT
(CONDITIONAL USE PERKIT NO. 93-24)
1. The proposed drive-thru restaurant use is conditionally
permitted within, and would not impair the integrity and
character of, the CG-1, Commercial General district and
complies with the applicable provisions of the
Development Code;
2. The proposed drive-thru restaurant use is consistent with
the General Plan in that it is a conditionally permitted
use in the CG-1, Commercial General land use designation;
3. The approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the
proposed drive-thru restaurant use is in compliance with
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and Section 19.20.030(6) of the Development
Code;
4. There will be no potentially significant negative impacts
upon environmental quality and natural resources that
could not be properly mitigated and monitored in that the
project has been evaluated in accordance with CEQA and no
significant environmental impacts were found;
5. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics
of the proposed drive-thru restaurant use are compatible
' with the existing and future land uses within the general
area in which the proposed drive-thru restaurant use is
to be located and will not create significant noise,
traffic or other conditions or situations that may be
objectionable or detrimental to other permitted uses in
the vicinity or adverse to the public interest, health,
safety, convenience or welfare of the City in that the
existing uses, which consist of vacant parcels,
commercial and service retail, restaurant, gasoline
service station and auto repair uses, share similar
characteristics relating to intensity of use;
6. The site is physically suitable for the proposed drive-
thru restaurant use in that the applicable Development
Code standards are met pending adherence with the
Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements; and,
ATTACHMENT#8
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-04 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 93-24
AGENDA ITEM: #8
HEARING DATE: January 25, 1994
Page 2
7. There are adequate provisions for public access, water,
sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure
that the proposed drive-thru restaurant use would not be
detrimental to public health and safety in that the
project has been reviewed by the affected City
departments and public agencies.
ATTACHMENT #9
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-04 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 93-24
AGENDA ITEM: #8
HEARING DATE: January 25, 1994
Page 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 93-24
1. Construction shall be in substantial conformance with the
plan(s) approved by the Planning Commission. Minor
modification to the plan(s) shall be subject to approval by
the Director through a minor modification permit process. Any
modification which exceeds 10% of the following allowable
measurable design/site considerations shall require the
refiling of the original application and a subsequent hearing
by the appropriate hearing review authority, if applicable.
a. On-site circulation and parking, loading and
landscaping;
b. Placement and/or height of walls, fences and
structures;
C. Reconfiguration of architectural features,
including colors, and/or modification of finished
materials that do not alter or compromise the
' previously approved theme; and,
d. An increase or reduction in density or intensity of
a development project.
2. Within two years of development approval, commencement of
construction of shall have occurred or the permit/approval
shall become null and void. In addition, if after
commencement of construction, work is discontinued for a
period of one year, then the permit/approval shall become null
and void. Projects may be built in phases if preapproved by
the review authority. If a project is built in preapproved
phases, each subsequent phase shall have one year from the
previous phase's date of construction commencement to have
occurred or the permit/approval shall become null and void.
Project: Conditional Use Pernit Ito. 93-24
Expiration Date: January 25, 1996
3. The review authority may, upon application being filed 30 days
prior to the expiration date and for good cause, grant one
time extension not to exceed 12 months. The review authority
shall ensure that the project complies with all current
Development Code provisions.
ATTACHMENT #9
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-04 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 93-24
AGENDA ITEM: #8
HEARING DATE: January 25, 1994
Page 2
4. In the event that this approval is legally challenged, the
City will promptly notify the applicant of any claim or action
and will cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. Once
notified, the applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold
harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees from any
claim, action, or proceeding against the City of San
Bernardino. The applicant further agrees to reimburse the
City of any costs and attorney's fees which the City may be
required by the court to pay as a result of such action, but
such participation shall not relieve the applicant of his
obligation under this condition.
5. This permit or approval is subject to all the applicable
provisions of the Development Code in effect at the time of
approval. This includes Chapter 19.20 - Property Development
Standards, and includes: dust and dirt control during
construction and grading activities; emission control of
fumes, vapors, gases and other forms of air pollution; glare
control; exterior lighting design and control; noise control;
odor control; screening; signs, off-street parking and off-
street loading; and, vibration control. Screening and sign
regulations compliance are important considerations to the
developer because they will delay the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy until they are complied with. Any
exterior structural equipment, or utility transformers, boxes,
ducts or meter cabinets shall be architecturally screened by
wall or structural element, blending with the building design
and include landscaping when on the ground.
This requirement also includes any applicable Land Use
District Development Standards for residential, commercial and
industrial developments regarding minimum lot area, minimum
lot depth and width, minimum setbacks, maximum height, maximum
lot coverage, etc.
6. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the San
Bernardino County Department of Environmental Health Services
(DENS) , as applicable.
7. This project (CUP 93-24) shall be required to maintain a
minimum of 29 standard off-street parking spaces as shown on
the approved plan(s) on file.
ATTACHMENT #9
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-04 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 93-24
AGENDA ITEM:#8
HEARING DATE: January 25, 1994
Page 3
8. Prior to submittal for Building Permits, the applicant shall
submit a corrected site plan- (5 copies) to show the addition
of a protective curbing (minimum width and height of 6 inches)
at the north end of the parking row located east and adjacent
to the proposed drive-thru restaurant building.
9. This permit or approval is subject to the attached conditions
or requirements of the following City Departments or
Divisions:
xx_ Public Works (Engineering) Department
xX Building Services Division of the Planning and
Building Services Department
Xx Water Department
x _ Fire Department
xx _ Police Department
x Refuse Division, Public Services Department
_STANDARD RE UIREMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS/ CASE NO. CUP 93-24
CITY ENGINEER
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE /
PAGE NO.
NOTE TO APPLICANT: Where separate Engineering plans are required, the
applicant is responsible for submitting the Engineering plans directly to
the Engineering Division. They may be submitted prior to submittal of
Building Plans.
Drainage and Flood Control
1. All drainage from the development shall be directed to an approved
public drainage facility. If not feasible, proper drainage facilities and
easements shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
2. Applicant shall mitigate on-site storm water discharge sufficiently to
maintain compliance with the City's NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit
Requirements.
3. An Erosion Control Plan shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to
grading plan approval. The plan shall be designed to control erosion due
to water and wind, including blowing dust, during all phases of
construction, including graded areas which are not proposed to be
immediately built upon.
Grading
9. If more than 1' of fill or 2' of cut is proposed, the site/plot/grading and
drainage plan shall be signed by a Registered Civil Engineer and a
grading permit will be required. The grading plan shall be prepared in
strict accordance with the City's "Grading Policies and Procedures" and
the City's "Standard Drawings", unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer in advance.
S. If more than 5,000 cubic yards of earthwozk is proposed, a grading bond
will be required and the grading shall be supervised in accordance with
Section 7012(c) of the Uniform Building Code.
6. An on-site Improvement Plan is required for this project. Where
feasible, this plan shall be incorporated with the grading plan and shall
conform to all requirements of Section 15.09-167 of the Municipal
Code(See "Grading Policies and Procedures"). The on-site Improvement
Plan shall be approved by the City Engineer.
Page 1
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS/ CASE NO. CUP 93-24
CITY ENGINEER
AGENDA ITEM #8 _
HEARING DATE 01
PAGE N0.
7. The project Landscape Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. Submit 4 copies to the
Engineering Division for Checking.
S. An easement and covenant shall be executed on behalf of the City to
allow the City to enter and maintain any required landscaping in case of
owner neglect. The easement and covenant will be prepared by the Public
Works/Engineering Department - Real Property Section for execution by
the property owner and shall ensure that , if the property owner or
subsequent owner(s) fail to properly maintain the landscaping, the City
will be able to file appropriate liens against the property in order to
accomplish the required landscape maintenance. A document processing
fee in the amount of $200.00 shall be paid to the Real Property Section
to cover processing costs. This easement and covenant shall be
executed by the property owner prior to plan approval unless otherwise
allowed by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer.
Utilities
9. Design and construct all public utilities to serve the site in accordance
with City Code, City Standards and requirements of the serving utility,
including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer and cable TV.
10. Existing and proposed utility services shall be placed underground and
easements provided as required.
11. Existing Utilities which interfere with new construction shall be
relocated at the Developer's expense as directed by the City Engineer.
Streetlmprovement
12. Driveway approaches shall be modified to conform to City Standard No.
204, Type II, and shall be constructed to match on-site drive aisles.
13. Remove existing driveway approaches that are not to be reused with the
project and replace with full height curb, gutter and sidewalk to match
existing adjacent construction.
14. The proposed driveways onto both Mill Street and Waterman Avenue shall
be designated right turn only for exiting traffic. Use Caltrans Std. Sign
R18-2.
Page 2
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS/ CASE NO. CUP 93-24
CITY ENGINEER
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE 5
PAGE NO. 3
15. Install R10(right) in the street median opposite each driveway.
Reauired Engineering Permits
16. Grading permit(If applicable.).
17. On-site improvements construction permit(except buildings - see
Planning and Building Services), including landscaping.
18. off-site improvements construction permit.
ADDlicable Engineering Fees(fees subiect to change without notice)
19. Plan check and inspection fees for off-site improvements - 4% and 4%,
respectively, of the estimated construction cost* of the off-site
improvements.
20. Plan check and inspection fees for on-site improvements(except
buildings - See Planning and Building Services) - 2% and 3%,
respectively, of the estimated construction cost* of the on-site
improvements, including landscaping.
21. Plan check and inspection fees for grading If t
g permit required) - Fee
Schedule available at the Engineering Division Counter.
22. Drainage fee in the approximate amount of $2,871.00.
23. Traffic system fee in the estimated amount of $26,230.00. Exact amount
shall be determined by the City Traffic Engineer at time of application
for Building Permit.
24. Sewer Connection fee in the approximate amount of $205.00.
25. Sewer inspection fee in the amount of $17.30 per connection.
26. Street or easement dedication processing fee in the amount of $200.00
per document.
!Estimated construction cost is based on schedule of unit prices on file
with the City Engineer.
Page 3
CITY OF SAN BERNAI_ .INO PLANNING CASE C I� � D- Z�
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
AGENDA ITEM
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS HEARING ASE Oi/25/94
BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION
Submit plans prepared by a Registered Building
Architect or Civil or Structural Engineer.
Submit a complete lateral and structural analysis
prepared by a Registered Civil or Structural Engineer or
Architect.
Submit State of California Title 24 Energy Calculation
Forms for , non-residential
buildings including a signed compliance statement.
