The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About38-Planning 'CI+..f OF SAN BERNARD~O - REQUWT FOR COUNCIL AC~ON ~ From: R. Ann Siracusa Director of Planning Subject: Appeal of Conditional Use perm~ No. 87-23 ~~~ Mayor and Council Meeting of~ August 3, 1987, 2:00 p.mp. r' :...'.:.J ~ c_ 0 r-: , "-' ~ '" :w; ".., ~ ::.< Dept: Planning Date: July 14, 1987 Synopsis of Previous Council action: Previous Planning Commission action: At the meeting of the Planning Commission on June 2, 1987, the following action was taken: . t-':' .,- w. ~ :'l The application for Conditional Use Permit No. 87-23 was unanimously denied. Recommended motion: That the hearing on the appeal be closed and the decision of the Planning Commission be affirmed, modified or rejected. Contact person: R. Ann Siracusa Phone: 384-5057 3 Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: (ACCT. NO.) (ACCT. DESCRIPTION) Finance: Council Notel: ,~Y1 .. " - .....I MEMORANDUM "" '- ' -CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ""'" To Ann Siracusa, Planning Director From Subject Acceptance of letter of appeal Date Shauna Clark, City Clerk June 23, 1987 Approved Date Attached is a letter of appeal dated the Simchowitz Corporation regarding Use Permit 87-23. June 12, 1987, from Variance/Conditional On June 19, 1987, an employee of this company came to our office to check when this item would be on the Council Agenda and in doing so, found that we had never received the appeal. Ms. Patricia Green of Simchowitz Corporation informed me that she mailed the letter on June 12, 1987. Deputy City Attorney Cynthia Grace advised me that we could accept the letter dated June 12 as received, as long as Ms. Green would sign a declaration that she mailed said letter. A copy of her declaration is attached. Deputy City Attorney Grace explained to me that the reason she was allowing this declaration is because the letter from the Planning Department was incorrect in setting forth a ten day appeal period. The appeal period is fifteen days. She cautioned that we are not to use this declaration method in the future. ~~?/t?~~ 31lAUNA CLARK City Clerk SC:pa Attchmnts. 2 cc: Cynthia Grace, Deputy City Attorney 00' rn @ rn n \Yl rn lID JUN 22 1987 CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT SAN BERNARDINO, CA ~II'Y ell I'II.=-~"" ., ;~ 1'~~\:1J. y~'~ l '~.f'- . '~-':;:::i"~'~~""*"'-f,"~'i~l~':i~'''~'!:~''''Jf'./.t;.'-I'!J~'I.h-~ _.,'J; :.>;~ 'y "'g.'1...."'"1~;t:!.. _.;.,~:>_,. ;'.;__~ :/".".'l<;- "f-i)~,?i "(C,-:.''r''I\'l.~' .;~,,;,f,~'~~~;. '1~~"':;~;.f'. '""'~~i"":' ; ;;~.$';:. , ,'.,.<\"?',I{.,,...~,. .;t;~,~.,~-,..,:,.,li.:lV~""" .~;t;" ',1 {JI-,'I1io.. .,;>' ",f"' .....,..,\... -,.. , .i~;:~:~~:~';!' "":~~~;1;):S~~ff:;t~i1;",.d'~'~;,~":i~"'i~~:~:'-~;'~';'" , ';,':.~>/::,:::..',':':':",i;:,:;,:',~':\/OCP~:::".,.,'.-:_/":::,.:':';.:: ,,':',,:' ,..'. ,. . ,,:"',;',,')'.';'-~'''''','''''..''.'',,';.''', .'",;,:.';,.1,.';".' ;,i..,",:';' ......~. ~IV, EO-"'TY C '; ',' ,",'; ,. .-~. '.,~ ':)-'~'l' :',,~, ';"("")" "'",:C. ,..'\ \ ',~ \If lERIt ""\:);i;;:1"':', 't:,"""'i.)~\"'" h;',ld"ii'{;'\;>";',j ',p: ,'>,:' .I' ~'" _' ':":,\f,;._, " _'<,:_.r;::.~,;.: ~:I.,.I..; .':t~..:'r\:;..,,~l~,~'$ .11:'.< j5:.<.,..:~;",,<.':/ i" " , . 'Qg:PorGltioo...' ~ 22 P 4 :09 )',:>;-/\~,:~1";:.;:'.%'_~~~~~~'..,~~<' "\';"~~'" "'~\'" " . ">: ';~ty~;\:~~;,$< 'li- . \;-:;'-:-;.. " I". ,', ~ :\:..',':\"'~' . ,:,,-,,' ," ,- " -';,~ : .... " June 'i-. ,,~ 7~...;' - ';~' "'" . ':},: v".'" .~'~; .~;,,:.' '~'I--L...., -:')"";'~:;"<"'_;" " .- ':_~j}' "\ :- <': ," .._'_ ..... r ._ ., ':: ' ' ~ ;;'~,<:;,;:';.~::~.f:~::::; ~j;.;:;;:',~:?):r~~~:~i/,i:'\,:, :'> " Ms. Shauna Cla):k",~.>l ,'~~, ,c,', ,. """ "",..' ""," '~.,"..'" Cit' 'Cl k' .~: "":'''''~_':.(:!~",,,'\-', _.,":"..Atw~:~:f >:;",_',J,_ '~,-:"'" ..v,'::. ::~~~'. y er. ;, ~~._",'~ '~~1..~1,...;f.:1.,... _.,:,..>,:..~d~ ";'~~'\"{('''> " "0' -~. C. I"'" OF SAN 'B"E' RNA' RD"I.'