The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About41-Planning ,CI1:'V OF SAN BERNARD"~O - REQUF';;T FOR COUNCIL AC--.ON From: R. Ann Siracusa Director of Planning Subject: Appeal of variance No. 87-18 Dept: Planning Mayor and Council Meeting of August 3, 1987, 2:00 p.m. /#" ~~ Date: July 23, 1987 Synopsis of Previous Council action: Previous Planning Commission action: At the meeting of the Planning Commission on July 7, 1987, the following action was taken: The application for Variance No. 87-18 was approved based upon findings of fact contained in the staff report dated May 19, 1987 (Exhibit "D"l. The Negative Declaration for environmental impact was also approved. Vote: 4-2, 2 absent. Recommended motion: That the hearing on the appeal be closed and the decision of the Planning Commission be affirmed, modified or rejected. Contact parson: R. Ann Siracusa Phone: 384-5057 Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: 3 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: (ACCT. NO.) (ACCT. DESCRIPTION) Finance: Council Notes: 75-0262 Agenda Item No, ~ "'-0 ..... ,'of' ,",-,,f I ' ftECEIVED-CIl Y CLERI< 17 Jl13 P2:55 July 13, 1967 Ms. Shauna Clll.l'k, City Clerk Ci ty of San Bernardino 300 Worth D Street San Bernardino, Ca. 92416 Dear Ms. Clll.l'kl This letter is to appeal the approval of Vll.l'iance Wo. 67-16, agenda item #6, SiDlChowitz Enterprises, Sunset Developlllent, by the Planning Commission at the meeting of July 7, 1967. My reasons for this appeal relate to the ill8dequate responses, by IppUcant, as requested by the Plaming COlDlllission at the meeting of May 19, 1967, when the project was remanded back to OC. Further studies were asked for regarding traffic and liquefaction. OC gave its approval with only an updated traffic report for this single 'new building and relied on a previous Uquefaction study. Project was approved with Planning staff and Legal Counsel recommending denial. ER:: meeting June 16, 1967. To allow this project to proceed without a traffic study fails to assess the impacts and the cUllll.1lative effects the additional traffic My have on the area. AppUcant stated at the pubUc hearing of July 7, 1967, that it was their practice to do liquefaction susceptibility at the time of construction. Both practi~es fail procedure as required by CEQA. Ma;y I put another conCern I have in the form of a question? Would project approval comply with thu letter of June 11, 1967, from the State Office of 'Planning and Research, 3(b), and City Resolution 62-3451 Thank you for your attention to this request, and I can be reached atJ 6150 Cable Cyn., San Bernardino, Ca. 92407, or by telephone at 714-667-1833. Mrs. Helen Kopczynski oom&~nwmWJ' JUl13 1987 ,.~'TY PLANNIN(; Utf'liidME I~f r. t SAN BERNARDINO. CA NT Sincerely, ~ d'. J~/vr~' '.'7 .;J I 'J i .. ...... ~ 300 NORTH "0" STREET, SAN BERNAROINO. CALIFORNIA 92418 RAYMOND 0, SCHWEITZER CITY ADMINISTRATOR July 21, 1987 Sunset Development 225 West Hospitality Lane, suite #100 San Bernardino, CA 92400 Dear Sir or Madame: \ At the meeting of the Planning commission on July 7, 1987, the following action was taken: The application for Variance No. 87-18, requesting a variance of Code section 19.28.060 to construct a four-story office building with a maximum height of 62 feet 4 inches on property consisting of approximately 4.16 acres located at the northwest corner of Hospitality Lane and Hunts Lane, was approved based upon the observations and findings of fact and subject to the conditions and standard requirements contained in the staff report dated May 19, 1987, and subject to the following condition: 1. A traffic signal is to be installed at the corner of Hunts Lane and Hospitality Lane. According to 2.64.030 and appeals to actions: the San Bernardino Municipal Code, sections 2.64.040, the following would apply in regard to the Mayor and Council of Planning Commission "Except as provided in section 2.64.020., any person aggrieved by, dissatisfied with, or excepting to any action, denial, order, requirement, permit, decision or determination made or issued by an administrative official or by an admini- strative board, commission, body or other agency of the City pursuant to the provisions of any ordinance, code, rule or regulation of the city, may appeal therefrom by filing a written notice of appeal with the city Clerk, directed to the Common Council." "Any such notice of appeal shall not be valid and shall not .:"}1PRICE IN PRc1RESS ; "1 .. , ,""'" ".~ .......