/ Submit calculations and structural drawings,g prepared by
a Registered Civil Structural Engineer or Architect, Ferw
Be advised that the subject building is an unreinforced
masonry building (URM) as defined by State law and as
identified in a study done by the City dated January
1990. Notice that this building was a URM building was
mailed to all URM owners in April 1990. At some time in
the future, the owner will be required to do a detailed
structural analysis for the purpose of determining the
degree of structural deficiencies, submit structural
plans showing correction of the structural deficiencies,
obtain building permits, and complete the structural
upgrading.
a. It is recommended that before significant cosmetic
improvements are made that some thought be given to
doing the seismic structural upgrading first or
consideration be given to doing the cosmetic
improvements in such a way so as to minimize or
avoid redoing the proposed cosmetic improvements in
the future.
b. Based upon the structural changes and/or add-ons to
the building (such as adding mechanical equipment,
mansard roof; other additional weight that must be
restrained laterally) , submit a structural analysis
certifying that the changes and/or add-ons being
proposed to the building makes the building no more
hazardous than without the proposed changes and/or
o°�iaW iwn.osi'.a° �tA1FL10 W1ol
CITY OF SAN BERNAI INO PLANNING CASE GP,, 93-04/CUP 93-24
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
AGENDA ITEM #8
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS HEARING DATE 01 /25/94
add-ons. If such analysis and certification cannot
be made, then the building must be seismically
upgraded prior to occupancy of the building.
C. As defined by the building code, this project is a
change of occupancy classification and/or
intensification of use that requires this building
to be seismically upgraded prior to occupancy.
Submit floor plan of existing structure. Label all uses
and existing materials of construction.
Submit four (# complete sets of construction plans
including:
a, Copy of conditions.
qjj� Soils and liquefaction report.
r-. Energy Calculations.
.) Structural calculation.
Submit a preliminary (taivft) (soils and grsi"p
40ift liquefaction analysis) report prepared by a person
licensed to do so.
Submit a single line drawing of the electrical service.
Show all equipment, conduit and wire sizes and types.
Show the service ground size and grounding electrode.
Submit panel schedule(s) and electrical plans.
Permit required for demolition of existing building(s) on
site,S t- Aw`(a
submit a plan of the heating, ventilating or air
conditioning system. (Clearly identify the location and
rating of the equipment and the sizes and material of all
ducts, registers and the location of all fire dampers) .
Show means of providing mechanical ventilation as
required by the 1991 Uniform Building Code.
Submit gas pipe loads, sizing calculations and
isometrics.
'tAWL10 INDI
CITY OF SAN BERNAR .NO PLANNING CASE G1 93-04/CUP 93-24
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
AGENDA ITEM #�
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS HEARING PAGE 0137
Provide a plot plan showing the location of the proposed
sewer system.
Submit a letter clearly indicating the intended use of
all areas of the building. List the materials to be used
and the projects produced giving the amount of each kept
in the building. If the building is used of more than
one purpose, list all other uses.
• / Submit isometric plans of the cold and hot water and
drain waste and vent systems.
r Show compliance with Title 24 for the physically
handicapped in the following: F-KITK.AW(F- -� �z:;��-, ,=,;;Ir.1G DiNI q-0;
+--r
'-�uc �µF
• Submit plans approved by the County Health Department.
Indicate methods of compliance for sound attenuation
(exterior, interior party walls, floor/ceiling assembly,
ceiling) as per study, U.H.C. , local or State Law.
Show compliance with requirements of high fire areas.
For structures located within high wind areas:
a. Design structure, including roof covering, using
p.s.f. wind load.
City of San Bernardino named as certificate holder for
Worker's compensation Insurance.
Assessor's Parcel Number.
Contractor's City license.
Contractor's State license.
Sewer capacity rights from Water Department, 384-5093,
Neil Thomsen.
sn wnw .rwo�11O°a�.as PLM-Llo 1�)
�r
CITY OF SAN BERNARUINO PLANNING CASE GPA 93-04/CUP 93-24
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
AGENDA ITEM #8
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS HEARING AAGE 01/25/94
/ School fees from Unified School District, 381-1179.
Fire Sprinklers Required:
Plans for fire sprinklers shall be submitted to Fire
Dept. and approved prior to installation. No building
inspections shall be performed beyond "framing and
ventilation" until fire sprinkler plans are approved.
Other: CK,
Deposit:
ruwa�o ,•.,M
Bernardino City Water Departme,.
STI ,DARD REQUIREMENTS
Review of Plans:# CUP 93-24 and GPA 93-04 Date:
Location: SWC of Waterman and Mill Street Approved: _
Type of Construction: -- Cons t. a drive-throug restaurant Denied:
Owner/Developer: Larcon Development, Inc. Continued:
ENGINEERING: Name: Date:
�.S. I.
2--size of Main Adjacent tot ' Project �2
Pressure Regulator Required on Customer's Side on the Meter.
Off-site Water Fa ilities R wired to Meet Peak Flow Demand.
Comments:
ryk
subject to the Rules&Regulations of the Water Department in effect at the time of Application for Water Service.
This Area is Serviced by East Valley Water District and All Fees/Conditions will be Determined by their
Engineering Department.
VATER GUALITY CONTROL DEPARTMENT: Name:„ Date:
R.P.P. Backflow Device Required at Service Connection.
Double Check Backflow Device Required at Service Connection.
Air Gap Required at Service Connection.
No Backflow Device Required.
NVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OFFICER: Na
rr
Date: -
-
Industrial Waste Permit Required by Environmental Contr Officer:**
Grease Trap Required by Environmental Control Office = 177 iv�2
Pre-treatment Required by Environmental Control Officer. �r-
No Regenerative Water Softeners May be Installed Without Prior Approval.
proved by Environmental Control Officer.
:WER CAPACITY INFORMATION: Name: /V e VALSCn Date: 11/17/1.3
No Sewer Capacity Fee Applicable at This Time.
C Sewer Capacity Fee Must Be Paid to the City Water Department for the Amount of Gallons Per
Day. Equivalent Dwelling Units: IV-38
Subject to Recalculation of Fee Prior to the Issuance of Building Permit.
Proof of Payment Must be Submitted to the Building&Safety Department Priorto Issuance ofthe Building Permit.
Breakdown of Estimated Gallons Per Day:
7t n-�:n'aL 7r 1 w; W i CA4 •.,i 6-r U; rc�l1 „ {t! 11 Off"tllqv, rAj �4
a+. a on.-MONO
WAT10.04 s..
ctww..rw.,.c si..ces
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO Cas _1__7
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS Hearing Date I/-19-f7
�Reviewed By
FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:
Provide one extra set of construction plans to Building and Safety for Fire Department use at time of plan check.
Contact Fire Department for specific or detailed requirements- IMPORTANT.
The developer shall provide for adequate Fire Flow as computed by the Fire Prevention Bureau.Fire Flow shall be based on square
footage.construction features and exposure information as supplied by the developer and may betaken from two hydrants.The must
be available prior to placing combustible materials on site.
ACCESS:
Provide two separate.dedicated route-,of ingress/egress to the property entrance.The routes shall be paved.all-weather.
Provide an access roadway to each building for fire apparatus.Access roadway shall have an all-weather driving surface of not
less than 20 feet of unobstructed width.
Extend roadway to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of all single-story buildings.
Extend roadway to within 50 feet of the exterior walls of all multiple-story buildings.
,Pm::Z,Provide"No PARKING"signs whenever parking of vehicles would possibly reduce the clearance of access roadways to less than
the required width.Signs are to read"FIRE LANE-NO PARKING"(All caps)."M.C.Sec. 15.16."
Dead-end streets shall not exceed 500 feet in length and shall have a minimum 35 foot radius turnaround.
The names of any new streets(public or private)shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval.
SITE:
All access roads and streets are to be constructed and usable prior to combustible construction.
Private fire hydrants shall be installed to protect each building located more than 150 feet from the curb line.No fire hydrant should
be within 40 feet of any exterior wall.The hydrants shall be Wet Barrel type.with one 2 IR inch and one 4 inch outlet.and approved
by the Fire Department.Fire hydrants are to be protected form damage by providing suitable traffic barren.The area around the
fire hydrant shall be designated as a"NO PARKING"zone by painting an 8 inch wide.red stripe for IS feet in each direction in
front of the hydrant in such a manner that it will not be blocked by parked vehicles.
Public fire hydrants shall be provided along streets at 300 feet intervals for commercial and multi-residential areas and at 500 feet
intervals for residential areas.Installation shall conform to City specifications and be installed prior to combustible construction
or storage. PR0VIDE F A Or pit , F/
F /YYO R AST &W TrYcl-'
BUILDING: Pgo Tfz.r SiOE 4/' V4*A`�9W 6,r,W, eoRAk-4 44reX&..jW11Weee)
XAddress numerals shall be installed on the building at the front or other approved location in such a manner as to be visible from
the frontage street.Commercial and multi family shall be six inch.single family shall be 4 inch.The color of the numerals shall
contrast with the color of their background.
Identify each gas and electric meter with the number of the unit which it services.
Fire extinguishers must be installed prior to the building being occupied.The minimum rating for any fire extinguisher is 2A 10
B/C.Minimum distribution of fire extinguishers must be such that no interior pan of the building is over 75 feet travel distance from
a fire extinguisher.
Apartment houses with more than 15 units or hotel(motel)with 20 or more units three or more stories in height shall be equipped
with automatic fire sprinklers.
All buildings.other than residential over 5.000 square feet.shall be provided with an automatic fire sprinkler system.designed to
NFPA standards.
Submit plans for the fire protection system to the Fire Department prior to beginning construction on the system.
Tenant improvements in all sprinklered buildings arc to be approved by the Fire Department prior to construction.
Provide an automatic fire alarm fm4uired throughout).Plan must be approved by the Fire Department.prior to installation.
Fire Department connection to)sprinkler system/standpipe system)shall be required at curb lime.
NOTE:The applicant must request.to writing.any change in these or other requirements.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
F/a 170 44.901 FIRE-1.10 u.• a 1- r""'No m
GrAr wiwn�G rhnc[t
CITY OF BAN BERNARDINO BTANDARD QOIREMENTB - POLICE
DEVELOPMENTAL/ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CoXX TTEE
CABS 9 - Z y DATE
COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL VVILDING8
The following special provisions shall apply to all new
commercial or industrial buildings or those with 50% improvement or
alteration:
Garage-type doors
A. Garage type doors which are either rolling overhead,
solid overhead, swinging, sliding, or accordion style
doors shall conform to the following standards:
1. wood doors shall have panels a minimum of - five-
sixteenths (5/16) inch in thickness with the
locking hardware being attached to the support
framing.