~Q'>f',.::..,:"t \~ ';1:~'~ -'.~ "'~, i,~~, . - '" ,-', ~' ...... """.."';,t.,,~,, 2,':',::",'" ',","", ,: '"' , . ".~, ~ .'f.....,.ol'-<<~'..'F. ~..~'jp,.;,.-:.:r .'" 300 ''''orth .D..-~-s"'r'Ae''l- ~(<o,';;)$~'~~':'$:r;.c:~I~~'J~"'",-~c.;,.:,~,,:..~,>~;t\;.~t" .~'\~, ~l 'v _1t~: ".~...:i ",>, '. ,.,...... ,.,!~ ".:.:x~ '. ..:. .... ,c p .0. ~ Box 13"8:art>~i.;.:::,,'.:~~-,;:=s~t:;.J::4~ff.;':'}'-'7~';;~:~~ 'J{J.#J.'~:""7",~.~ ~ t . ~,,/''''~''.;.''-';" h:r:" ~.,-.r l-~,<.,.~,~,4;t~.."":.t:,.-~;,./",', !~. ~.~' San Bernardlno,'CAJ"' 92402 ",,~,.'i,0~~";,,'). ',".:' .' - '. ' ;.'" ,. -'~'. ' -. . . ",. ., - ' , ., '~ t ' '1 '.: /':,~'.~~j~::;; .::::~;::.~:_~~:'.{~~~-.';::<::~ 1:.:~-~ :i~~t,i:)~ .,_:~;}!~~;:"~:;~.';'.,;:~- ?~~~:~?'::', - '. ,.' ,~','- RE: ,H~'ight'~~'it~h~:~}2sWdiift~1~i~t~i~t'~~;~~ii:fi87-23 D'"" ",. C1~~~~~t!~~I~''':::,: h~~~~~~n:~~Ifii~~~!~j:~;ie~~;.~.;?~,ae~:'m'il'a Si9rieL9~;:'I~:':"",""'.,'~",' . riate:Jf}~u_..z,Zo.~.:;~l_ Patricia Green ", ", -' '>'.. ~ THE ' SIMCBOwiT~;;CORPORATION:;':'! .').~i~itt.})~~~~:/, .', '(' ,,~ ?,"X':,:~{:,~;'t. .t~~, y~y{,,"~..,~J'~,fli.o{..yl,\1':\ ),'d ,\", ',' ~, \- . - - If.,,',,;'. ~ ! J';{,1,,'f'- II' .,....,. . "-( ,. , ~,. "r~;- ~~\) ~:"~~. ~ \~~.: j '~i;~~~;kZ~?.. <{J~. ,,~?j:~~:c-:ti~~,(~ t :.,' ',' 22, 1987 ',,' ':-'. .... i,.. : ~ .~i~ " " ,'F'. '. ::~l, J :';f '~. :;_; . '-r:. .~'. "~' ", ,t ~'<T ,. <~ .-~~;,}~> <~'~-?"~~ ..;.'I.:.....c~.:~:{';,.:1 -, ~!, ".' ~~: '."(::': ;"J .~. '" I L-...._ ,;,.t .,~>\;i;f\,;V:'~"':' " ;"'\ -: " r';;~ " ", ,. ;.',~ ".;__<c . ~','" _____#.J 22.5 West llospitaliI11..i:ne:Sli'iie -rOO. Sa~ BCrT1udillO. (~lif()rrij~.\ 92 >'1t (711) "S~.2337 ""-- - ~ .. The I...... " \ \ Caporation June 12, 1987 ?D-1 i Ie.. c\ " 0ree. Ms. Shauna Clark City Clerk CI'l'Y OP SAN BBRHARDINO 300 North -D- street' San Bernardino, California 92412 h 14-i) ? 8: " -. ~ t I ' REI variance/conditional Use penait 87-23 Dear Ms. ClarkI I hereby make formal request that the above captioned Variance/Conditional Use permit be heard before the City Council pursuant the Planning Commission denial on June 2, 1987.~ . The appeal is based upon the fact that this application should have been treated as a Variance, needed for the height, and not a , Conditional Use permit as this is a project sign and D&t~a off-premise sign. " . Sincerely, Merv Simchowitz 'rilE SIMCBOWITZ CORPORATION MSzah 125 Wnl HotpiQIiIY La.... SuilC IClll. SaD 1anaIdIno. C.lilomia 92408. (714)"'W1 .,'.... ...... '-' ......,I -- ......Gn;Hi;;~.. ~'\'.\.-''',"'~~~Ifl'' ~ :":'~--;';r"'~:,,'~{:. CIT~\~~$~~! ERNARDINO ~~'"-. n'''._ M~_~<A<"_"~" I, ' I~' , ,\., :),1'''''' 'J~"..t.-..,...~,~.;' ....~!;i it it\. ~"" . """~' EVLYN WILCOX Mavor Memben of th. Common Council Esther Esfrlda. . . . . . . . . . , . . Flnt W,rd JackR.my...,......... . S.cond Ward Ralph H.r"andez . . . . . . . . . ,. Third Ward St...... Marks. . . . . . , . . . . . . Fourth Ward Gordon Qule' . , . . . . . . . . . . , Fifth Ward Oan Frlller . . , . . . . . . . . . . . Sheth War" Jack Strlckl.r . . . . . . . . . . . .S......nth Ward June 9, 1987 Fastfood Developments 225 West Hospitality Lane, Suite 100 San Bernardino, CA 92408 Dear Sir or Madame: At the meeting of the Planning Commission on June 2, 1987, the following action was taken: The application for Conditional Use Permit No. 87-23, to permit an off-premise sign with waivers of Code Sections 19.60.250.A.3 (maximum height) and 19.60.250.A.4 (setback) in the C-3A Limited General Commercial zone on an irregularly- shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.2 acres located at the northwest corner of Redlands Boulevard and the 1-10 Waterman Avenue south off-ramp and further described as 290 East Redlands Boulevard, was denied based upon findings of fact contained in the staff report dated June 2, 1987. According to the San Bernardino Municipal Code, Section 19.78.070., the following applies to the filing of a condi- tional use permit: "The decision of the Commission shall be final unless appeal- ed in writing to the Mayor and Common Council. The written appeal shall be submitted to the office of the City Clerk within ten days from the date of the Commission's decision. The Common Counc il, after receipt of the appeal, shall conduct a public hearing and may either approve, modify or reject the decision of the Planning Commission." '/\;;,1"1" "., :-.f.""'