- ....; Sunset Development July 21, 1987 Page 2 be acted upon unless filed within fifteen days after the date of action or' decision appealed from. If notice of such action has not been provided in writing, and the appellant had no notice of'the hearing at which the action was to be considered, the appellant may, within five days after first becoming aware of such action, demand written notice thereof, and shall have ten days following such notice in which to file the notice of appeal. A prospective appellant who was present at the time the action or decision relating thereto was made shall be presumed to have constructive notice thereof and shall file a notice of appeal within fifteen days after the date of the action or decision." 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. ~ ~ifecr:ullY , ~ R. ANN SI~ Planning Director mtb cc: Building & Safety Dept., Simchowitz Enterprises 225 West Hospitality Lnae suite #100 San Bernardino, CA 92400 f~TY OF SAN '~ER~~RDINO r" "-,' .......""'" ~EMORANDUM J To Planning Commission From Pl anni ng Department Date July 7, 1987 vLlbject Variance No. 87-l8 Approved Agpnda 1 tpm No A Ward No ~ Date OWNER: Simchowitz Enterprises 225 West Hospitality lane Suite #100 San Bernardino, CA 92400 APPLICANT: Sunset Development 225 West Hospitality lane Suite #100 San Bernardino, CA 92400 REQUEST The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 19.28.060 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code to exceed the allowable height of structures in the C-3A, limited General Commercial zone located on a 42 acre site at the northwest corner of Hunts and Hospitality lanes. BACKGROUND On May 19, 1987 the Planning Commission considered the request for a variance and, on the advice of the City Attorney, remanded the item to the Environmental Review Committee for further study. The attached memorandum from the City Attorney's office was distributed to the Commission at the hearing (Exhibit "A"), As a result of further discussion during the public hearing, the Commission also requested that the Environmental Review Committee study poten- tial traffic impacts which may result if the variance were to be granted. On May 22, 1987 the City Clerk. received the attached letter (Exhibit "B") from the applicant appealing the Commission's request. At the meeting of the Mayor and Common Council held on June 15, 1987, the letter of appeal was referred to the Environmental Review Committee. At their regularly scheduled meeting of June l8, 1987, the Environmental Review Committee reviewed the case. The studies, listed below, were sub- mitted, however the Committee as a whole had not reviewed the material prior to the June 18th meeting.: 1. liquefaction Study (prepa\"e~.,Oc~o~er..?4, 1984) an~ an addendum (prepared June 7~ 'l9~Y)~; , , 2. Soil/Foundation Investigation (prepared March 7, 1986) and a Foundation Plan Review (prepared April 30, 1987). 3. Traffic Study addendum (prepared June l7, 1987). c.ry Oil rHI;;M~1f.. ,~ ~, ........ Planning Commission Variance No. 87-l8 July 7, 1987 Page 2 '-.",'.... -...I , The Planning representative on the Committee did not feel that a Negative Declaration could be recommended for this project without substantial evidence in the record, i.e., written comments pertaining to the adequacy of the reports. Also, it had not been determined whether any mitigation measures were necessary as a result of the studies. The Engineering representative stated that the Director of Public Works and the City Traffic Engineer had reviewed the previous mentioned reports and found that they were satisfactory. On that basis the Committee recommended adoption of a Negative Declaration with the Planning representative voting in opposition. A summary of the findings is included in the Environmental Impact Checklist (Exhibit "CO). ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Details of the proposal are discussed in the original staff report of May 19, 1987 (Exhibit "D"). The subject property is located within the western por- tion of the Southeast Industrial Park Redevelopment Project which had an environmental Impact analysis conducted May 1975 and revised in October 1975. The project area of the analysis included both the east and western subareas of the "Southeast" project as well as the area that was subsequently adopted as the Tri-City Redevelopment Project. The analysis in 197~ projected approximately ll.5 million square feet of new construction for the three subareas mentioned above. Subsequent environmental analysis of the Tri-City project area and projections made for the easternmost sector of the "Southeast" project would indicate that roughly 5.0 million square feet of new construction was projected for the western portion of the "Southeast" project. The proposed building is one of tweleve (l2) structures in a master planned project being developed by the applicant. Total square footage of the tweleve structures will be approximately 750,000 square feet or 15% of the total pro- jected for the western sector of the "Southeast" project. The estimated 