HomeMy WebLinkAbout39-Planning
-
'''"'
- ,. (' OF SAN BERrQRDINO - REQUEST Q.R COUNCIL ACTION
From: Larry E. Reed, Director
Subject: Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 90-2
Dept: Pl anni ng and Bui 1 di ng Servi ces
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
September 5, 1990
Date: August 22, 1990
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
On August 7, 1990, the Planning Commission denied by a unanimous vote Conditional
Use Permit No. 90-2, to allow a tunnel carwash and storage building to be constructed
at an existing gas station.
;;.:)
1-,' i'JI
1...,) C"
C)
j,,\
~:..P, J
1;....
!-',J C:'
I:. ,~ ~~
Gi
Recommended motion:
That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor and Common Council deny the appeal and
deny Conditiona~ Use Permit No. 90-2. (Supports Staff recommendation and Planning
Commission's action.)
or
That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor and Council approve Conditional Use
Permit No. 90-2 in concept and refer the matter back to Staff to develop positive
Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval. (Sup~s Appellant's request.
Larry E. Reed
Contact person: Larry E. Reed
Supporting data attached: Staff Report
Phone:
384-5357
3
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. Descriotionl
I """~;I J "
j
j
",0262 1
,
.../
. . Finance:
l'
I
,
--I---
I~ ._
. C,ITy,'OF SAN BERroRDINO - REQUEST OR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
Subject: Appeal of the Planning Commissions denial of
Conditional Use Permit No. 90-2, requesting approv-
al of a tunnel carwash and storage building to be
constructed at 1930 South Waterman Avenue at an
existing service station.
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
September 5, 1990
REOUEST
The applicant, Shell oil Company, through their consulting
engineers, Western Sensystem Engineering Company,
Incorporated, (WSECO) is appealing the denial of Conditional
Use Permit No. 90-2 by the Planning commission. The
applicant requests the Mayor and Common Council approve
Conditional Use Permit No. 90-2, to allow the construction of
a self-service drive-thru tunnel carwash and storage building
at the existing Shell Service Station on the northwest corner
of Waterman Avenue and Hospitality Lane. (See Exhibit A -
Letter of Appeal.)
BACKGROUND
On April 6, 1982, the Shell service station was approved by
the Planning Commission. On February 7, 1984, the service
station was given approval to expand services by adding a
food market. Conditional Use Permit No. 90-2, to add the
carwash and storage building to the site, was submitted to
the City January 9, 1990. On May 31, 1990, the Environmental
Review Committee (ERC) determined the project would cause no
significant environmental impacts and recommended the adop-
tion of a Negative Declaration. On June 28, 1990, the site
plan for the project was reviewed by the Development Review
Committee and was cleared onto the Planning Commission. There
was no recommendation by the Development Review Committee for
approval or denial of the project.
75.0264
'1Q
.'
o 0
Appea1 of the P1anninq Commissions denia1 of Conditiona1 Use
Permit No. 90-2
Mayor and Common Counci1 Meeting of September 5, 1990
Page 2
On August 7, 1990, the Planning Commission held a properly
noticed public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 90-2.
During the public hearing, discussion ensued relative to the
intent of the General Plan which requires that buildings in
the Tri-CityjCommercenter and Club Area (Commercia1 Regional-
3 land use designation) convey a high quality "corporate
park" character... (Policy 1.17.31). The Commission discuss-
ed the issue of compatibility of the proposed drive-thru
carwash with the high quality office buildings, hotels and
restaurants which surround the site. It was concluded that
the proposed changes at the service station were not compati-
ble with the character of adjacent development and not
consistent with the intent of the General Plan. Based on the
discussion and in agreement with the Staff recommendation, a
motion for denial was made and seconded then carried by a
unanimous vote. (See Exhibit B - Staff Report to the Plan-
ning Commission.)
OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL
The Mayor and Council may deny the appeal and deny Condition-
al Use Permit No. 90-2 or the Mayor and Council may uphold
the appeal and approve Conditional Use Permit No. 90-2 in
concept and refer the item back to Staff to develop positive
Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Mayor and Council deny the appeal
and deny Conditional Use Permit No. 90-2.
Prepared by:
Sandra Paulsen,
Senior Planner
for Larry E. Reed,
Director of P1anning and Building Services
Exhibits:
A - Letter of Appeal
B - Staff Report to the Planning Commission
C - Official Notice of Public Hearing before
the Mayor and Common Council
M&CCAGENDA:CUP90-2M&CC
, --
r
W,~C()
o
EXHIBIT "A"
o
Covino. CA 91722
(818) 967-2625
~ (818) 967-1846
August 9, 1990
rD) ~ ru.f:. i5 n \V7 ~ ri11
UlJ L:, ,-') ,", U \., "" L!!)
AUG 1 4 1990 ~.
HON. MAYOR & COUNCIL MEMBERS
Ci ty of San Bernardino
300 North '0' Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
CITY Of SAN E::i:A.;\lAP'~~li:~l)
DEP,4.F."'r,~ENT OF ?'-.i1,Nt-!:NG r..
e:;iLD;i\;C:" SC;,';W'::::3
subject: Appeal for CUP 90-02
Fascia lift of existing SHELL Service station and
addition of Free Car Wash and relocating the
storage Buildings at 1930 S. Waterman Avenue
HON. SirsjMadams,
Shell oil Company through their consulting engineers
Western sensystem Engineering Company Inc. (WSECO) applied
for Conditional Use Permit 90-02 for upgrading their SHELL
SERVICE STATION located at 1930 S. Waterman Avenue crossing
of Hospitality Lane in the City of San Bernardino to a high
quality development complimenting the new development of the
neighborhood. This upgrading includes the fascia lift of
existing food mart and canopy, addition of a self serve
tunnel Free Car Wash, relocating of existing Storage
building, closing of one driveway and converting this into
landscaping, additional landscaping on both Waterman and
Hospitality streets.
Since November 1989, we have several meetings with
Planning Department and attended EIR and OCR meetings: and
satisfied all their requirements including Traffic, Fire,
all Municipal Codes, Land use, Noise, Landscaping, Etc.
Further, We would like to point out that car wash is also a
permitted Land use for CR-3 Commercial Zone which is the
zoning of this parcel.
Pursuant to noise requirements of the city, we have
generated an acoustical study and as per their
recommendations, satisfied the City'S noise requirement by
eliminating the Blower/dryers from the car wash. However,
at the City's request we have also taken another additional
major to install a 10' high wall to further reduce the noise
level. Ci ty' s planning department, in their staff report,
mentioned that "a block 10' high would detract from the high
quality development." We hereby propose to delete this
proposed wall as it is not required as per Acoustical study.