('" '- ....... ....;i ..- Fastfood Developments June 9, 1987 Page 2 If no appeal is filed pursuant to the previously mentioned provisions of the San Bernardino Municipal Code, the action of the Commission shall be final. Respectfully, #~~tL- VINCENT A. BAUTISTA Principal Planner mkf cc: Building and Safety Dept. ...... ","'""" ,~, "-' J ..... ~, r CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT"' SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE WARD 16 b/ ~/l:ll 3 ~ 1&.1 ~ Condition;:ll Use Permit UNo. 87-23 APPLICANT' Fastfood Developments 225 w. Hospitality Lane Suite #100 OWNER' San Bdno., CA 92408 Same as above t; 1&.1 ::) o 1.1.I a: ..... c:r 1&.1 a: c:r Applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit to establish an off-premise sign with waivers of maximum height allowed and setback requirements in Section 19.60.250(A)3,4 & 8 in the C-3A, Limited General Commercial zone on a 1.2 acre site. Subject property is located at the northwest corner of Redlands Boulevard and the I-IO Waterman Avenue south off-ramp. PROPERTY Subject North South East West EXISTING LAND USE Vacant Offices/Freeway Retail Retail Retail ZONING C-3A C-3A C-3A C-3A C-3A GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION General Commercial General Industrial General Industrial General Commercial General Commercial GEOLOGIC / SEISMIC DYES FLOOO HAZARD DYES OZONE A ( 0YES ) HAZARD ZONE !Xl NO ZONE IX! NO OZONE B SEWERS ONO HIGH FIRE DYES AIRPORT NOISE / DYES REDEVELOPMENT ~YES HAZARD ZONE ~NO CRASH ZONE !9NO PROJECT AREA NO ..J o NOT o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z 0 APPROVAL oct APPLICABLE E FFE CTS 0 I- WITH MITIGATING - 0 zen MEASURES NO E,I.R, !it CONDITIONS I&.I(!) o EXEMPT o E,I.R, REQUIRED BUT NO 1&.0 IKl 2Z I&.Z DENIAL Z- SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS 1&.1 00 WITH MITIGATING ~:E 0 CONTINUANCE II::Z MEASURES w:E TO ::;iL: [Xj NO 0 Z o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS U 1&.1 SIGNIFICANT SEE ATTACHED E,R. C, 1&.1 EFFECTS MINUTES II:: NOV III' "(VISED oIUU' "'1 SKY . "- '-' '-'" ~ " CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE CUP NO 87-23 OBSERVATIONS l/; /;1?/R7 ~' AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 1. REOUEST The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit in order to establish an off-premise sign in the C-3A, Limited General Commercial zone, on a 1.2 acre site located at the northwest corner of Redlands Boulevard and the 1-10 Waterman Avenue South off-ramp for the Buyers Club complex located approximately 1,000 feet southerly on Caroline Street and Concourse Way. The proposed copy of the sign gives no indication of where the location of the Buyers ClUb is relative to the subject sign. Additionally, the applicant is requesting a waiver of the maXlmum height allowed and setback requirements in Sections 19.60.25(Al3,4, & 8. The proposed sign is 50 feet in overall height and is located within 10 feet of the public right-of-way and is within 600 feet of the right-of-way line of the freeway. 2. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission on April 21, 1987, denied a request for Variance No. 87-6 regarding the establishment of an oversized wall sign that projected above the roof line for the Buyers Club site. The applicant has appealed that decision to the Mayor and Common Council. At the Council hearing of May 18, 1987, the item was continued pending additional staff analysis on the question of oversized signage. The San Bernardino General Plan states that the visual quality of most highway frontage development is not inviting, mediocre streets, excessive signs and billboards and utility poles create a seemingly endless corridor of visual conflict. Setbacks, sign controls, underground utilities and landscaping, where practical, can improve the appearance of commercial streets and, thus, the community as a whole. 3. SIGN CONFIGU!lbnON_"'!-lP_LO~~TION The proposed sign has approximately 280 square feet of signage per face with a green background and white lettering. The major part of the sign will measure 30 feet wide by 8 feet 7 inches tall with a smaller portion 10 feet by 3 feet below. Overall height on a pole is 50 feet. The site plan indicates that the sign is adjacent to the 1-10 Freeway on the western property line that will eventually have two drive-thru restaurants. Recently approved Parcel Map No. 10260 creates two parcels where each restaurant will be allowed one free-standing sign as well as a freeway oriented pole sign. The approval of the proposed .t" '- '- ...."J , CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE CUP NO. 87-23 OBSERVATIONS ] 6 6/2/R7 1 AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE off-premise sign would establish one additional free-standing freeway oriented sign on the westernmost parcel. The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a variance for the freeway oriented pole sign for this site as Variance No. 87-4, Agenda Item, No. 11. 4. QQDE RESTRICTIONS San Bernardino Municipal Code Sections 19.60.25(Al3,4 & 8 specifies a maximum height of 32 feet, a setback of at least 10 feet from the public right-of-way and a setback of 600 from the right-of-way line of a freeway when the advertising face is visible from any point on said right-of-way line. 5. LANDUSE. ZONIN9_b~_GENERAL PLAN The site and surrounding properties are zoned C-3A; present landuses include the I-IO freeway and offices to the north of the freeway, retail uses to the south, east and west. The General Plan designation for the site and properties to the east and west is General Commercial. To the north and south, the General Plan designation is General Industrial. The site is also within the South Valle Redevelopment Project Area. 6. SOUTH VALLE REP,EY~J.9P~1~NT_1'~OJE~T_ AR~b The proposed sign is located within the Redevelopment Project Area adopted in 1984. The the Plan for the Project Area seeks to: South Valle second goal of "improve the visual image of the City and specifically the Project Area by reinforcing existing assets and by expanding the potentials of the Project Area." The proliferation of signage beyond the number of permitted signs does not enhance the visual environment of the area and the City as a whole. 7. ag~NCX_~OMMENTS The California Department of Transportation has indicated concern over the col~ring of the sign. They feel that the green background with white lettering may confuse the motoring public with that of the freeway directional signs. Additionally, the City of Loma Linda has strongly urged denial of the Conditional Use Permit. The City is concerned over the aesthetics of the 1- 10 corridor and feel the sign is too large and not visually pleasing. \. ..., "- "-' ....." CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE CUP NO. 87 - 2 3 OBSERVATIONS 16 6 f 2 fA 7 4 AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 8. I-lO FREEWAY CORRIDOR The I-IO freeway corridor is a major focal point and entrance to the City of San Bernardino and communities to the east. For the past several years, the County of San Bernardino and the Cities of Redlands and Loma Linda have been developing a Master Plan for the I-IO corridor, east of the City of San Bernardino. The intent of this study effort is to establish