2. Aluminum doors shall be a minimum thickness of
.0215 inches and riveted together a minimum of
eighteen (18) inches on center along the outside
seams. There shall be a full width horizontal beam
attached to the main door structure which shall
meet the pilot or pedestrian access door framing
within three (3) inches or the strike area of the
pilot or pedestrian access door.
3. Fiberglass doors shall have panels a minimum of six
(6) ounces per square foot from the bottom of the
door to a height of seven (7) feet. Panels above
seven (7) feet and panels in residential structures
have a density of not less than five (5) ounces per
square foot.
B. Where sliding or accordion doors are used, they shall be
equipped with guide tracks which shall be designed so
that the door cannot be removed from the track when in
the closed and locked position.
C. Doors that exceed sixteen (if) feet in width shall have
two (2) lock receiving points, one located on each side
of the door. Doors not exceeding sixteen (16) feet shall
have one lock receiving point placed on either side of
the door. A single bolt may be used in the center of the
door with the locking point located either in the floor
or door frame header.
D. All overhead or swinging doors shall be equipped with
Standard Requirements - Police
Commercial/Industrial
Page 2
slidebolts which shall be capable of using padlocks with
a minimum nine-thirty-seconds (9/32) inch shackle.
I. The entire slidebolt assembly shall be constructed
of case-hardened steel and shall have a frame a
minimum of . 120 inches in thickness, and a bolt
diameter a minimum of one-half (1/2) inch, and
shall protrude at least one and one-half (1 1/2)
inches into the receiving guide.
2. Slide bolt assemblies shall be attached to the door
with bolts which are nonremovable from the
exterior. Rivets shall not be used to attach such
assemblies.
E. Padlocks used with exterior mounted slide bolts shall
have a hardened steel shackle a minimum of nine-thirty-
seconds (9/32) inch in diameter with heel and toe locking
and a minimum five' (5) pin tumbler operation. The key
shall be nonremovable when in an unlocked position.
F. Doors using a cylinder lock shall have a minimum five (5)
pin tumbler operation with the bolt or locking bar
extending into the receiving guide a minimum of one (1)
inch.
G. Pedestrian access doors contained in garage type doors
shall comply to the standards set forth in the below
section.
Windows/Locke/Doors
(including eli q Glass) :
The following requirements must be met for windows, locks,
doors (including sliding glass) :
A. All movable windows and sliding glass doors shall be
constructed and/or equipped so as to prevent them from
being lifted out of their tracks when in the closed
position.
B. Louvered windows shall not be used when any portion of
the window is less than twelve (12) feet vertically or
six (6) feet horizontally from an accessible surface or
any adjoining roof, balcony, landing, stair tread,
platform, or similar structure.
A. Swinging exterior glass doors, wood or metal doors with
glass panels, solid wood or metal doors, shall be
constructed or protected as follows:
Standard Requirements - Police
Commercial/Industrial
Page 3
1. Wood doors shall be of solid core construction with
a minimum thickness of one and three-fourths (1
3/4) inches. Hollow metal doors shall be
constructed of a minimum equivalent to sixteen (16)
U.S. gauge steel and have sufficient reinforcement
to maintain the designed thickness of the door when
any locking device is installed; such reinforcement
being able to restrict collapsing of the door
around the locking device.
2. Except when double cylinder deadbolts are used or
safety glazing is required by Chapter 54 of the
Uniform Building Code, any glazing installed within
forty (40) inches of any door locking mechanisms
shall be constructed or protected as follows:
a. Fully tempered glass or rated burglary
resistant glazing, or
b. Iron or steel grills of at least one-eighth
(1/8) inch mesh secured with nonremovable
bolts on the inside of the glazing may be
used; and framing for iron or steel grills
shall be by one (1) inch by one-fourth (1/4)
inch flat metal secured by nonremovable bolts,
or
C. The glazing shall be covered with iron or
steel bars of at least one-half (1/2) inch
round or one inch by on-fourth (1 x 1/4) inch
flat metal, spaced not more than five (5)
inches apart and secured with nonremovable
bolts.
d. Items b and c above shall not interfere with
the operation of opening windows if such
windows are required to be openable by the
.. Uniform Building Code.
B. All swinging exterior doors with the exception of
aluminum frame swinging doors shall be equipped as
follows:
1. A single or double door shall be equipped with -a
double or single cylinder deadbolt. The bolt shall
have a minimum projection of one inch and be
constructed so as to repeal cutting tool attack.
The deadbolt shall have an embedment of at least
three-fourths (3/4) inch into the door jamb/strike.
Standard Requirements - Police
Commercial/Industrial
Page 4
The cylinder shall have a cylinder guard, a minimum
of five (5) pin tumblers, and shall be connected to
the inner portion of the lock b y connecting screws
of at least one-fourth (1/4) inch in diameter. All
deadbolts will be equipped with a locked indicator.
Exposed installation screws on double cylinder
deadbolts shall be nonremovable. The provisions of
this subsection do not apply where (1) panic
hardware is required, or (2) an equivalent device
is approved by the enforcing authority. Locking
devices shall be mounted at a height of not less
than thirty (30) nor more than fort-four (44)
inches above the finished floor.
2. Hinges for outswinging doors shall be equipped with
nonremovable hinge pins or a mechanical interlock
to preclude removal of the door from the exterior
by removing the hinge pins.
3. whenever a mail slot is located within forty (40)
inches of the primary locking device on any
exterior door it shall be covered by an interior
hood which will discourage manipulation of the
f primary locking device.
4. Strikeplates shall be constructed of minimum
sixteen (16) U.S. gauge steel, bronze or brass, a
minimum of three and one-half (3 1/2) inches in
length and secured to the jamb with screws a
minimum of two and one-half (2 1/2) inches in
length.
C. All exterior double doors shall be equipped as follows:
1. The inactive leaf of double doors shall be equipped
with automatic releasing metal flushbolts having a
minimum embedment of five-eighths (5/8) inch into
the header and threshold of the door frame or by
pants hardware which contains a minimum of two (2)
locking points, one located at the header, the
other at the threshold of each door.
2. Double doors shall have a full-length astragal,
constructed of steel a minimum of .125 inch thick
which will cover the. opening between the doors.
The astragal shall be a minimum of two (2) inches
wide, and extend a minimum of one inch beyond the
edge of the door to which it is attached. The
astragal shall be attached to the outside of the
active door by means of welding or with
Standard Requirements - Police
Commercial/Industrial
Page 5
nonremovable bolts spaced apart on not more than
ten (10) inch centers.
D. Aluminum frame swinging doors shall conform to the
following:
1. The jamb on all aluminum frame swinging doors shall
be so constructed or protected to withstand one
thousand six hundred (1, 600) pounds of pressure in
both a vertical distance of three (3) inches and a
horizontal distance of one (1) inch each side of
the strike so as to prevent violation of the
strike.
2. Aluminum frame swinging doors shall be equipped
with a two-point locking mechanism consisting of
deadbolt having a minimum bolt projection of one
and one-half (1 1/2) inches, or a hook shaped or
similar bolt that engages the strike sufficiently
to prevent spreading and a metal automatic
releasing threshold bolt having a minimum embedment
of five-eighths (5/8) inch into the floor. The
deadbolt lock shall have a minimum of five (5) pin
tumblers and a cylinder guard and shall be equipped
with a locked indicator.
i
E. Panic hardware, whenever required by the Uniform Building
Code or Title 24 of the California Administrative Code,
shall be equipped and installed- as follows:
1. Panic hardware shall contain a minimum of two (2)
locking points on each door, one located at the
head, the other at the threshold of the door, or
2. On single doors, panic hardware may have one
locking point which is not to be located at either
the top or bottom rails of the door frame. The
door shall have an astragal constructed of steel
.125• inches thick which shall be attached with
nonremovable bolts or welded to the outside of the
door. The astragal shall extend a minimum of six
(6) inches vertically above and below the latch of
the panic hardware. The astragal shall be a
minimum of two (2) inches wide and extend a minimum
of one (1) inch beyond the edge of the door.
3. Double doors containing panic hardware shall have a
full length steel astragal attached to the doors at
their meeting point which will close the opening
Standard Requirements - Police
Commercial/Industrial
Page 6
between them but not interfere with the operation
of either door.
F. Installation and construction of frames and jambs for
exterior swinging doors shall be as follows:
1. Door jambs shall be installed with solid backing in
such a manner that no voids exist between the
strike side of the jamb and the frame opening for a
vertical distance of six (6) inches each side of
the strike. Finger joints are prohibited.
2. In wood framing, horizontal blocking shall be
placed between studs at door lock height for three
(3) stud spaces each side of the door openings.
Trimmers shall be full length from the heads to the
floor with solid backing against sole plates.
G. In multiple occupancy office buildings all entrance doors
to individual office suites shall meet the construction
and locking requirements for exterior doors.
H. In multiple occupancy buildings, interior walls dividing
the individual suites shall not end at the false ceiling
but shall continue to the real roof.
I. Exterior transoms or windows shall be deemed accessible
if less than twelve (12) feet above ground or adjacent to
any pedestrian walkway. accessible windows and transoms
having a pane or opening exceeding ninety-six (96) square
inches, with the smallest dimension exceeding six (6)
inches, and not visible from a public or private
.thoroughfare shall be protected in the following manner:
1. Fully tempered glass or burglary resistant glazing,
or
2. The following window barriers may be used but shall
be secured with bolts which are nonremovable from
the exterior:
a. Interior or exterior steel or iron bars of at
least one-half (1/2) inch round or one by one-
quarter (1 x 1/4) inch flat metal spaced not
more than five (S) inches apart and security
fastened, or
b. Interior or exterior iron or steel grills of `
at least one-eighth (1/8) inch metal with not
I
Standard Requirements - Police
Commercial/Industrial
Page 7
more than a two (2) inch mesh and securely
fastened.
3. The protective bars or grills shall not interfere
with the operation of opening windows if such
windows are required to be openable by the Uniform
Building Code.
J. Roof openings shall be equipped as follows:
1. All skylights on the roof of any building or
premises used for business purposes shall be
provided with:
a. Rated burglary resistant glazing, or
b. Iron or steel bars of at least one-half (1/2)
inch round or one by one-fourth (1 x 1/4) inch
flat metal spaced not more than five (5)
inches on center to cross the narrowest
dimension of the opening being covered. If
the narrowest dimension of that opening
exceeds eighteen (18) inches, cross members
shall be welded into place, not more than
eighteen (18) inches apart beginning with a
cross member at the center of the opening.