Further, we are willing to take other majors as recommended
by the Acoustical study to make sure that this project will
be of a high quality development to upgrad~ the area.
Western Sensystem Engineering Co. Inc.
613 Eestbury Ave.. Covine. CA 91723. Design Off.: 536 W Arrow Hwv.. Suite 208. Covine. CA 91722
.
..
.. --
.:
o
o
We believe that we have fulfilled all the requirements
of the City and being a good citizen of the City, should be
allowed to contribute for the betterment of the city and its
residence. Hence, we hereby appeal to the Mayor and Council
of the city of San Bernardino and request for approval of
this project of high quality development for betterment and
cleaner environment which will enhance the quality of life
and provide the convenience of free car wash to the local
residence and businesses. Further completion of this
project would provide unique and high quality architecture
design of the service station which is the forefront of the
industry and compliment the high quality development of the
neighborhood.
Thank you.
Very Truly Yours
For Shell Oil Company,
eC~_ --- -
P. Kumar
President, WSECO.
Enclosure: $100.00 Check No. 3284
Copy to: Mr. Mike Claudio
Shell Oil Company
EXHIBIT "B"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
WARD
B
8-7-90
3
r-;:::;.: r
APPLICANT; WSECO
W 536 West Arrow Hwy. #208
tn Covina, CA 91722
II( CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-02 OWNER: Shell Oil Company
(.) 511 No. 3rookhurst Street
'" Anaheim, CA 92803
/"""'.
To add a self-serve tunnel car wash and a stcrage building to the site
ti of an existing gasoline station/food mart uncer the authority of Municipal
Code, Section 19.83.300.
W
;:)
"
W
II:
-
II(
W Located on 0.59 acres on the northwest corner of Waterman Avenue and
II:
II( Hospitality Lane at 1930 South Waterman Avenue.
\......I \.
r r EXISTING
GENERAL PLAN
PROPERTY LAND USE ~_~NG commerf,~~~~t~~~ I
Subj-ect Gas station/food mart
North foIotel CR-3 Commercial Regional
South Gas station CR-3 Commercial Regional
East Multi-story Commercial CR-3 Commercial Regional
office
I~est Motel CR-3 Commercial Regional
~~ri~~IC ~ YES FLOOD HAZARD 0 YES 0 ZONE A ( SEWERS: [ll YES )
o NO ZONE; tJ NO OZONE B o NO
I HIGH FIRE 0 YES I AIRPORT NOISE! o YES I REDEVELOPMENT Kl YES
HAZARD ZONE; UiI CRASH ZONE; PROJECT AREA:
NO [} NO Southeast Ind. o NO
-- -- I'''rk
r
..I o NOT o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z 0 APPROVAL
j! APPUCABLE EFFECTS WITH 0
MITIGATING MEASURES !i 0
Ztn NOE.I.R. CONDITIONS
WCJ II.Q
:EZ o EXEMPT o E.I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO II.Z UiI DENIAL
Z6 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS II(W
.OZ WITH MITIGATING til
11:- MEASURES 0 CONTINUANCE TO
-II.
> rn NO SIGNIACANT o SIGNIACANT EFFECTS 0
Z (.)
W EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E.R.C. W
\. MINUTES II: \.
t..- -
an CII' .... .......,
---
PLAN-8.D2 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-10)
j;)
.
o
,..
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 90-02
~
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
8
8-7-90
2
,..
REQURST
The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit under
the authority of Municipal Code Section 19.83.300, to add a self-
service car wash and storage building to an eXisting gasoline
station/food mart in the CR-3, Commercial Regional, General Plan
land use district.
SITE LOCATION
The site
corner of
described
of the proposal is 0.59 acres located at
waterman Avenue and Hospitality Lane,
as 1930 South Waterman Avenue.
the northwest
and further
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposal is consistent with the Municipal Code and in
conformance with the General Plan as shown in Attachment A.
CAr.IFORNIA RNVTRONMENTAT. QUALITY ACT STATUS
An Initial StUdy was prepared by staff and presented to the
Environmental Review Committee on May 31, 1990. A Negative
Declaration was recommended. The Initial Study was made
available for public review and comment from June 7, 1990 to June
27, 1990. No comments were received.
BACKGROUND
The existing gasoline station
Conditional Use Permit No. 82-14
was subsequently approved in
gasoline station on February
Permit No. 84-01.
was originally approved under
on April 6, 1982. The food mart
conjunction with the existing
7, 1984, under Conditional Use
ANALYSIS
Permitted Use
The proposed self-service tunnel car wash and
conjunction with the gasoline station/food
uses in the CR-3, Commercial Regional, land
approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
storage building in
mart are permitted
use district with
...
=.tt.= 't>.. L....
PLM-UI PAGE 1 OF 1 f4<<lI
<
0 0
r
< CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE CUP 90-02
-
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 8
OBSERVATIONS HEARING DATE 8-7-90
PAGE J
,.
"
"
Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses
~
Development surrounding the site and along Hospitality Lane to
the west is characterized by high quality hotels/motels, multi-
story office buildings and restaurants. The Waterman Avenue off-
ramp from the Interstate 10 is located less than one eighth of a
mile to the south of the project site. The General Plan
identifies this Off-ramp as a major entry node which serves as a
major access to the Hospitality district as well as for the
entire city. As such, it is important that development in this
key area of the city maintain a high quality appearance and
compatibility with surrounding land uses.
The self-service car wash is compatible with the gasoline station
located across waterman Avenue to the south. However, the self-
service car wash is not characteristic of the high quality
hotels/motels and restaurants found in the area and along
Hospitality Lane, and is therefore incompatible with the area
overall.
A point worthy of note is that drive-through restaurants,
although permitted in the CR-3 land use district, are expreSSly
prohibited from the area by General Plan Policy 1.17.10 because
they are considered to be incompatible with the eXisting
development in the Hospitality area. Although drive-through
self-service car washes are not specifically prohibited in the
area by the General Plan, they are similar enough to be
considered incompatible with the area for the same reasons.
Landscaping
The proposed internal planting
meets the requirements of the
required landscaped setbacks,
areas equal to 6 percent of the
Internal Circulation
and landscaping for the proposal
Municipal Code. Excluding the
the project proposed landscaped
total paved parking area.
Internal vehicular paths provided for on-site circulation are of
sufficient size to accommodate two-way traffic in conformance
with the minimum Municipal Code requirements of 24 feet.
Traffic
The proposal has been reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer who
has determined that the project-generated traffic would not
significantly impact the streets in the vicinity.
....
__ _'OF. _
=:.: ..
. . 0 0
,...
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE CUP 90-02 ~
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
OBSERVATIONS AGENDA rrEM 8
HEARING DATE ts-I-!:IU
.... PAGE 4
parking
The 4 parking spaces depicted on the site plan are adequate and
fulfill the Municipal Code parking requirements for the proposal.