9,200 vehicles per day that the tweleve building master planned area would generate is approximately l8% of the total traffic volume estimated for both sectors of the "Southeast" project and the Tri-City Redevelopment Project area. The original environmental analysis in 1975 was done for such a large project area that detailed traffic volume projections were not made for local streets such as Hospitality Lane and Hunts Lane. Projections were only made for South "E" Street and Interstate 10 in the vicinity of the subject property. Additionaly only superficial miti9ation measures were proposed. Examples are shifting of employee working hours and improved bus service. Such lack of specificity is not acceptable by today's standards. 1 he 1975 ana 1 ys is along with subsequent studies have on 1 y taken into account those land uses and densities permitted by code. Increases in floor area resulting from potential variance allowances were not included. Therefore, under C.E.Q.A., the analysis is inadequate. Jlj , ; ( . I ":ll Ii '. ,,---. ,~ ; "'-" < / Planning Commission Variance No. 87-l8 July 7, 1987 Page 3 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS The applicant has provided the requested materials analyzing the potential of liquefaction and its impact on the proposed structure. However at the time of the Environmental Review Committee meeting of June l8, 1987 the City's geolo- gist, Dr. Floyd Williams, had not reviewed nor made recommendations on the sub- mitted reports. Staff from the Planning Department and City Attorney's Office felt that an environmental determination should not be recommended without a recommendation from Dr. Williams regarding the adequacy of the report or a written evaluation of the mitigation measures by the Building and Safety Department. However the majority of the Environmental Review Committee indi- cated in their recommendation of a negative declaration that the report as submitted was adequate. ZONING, GENERAL PLAN, AND REOEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY The proposed variance for an additional story to an office building is an allowable use within the C-3A, Limited General Commercial zone. Said uses along with others allowed in the C-3A zone have been deemed consistent with the General Plan land use designation of General Industrial. The Southeast Industrial Park Redevelopment Plan specifies "Urban uses including Industrial, Commercial, Parks, Public Facilities, Public Parking, etc for the site." CONCLUSION While having historic precedent in the general area of Hospitality Lane the proposed variance application has not yet provided the necessary documentation required under the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act (C.E.Q.A.) for decision makers to take an action. More importantly, however, the proposed application for the variance has not been provided with sufficient findings to support the granting of a variance from the San Bernardino Municipal Code. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the inadequacy of the environmental review, legal advice from the City Attorney's Office and the insufficient positive findings of fact, staff recommends denial of Variance No. 87-18. Respectfully submitted, R. Ann Siracusa Director of Planning Ronald K:--Running Senior Planner CITY OF SAN lEW--ARDINO "--- -1EMORANDUW) '......" -.....I To Planning Commission From Jubject Variance No. 87-l8 Date Cynthia Grace Deputy City Attorney May 19, 1987 (Rev) Approved Date COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Subject site is in the high hazard liquifaction zones relatin9 to the San Jacinto and San Andreas faults; it is also in the moderate hazard liquifaction zone relating to the Cucamonga fault. Geologic hazards are within the scope of the California Environmental Quality Act. Under the California Environmental Quality Act, no project may be approved until the environmental hazards have been evaluated, and mitigating measures have been developed. This is particularly true where public safety issues are involved. Public Resources Code 21002 states: "The Legislature finds and declares it is the policy of the State that public agencies should not approve Irojects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasi le mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environ- mental effects of such projects and that the procedures required by this division are intended to assist public agencies in systemat- ically identifying both the significant effects of the proposed pro- jects and the feasible alternatives or feasible miti9ation measures which will avoid or' substantially lessen such significant effects." The staff report with respect to Variance No. 87-l8 indicates that the project is located in a liquifaction zone. However, no