guidelines and standards for future development in this most visible corridor. The City of San Bernardino has adopted the redevelopment project areas to the north of the freeway (Southeast " Industrial Park and Tri-City) and the South Valle Project to the south. Each establishes guidelines and standards above those in the Municipal Code in order to ensure a higher level of development. In the past the Commission has been very cautious in hearing several requests for freeway oriented signs in this area. Of particular note was the 1,000 foot long freeway sign proposed for the Tri-City Corporate Center (Variance No. 86-17). 9. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW At the regularly scheduled meeting of the Environmental Review Committee on May 7, 1987, the Committee recommended a negative declaration for Conditional Use Permit No. 87-23 r"" ........ -- - CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE CUP NO. 87 - 2 3 FINDINGS of FACT 16 Ii /2 /R 7 <; AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE All applications for a waiver must include a written response to each of the following items in order to clearly establish the ~ for the waiver under the conditional use permit: A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use of the property, which do not apply generally to other property in the same zoning district. A~plicant's Response There are exceptional conditions applicable to this property. The success of the project relies primarily on freeway visibility. Freeway oriented signs for other businesses in the area clearly demonstrate the need for this type of site identification. Ground elevation is 30 feet lower than the freeway; height is needed so signs are visible. ~talf's Response Variance from the terms of the zoning Ordinance, as stipulated by State law and City Ordinance, can only be granted due to special circumstances applicable to the property including size, shape, topography and location or surroundings. The site is clearly visible from the freeway, therefore, the maximum height requirement does not need to be exceeded. Additionally, the, site does not have any special circumstances that would give cause to granting of setback requirements. B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. bQQlicant's Response Signage is an allowable use. Other uses in the vicinity enjoy maximum visibility by utilizing freeway oriented signage similar to that which we are requesting. Staff's R~~~: Substantial property right refers to the right to use the property in a manner which is on a par with uses allowed to other property owners which are in the vicinity and have a like zoning. The purpose of the variance is to restore parity where the strict application of the zoning law deprives such property owners of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. . '- -- - CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE CUP NO. 87-23 FINDINGS of FACT AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 1h fil2/R7 h c. ~ 1\- . ~ ~ The requested waivers are for an off-premise sign. The property owner will still be allowed to advertise with on-premise free standin~ and wall signs. That the granting of the variance detrimental to the public welfare or improvements in the zoning district the property is located. will not be materially injurious to property and and neighborhood in which Applicant's Response This location is intended to add to the service oriented aspect of the neighborhood. There is no hazard presented to the public or private property. The sign would not hamper any emergency vehicle. This sign would allow safe exit time for motorists on I-IO. ~~aff's_~ponse: In determining the application for a variance, the best interest of the enti:e community is the controlling factor rather than the suitability or adaptability of the property in question for a particular use. A waiver of height and setback requirements would create additional visual clutter along the I-IO corridor which would not be in the best interest of the general public. Additionally, the proposed colors for the sign may tend to confuse passing motorists on the I-IO freeway. D. That the granting of such a variance WiLl not be contrary to the objectives of the Master Plan. Applicant's R~~EQnse The granting of this variance would in no way be contrary to the objectives of the Master Plan. Signs of this type would be an asset to this project and aid in its success. Staff's Res'Po!l~.