Noise
Noise generated from the car wash could result in increases in
the existing noise levels of the area and could expose people in
the motel adjacent to the site to exterior and interior noise
levels in excess of those permitted by the General Plan. An
acoustical study was prepared for the proposal by Gordon Bricken
and Associates. To reduce potential noise impacts to a level of
insignificance the project could be conditioned for the
following:
1. Eliminate the dryer/blower from the car wash to reduce the
levels of generated noise below 65 dB CNEL; and
2. Provide a ten foot decorative sound wall extending along the
northern property line and a nine foot decorative sound wall
along the western property line.
Pursuant to section 19.62.010, the height of fences or wall
erected on the property lines in the CR-3 district shall not
exceed six feet in height. A variance concerning the height
could be pursued, however, a block wall ten feet in height would
detract from the high quality development along Hospitality Lane.
Should the car wash not be constructed, a block wall of such
height would not be required.
COMMENTS RECEIVED
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the site plan for
the proposal at their meeting of June 28, 1990. The site plan
was cleared on to Planning Commission for hearing.
Councilman Ward 3
Councilman Flores, the councilman for Ward 3, has expressed
concern that the proposal would detract from the other first
class development in the area. The Councilman has indicated that
there are other car washes located on the south side of
Interstate 10, which would not inconvenience individuals in need
of having their cars washed, and that one was recently approved
on Redlands Boulevard [Conditional Use Permit No. 89-071.
=-=~
......... ~_ 1 OF 1 _
o
o
~
"'"
OBSERVATIONS
CASE CUP 90-02
AGENDA ITEM 8
HEARING DATE 8-7-90
PAGE 5
....,
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
...
...,j
CONCLUSION
The proposal is a permitted use subject to the approval of a
Conditional Use Permit. The project complies with all minimum
Municipal Code standards concerning landscaping, parking,
circulation, setbacks, elevations, and lot coverage. However,
the proposal is not compatible with the high quality
hotels/motels and restaurants characteristic of the Hospitality
Lane area and Southeast Industrial Park Redevelopment Area.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends
Use Permit No.
(Attachment BI.
that the Planning Commission
90-02 subject to the attached
deny Conditional
Findings of Fact
R~ectfully sUbm~ted,
i:Lif.'1j .r 6c..,,'
Larr./'A:. Reed
DirEctor, Planning and BUilding Services
~R.~
Michael R. Finn
Associate Planner
Attachment A - Municipal Code and General Plan Conformance
Attachment B - Findings of Fact
Attachment C - Initial Study
AttachmentD - Site Plan and Elevations
Attachment E - Location Map
=.:-
...
...,j
,....... _, 01" _
, 0 0
r
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE CUP 90-02
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
AGENDA ITEM 8
FINDINGS OF FACT HEARING DATE 8-7-90
PAGE 7
.. ....
r """'I
..
ATTACHMENT B
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.
----
The proposed tunnel car wash and storage area in
conjunction with the gasoline station/food mart conforms to
the objectives of the City's General Plan, in that it is a
permitted use in the CR-3, Commercial Regional land use
district, subject to the approval of a Conditional Use
Permit.
2.
The proposed use could adversely affect the adjoining land
uses and the growth and development of the area in which it
is proposed to be located in that the proposal is not
compatible with the high quality hotels/motels and
restaurants characteristic of Development along Hospitality
Lane and in the Southeast Industrial Park.
3.
~--
The size and shape of the site proposed for the use is
adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use
in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to
the peace, health, safety and general welfare in that the
site can accommodate the proposed self-serve tunnel car I
wash and storage in conjunction with the gas station/food
mart in conformance with all applicable standards
regarding setbacks, landscaping, parking, and internal
circulation.
The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the project and han
indicated that the traffic generated by the proposed use
will not impose any undue burden upon the streets and
highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the ,
area. The parking provided is adequate in that it satisfies I
Municipal Code Requirements. ~
-----
The granting of this Conditional Use Permit would be
detrimental to the peace, health and safety and general
welfare of the citizens of the City of San Bernardino in
that the proposed use is incompatible with the surrounding
.land uses o.f the Hospi tali ty area, and could have adverse
impacts detrimental to the area in which the project 'is
located.
4.
5.
PI.ANoI.DI PMIE t OF 1 C4<<II
=-='l:- "Ul
....
C/3V OF SAN BERNAJOINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
,
Applicant(s)
Address
City, state
Zip
MISC:
IS PREPARATION
ke/9-1-89
ATTACHMENT C
Initial study for Environmental Impacts
For Co...OI1"ID-lM.. ....~Ii. "l'~" "0-02..
Project Humber
proj ect description/Location TO M>1l,. ~fI.t'-SE0l~
.,.......11.... cAIt "'~ll AN_ ,. <:Ir0llAc.l<. a""L1:>''''1. "TO ...""E 51~ OF ,,0.1
io,w'n.... SI<.Q~= 51'"A'T'IcM L..0UInI> ON 'TitE. ~ c.oll.llEl:l. of
w~ AII~ ......to iW>!.P'1"A\..LT'/ ...........
Date
1-\.41 '2..\ I'HD
I
Prepared for:
vJ S G:.CC>
S":.!O IIIIEhT "QQOW IIlbllwlW SLlITE "2.011
I
co",,,,. CA Qn2.;z..
1
Prepared by:
MICIol-~ R. VIol,.)
Name
~0<'\A"T"l<. i'LfnJ",€\4-
Title
city of San Bernardino
Planning Department
300 N. "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
'''.'.-
",
Y OF SAN BERN DINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
, ~
A. BACKGROYND
Application Number: COllll""lot4A~ \lhi. Wb41T" '1o-o"l.
Project Description: "Tb ~lm ". Stl\..$'-5l!ll.~I~ -nul1l.E.l. CAll.. vJAft~ AIIll> A S~
QU\L.t>INw'"'O -rwe. SITE of Arll. e.'lI.I!.n~c.. sell."IC.~ sT....n[)~. _0.
Location: 0.'54 AcReS \..J:>uo~ ow.~ WOe:n\We6T CoIbl.eR. oii= u.J;"~AIIQr.lU~
AIoltl &'&PIT"""'l'I i-AME.
Environmental Constraints Areas: AR.e1r oF .h~ \..\(ilU.IFAcn~ ~~T1-tt..
General Plan Designation:
c~-~ GCllItoI""l",,",- ~cN"'''''
.
Zoning Designation: CQ.-'3.. c.o~A(.. R'E.C.rLco.loM-
B. ~~I~~~~ IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a
separate attached sheet.