geologic report has been done for the project. The staff report recommends that a geology report be obtained prior to the issuance of building permits. The recommendation to defer the geologic report until a later time but to meanwhile approve the project without this information is contrary to the California Environmental Quality Act. A four-story buildin9 of over 100,000 square feet should not be approved without evaluating the scope and extent of the environmental hazards on the site and without evaluating appropriate miti- gating measures. The approval of the variance is the City's only opportunity to impose conditions on the project. At the time of building permit issuance it will be too late; no new conditions can be imposed upon a building permit. Exhibit "A" elfY' Oil fH..:MDV. ~, - Planning Commission Variance No. 87-l8 May 19, 1987 (Rev) Page 2 ....,., ~" VARIANCE FINDINGS Section 19.74.020 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code states: "The Commission, before it may grant a variance, must make a finding in writing that in the evidence presented, all of the following con- ditions exist in reference to the property being considered: A. That 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 and neighborhood; B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The language in subsection A is construed in light of the variance test in state law which says that a variance may be granted only when there are unique physical characteristics on the site such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings; in such circumstances, the strict application would deprive the property owner of a privilege enjoyed by other property owners with the same zoning classification. The variance test goes on to say that "any variance granted shall be subject to the conditions that will ensure the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute the grant of a special priv- ilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and the zone in which the property is situated". Government Code 65906. The prohibitions against special privileges is merely a restatement of constitu- tional principalS of due process and equal protection. The site of Variance No. 87-l8 is a relatively flat, ~oughlY rectangular building site. There do'not appear to be any unique physical characteristics of the site which differentiate it from other similarly zoned property. Therefore, the applicant has not met his burden of proof in demonstrating that there is some unique physical characteristic of the site which deprives it from use of the property enjoyed by other similarly situated property. With respect to San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.74.020 subsection S, tne applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is any hardShip or depriva- tion which threatens his enjoyment of the substantial property rights. Therefore, the applicant has failed his burden of proof with respect to the second finding in the variance test as well. Granting of the variance under these circumstances would constitute a special privilege. " '- - '--..,.'" , Planning Commission Variance No. 87-l8 May 19, 1987 (Rev) Page 3 COMPLIANCE WITH THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE Chapter 19.56 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code sets forth parking stan- dards. 19.56.0l0.A describes specifications for parking stalls and access. The San 8ernardino Municipal Code Section 19.56.ll0 describes specifications for compact parking spaces. The applicant shows on his plot plan typical dimensions which are not consistent with Section 19.56.l10 or 19.56.010. In addition, the applicant shows on his project tabulation a certain number of spaces described as "offsite" spaces. There is no explanation of what offsite means or where these offsite spaces are. There is no provision in the San Bernardino Municipal Code for offsite parking. The applicant has failed to meet his burden of proof that he has satisfied the parking requirements in the San Bernardino Municipal Code with respect to stall specifications. Section 19.56.120 describes standards for landscaping in parking lots. Section 19.56.l20.A.5 requires that 5% of the "total paved parking area" be landscaped. The applicant, in his project tabulation has shown some numbers, but he has made no correlation between these numbers and the plot plan; there- fore there is no way to ascertain how he derived the numbers which are shown on his project tabulation. Therefore, the applicant has failed his burden of proof to demonstrate that he has complied with Section 19.56.120. Section 19.28.070 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code establishes a maximum permissable building coverage for C-3 and the C-3A lones; the maximum