Cross members shall be welded to each and
every bar it crosses. The entire bar assembly
shall be mounted inside the skylight and shall
be attached to the building structure by means
of machine bolts spaced not more than sixteen
(16) inches apart or attached by means of an
equivalent method approved by the enforcing
authority, or
C. A steel or iron grill of at least one-eighth
(1/8) inch metal with a maximum two (2) inch
mesh mounted inside the skylight and secured
- by bolts which are nonremovable from the
exterior.
d. These requirements do not apply on any
structure with a height of thirty-five (35)
feet or more where there is no readily
available roof access as determined by the
enforcing authority.
2. All hatchway openings on the roof of any building
or premises used for business purposes shall be
secured as follows:
Standard Requirements - Police
Commercial/Industrial
Page 8
a. If the hatchway is of wooden material, it
shall be covered on the inside with at least
sixteen (16) U.S. gauge sheet steel or its
equivalent, attached with screws.
b. The hatchway shall be secured from the inside
with a slide bar or slide bolts which are
attached by nonremovable bolts.
C. Outside hinges on all hatchway opening shall
be provided with nonremovable pins when using
pin type hinges.
3. All air duct or air vent openings exceeding ninety-
six (96) square inches on the roof or exterior
walls of any commercial building shall be secured
by covering same with either of the following:
a. Iron or steel bars of at least one-half (1/2)
inch round or one by one-fourth (1 x 1/4) inch
flat metal spaced no more than five (5) inches
apart and securely fastened, or
b. Iron or steel grills of at least one-eighth
(1/8) inch metal with a maximum two (2) inch
mesh and securely fastened, or
C. If the barrier is on the outside, it shall be
secured with bolts which are nonremovable from
the exterior.
d. The above must not interfere with venting
requirements, creating potentially hazardous
conditions to health and safety, or conflict
with the provisions of the Uniform Building
Code or Title 19, California Administrative
Code.
K. Permanently affixed ladders leading to roofs shall be
fully enclosed with sheet metal to a height of ten (10)
feet. This covering shall bd locked against the ladder
with a case hardened hasp, secured with nonremovable
screws or bolts and a padlock with a minimum three-eighth
(3/8) inch hardened steel shackle, locking at both heel
and toe, and a minimum five (5) pin tumbler operation
with nonremovable key when in an unlocked position.
Hinges on the cover will be provided with nonremovable
pins when using pin-type hinges.
Standard Requirements - Police
Commercial/Industrial
Page 9
L. A building located within eight (8) feet of utility
poles, trees, or similar structures which allow access to
the building's roof, windows, or other openings shall
have such access area barricaded or fenced with materials
to deter human climbing.
M. The following standards for lighting and address markings
shall apply to commercial buildings:
1. The address number of every commercial building
shall be located and displayed so that it shall be
easily visible from the street. The numerals in
• these numbers shall be no less than six (6) inches
in height and be of a color contrasting to the
background. In addition, any business which
affords vehicular access to the rear through any
driveway, alleyway, or parking lot shall also
display the same numbers on the rear of the
building.
2. Roof top address numbers shall be provided. They
shall be a minimum of three (3) feet in length and
two (2) feet in width and of contrasting color to
the background. Numbers shall be placed parallel
to the street address as assigned. Each building
within a commercial complex shall have its own
address/assigned number affixed to the roof.
3. All exterior doors shall be equipped with a
lighting device which shall provide a minimum
maintained one (1) footcandle of light at ground
level during hours of darkness. Lighting devices
shall be protected by vandal resistant covers.
4. All parking lots and access thereto shall be
provided with a minimum maintained one (1)
footcandle of light on the parking surface from
dusk until dawn.
5. Exterior lighting shall not shine away from subject
property. •
6. All exterior lighting devices are to be "shake"
proof and inaccessible to common reach or climbing
and shall be placed at a height which will fully
illuminate an average adult.
7. All parking spaces must be visible from at least
one point from the interior of the building.
Standard Requirements - Police
r
Standard Requirements - Police
Commercial/Industrial
Page 10
N. Interior night lighting shall be maintained in those
areas that are visible from the street (ground floors
only) .
0. All exterior block wall fencing shall have intervals
providing visibility corridors which will allow
visibility of the interior from outside the wall, and
these visibility corridors shall be placed at regular
intervals. This applies only to block walls visible from
the street.
P. Passenger elevators, the interiors of which are not
completely visible when the car door(s) is open, shall
have mirrors so placed as to make visible the whole of
the elevator interior to prospective passengers outside
the elevator.
Q. when access .to or within a commercial complex is unduly
difficult because of secured openings or where immediate
access is necessary for life saving or fire fighting
purposes, a key override is to be installed in an
accessible location. The key override shall be mastered
to both the fire department and police department keys.
R. Any structure four (4) stories in height or greater will
have a repeater installed in its roof.
Additional Requirements:
II
`
C.0 T
G'' 1393 --J
�.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REFUSE DIVISION
DRC/ERC REQUIREMENTS TRANSMITTAL
TO: PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES
Project Planner 111.,az 1AIt fZ4,v ir DATE:
Project No. V'4y BY: /C•/7� rr�
GERM" - The City of San Bernardino Public Services Department is responsible for
proper collection, disposal, and recycling of solid waste and by-products generated
within the city. Developments are therefore required to plan for the service
arrangements marked below, and establish a refuse account with the Refuse Division
by calling (909) 384-5335 prior to the commencement of construction, remodelling, or
occupation of this project. Other city-provided containers are available to the
applicant's contractor(s) for construction debris as well. Shared containers for
multiple commercial or residential occupants must be paid for by a single - --ount.
Ultimate responsibility for payment rests on the property owner. Service fc_s will
be charged according to those in effect at the time of service.
RESIDENTIAL - Refuse and/or recyclable collection will be made at the curb.
Development must have ample room for storage of all containers out of street view.
❑ Residents to supply their own 32 gallon maximum containers (limit 3 per unit) .
O City to supply one 90 gallon refuse container and possibly one 90 gallon
recycling container per detached dwelling unit or pair of multiple units.
COMMERCIAL - Refuse and/or recyclable collection will be made from either City-owned
or customer-owned containers services by City crews. Container(s) must be kept in
enclosure(s) accessible to city trucks as shown on the approved site plan. Container
access shall not conflict with loading zones. Enclosure gates may not swing into or
directly behind any parking space. Enclosures) shall have a minimum of 6 feet wide
by 12 feet long paved, level (less than 2s grade) area in front of gates) for
container(s) to be serviced from. Overhead wires, signs, and obstructions shall not
be located over container service area(*). Driveway chains must be marked by
reflective material. Customer may lock the enclosures) or driveway gate(*) but must
either unlock by S:00am on service day(s) or provide a key or gate card. No
electronic transmitters will be accepted. Bins may be locked only with standard
padlock numbers assigned at start of service account. The following requirements
apply if checked:
O Truck access not safe or sufficient. Please rearrange as shown on site plan.
XTruck access sufficient as shown on site plan.
Construct 1 enclosure(s) per standard drawing 508 for commercial/industrial
application. Enclosure size "� 4&ft AM "64
0 Construct enclosure(s) per standard drawing 508 with rear pedestrian access
added. Pedestrian access to be 60 higher than pavement on which container rests.
Enclosure size __ plus pedestrian access..
Additional Cosments
eC WALLS,
*OUT ALL CELLS SOLID MIN. DIMENSIONS
� ROUT CLL
BIN SIZE W L
3 CY. V-811
4 CY. 6'- 0"
4'a 6' W0.BUMPER w/ I/2 A.B. 2-3 CY. 6- 6" 15'-0"
L 2- 4 CY. g'-0" 15'_ 0..
`l,rL
3 �Y�„L/wIV i 2• I.0 45iFS
A
N0. 4 bAR
4'2 6'WD. BUMPER
FLUSH WITH PAVEMENT w/I/2'A.B. of lu. i- NO 4 EAR
32'O.C. I o1 4,•O. o
e (COUNTERSUNK)
' 12'STEEL SLEEVES
SEE OETLIL A IN CONCRETE TO • I curb
! CJHC. SLAB w/6�6
SECURE GATES 10/10 w W.F.
(CONCRETE CLASS FIN.GRADE 1
AAA ay c VIP S20-C 2500) i
12'STEEL SLEEVE IN
te'a 12'0 CONCRETE R0.{ CAR CONT.
GATES ( TO SECURE
GATES TYP.)
. 16•
PLAN VI EW _
rt>rc o.F SECTION A-A
' iwl/lt
S's S' C G:TE FRAME GATES
CHARNEL • *
BAR CHANNEL 20a 1'a 3VIS' '0
CROSS BRACING -
1/2' RAIN MOLES 120O.C.
-EEL S'a 3's .IBIS
IST, WELD CAPS .v
1ND SMOOTH
SoaS' M.D BUTT
HINGE BY STANLEY TYPE B-24 METAL DECK 1 II( p'CL AR. � 111 )•
S PER GATE MELD I _1
� t0 GAUGE, PRIMER COATED
TO POSTS • GATE FRAME By VERCO MFG. CC. TACK L �
WELD AT TOP • BOTTOM TO 1/2 0 0 GALV. STEEL� 31/2'GALV. STEEL
CHANNEL at 12'O.C. CANE BOLT, STANLEY N.O. 04ASP, STANLEY
NOTES
DETAI L 'A' ND 1:0 (FRONT ELEVAT I ON917
1. ALL WORK SHALL EE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR
PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION , LATEST EDITION.
2. LOCATION SUBJECT TO THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLANS:
3. WITHIN S' OF COMBUSTIOLE CCNSTRUCTION, INSTALL A AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER G JAL
APPROVED BY FIRE DEPT. �j
4. CONCRETE BLOCK WALLS TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH BUILDING EXTERIOR. .ya-
Y 5. SPECIFIED MANUFACTURER'S SHOWN OR APPROVED EOUAL. - ;oell
OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC WORKS DFPT APPROVED-62 – S ' 8 C' STANDARD
r4 O.
t�.FU�E ENCLO'Sul-tE a-� 508
ATTACHMENT "11 '
VAIN'IR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,INC.