1. ~I.th Resources Will the proposal result in:
Yes
No
Maybe
a. Earth movement (cut and/or
fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or
more?
x.
b. Development and/or grading on
a slope greater than 15'
natural grade?
'J(
c.
Development
Alquist-Priolo
Zone?
within the
Special Studies
x
d. Modification of any unique
geologic or physical feature?
x
....
REVISED t 2/87
.....
PAGE t OF 8
-
-
-
-
~
-Yes
No
Maybe
'"
e. Soil erosion on or off the
project site?
f. Modification of a channel,
creek or river?
)(.
x
g.
Development
subject
mudslides,
other similar
within an area
to landslides,
liquefaction or
hazards?
)(
h. Other?
2. ~IR RESQY~: Will the proposal
result in:
x
a.
air
upon
emissions or
ambient air
x
Substantial
an effect
quality?
b. The creation of objectionable
odors?
x
c. Development within a high wind
hazard area?
>C
3.
WAnB RESOURCES:
proposal result in:
Will
the
a. Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the rate
and amount of surface runoff
due to impermeable surfaces?
b. Changes in the course or flow
of flood waters?
)(.
x
c. Discharge into surface waters
or any alteration of surface
water quality?
d. Change in the quantity or
quality of ground waters?
e. Exposure of people or property
to flood hazarjs?
x
x.
)(
f. Other? WA-n;A.l'ih...U...., IN MAI....~
x
....
~
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 2 OF 8
~ --
-
,.
\J
Yes
Maybe
~
\..
No
.oil
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 3 OF 8
~
o
9. :rM~OR'l'ATIQ~~ATION: Could
the proposal result in:
a. An increase in traffic that is
greater than the land use
designated on the General
Plan?
b. Use of existing, or demand for
new, parking facilitiesl
structures?
c. Impact upon existing public
transportation .systems?
d. Alteration of present patterns
of circulation?
e. Impact to rail or air traffic?
f. Increased safety hazards to
vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
IlIo.
REVISED 10/87
Oes
No
)(.
)(
'l(
x
)(
)(
Maybe
.....
~
PAGE 4 OF 8
r
o
g.
A disjointed pattern
roadway improvements?
h.
Other?
10. ~~~ SERVICES Will the proposal
impact the following beyond the
capability to provide adequate
levels of service?
a.
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools (Le. attendance,
boundaries, overload, etc.)?
b.
c.
d.
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
e.
Medical aid?
f.
Solid. waste?
g.
Other?
11. UTILITIES: Will the proposal:
a. Impact the following beyond
the capability to provide
adequate levels of service or
require the construction of
new facilities?
b.
c.
"
REVISED 10/87
1. Natural gas?
2. Electricity?
3. Water?
4. Sewer?
5. Other?
Result in a
pattern of
extensions?
disjointed
utility
Require the construction of
new facilities?
:''- .
o Yes
of
No
'I..
"-
)(
\(
x
x
v.
X
l(
-t..
')(
)(
)(
)(
)(
x
Maybe
.,
~
PAGE 5 OF 8
~
F
Maybe
~
12. AESTHETI~:
a. Could the proposal result in
the obstruction of any scenic
view?
b. Will the visual impact of the
project be detrimental to the
surrounding area?
c. Other?
13.
~Y~~URA~~~QURCES:
proposal result in:
a. The alteration or destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Could the
b.
Adverse
impacts
historic
object?
c. Other?
physical or aesthetic
to a prehistoric or
site, structure or
14. Mandatory Findings of Significance
<Section 15065)
'"
The California Environmental
Quality Act states that if any of
the following can be answered yes
or maybe, the project may have a
significant effect on the
environment and an Environmental
Impact Report shall be prepared.
a. Does the project have the
potential to degrade the
quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop
below self sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant
or animal cOQrnunity, reduce
the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate
Yes
No
)(
x
~
~
x
')(...
,
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 6 OF8
~
r
.-
-
Yes
No
Maybe
""'IIIl
important examples of the
major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the
potential to achieve short
term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact
on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively
brief, definitive period of
time while long-term impacts
will endure well into the
future.)
><
x
c. Does the project have impacts
which are individually
limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (A project may
impact on two or more separate
resources where the impact on
each resource is relatively
small, but where the effect of
the total of those impacts on
the environment is
significant. )
d. Does the project have
environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
')(
)(
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(Attach sheets as necessary.)
~ ~
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 7 OF 8
, ' .
o
o
:
Project Number Conditional use Permit 90-02
Kay 21, 1990
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONKENTAL EVALUATION AND KITIGATION
KEASURES (continued).
l.g.
The site lies within an area of high liquifaction potential. To
mitigate any potential impacts, the project shall comply with the
requirements of KC-676 concerning submission of liquifaction
reports and mitigation measures to the City Public Works
Department.
3.a.
Project development may entail a change in drainage patterns, and
absorption rates as a result of the structural additions to the
site. Engineering Department Standard Conditions and
requirements concerning drainage will reduce potential impacts to
a level of non-significance.
J.c., J.d., 7.a., 7.b., and 7.c.
The proposed project may involve the release of hazardous
substances into surface waters, conceivably altering the quality
of both surface and ground waters. Release of hazardous
substances would be handled by the Environmental Officer at the
San Bernardino City Water Department. The following City of San
Bernardino Water Department Standard Requirements will reduce
these potential impacts to a level of insignificance:
1. An industrial waste permit shall be required if any
type of hazardous materials are to be,released.
2. A Grease Trap (Sand Trap) shall be installed.
J. No Regenerative Water Softeners may be installed without
prior approval of the Environmental Control Officer.
J.f.
To safeguard water quality in existing water pipes and mains, an
R.P.P. Backflow Device is required at the water sevice connection
per City of ~an Bernardino Water Department Standard
Requirements.
~"
. . .
o
o
Project Number Conditional Use Permit 90-02
May 21, 1990
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION
MEASURES (continued).
5.a., and 5.b.
The proposal could result in increases in existing noise levels
and exposure of people in the motel adjacent to the site to
exterior noise levels in excess of those allowable by the General
Plan. An acoustical study was prepared for the project by Gordon
Bricken and Associates. The study found that the project as
designed will produce noise levels in excess of 65 dB CNEL. To
reduce these potential noise impacts to a level of
insignificance, the project shall comply with the fOllowing
conditions of approval:
1. Eliminate the dryer/blower from the car wash to reduce
the levels of generated noise below 65 dB CNEL.
2. Provide a ten foot decorative sound wall extending along
the northern property line and a nine foot decorative
sound wall along the western property line.
9.d.