€l The San Bernardino General Plan specifically sites excessive signage and billboards as causes of visual conflict. Setbacks and sign controls are identified as measures to improve the appearance of commercial streets. Therefore, the proposed ...... '-' -- r-- -J CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE CUP NO. 87-23 FINDINGS of FACT 1 h h /? /R 7 '., , AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE wai~er requests an indirect objectives of the Master Plan. conflict with the goals and FINDINGS OF FACI FOJLTIHL~.9~I1J9NAld!i?~_J'];m.tIT 1. The proposed use does not conform to the goals and objectives of the San Bernardino General Plan and the South Valle Redevelopment Project Plan. 2. The proposed use will adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area by adding to the visual conflict along the I-IO corridor. 3. The site (1.2 acre) and shape of the site are not adequate to allow for the addition of an off-premise sign without being detrimental to the particular area, peace, health, safety and general welfare of the residents in the community. 4. The traffic undue burden to carry the generated by the proposed use will not impose an on the streets and highways designed and improved traffic in the area. 5. The granting of the Conditional Use Permit will be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of San Bernardino. RECOM~IENDATIONi? Based on the observations and findings of fact contained herein, Staff recommends denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 87-23. Respectfully Submitted, ,';r,~"," VINCENT A. BAUTISTA, Acting Planning Director ~ c.-o~ -- ----.-------.---- RUTH COOK, Planning Aide \... .~. '" "- -- - f , CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT "I ENVI RONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST ..". A. BACKGROUND 1. Case Numb e r (s) : Conditional Use Permit 87-23 Date: 5/7/87 2. Project Description: Applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit to establish an off-premise siqn with waivers of maximum height allowed and setback requirements in Sections 19.60.25(A.3,4,8l in the C-3A Limited General Commercial zone. 3. General Location: Sub;ect property consists of approximately 1.2 acres located at the northwest corner of Redlands Blvd. . ~~... "ho T-1O Waterman South off-ramo. ,-, -- B, I,NV llWNMENTAL lMI'ACTS YES ;'lAYBE ~o 1. Could project change proposed uses of land. as indi- cated on the General Plan, either on project site or \"ithin general area? X - - - 1. \Iould signif iean t increases in either noise levels, dust odors, fumes, vibration or radiation be gener- ated from project .:1rea, either during construction or from completed project other than those result- ing from norm.:11 'construction activity? X - - - , ) , \,111 project involve application, use or disposal of hazardous or tax ic materials? X - - - 4. lJill any dev iat ion (rom any es tab lished env i ron- mental standards (a i r, water, noise, lli\ht, etc.) and/or adopted plans be requ~sted in connection with project? X - - - 5. \Jill the project require the ust! of sil~nificant amounts of energy which cou Ld be reduced by the use of appropriate mitigation measures? ~ - - 6. Could the project create " traffic hazard or conges tion? - ~ 7. Could project result in any substantial change in quality. quantity, or accessibility of any portion of region's air or surface and ground water re- sources? 