P.O.Box 310.Yamr .Tower.City Hail Plaza.San Bernardino.California 9:10=
Teleohonet9091b8--Q1""
Commerctabindustnai Dc%ciopers•Real Estate Brokers
January 5, 1994
JAN 0 5 SSS�+
Ms. Deborah Woldruff CITY Or 4T BEANAAG:"10
DEPARTh1EWT]F
Associate Planner BUILDING SEq'v
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, California 92401
Dear Ms. Woldruff.
You will find herewithin comments, concerns and suggestions regarding the environmental
impact report which will be used for the General Plan Amendment 39-04 and-Conditional Use
Permit 23-04.
As adjacent property owners we have yet to receive the notification under the General Plan
Amendment 93-04 and Conditional Use Permit 93-24. However, this will confirm we received
notification of the Amendment to the General Plan Amendment 93.04 for the increase in zone
change to 12.72 acres and of which was received the afternoon of December 9, 1993, certainly
l after the meeting of which was the purpose of the notification. Therefore, it is our position that
we as property owners were improperly and unreasonably notified. However, this notification
did allow us to explore the entire attempted zone change. It is apparent as a result of this
proposed Amendment that the 8.8 are parcel, APN 136-391-37 and 136-391-38, borders the
property at 12.72 acres and virtually renders this property inconsistent with the zoning of OIP
which was intended to create corporate and industrial parks along Waterman Avenue with park-
Hke settings and meandering parkways. As a result of this amendment, this property has no
access and no frontage on Waterman Avenue leaving us with an improperly zoned property.
In addition, as you know the State of California encourages cities to refrain from arbitrary and
random patterns of land uses and as you lmow the frontage across the street from this subject
property is zoned commerlcial. Our solution to this matter is as follows:
LOS .ANGELES • SAN BERNARDINO • SACRAMENTO
Ms. Deborah Woldruff
Associate Planner
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES
January S, 1994
Page Two
Permit the EIR for the Conditional Use Permit 93-24 and General Plan Amendment 93-04 to take
place on January 6, 1993 provided and with the condition that the City shall agree to initiate an
amendment to this General Plan Amendment 93-04 to include this 8.8 acre parcel.
Your help in resolving this matter is certainly appreciated.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
V-AMR—D70PMENT COMPANY, INC.
dr-
�TRICIA GREEN.
Administrator
PG:ks
CITY OF SAN BERNARUoNO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
INITIAL STUDY
FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 93-24/
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-04
Project Description/Location: The project is to construct a
3, 000 square foot restaurant with a drive-thru window on a
0.52 acre site located at the southwest corner of Waterman
Avenue and Mill Street. The proposal includes a request to
change the General Plan land use designation from OIP, Office
Industrial Park to CG-1, Commercial General to permit the
restaurant (with drive-thru) subject to an approved
Conditional Use Permit.
Also evaluated in this Initial Study is an alternative to the
proposed General Plan Amendment. The alternative is to expand
the amendment site to about 12.72 acres to include property on
each corner of the intersection.
Date: November 29, 1993
Prepared for:
Larcon Development, Inc.
330 North "D" Street, Suite #110
San Bernardino, California 92401
Prepared by:
Deborah Woldruff
Associate Planner
City of San Bernardino
Planning and Building Services Department
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
mono)
PLAN407 PAGE t OF 1 (4401
Conditional use Permit No. 93-24/General "Plan Amendment No. 93-04
Initial Study for
Environmental Review Committee Meeting of
December 9, 1993
Page 2
A. INTRODUCTION
This report is providea by the City of San Bernardino as
an Initial Study for Conditional Use Permit No. 93-24 and
General Plan Amendment No. 93-04 (which includes the
applicant's proposal and staff's alternative) . Section
2 .0 provides a description of the project and site
characteristics.
As stated in Section 15063 of the California
Environmental Quality Act guidelines, the purposes of an
Initial Study are to:
1. Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as
the basis for deciding whether to prepare an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative
Declaration;
2. Enable an applicant -or Lead Agency to modify a
project, mitigating adverse impact before an EIR is
prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify
for Negative Declaration;
3. Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is
required, by:
(A) Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to
be significant,
(B) Identify the effects determined not to be
significant, and,
(C) Explaining the reasons for determining that
potentially significant effects would not be
significant;
4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the
design of a project;
5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the
finding in a Negative -Declaration that a project
will not have a significant effect on the
environment; ,
6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs;
Conditional Use Permit No. 93-24/General Plan Amendment No. 93-04
Initial Study for
Environmental Reviev Committee Meeting of
December 9, 1993
Page 3
7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could
be used with the project.
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION, ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
1. Project Description, Alternative Description and Location
Project: The applicant's request (referred to as the
Project) is for the approval of a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) to permit the construction of a 3, 000 square foot
restaurant with a drive-thru window. . The 0.52 acre
project site is located at the southwest corner of
Waterman Avenue and Mill Street. The proposal includes
a request to change the General Plan land use designation
from OIP, Office Industrial Park to CG-1, Commercial
General to permit the restaurant (with drive-thru) use
subject to an approve Conditional Use Permit. (See
Exhibit A, Site Vicinity and Land Use Designation Map)
The restaurant will contain 1,370 square feet of dining
area with seating for about 79 persons. About 1,500
square feet will be used for the kitchen, service,
storage room and restrooms. (See Exhibit B, Site Plan
and Exhibit C, Floor Plan and Elevations)
Restaurant operating hours will be from 7:00 a.m. to
11: 00 p.m. , 7 days a week. Meals cooked to order will be
served for breakfast, lunch and dinner with drive-thru
window service available for phone-in and drive-up orders
from the menu. The restaurant will employ about 20
persons with a maximum of 5 employees on the site at any
given time.
Alternative: Staff's alternative (referred to as the
Alternative) to the General Plan Amendment is to expand
the amendment site to about 12.72 acres to include
property on each corner of the intersection. The land
use designation would be changed from OIP to CG-1 on all
of the property included in the Alternative (see Exhibit
D, General Plan Amendment - Alternative Site) .
Staff is proposing the Alternative because changing the
land use designation on the 0.52 acre Project site would
result in a small, isolated commercial district that
would contain a single commercial use.
Conditional Use Permit No. 93-24/General Plan Amendment No. 93-04
Initial Study for
Environmental Reviev Committee Meeting of
December 9, 1993
Page 4
2. Project Site, Alternative Site and Surrounding Area
Characteristic_
Project Site: The 0.52 acre project site is located at
the southwest corner of Waterman Avenue and Mill Street.
The site consists of a flat, vacant, rectangular-shaped
lot. Both Waterman Avenue and Mill Street are classified
as major arterials on the Circulation Plan of the City's
General Plan. Waterman Avenue is also identified in the
General Plan (Figure 18, Urban Design For Public Spaces
Element) as a major pathway into the City from the I-10
freeway. The I-10 freeway is located approximately 1.5
miles south of the project site.
Alternative Site: The 12.72 acre expanded site for the
Alternative is relatively flat and includes property on
all four corners of the Waterman Avenue and Mill Street
intersection. The intersection's northwest corner
contains a vacant commercial building and a vacant lot
located adjacent to the west. Both lots are included in
the expanded site. The northeast corner contains a
service station and convenience store with a commercial
strip center located adjacent to the north. Both lots
are included in the expanded site. The southeast corner
contains an automotive repair shop, vacant land located
immediately to its south and west and a commercial strip
center adjacent to the east. All five lots are included
in the expanded site. The southwest corner includes the
0.52 acre project site for the proposed CUP, a liquor
store and a welding supply store. All three lots are
included in the expanded site.
Surrounding Area: The area surrounding the expanded site
for the Alternative is made up of some vacant parcels,
equipment rental and storage and building supply uses in
an area designated as OIP (see Exhibit A, Site Vicinity
and Land Use Designation Map) . The OIP district includes
much of the property fronting on Waterman Avenue from 3rd
Street (to the north) south to the Santa Ana River Wash.
In the vicinity of the Project and the Alternative sites,
the OIP district is bracketed by the IL, Industrial Light
district to the east and the CH district to the north.
To the north is the Warm Springs Flood Control Channel in
an area designated PFC, Public Flood Control. To the
south, the OIP district along Waterman Avenue is
surrounded by the IL district.
Conditional Use Permit No. 93-24/General Plan Amendment No. 93-04
Initial' Study for
Environmental Review Committee Meeting of
December 9, 1993
Page 5
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
1. Environmental Setting
Other than ground subsidence, the Project and Alternative
sites are not subject to any environmental constraints as
identified in the City's General Plan.
CfTY OF SAN BERNARUiNO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
Application Number. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No. 93-24/General Plan Amendment No.
Project Description: 93-04 See page 3.
Location: See page 3.
Environmental Constraints Areas: See page 5.
General Plan Designation: OIP, Office Industrial Park (existing)
CG-1, Commercial General (proposed)
Zoning Designation: SPP Ahnvc
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain answers.where appropriate.on a separate attached sheet
1_ Earth Resources WiII the proposal result in: Yes No Maybe
a. Earth movement(cut and/or fill)of 10.000 cubic
yards or more? X _
b. Development anftr grading on a slope greater
than 15%natural grade? X
c. Development within the Aquist-Priolo Special
Studies Zone as defined in Section 12.0-Geologic
4 Seismic, Figure 47,of the City's General Plan? X
d. fModification of any unique geologic or physical --
a. Development within areas defined for high potential for
water or wind erosion as identified in Section 12.0-
Geologic 3 Seismic,Figure 53,of the City's General X `
Plan?
f. Modification of a channel,creek or river? X
PLO&M PAGE I OF
5P
9. Development within an area subject to landslides, Yes No
mudslides,liquefaction or other similar hazards as Maybe
identified in Section 12.0-Geologic b Seismic, X
Figures 48,52 and 53 of the Cays General Plan?
h. Other.) Subsidence X
2. Air Resources: Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or an effect upon ambient
air quality as defined by AOMD? X
b. The creation of objectionable odors? 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. Wwr Resources: Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rotes,drainage patterns,or the
rate and amount of surface runoff due to
impermeable surfaces? X
b. Changes in the course or flow of flood waters? _
Q Discharge into surface waters or any alteration --
Of surface water quality? X
d. Charge in the quantity of quality of ground water.) X
e. Exposure of people or property tD flood hazards as
identified in the Federal Emergency Management
Number 050281 insurance ce Rate Map,Comrnurwy Panel
'. .and Section 16.0-
Flooding,Figure 62,of the City's General Plan? X
f. Other?