Project development could alter or change the present traffic and
circulation of the area. The proposed project has been reviewed
by the City Traffic Engineer and does not meet the minimum
criteria for a traffic impact study as established in the Traffic
Policy Paper, or as determined by the Traffic Engineer. The
additional trips fro. the proposed project are not sufficient to
cause a significant impact on the adjacent street system. Total
traffic volume will be less than the street design capacity.
o
o
90/369
GORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS .
.
.
Hay 16, 191")
6 i ~ ~ ~ I . . t V
iI~IlI
~tii"v
. 6 IS
1 ~ ~ U
. . .. ~
~ i:
i t u
I ~ I Uti 2 . U ~
prepared for:
Go on Briclcen
Preaielen t.
."
HR. PAJUtANAND KUHAR
KSSCO -- Weat.ern Sensystem
Enyineering Co. Inc.
613 E..~bu~y Avenue
..Covi... ~"lf.f~..'" - C>1.....
/_b
1621 East Sev.nle'nth Str..t, Sulle K · Santa Ana, C11l1tornia 92701 . Phon. (714) 835.0249
FAX (714) 835.1957
"
JI.
90/369
GORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS
.
.
lill1H161~
-""
,
.
The proposed car wash has been analyzed for qomp1iance
with tho Ci~y'. requirement of 65 CNEL on the adjacen~ motel use.
The project, as designed, will exceed the requirement. The
following four o~tion8 for mitigation are available:
1. Ad~ automatic doors at the entrance and the
exit, or
2. Add sound walls per Exhibit 8, or
3. Bliminate the dryer, or"
4. Limit the operat:l.ng hours to 7:00 A.M. to 7:00
P.M.
I
I
I
I
i
i
I~
I
16l'1 East Seventeenth Str..t, Suite K . Santa Ana. California 92701 . Phone (714) 835-0249
FAX (714) 835-1957
~
w
.L
.
o
o
90/369
GORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ACOUSTICAL end ENERGY ENGINEERS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This study examines the noise impact of the proposed
self-service automated car wash on the motel adjacent to
the Shell site on which the car wash is located. The car wash is
a drive thru f.cility. The site is located as notod on Exhibit 1.
The plot plan of the site is shown on ~xhibit 2. The Super 8
Hotel is adjacent to the Shell site on a portion of the north and
west frontage. The distances to the building faces are mar~ed on
the Exhibit Z.
Z.O APPLICABLE N01SE CRITEAIA
The City of San Bernardino wishes the car wash to not
exceed 65 CNEL on the motel site. AS a practical
matter, since there are par~ing lots immediately adjacent, this
can be interpreted to mean the building face.
3.0 EXISTING NOlo& ~~VEL
The area is close to tho 1-10 freeway. Waterman is also
a fairly heavily traveled street. A site visit was made,
and a short-term measurement ta~en. The measurement chart ia
shown on Exhibit 3. The levels are very constant. The avoraqe
level was 6Z d>>A. The measurement was ta~en at 8:30 P.M. The
typical 1-10 fre.way cycle is described by the plot of hourly
aver.ge levels sho~n on Exhibit 4. The conversion from the
avaraga hourly level to CNEL for the 8:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. period
is CNSL . Leq(hl + 4. ThUS, the estimated CNEL at this location
is 66 dBA (6Z +4 . 66).
1621 ~ASI Seventeenth Slloot, Suite K . Santa Ana. California D2701 . Phone (714) 835-0249
FAX (714) 835-1D57
.- --_. .----.-.--
~';'-'~
o
o
-.., .....
4.0 9ROJ8CT 1'10158 LEVEL~
The proposed car wash is represented to be silllilar to a
RrCO syste. for which data was Supplied by the client
from a field study done by Colia Acoustical Engineering. The plot
shee~s are snown On Exhibits 5 and 6. This data has been convert-
ed to a dB versus distance chart, and is sho~n on EXhibit 7 and
proJected Out to the locations of the building faces without
accounting for any effects that lIIay OCcur as a result of site
Shielding.
The generation of CNEL values requires a model of daily
opera Lions. The assumption here will be tnat the Car wash is used
80 percent of the time from 7:00 A.M. to 7:0~ P.M., 40 perCent of
the time from 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M., and 20 perCent of the time
from 10:00 P.M. to 7:0~ A.H. Ta~ing the data from Exhibit 7,
Which.is foe continuous operation, and applying the operational
mOdel, results in the values given in Table 1.
TABLE 1
POTEN~IAL CNEL VALUES AT MOTEL FACES
FACE
DOORS 09EN
DOOas CLOSED
North
west
72
71
67
6S
It is cleae, that when the doors ace left open, whJ.cn
would be the typical condition, the levels could exceed 65 CNEL by
5 to 7 d8A.
Now, there are SOIll. mitigating factors. The design is
auch that from tho entrance to the west propeety line and a short
distance souto of the north property linG along the west property
line, there is a building structure. The calculations contained
in Appendix 1 indicate the effect that this structure has on the
noise levels. This J.s given in Table 2.
TA8LE 2
ACTUAL CNEL VALUES AT HOT~L rAC~
OPPOSITE S~KUCTURES
PAC!
North
west
DOOR:; OUN
DOORS CJ:.OSEO
60
62
55
57
The expected actual levels will not exceed 65 CNEL on
tne wast side except for tne unsh1elded portions. the unshielded
o
portions will ~ill be 6 dSA over the allowed limit. For the
locations not Shielded by tho building on the nOrth side at tho
exit end, the levels will still exceed the design figure by 7 dSA.
Additional mitig~tion will be required.
""I JI>!t
5.0 .
.
.
.
MITIGATION
There are ..veral options available for producing
compliance.' TheSe are as follows:
1. Add dOors to the car wash. This option
produces 7 d8A on the north and 12 dHA on the
west. 40th results would ma~e the car wash comply as
can be seen in TaDle 2.
2. Ada more SOund reducing structure. On the
north and west Sides, this means a ten (10)
foot wall extending from tne proposed termination of tho
wash DUilding to a point OPPOsite the edge of the Super
8 structure (please see Appendix 1). On the west Sldo,
the height is nine (9) feet. The conditions are
S~etched on Exhibit 8.
3. Eliminate the dryer. The dryer noise data is
shown on EXhibit 10. The curve is plotted on
~xhibit 7. Eliminating th. drier reduces levels by 7
dBA, Which is adequate for compliance.
Limiting hours of operaeion. If ehe hours of
4. operations were to be limited to 7100 A.M. t~
7100 P.M., then, the CNEL levels would drop 7 dBA. ThLS
is adequate to comply.
Combine the various mitigations. Mitigation
measures may be combined.
Thus, there are four options for mitigation anyone of
whiCh. may be uscd. These are:
Add automatic doors at entrance and exit, or
1.