3- - .... ~ ....." '.. ..... .....,. '-" i I I I I I l .. ..Ay'8I YES HAYBE NO 8, Will project involve construction of facilities in an area which could be flooded during an inter- mediate regional or localized flood? x 9. Will project involve construction of facilities or services beyond those presently available or pro- posed in near future? ~ 10. Could the project result in the displacement of community residents? x 11. Are there any natural or man-made features in pro- ject area unique or rare (i.e. not normally found in other parts of country or regions)? x 12. Are there any known historical or archaelogical sites in vicinity of project area which could be affected by project? x 13, Could the project affect the use of a recrea- tional area or area of important aesthetic value or reduce or restrict access to public lands or parks? x 14. Are there any known rare or endangered plant species in the project area? x 15. Does project area serve as habitat, food source, nesting place, source of water, migratory path, etc.. for any rare or endangered wildlife or fish species? x L6, 11111 project be located in immediate area of any adverse geologic nature suet, as slide prone areas, I\ighly erosibl~ soils, earthquake faults, etc.? x 17. Could project substantiaLly affect potential use or conservation of a non-renewable natural resource? x 18. Will any grading or excavation be required in connection with project which could alter any existing prominent surface land form, i.e., hill- side, canyons, drainage courses, ete? x 19. Will any effects of the subject project together l)[ in conjunction with effects of other projects cause a cumulative si~nificnnt adver5e impact on the environment? x ~ ~1Ir.: Itn... a '- - ....., , ""'Ii C, SUNNARY OF FINDINGS AND CUHULATIVE EFFECTS If any of the findings of (act have been answered YES or MAYBE, then a brief clarification of potential impact shall be included as well as a discussion of any cumulative effects (attach additional sheets if needed). D. MITIGATION ~EASURES Describe type and anticipated effect of any measures proposed to mitigate or eliminate potentially significant adverse environmenta~ impacts: -,- E. DETE~llNATION On the has is of this ioitial evaluation, [lg ~~e find the proposed project COULD NOT have a signif icant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared, 0 \I" find tha t a I though the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in , this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IHLL BE PREPARED, o \Je find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ- ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IIWACT REPORT is required. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEIJ COMMITTEE CITY OF SN~ BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA ~~I~~~ t(u,=,,,, A.....i...tant Planner (Secretary) 1< J:; L;. DATE: 5- 1,87 '" ... '-' ",--.. o 1; I L~ .ll ~S i ~ j! j\{~1 j~li I , ,Aa,4;I, I ..--- ":~... i , , I I , I , ' . , It I " I tl , ~ ."""1; . I 11 -, , Ii j , =1, I -, I ~ -'1 I I >> . .,.-; I \3 ! . 1 I I c::: ,j L I ! , r i I ! /~ ~ ~ .-jj 4 I. J ,Q;-~ ,Iii"l',... , ,... 't\. l , ~I - I.: ~ - I WV"'1 SlI'fl'lH JI;-;~ i " I - " ., l' ,c".>,. t oj '$ lU lf~t ~ inn ~""""""'/CS' i : IJ j j . ~ 11 . a ~ ; \~~ r l~",~ 91 ; ~ l,!,1l1 f t '2 Ill'IH~ "1 if! \II~ I ~lrl" ~:t \..1'" ~if @ I ,mill Q \:00 't I i~til( ']; i~ ':1 - :'\'1\" .' 1',./ ~ C:l II...,!! i41::1 Q , 'hll" ~ III <3' ; I . 1:"1';' I! I ~ ~ I lIl.h.. 1 . 9 ~ n' 1~ .. .. ~ !/ 2 ~ ~ ; 1 . ! .. "'I ~ . t ! t ~4 , ==..;;.;~ i I ~~ I i ,;:'.'1 ~ I ' ~~..,;"': ;; ~ '.-.; ..' .; '-:;;.~.~ 1'<,".' . , c..:,',! . :,;. I , ,,'~ :~' '11 \ 0(', :'1." '--~ /' \- - ~ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT AGENC~ ITEM ;:# LOCATION CASE CUP NO. 87-23 HEARING DATE 6/2/87 16