4. Biological Resources: Could the proposai result in:
a. Development within the Biological Resources
Management Overlay.as identified in Section 10.0
-Natural Resources,Figure 41.of the Citys
General Plant? X
b- Change in ilia number of any unique.tars or
WKWgered sp.cies of giants or their habitat kftx ug
stands of trees? X
a Change in the number of any unique.rare or
endangered species of animals or their habitat? X
d. Removal of viable,mature trees?(6'or greaten X
e. Other.)
S. Noise: Could the proposal result in:
a. ,
kbranes.religious f•alga's Or otherr&ftW eeflt t ve uses
in areas where existintg Or futUm noise lave!:exceed an
Ldn of 65 dB(A)exterior and an Ldn of 45 dB(A)interior
as identified in 144.0.Nome.Figures$7 and X
58 of the
RAi+a.Ot �,1GE t O�_ n�-roi
b.. Development of new or expansion of existing industrial, Yes No Maybe
Commercial or other uses which generate noise levels on
areas containing housing,schools, health care facilities
or other sensitive uses above an Ldn of 65 dB(A)exterior X
or an Ldn of 45 dB(A)interior?
c. Other?
6. Land Use: Will the proposal result in:
a. A change in the land use as designated on the X
General Plan?
b. Development within an Airport►port 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 X
identified on the Land Use Zoning District Map?
d. Other?
7. L1sn4Aade Hazards: Will the project:
a. Use,store,transport or dispose of hazardous or
toxic materials(including but not limited to oil, X
pesticides,chemicals or radiation)?
b. Involve the release of hazardous substances? X
C. Expose people to the potential heatth/satety hazards? X
d. Other?
•. Housing: Vlfin the proposal:
a. Remove existing housing or create a demand
for additional housing? X
b. Other?
9. TMnsportatlon/Chmistlon: Could the proposal,in
comparison with the Circulation Plan as identified in Section
6.0-Circulation of the Cry's General Plan.result in:
a. An increase in traffic that is greater than the land X
use designated on the General Plan?
b. Use of existing.or demand for new.parking
fadkies/structures? X
c. Impact upon existing public transportation systems? X
d. Alteration of present patens of circulation? _
e. Impact to rail or air traffic? _
L pedestrians?Increased ehazards w
y hazards to hites,birydrsts or
g. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? X
h. Significant increase in traffic volumes on the roadways
or intersections? X
L Other?
PUW4A rasE30F_ r�.o�
10. Public Services: Will the proposal impact the following Yes No Ma
beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service? Ybe
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. 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
S. Other?
b. Result in a disjointed pattern at utr7rty extensions? X
C. Require the construction of new facrllties?
12 /esthetics:
a. Could the proposal result in the obstruction of any
scenic view? X
b. Will the visual Onpad of the project be detrimental
to the surrounding area? X
c. Other?
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 X
3.0-Historical,Figure 8,of the City's General Plan? _
b. Alteration or destruction of a historical site,structure or object as listed in the City's Historic Resourm X
Reconnaissance Survey?
c. Other?
9.
PUV"a P.or:.oa_
14. Mandatory Findings of Significance (Section 15065)
The Callfomia Environmental Quality Art 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.
Yes No Maybe
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 X
or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
term,to the disadvantage of long-term,environmental
goals?(A short-term impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief,definitive period
of time while long-term impacts will endure well into
the future.) X
C. Does the project have impacts which are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?(A project may
impact on two or more separate resources when the
impact on each resource a relatively small,but where
the effect of the total of those impacts on the X
environment is significant.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. X
either directly or indirectly?
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(Attach sheets as necessary.) '
See attached sheets.
Exhibits: A. Site Vicinity and Land Use Designation Map
B. Site Plan (for CUP No. 93-24/GPA No. 93-04 - Project)
C. Floor Plan and Elevations (for CUP No. 93-24)
D. General Plan Amendment Proposal - Alternative Site
E. Existing Land Use Survey - Alternative Site
PLU" s rAGEsoF_ (11- i
Conditional Use Permit No. 93-24/General Plan Amendment No. 93-04
Initial Study for
Environmental Review Committee Meeting of
December 9, 1993
Page 11
D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
1. Earth Resources
a.
Project: Because the project site is flat, grading will
be minimal and will not involve any importation of fill
materials. The proposed grading will result in noise and
dust impacts of short duration during grading operations.
Engineering Department Standard Requirements concerning
compliance Section 7012 (c) of the Uniform Building Code,
and Planning Department Conditions of approval requiring
cessation of construction operations and application of
soil binders when wind velocities reach 20 mph or greater
will reduce the short term potential impacts from grading
and construction to a level of insignificance.
Conditions of approval requiring construction and
landscaping of all parking areas with the initial
construction of the restaurant will reduce potential
impacts to a level of insignificance.
Alternative: Much of the Alternative site is developed
with existing commercial uses. Future development of the
vacant parcels for either commercial or office industrial
uses would involve some grading. However, the
Alternative site is relatively flat and grading
activities on any of the vacant parcels most likely would
be minimal.
b. through g.
The Project site and the Alternative site are relatively
flat and do not contain any significant slopes, geologic
features (or other unique physical features) .
Neither site is located in the Alquist-Priolo Special
Studies Zone or in an area defined as having a high
potential for wind or water erosion, landslides,
liquefaction or subsidence. The project will not involve
modification of a channel, creek or river.
h.
The Project site and Alternative site are identified as
being located in an area of potential ground subsidence.
Conditional Use Permit No. 93-24/General Plan Amendment No. 93-04
Initial Study for
Environmental Review Committee Meeting of
December 9, 1993
Page 12
Figure 51 in the General Plan shows the extent of the
historic area of subsidence which is within the thick,
poorly consolidated alluvial and marsh deposits of the
old artesian area north of Loma Linda. Potential
subsidence within this area may be as great as 5 to s
feet if ground water is depleted from the Bunker Hill-San
Timoteo Basin. In 1972, the San Bernardino Municipal
Water District began to maintain groundwater levels from
recharge to percolation basins which filter back into the
alluvial deposits. Since the recharge program began,
problems with ground subsidence have not been identified.
2. Air Resources
a.
Project: The restaurant project will not result in any
substantial air emissions or effect ambient air quality
as defined by AQMD in that the proposal does not meet the
minimum criteria for general development project review
as -defined in the Southern California Association of
Governments Guidance for Implementation of Conformity
Procedures handbook.
Alternative: Presently, the existing commercial uses on
the Alternative site have little or no effect on the air
quality in the area. However, future development of the
vacant parcels marginally could affect air quality
because of increased air emissions resulting from
additional automobiles traveling to and from the expanded
site and increased levels of human activity occurring in
the area.
b.
Neither the Project nor the Alternative are anticipated
to create objectionable odors.
c.
The Project and Alternative sites are not located in the
City's High Wind Area (Figure 59, General Plan) .
Conditional Use Permit No. 93-24/General Plan Amendment No. 93-04
Initial Study for
Environmental Review Committee Meeting of
December 9, 1993
Page 13
3. Water Resources
a. through e.
Development of the Project site and the vacant parcels on
the Alternative site will result in impermeable surfaces
such as driveways and drive aisles, sidewalks, parking
areas and a building pad. As a result, absorption rates
will be decreased thereby increasing surface runoff.
The both sites are located in Zone C (Flood Insurance
Rate Map, Community Panel No. 060281 0020 A) , which is
defined as areas of minimal flooding. As such,
significant flood hazards are not anticipated.
Neither the Project nor the Alternative proposal will
change the course or flow of flood waters, discharge into
surface waters or alter surface water quality, or affect
the quality or quantity of ground water.
Public Works Department Standard Requirements regarding
conveyance of drainage and runoff to an approved public
drainage facility will reduce potential impacts of any
development on the Project and Alternative sites to a
level of insignificance.
4. Biological Resources
a. through d.
Neither the Project site nor the expanded Alternative
site are located in the City's Biological Resources
Management Overlay. as identified in Section 10.0 -
Natural Resources, Figure 41, of the City's General Plan.
The two sites contain no notable flora or fauna. As
such, there is no indication of unique, rare, or
endangered species of plants or animals on either site.
Impacts to biological resources are not anticipated.
S. Noise
a. through c.
The Project is commercial in nature as are the existing
land uses on the Alternative site. Commercial uses
generally are not considered to be "noise sensitive"
uses.
Conditional Use Permit No. 93-24/General Plan Amendment No. 93-04
Initial Study for
Environmental Reviev Committee Meeting of
December 9, 1993
Page 14
As stated, the Alternative could result in future
commercial development on the expanded site. Both the
existing OIP designation and the proposed CG-1
designation would allow the establishment of a noise
sensitive use such as a day care center or a nursery
school. Any outdoor play area associated with such a use
could result in the exposure of children to noise levels
in excess of 65 dB(A) . However, this type of proposal
(or a similar proposal) would require review and approval
by the City and would include environmental review of
potential noise impacts. As such, the potential noise
impacts associated with the establishment of the
restaurant with a drive-thru and the future development
of other commercial uses are considered to be less than
significant.
Noise impacts resulting from construction either of the
restaurant or of any future commercial uses are
considered to be transient and of short duration. Short
term noise impacts from construction are subject to
provisions in the San Bernardino Municipal Code that
regulate the hours during which construction activities
can occur. As such, potential impacts from construction
on the Project site and the Alternative site are
considered to be insignificant and mitigable through
adherence to the City's standard requirements.
The Project and the Alternative will result in the
development of additional commercial uses in the area
which will not generate noise levels above Ldn of 65
dB(A) exterior, 45 dB(A) interior, on noise sensitive
uses.
As noted, the Project and Alternative sites are located
at the intersection of Waterman Avenue and Mill Street
and subject to the noise impacts associated with major
arterial roadways. The Noise Element in the City's
General Plan indicates that existing and future noise
contours along both streets range from 60 to 65 dB(A) and
from 65 to 70 dB(A) , respectively. Acceptable noise
levels for commercial uses are interpreted to range from
50 to 70 dB(A) ("Land Use Compatibility For Community
Noise Environments" table, General Plan, page 14-4) .
Noise levels tend to decrease with distance from a noise
source. The Project site plan places the restaurant pad
approximately 45 feet back from the face of curb (on
Waterman Avenue and Mill Street) . The distance of the
Conditional Use Permit No. 93-24/General Plan Amendment No. 93-04
Initial Study for
Znvironmental Review Committee Meeting of
December 9, 1993
Page 15
restaurant building from both streets combined with
construction techniques will reduce any impacts from
roadway traffic noise on the project site to below a
level of significance.
Any future development on the Alternative site will be
required to reduce interior noise levels to 45 dB(A) or
less.