Add sound walls per Exhibit 8, or
5.
2.
3.
ElimJ,nata dryer, or
Limit operating houra to 7:00 A.M. to 7:00
I..ft..
4.
--
o
o
EXHIBIT 1
SITE LoeA TION MAP
.
.
,....
~
> ,..1
cy
~.~.,-~ .
. ..', '--
f
I
(
~r: -...
.~
I.
I. i f
I til
; g
fi . t ,
.' f ' .
...
..- . ..
'::1~~" "
... ' I,J
.. r . J;.--+..
...~.!l:'...j
-[ ~'
, - .
f ' .ft....:.. 'j
"
. . ,,1
I
J f .
. .\
(
. I
f f
I
.
.... J
),
. Is
"
IJ I'
_."
";
.
ClIo.
....<
-2
CD
-....
::x: 0
x...J
Wo.
, ",.
'.0
~I
z
IEB
I
I
I
I I
I.
, t
i
I
!
i
f
i
i
I
i
t1
J NO.818-967-1846 ~ 21,90
, IIhlllil..I. I". \oJ' ·
J ,b ! ............. : I : !
'. ir 13 I "",1 . = .1 0 kl
Ii '11',.. .
~ I dlllilmll, II 'I
"
"
t
fl
,
.
-.--
I --
J..~ - J
--.-.- --.- .___.._.J. ~'-iJ'''~-'---
-.--....
,
,
I
I
- "." .... -..- ..- :
. .,
- .... ..... --......-...
-'-- ....
--_.. .__. -- .-.--
~"C""
(
C)
o
...
~
...
o
o
.
CD 0 CD
Q 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
at . ... . G . at . ... . II) .
I I I , I , I I I I , I
,
I I:
!
"' !
.
, '
,
,
c-)
...
-
CD
-
J:
)(
W
. . , . I
-
.
. -
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
00
at
o
"
.
i
I
I
I
I,
,
i
I
o
...
CD
Q
,
."! .
".
I
o
.
o
.
I
,
, '/ I
0 ! ." : .
. ':' : ~ "
z . .
- I, ' ~; :
Q . ., I
It , I
.
i C i
, Z I . I '
I , .
I cr: .
0 W I !
I G CD j "
I
i .... I
i 0 E Z Ii .
... c I i.
I .... ., C II) 10:"
i II) . ..~ I. "J. 1.!
5'
0 :> ,.' .
. .~ ,. ~
w :~ ...
w
A. Z
'" 0
-
t- III t-
W It ... c , , , , , I I , , I , ,
l- e c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c : 0 0 . . .... . . . . . .... . . ..
0 0 " ...
0 Q
'It
t') N
N (\/
C\J
t'"'"
N 0
0> C\J
~
OJ
l' .-
~
lO
~! ~
~
o;t
f: .....cc
::)
Nt""\
....
.....I
. ..... 0
.....
0':1
OC\
l'
U)
Li.')
~
~')
....,
. .
1 .....
I
.
.
,-~ .-.
-. . .
--
,...
-
-
. ,
"
o
:
, : .".-
.. -
ll) :cz' . . ::----
(l)W ..' ... -~---
I- ~ " ;
ceo. '0'. ,'.
- .... .
m ~o ~.., .
- ~i:~' : .':.
:c 0:(1) -..... -
)( '1', '.
.~. .
W ceO: ". .
.....1;'..:
00 ..'
.:". .
0 ....
00 ".
.'
0 "
> ,
a: .-.
.
.-.
.-.
~" CD
:... . . . ,
., ...
.. CD
C!
Ie
.-
...
~,
."'-
.
..
...
.
N
.-.
.---. :.- :- .
I : =_
-.--, ..
~. j-..
+
.
'.
J~
0"."
.
..
i'. I"
~
.
j..
.
~. ;.,.,
~
.
o.
r"
"
.
.
t'
.
U
II
.
..
...
.
. --. . .--....
. 0 .
. . .
.. - -
...
CD ... ...
. .If
:s .
:
.I :-"-:'-y -
of I · .....
-. ..
..
. /.. .
l! ;, f": :....
- . I
/~ ~
- .
.~ o 0 0..
- ,i' .. ,~
.-. ..
. .
.
:' ~. :~
0 of.
.
o.
r ·
.
o
,.- -----
.
, '
. :. 'I':"~ .
. .. ~~~;.: _:
"..:..-: .
:. ..~'~~~.:.- o.
,'-.' ",-'.. ;
CD' " '.
.' .' ,.:.e. .
o Ie I,':'"
.'
. ';.!:'~
/:. '0
"
"
.
CD
. .
Ie /:
.
n
'1 ".' I
... ,. .
CD ..
. .
/i
..- --; c:.
, '.: it t:!
'L..._._.~._ ._
.. . .' ..
... . . .
_ tW ~ .
..
.f,.
.
o
.
..
.-.-,.~ .
.. .' ..
. . .
.. .. ..
- ... --
.. .
. ..
-
.-.
.-
....
.
~.
=
.-.--......
. . !
.. .. -
CD
...... .
~,...
.. ..,
i"
. II!
t\ ~
.
:,:
~"
.
.
..
:
Q)
...
-
m
-
:c
)(
w
:1:0
0W
<0
~O
...
0:0
<0)
Oa:
00
00
>0
a:
.
.
o
-.
. ,
'. "
" ,
-,
; ...:.
; ~~::
" '
',"
",
"
....... ".
....
~...
.
iI
.'
...
..
.
~
..-
...
-,
"
~
.
I
~,
.
.
.
i'
c-,
.
...
~
~,
..
.-,
.
-
...
.
~
.-. -- .- .
. .. ..
I Z :..
'---..-.
. . .
. . .
- .. -
0-
~
,~~- i':- ~/
- .. . /"
...
.
c /.
~ .
-
/,
..
i/,
.
.
~
.
.
o
. ,
... :'-
~
.
'.
J~
-
'.
O. 1"6'
~
-
~\
I
.
~. ;...
1-
.
'.
I"
.
r'.
-
.
~
e
..
" ,r&
..
...
Ie
~
-
.
:.
;.' ,.
~
.
'.
'"
.
Ir. ,'J.
~
.
'.
, .
-
tP. ~.
~
.
"If..
, .
'0:
'.'
'.,
".
.......:
"
, .,
.
/.:
..
. .
I/i
.
.. /i
. -
r.:l/i
/f
-
.
.
-
.
~
. .'
J!
N
.
:8
"
. -.-....--,.-.-
.. . .0 ..
.-. . . .
. ~ ... .. .
.. '
.
!"
t_._.___.
.0 .. .. ..
. . . .
- ... ... ..
.
-~. ---
....
. ..
2
N
.
...
~
--
....
..- .--.~.---.-
.. . . .
_.. . . .
- ... - .
~2
-,
=, --
. .
i" :8
-
or ,
t"
.
.
.
..
.-
."
.
--.
,
dBA
.s
80
75
70
es
eo
- ..as
50
10
"
o
EXHIBIT 7
dB?VERSUS DISTANCE
(NOTE - DOORS OPEN
FOR ENTRANCE
SUBTRACT 5dSA FOR EXIT)
.
.
.0-
I
A
-........
~-
] I jl1HW
100
DISTANCE FROM BUILDING
,oc
. .
_I
I." ._. '-.
-. .
C00
f- Z
-0
m -
- ~
:c <
)( 0
W 0
....
....
....
<
~
C
Z
::::)
o
o
I
I~~ I~O.O~O-~OI-~O~O
Ma~ Ll.~u ~:lo ~.ul
.
.
()
I ~I
'f'"
"'"
- "'lIit.. '.
~ J 1 i ..........J! I : I
L ~, l 13 11111111I1 ...1
I II I dlllllii!!l1 .. 1/
I
: I
~ .
. I
R ~
~
.
Q$
.
.
r JI
I
~ .
i ~ ,.
-
~ --
~l
z
[EB
, ~
~ I
I , ,
I . I
i
I
,
I
I
I
i
i
i
~
...
,
I
I
..,
I-
\ 'I I
.r-1---\
i 'l.
I I lIIl
.
-- 'I. I
. ..
.:....... 'j
:~!7'f)
...... 'j
. .
I
(
I
I
I
.
" I
~I
I.
IJ
f
.
.
: I gj
..~~:::~-= j~
- ..
,
h
lJ!
--.- "00 -.-.---...-....1..."1iifI.. . _.._.....~_.. ._.__._._._._..
I.,' .
"-. ..
0
, .
,-
"
(7.) XCZ! "
.
I:: 0W . . ....
.........
m <>- ,. .:..:
- ~a: :"', ....
X 1,..... .
Q =.!~{ :'" , "
x Iro "t ' ,
W ~:.~.
~z '", :.~
........~
...... .
.:.~ '. :;
0 0- .
'0' "
0
(J .0 ., .
>- :a
a: .. ~,
~, ..,
.
...
.. ..,
, ~,
... '.. ..
" ~ ....
~' ,
11'1 .
.., ..
-' '- ,-- ,
- . . .
~ e . . .
.. .. .. ..
.---.
. . .
. . .
.. .. ..
N
.
\I
-
.
11'1
..,
0'
.
.----.~..-.
i :: :' y
..,
o
11'1 ~.
.'.
/' :.
..
..
...
'/ '
~ !:
.
"
'.
.... ....
o
-
f"; it;.
~
.
-.
I"
.
4', j"
~
.
..
re.
.,.' .
~j-..
.
.
'.
I"
. . o.
J'
.-
.
~
.
..
...
,s.
...
...
sa
-
.
t/'. f.,
~
.
'.
,"
40..... '"
o.
,.
'<Ii
.
-
,"
.
'.
I.
.
.
t'. (".
"
,
j..
o
-
... .
'/'
1"1 .
\0 ..
.
/jo'
.."
~ . .
~/i
, .
/: ,
... .
.
. . .
.. 'S
--..... "
. --~
.." :.
. . .'
". !.
. .
./.0 "
, = :....
.' '.
,/0
: ..
N
,
:a
.-.-.-.-.--.-
.. . .. .0 ."
."'" '. . . . .
I!II IIlI ~ ., '"
..
h
.
"
.
..
.---.-.
.0 .. ..
. . .
.. .. .
.
-. -
....
. ..
~
--
....
....
lI'i'
..,
.-.--.-.--
. . . .
"".. - ~ '"
, .
~:a
.. '.
=,
. I V'l
-'- ..;
-"10
.
o
:,'
.
=,
.
.
.
..
~
.,
~ NO.818-967-1846
eAR~I~k NOISE ~~DUCTIaN ANALYSIS
F'PC\.JECT. . . . . . CAR WASH
DESCRIF'trON. .E:f:FEC,T A1 "tlII.DING ON WEST
SOURCE ElEVAtION....... (I
RECEtVER EI.E...,ATIm~..... 0
~ARRIrR ELEVATION...... 0
RECEIVE~ HEl~HT........ 5
DISTANCIi TO SOURCE..... b:5
DISTANCE TO RECEIVER... 40
Sl.lllRCE NOISE LEVEL..... 71.0('
WALL HEIGHT
0.00
J . (10
2.00
3.(u)
4.0('
S.OO
o.Oi,
7.0<'
F.J.O()
9.00
1\"). (Ie)
It.OO
12.0u
13.0(.
t4.00
15.C.(I
10.00
NOISr: LEVEL
71. 00
71.0C'
'/1. (10
7J. (,i,
71.0(,
7 I. 00
71.00
65.B.~
"~.2:S
I NSERTI ON LOSS
0.00
CI.(lO
0.00
0.00
0.0('
0.00
0.0(1
5.17
!5.77
o.:'$b
7.07
7.93
8.84
9.73
10.58
11.37
12.1(1
64.04
"~.93
63.07
b2.lo
61.27
toO. 4:<'
59.63
!:SCI.90
~ 21.90 9:18 P.Ol
.
o
BARRIE"k NCIlSE RF.OllCTION ANALYSIS
o
PRo.tEeT. . . . . . CAR WASH
DE.:;;CRIF>rrc.'N. .E"FFEC:T OF BUBIIDING STRllCTURf ON NORTH
.
SOURCE EI.EVATION....... 0
REl~El Vf..R FI.EVAl ION. . . .. 0
BAR~IER ELEVATION...... 0
RECEIVER HEIGHT........ 5
DISlANCF.: TO SOllf:.tCE..... ~
OHHAt~C:F. 10 RECEIVF.-R... 75
S[lIJRCF. NO I SE LEVEL..... 72. 00
WAL L HI:; I GI~.l
o.n(l
I .1)0
2.(uJ
3.()O
4.('I(l
~i.(")O
6. (1(,
7.0')
B. (t(.
9."")
1 ('. (I"
1 I. (10
12. (1(>
13. fu)
14. (1(,
I!".. 00
16.0('
NOISiE LfVEL
72.0(.
72.0.0
72. (II',
7~? 00
72.0'"
72.00
7";:'. et()
7"2. t:>>t.
66.96
*'~.?1
63.97
6';'.(,,4
"0.41'
!".Q.(.~
57.98
57.08
5~.44
INSERTION 1.0SS
C>.OCI
0.00
0.00
o.oel
O.OCI
0.0(.