6. Land Use
a.
Project: The proposed Project would change the current
land use designation of OIP, Office Industrial Park to
CG-1, Commercial General on the 0.52 acre site.
Restaurants with drive-thru windows are not permitted in
the OIP land use designation but are allowed in the CG-1
subject to an approved Conditional Use Permit. Because
the uses on the adjacent parcels are largely commercial
uses, the establishment of the restaurant is not
anticipated to result in any environmental impacts.
Conversely, changing the land use designation on a 0.52
acre site would result in a small, isolated commercial
district containing a single commercial use. This type
of re-zoning, often referred to as "spot zoning", is
discouraged by California State Law because over time, it
generally results in arbitrary and random patterns of
land uses. Establishment of the CG-1 designation on the
0.52 acre project site would in a land use impact;
however, the impact is not considered significant because
the adjacent uses are commercial in nature.
Alternative: Changing the land use designation from OIP
to CG-1 on the 12.72 acre site would result in a small
commercial node at the Waterman Avenue/Mill Street
intersection. The OIP district, which follows the
Waterman Avenue Corridor from 3rd Street south to the
Santa Ana River Wash, does not provide for commercial
uses. The establishment of a CG-1 node at the Waterman
Avenue/Mill Street intersection would provide commercial
services to the OIP district and to the industrial
districts in the surrounding area.
The land uses within the Alternative site are commercial
in nature and as such, the CG-1 appears to be a more
• Conditional Us* Permit No. 93-24/General Plan Amendment No. 93-04
Initial Study for
Environmental Review Committee Meeting of
December 9, 1993
Page 16
appropriate designation (see Exhibit E, Existing Land Use
Survey - Alternative Site) . The Alternative site
contains a mix of commercial retail and service uses
(e.g. , restaurants, auto repair shop, gas station,
convenience store, etc. ) which are not permitted in the
OIP. These uses would be made more conforming under the
CG-1. All of the lots except one (which is an existing,
legally non-conforming lot. of record in the OIP due to
lot size) meet the CG-1 minimum area requirement of
10, 000 square feet (see Exhibit D, General Plan Amendment
Proposal - . Alternative Site) .
Establishment of the Alternative proposal is not
anticipated to result in any land use impacts. The
existing commercial uses are more intense than many of
the uses permitted in the OIP because they generate more
people and traffic. In this instance, the commercial
activities are confined to a major intersection which has
the capacity to accommodate the additional traffic and
provides adequate access to the commercial uses. For
this reason, the commercial uses are considered to be
compatible with the uses permitted in the OIP district.
b. and c.
The Project and Alternative sites are not located in an
Airport District or within the Foothill Fire Zones A, B
or C.
7. Man-Made Hazards
a. and b.
The Project does not propose to use, store, transport,
dispose or release any hazardous or toxic materials or
substances. Future establishment of any such use on the
Project site or on the expanded Alternative site would be
subject to the requirements of the San Bernardino County
Department of Environmental Health Services (DENS) .
c.
Any construction on the Project site or the Alternative
site will be in accordance with all applicable Uniform
Building and Fire Codes and as such, will not expose
people to potential health or safety hazards.
Conditional use Permit No. 93-24/General Plan Amendment No. 93-04
Initial Study for
Environmental Reviev Committee Meeting of
December 9, 1993
Page 17
8. Housing
a.
The Project and Alternative are commercial in nature and
will not impact on housing stock or needs.
9. Transportation/Circulation
a.
The City's Traffic Engineer has determined that the
existing, proposed and future commercial uses associated
with the Project and the Alternative will not generate a
sufficient number of trips to cause a significant impact
on the adjoining street system. Potential impacts are
considered to be insignificant.
b.
Project: The Project will create a demand for 29 new
parking spaces. As proposed, the project provides 30
spaces which will adequately mitigate the potential
impact.
Alternative: Any future development or establishment of
commercial uses on the expanded site will be required to
provide adequate parking as specified in the Development
Code.
c.
Due to the limited size of the Project and the
Alternative, significant impacts to the public
transportation system are not anticipated.
d.
Neither the Project nor the Alternative will alter the
present circulation patterns of the immediate area other
than to allow additional access points onto Waterman
Avenue and Mill Street as ,necessary. No significant
impacts are anticipated.
Conditional Use Permit No. 93-24/General Plan Amendment No. 93-04
initial Study for
Environmental Reviev Committee Meeting of
December 9, 1993
Page 18
Go
Due to the nature of the Project and the Alternative no
impacts to rail or air traffic are anticipated.
f.
The development of the Project and any future commercial
development on the expanded site could potentially
increase safety hazards to vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians as a result of additional access points onto
the roadways. All new driveways will be built to city
standards and sight clearances will be maintained.
Potential impacts are considered insignificant.
I
g•
Waterman Avenue and Mill Street are currently improved to
their full widths and based on the daily trip ends (and
A.M. and P.M. peak hour trip ends) and no significant
impacts are anticipated.
h.
Due to the small size of the Project and the Alternative,
no significant increases to traffic volumes are
anticipated.
10. Public Services
a. through f.
The Project and Alternative sites are located in an area
for which police and fire protection and medical aid and
solid waste services are available. Development of the
restaurant on the Project site is not anticipated to
result in any impacts. All but 1.51 acres of the
Alternative site are developed with commercial uses and
new development on the remaining vacant land is not
anticipated to result in any impacts.
Area schools will not be impacted in that neither
proposal includes any residential . uses and school
mitigation/impact fees are required for all new
development projects.
Conditional Use Permit No. 93-24/General Plan Amendment No. 93-04
Initial Study for
Environmental Review Committee Meeting of
December 9, 1993
Page 19
Establishment of the Project and the CG-1 land use
designation are not anticipated to impact the area's
parks or recreation facilities.
11. Utilities
a. through c.
The Project and Alternative sites are located in an area
wherein all public utilities are available. The
establishment of the Project and the CG-1 designation
will not result in a disjointed pattern of utility
extensions or require the construction of new facilities.
12. Aesthetics
a.
Scenic views in the area are of the foothills and
mountains to the north. The Project and Alternative
sites are located at the intersection of Waterman Avenue
and Mill Street. The proposed restaurant (Project) will
be a 1 story building with a small attic space. The
building will not exceed 30 feet in height which is the
maximum height allowed in the CG-1. The existing
buildings on the Alternative site are 1 story in height.
Any new development on the remaining vacant land within
the Alternative site will be reviewed for compliance with
the 30 foot maximum height requirement. As such, the
Project and the Alternative will not block any of the
scenic views of the foothills and the mountains to the
north.
b.
The architecture of the proposed restaurant (Project) and
any new development on the Alternative site must comply
with the Development Code Design Guidelines for
commercial uses. Landscaping and screening requirements
are also applicable. Site design consistent with the
design guidelines and landscaping standards will not
result in a visual impact to the surrounding area.
Conditional Use Permit No. 93-24/General Plan Amendment No. 93-04
Initial study for
Environmental Reviev Committee Meeting of
December 91 1993
Page 20
13. Cultural Resources
a. and c.
The Project and Alternative sites are not located in an
archaeological sensitive area as identified in the
General Plan, Section 3. 0, Historical, Figure 8.
Neither the Project nor the Alternative impact any
historical site or object.
14. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (Section IS065)
a. through d.
The responses to the checklist questions above indicate
that the proposed retail center will not result in any
significant impacts. No cumulative impacts resulting
from the proposal have been identified.
D. DETERA41HATION
On the basis of this initial study,
® The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARA•
TION will be prepared.
The Proposed Project could have a signdicent effect on the environment,although there will not be a significant
effect in this case because the mitigation measures described above have been added to the project q
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
Sandra Paulsen, Senior Planner
Chairperson, D/ERC
Name and Title
Signature
Date: December 9. 1993
� 1
�r RA*M PAW�OF�. (1140
LANIb1l o5d
JERRY ROSS
1964 WESTWOOD BLVD. , STE. 405
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025. - .� -
-_
January 14 , 1994 a JAN 1 8 iyv;�
Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner 0EFAF.7."ENT
City of San Bernadino -- =u
Department of Planning and Building Services
San Bernadino, CA 92418-0001
Re: GPA No. 93-04
Dear Ms. Woldruff:
Thank you for your letter of December 6, 1994 , regarding the above
referenced GPA. I want to state to you that I am in agreement with
the staff's recommendation for the alternative amendment to the
applicant's request.
I believe that the planning commission is advocating the proper use
for the designated 12.72 acres rather than solely for the
applicants 0.52 acre project site. I do not believe that the GPA
should be approved for only an isolated piece of property. Staff
findings are correct to avail the four corners to provide the
commercial infrastructure to support the surrounding area.
I agree with the Planning staff's review and conclusion, as to the
inclusion of my property (Assessor Parcel Number 136-393-06) , and
the other recommended properties in GPA No. 93-04.
I am sorry that I am unable to attend the scheduled meetings
concerning the GPA in person. You are however encouraged to put
this letter in your files for the proper use to indicate my
agreement with the findings, to the Mayor and Common Council.
Please keep me informed of this project and its resolution as it
moves through the pipeline.
Thank you for you indulqence.
Si cefely
-:J rrvoss
tAMIbj l if5b
1
murris monten smith
�,� � ti.•.��.ul� l G . Yz�i�'
I l
_ � �3 -� �
�; .L�-
«y
/p, C7
A44
l
CIL, A
300 east baseline, claremcnt, califarnia 91711
TO: City of San Bernardino
RE: General Plan Amendment No. 93-04
& C.U.P. No. 93-24
ATTN: Planning Commission January 20, 1994
Dear Planning Commission Members,
My name is T.M. Sirkin and I reside at 10314 Norris Avenue,
Unit K, Pacoima, CA, 91331 . I am the owner of a
26, 000 square feet of land on the approximately
which abuts up to the Northwest side sofSthe flood ocontrol�channel
northwest of the intersection of Mill and Waterman Streets.
I would like to go on record as saying that I support both the
applicant's proposed plan amendment and staff's
proposal
include all four corners. I think it is an excellent ideatand,in
my opinion, would be a tremendous help to this intersection
and the surrounding area, which needs a lot of help.
Thank you for contacting me over this matter. In case it may
be needed, my telephone number at my office is (818) 899-8963.
Res lly,
T.M. (TED) Sirkin
o � q# =_
JAN ? 1g 9 �D
.