0.0('
0.1)(1
5.04
~.2q
&.03
Q.96
11.60
12.94
14. (.;.>
14.92
IS.~
...
,
..
-~-
r"
t"'}.
n
'"
o
DETERMI~11Q}T
On the basis of this initial study,
~ The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
~ environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
The proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, although there will not be a significant effect in
this case because the mitigation measures described above have
been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
'.
D.
D
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
~1fI Uu5C11- fhh/'x 5€.l1,tM .:pb.nhe\
}
Na? and Title
L<. ~A ~ / '~A,(} o:Y7 - (v A /~y_
Signature
Date: rv~ ~J) )990
IlIo.
REVISED 12/87
~
PAGE 8 OF 8
I
- l J, !
~ Ii
I ,r!
I ,.Ir,... I
""" .
i. 111.111;1... I .. I
i ~ .~.~~;:~~~~~. ~ ~ .1
I dlllilimll s II
I
: I
.
~ ~
.
-I
-
..
N
\ .
<:)
(3-
Q.:. ~I
j 1;111 Cf --
U
I z
.
I TEe
i
..
I :~)
i '#-.- ....
1. .... I I
. .' j
M
-- . I.
.
, .
"
. I
I , I J,
~ I
III ( i
i
I !
I
f I I
.
... J
11
I! J~
c t .,
I~
I-
z:
UJ --.
:IE:
::t: --
U
e(
l-
I-
e(
- ..II"rrl>
------ '-'JJl'Iw1idm<-lI-.--.---.- ,
... -t _"... __._ _ _
_. -.:r~_
t
~
C
Ir
Q..
=s:
ui
.
.
I
I
r-,
!
I
.. I
.
.
.
......-.. "
-.:: ~
~..
.
..
..
.
.
zEB
,
I
I.
,
1
3
I
-..... -
I
.---
EB .
- .
.
z ()
I~
~
~
I .L'
G
I
~ .-
t
...
..
~
:;;
~
i
I
z
0
..
..
..
I
-
.-
.
~
~
m
.' -
o
ATTACHMENT E
o
,
~ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT .., r AGENDA ~
ITEM #
LOCATION CASE CliP qO-O?
8
HEARING DATE 8-7-90
.... ~ '" ~
I -.'
~
. -
IF
..
.
~
T
\
\
!
I :
-...-
!
i
I
: JL-
I II'VIWWOOO IT
-.... ! I I
CO.Ll. ~c
G
--
,
. - 1;,.
\
Froll'
Dept
Date
Syn
o
EXHIBIT "c"
o
---
OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE' THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
APPEAL OF Conditional Use Permit No. 90-2
F
~
THIS IS TO INFORM YOU THAT THE FOLLOWING ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL By App 11 cant
\...
r r ,
SUBJECT: WARD .;Of:
Conditional Use Permit No. 90-2 3
"-
,
PROPERTY
LOCATION:
Subject property consists of .59 acres located at the northwest
corner of W~terman Avenue and HOSPitality lane.
"-
PROPOSAL:
To remodel an existin9 service station and to construct a sel f-serve
drive-thru tUnnel carwash and storage buildin9.
,
PUBLIC HEARING LOCATION: SAN BERNARDINO CITY HALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
300 NORTH "0" STREET
SAN BERNARDINO, CA. 92418
,
,
HEARING DATE AND TIME: September 5, 1990 2:00 p.m.
A DETAILED IlESCIt'PTIOIII OF THE PII0POSAL IS ON FILE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT CITY
HALL. IF 'I'OU WOULD LIICE FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THIS PROPosAL PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC
. HEARING, PLEASE CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN PERSON OR BY PHoNING
(714) 384-5057.
THANK you.
,
"","-,
-CI~' OF SAN BERN(JIDINO - REQUEST lOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
Subject: Appeal of Development Review Committee (DRC)
Approval of Lot Line Adjustment No. 90-23
Mayor and Council Meeting of
October 1, 1990, 2:00 p.m.
REOUEST
The appellant, John Lightburn, is appealing the approval of
Lot Line Adjustment No. 90-23 by the Development Review
Committee. The appellant requests that the Mayor and
,Council reconsider the approval and "set aside the approval
of Lot Line Adjustment No. 90-23 until such time a thorough
environmental review is conducted in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ...". (See
Appeal Letter, Attachment "A".)
BACKGROUND
Lot Line Adjustment No. 90-23 combines 13 lots into 2 lots
consisting of a total of 3.3 acres located at ,the northwest
corner of Court Street and Arrowhead Avenue. Parcel No. 1
will consist of Assessor Parcel Numbers 135-151-4, 5, 10-16,
and 20. Parcel No. 2 will consist of Assessor Parcel Numbers
135-151-17, 18 and 19. (See Attachment "B", Lot Line
Adjustment Plat.)
On July 19, 1990, the Development Review Committee approved
Lot Line Adjustment No. 90-23.
On August 20, 1990, the Council referred the appeal to the
Planning Commission for a recommendation. On September 11,
1990, the Planning Commission reviewed the appeal and voted 4
to 4 on a motion to recommend denial of the appeal. This "no
recommendation" resulted because of confusion over issues
unrelated to the appeal. Lot Line Adjustments are
categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA (Section
15305), if new parcels are not created. The proposed
configuration complies with all pertinent criteria set forth
in the Municipal Code and is consistent with the General
Plan.
75-0264
""'"
, 0
," 0
.
Appeal of Lot Line Adjustment No. 90-23
Mayor and Council Meeting of October 1, 1990
Page 2
BASIS OF APPEAL
The main point of the appeal letter is that the Lot Line
Adjustment is an "i~tegral" part of a development plan
related to the expans~on of the Sun Company, and that, as
such, the "cumulative impacts" may have a significant effect
on the environment and "compromise long-term environmental
goals" by not taking into effect the implications of related
projects. These related projects are inferred to be illegal
or inappropriate.
ANALYSIS OF APPEAL
Lot Line Adjustments are legal instruments affecting boundar-
ies of existing parcels and have no environmental
consequences, cumulatively of individually. For this reason
they have been categorically exempted from the provisions of
CEQA. They may be important in implementing a development
project for financing or legal reasons, but they do not
produce a physical change to the environment. Thus, the
appeal has no valid basis.
The safety issues raised by his questions about related
projects are being addressed by the Department through the
appropriate legal and technical review procedures.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Mayor and Council deny the appeal
and approve Lot Line Adjustment No. 90-23.
Prepared by: John E. Montgomery, AICP
Principal Planner
Attachments: A - Letter of Appeal to Mayor and Common
Council
B - Lot Line Adjustment Plot
C - DRC Letter of Approval, July 23, 1990
jke:7j27j90
M&CCAGENDA:
LLA9023APPEAL