"IT"' jF SAN 3ERNAROr•jo
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNI-G&
BUILOWG SERVICES
CITY OF SAN BERT' ARDINO - REQUEST k-OR COUNCIL ACTION
From: Al Boughey, Director Subject: Initiation of a General Plan Amendment
to the Land Use Plan Map, northeast corners of
Dept: Planning and Building Services Waterman and Mill .
Date: February 18, 1994 MCC meeting of March 7, 1994
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
None
Recommended motion:
That the Planning Division be directed to prepare a General Plan Amendment to
consider changing the land use designation from OIP, Office Industrial Park,
to CG-1, Commercial General or IL, Industrial Light, on 8.8 acres , located on
the north side of Mill Street approximately 175 feet east of Waterman Avenue.
I
AL BO GHEY ignature,---�
Contact person: Al Boughey Phone: 5357
Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: #1
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. Description)
Finance:
Council Notes:
75-0262 " Agenda Item No.
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: Initiation of a General Plan Amendment to the Land
Use Plan Map
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of March 7, 1994
REQUEST AND LOCATION
The request is for the Mayor and Common Council to direct staff to
initiate a General Plan Amendment to consider the appropriate land
use designation for an 8.8 acre site located on the north side of
Mill Street approximately 175 feet east of Waterman Avenue. The
site is currently designated OIP, Office Industrial Park. Staff
would evaluate redesignating the site either as CG-1 (Commercial
General) or IL (Industrial Light) or maintaining the status quo of
OIP. (See Exhibit 1, Site Vicinity and General Plan Land Use
Designation Map; and, Exhibit 2, Site Plan)
BACKGROUND
At their meeting of January 25, 1994, the Planning Commission
recommended that the Mayor and Common Council direct staff to
initiate a General Plan Amendment to consider changing the land use
designation on the 8.8 acre site from OIP, Office Industrial Park
to CG-1, Commercial General. The 8.8 acre site is located east and
adjacent to the 12.72 acre amendment site for GPA No. 93-04 (OIP to
CG-1) . During the public hearing for GPA No. 93-04, Patricia Green
of Vanir Development Company, Inc. expressed concern that the 8.8
acres should also be changed from OIP to CG-1. Written comments
received from Ms. Green at the Planning Commission meeting are
contained in Exhibit 3.
KEY POINTS
There are several key issues identified as follows:
The purpose of the Alternative amendment proposal for GPA
No. 93-04 is to create commercial node at the
Mill Street/Waterman Avenue intersection that will serve
the surrounding industrial areas. (Refer to Exhibit 2
which shows the 8.8 acre site, the GPA No. 93-04 site and
the existing land uses. )
GPA No. 93-04 primarily consists of existing commercial
uses and a small amount of vacant acreage.
The 8.8 acre site was not included in GPA No. 93-04
because its addition to staff's expanded Alternative
amendment site would result in an intense commercial area
Initiation of a General Plan Amendment
to the Land Use Plan Map
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
March 7, 1994
Page 2
of about 21.52 acres (12.72 acres + 8.8 acres = 21.52
acres) which was not addressed in the Initial Study.
- Because the of surrounding existing land uses and land
use districts adjacent to the 8.8 acre site, staff feels
that a proposal for redesignation should evaluate the
appropriateness of the CG-1, IL or OIP designations.
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OPTIONS
1. The Mayor and Common Council may direct staff to initiate a
General Plan Amendment to consider redesignating the 8.8 acre
site either as CG-1 or IL or maintaining the status quo of
OIP.
2. The Mayor and Common Council may deny the request for staff to
initiate a General Plan Amendment for the 8.8 acre site and
allow the property owner to file an application.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission also voted [5 aye (Romero, Stone, Strimpel,
Thrasher and Traver) , 1 nay (Affaitati) and 4 absent (Cole,
Gaffney, Gonzales and Ortega) ] to recommend that the Mayor and
Common Council direct staff to initiate a General Plan Amendment
for the consideration of changing the designation from OIP to CG-1
on 8.8 acres located east and adjacent to the Alternative amendment
site for GPA No. 93-04.
COSTS TO CITY
Planning Division staff estimates that it will cost approximately
$3,000 for staff to complete an amendment including preparation of
the environmental review, staff reports to the Planning Commission
and Mayor and Common Council, resolution and map change. This
amount does not include review by any other departments or
divisions.
Initiation of a General Plan Amendment
to the Land Use Plan Map
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
March 7, 1994
Page 3
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council direct staff to
initiate a General Plan Amendment to consider changing the land use
designation from OIP, Office Industrial Park to either CG-1,
Commercial General or IL, Industrial Light on 8.8 acres located on
the north side of Mill Street approximately 175 feet east of
Waterman Avenue.
Prepared by: Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner
for Al Boughey, Director
Planning and Building Services
Exhibit 1: Site Vicinity and General Plan Land Use Designation Map
Exhibit 2: Site Plan
Exhibit 3: Comments Received
Exhibit " JG5
F F SAN BERNARG,..O icinity and
RAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION MaP Adopted����" 3 Panel No.
Co�
c i�°�
5 a�G P An
3 KM
G
W
� T TEREY
S
U N
' w' utir
T
WPM
T
T 9C
INALTO
AN
wE
S
J IA sr O
i rewM ..J
T
I
Val ST
MILL M I ~
w
m
F W jf
p_,
SAN INTO
CHjO
Exhibit "2"
SITE PLAN (8.8 ACRE SITE)
Gv COMMERCIAL
STORAGE g
GPA NO. 93-04 VEHICgL RENTAL
(OF TO CG-1) C
SITE
RETAIL CENTER
VA
VACANT BLDG
A S T
VACANT VA ANT C S R
PROP O E R AURANT MILL STREET
CUP 93-24 SITE
VACANT ? AUTO
REPAIR RETAIL CENTER
uQUOR W
INDUSTRIAL STORE a VACANT
CENTER ELDIN Z
SUPPLY a
2 COMMERCIAL STORAGE
GPA NO. 93-04
3 OIP TO CG-1)
N
Exhibit "3a"
V:I-NIR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,INC.
P.O.Box 310,Vanir Tower,City Hall Plaza,San Bemardino,California 92402-0310
Telephone:(909)883-9477
Commercial/Industrial Developers•Real Estate Brokers
January 25, 1994
Mr. Al Boughey, A.I.C.P. ��
r
Director F' I
t:
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES JAN �M;?1
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
300 North "D" Street CITY OF 5APV
DEF:R'fhF:fVT C i=Pi. `yr�^;u &
San Bernardino, California 92418-0001 1,UILD!NG JG;1
J
Dear Mr. Boughey:
The Planning Commission for the City of San Bernardino is currently reviewing a proposed
amendment for changing existing zoning of an approximate .52 acre site from Office Industrial
Park (OIP) to Commercial General (CG-1).
Staff found in their opinion that this single isolated zone change "could be detrimental to the
public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City in that it would result in a
disjointed pattern of land use."
Staff recommends on the other hand to add an additional 12.72 acres of land to the change of
zone from OIP to CG-1 and felt it would create a commercial node that would not be detrimental
to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.
As adjacent land owners, we concur with Staffs findings. However, we believe that their
findings should be extended to include the adjacent 8.8 acre parcel in the commercial node being
created by the City for the very reasons concluded by Staff in its Positive Findings to change the
land use of the adjacent 12.72 acres.
Staff is reluctant to include the 8.8 acres in the General Plan Amendment as it "would result in
an intense commercial area rather than a node.* Staff concludes that a node is okay at 12.72
acres but not okay at 21.5 acres. We believe on the other hand with the several hundred acres
zoned OIP and industrial in the area that 21.5 acres would remain a node and would have no
adverse affect.
LOS :\NGELE-S • S.-\\ BERNARDINO • SACIZAN- IENTO
Exhibit "3b"
j
i
I
Mr. Al Boughey, A.I.C.P.
Director
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
January 25, 1994 i
Page Two
In addition, our planning shows a maximum development of approximately 97,000 square feet
where Staff has calculated that our development would be approximately 287,496 square feet of
new commercial space which is virtually impossible for this property and is approximately four
times more than the 12.72 acres current use.
Additional considerations:
1. The requested zone change is consistent with our own plan for development of the
property.
2. The property is fronting on one of the main entrances to Norton Air Force Base and on
the major north/south artery of the City to the San Bernardino mountains, both of which
will require commercial developmem.
3. Rezoning the 8.8 acre property from OIP to commercial use is consistent with all the uses
surrounding the area.
Your consideration to include our adjacent 8.8 acres into the proposed General Plan Amendment
will be greatly appreciated.
Respectfully,
VANIR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC.
kd
BENJAMIN DOMINGUEZ
Senior Vice President
BD:ks
i
i
Exhibit "3c"
I
Vanlr Development Company, Inc. hereby re- I
nests that the Planning g Commission include the
adjoining 8. 8 acres into the proposed alternative
amendment ro osal to General Plan Amendment
p P
No. 93-04.
i
1
i '
EXISTING LAND USE SURVEY Exhibit 113d"
ALTERNATIVE SITE
!.G COMMERCIAL
�G STORAGE s
vE�ICAL RENTAL
VACANT
- REC�uEs��
GAG Amm noW
RETAIL CENTER VAC T
VACANT BLDG
GA TATI
VACANT VA ANT 3 NV. TOR
PROPOSED RESTAURANT MILL STREET
CUP 93-24 SITE
rlfACA(l VACANT ? RETAIL CENTER
UOUOR W INOUSTRIAI S70AE Q T
CENTER ELD Z
SUPPLY Q 2 OMMERCIAL STORAGE
Q
W
a
3
N
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PPOPOSAL Exhibit "3e"
ALTERNATIVE SITE
olP j
f
OIP GAG
5
PFC �
Ot P 70
OIP TO
CG-1
OIP TO
CH CG-1
MILL STREET
To TO w
OI TO CG- 1 '
- 1 w
a
I Z I IL
OIP
�
- N
0
Exhibit "3f"
wa"_..T.mAN AV
I
—
��,�' Clilltl ! I !II IIIIIIII!illl!! '�\�--
$It - - •- _
1• � \:1,•P . .�:•. a..lw.c ,gal.�, � •
3 d I 1J`II jlll ljljj IlMill I
I '. �_ - , 1 /ems• a.
O
--
t ' C +'• •�� �.
1 =� �I= II11111111111111111'11111 111111111 lid,
� �•t want I _ - -
I i
:1, ,,,,.
I I
So V ..T�d_►_w=�9aiv O N a w •� -t r
O
W o8yy p '� C i
tr p $ n rwnuot ra. F �° L �
• e
v 171 � Z
r s
v