coverage by "any structure" shall be 50% of the lot or lots. The applicant demonstrates that the present buildin9 covers 14.7% of the lot. However, he shows one additional four-story office building on his plot plan and about 25% of the plot plan is blank and labeled future development. Since one-half to two- thirds of the site are covered by the four-story office building described as Phase 1, (which is the subject of this application), and its required parking, it is difficult to imagine that the additional proposed development, and the parking structure which will be necessitated by this future development wlll comply with the 50% site coverage limitation. CONCLUSION This project must be remanded to the Environmental Review Committee for a soils study/liquifaction report prior to approval of the project inorder to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. The applicant has failed his burden of proof to demonstrate that the requirements of the San Bernardino Municipal Code have been met with respect to landscaping and parking, The applicant has further failed his burden of proof that the first two elements of the variance test have been met. ~ VJ..~ 6v~ CYNTHIA GRACE Deputy City Attorney CG: km: kdm r' '- ~w~ - The ~ ....,. \ ' , \ Oxporation May 20, 1987 Ms. Shauna Clark City Clerk City of San Bernardino 300 North .D. street San Bernardino, California 92412 Dear Ms. Clarka i ' $F This letter serves as a formal requeatto appeal the denial of the Planning Commisssion on Variance '87-18. please place us on the agenda for the June 1, 1987, City council meeting, by sending the necessary public notices to the surrounding property owners. Your cooperation in this matter i8 a08t:appreciated. Sincerely, MS/pg , :;:~\ "," ' .;', [-~= Ig@llil1 \\7 i~ ~.! ',: I ,..' L'I , . ..' . . . ,Air221987 ~ITY 'Pl~N1NG DEPAHTMENT SAN IlERNARllINO. CA ;... , ,q, '~ a ..., , .., I Exhibit liB" 22S WCllllo.pilalilY La..., SuiirIOO,Sona.nlanIino. Calilomia 92408, (71f) 889.2S87 . ANAHUM . SACRAMENTO . SEATI'LE 1'4~:"'i\;!",,!;' '..,' . ~ t'.. , ,:" . ~ ;:. J ,i 1 ,,~,'~ 1'\ ",I ,.'. . \.\:. ",-~ I I <") ::; -< <") r- '" ::u "'" .'.,... . .. \', r" } ,'1 ,,,',,'" '., .1'. ',;::. \1.-:-\. ., '" -'",1' ~~~ h . GENEVA '- , CITY OF n I J SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT "" ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE IMPACT CHECKLIST , ,. ~ A. BACKGROUND 1. Case Number (s) : Variance No. 87-18 Date: 6-18-87 2. Project Description: To construct a 4-story office building with a maximum height of 62'4" in the C-3A District. 3. General Location: Northwest corner of Hospitality Lane and Hunts l.ane,; -----.-- 8. ENVIRUNMENTAL IMPACTS YES MAYBE NO - - 1. Coull! project change proposed uses of land, as indi- cated on the General Plan, either on project site or within genera I area? X - - - 2. WOlll d ~ignificant increases in either noise levels, dllst odors, fumes, vibration or radiation be gener- ated from proj ec t area, e ilher during construction 01- from completed project other than those result - ing from norma 1 construclion activi ty? X - - -- i l. Will project involve application, disposal I llse or I ul hazardous or toxic materials? X - - I I.. Wi II any deviation from any established environ- I 1lIl.'nlal standdrds (ai r. waler, noise, light. etc. ) I duJ/or adopted plans be requested in connection I wi th project? X - - I ~) . Will the prujl..'Lt require t.he use of significant I I ':llllllllll ts of energy which cuuld be reduced by the use of appropriate mitigation measures? X - -- - 6. Could the project create a traffic hazard or congestion? X - - , 7, Could project result in any substantial change in quality, quantity, or accessibility of '"any portion uf region's air or snrface and &round water re- . sources? , X - -- - '" ,- - , 1:1 ~ MAY' '1 Exhibit "c" ERe. FORM A PAGE I OF 3 \"",. r \. MAY '81 VAK. 87 18 I... ~ " ; 8. Will project involve construction of facilities in an area which could be flooded during an inter- mediate regional or localized flood? 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? 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)? 12. Are there any known historical or archaelogical sites in vicinity of project area which could be affected by project? 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? 14, Are there any,known rare or endangered plant species in the project area? 15. Does project area serve as habitat, food source, neBting place, source of water, migratory path, elc., for any rare or endangered wildlife or fish species? 16. Will project be located in immediate area of any adverse geologic nature such as slide prone areas, highly erosible soils, earthquake faults, etc.? 17. Could project tiubsLanlially affect potential use l)r conservation of a non-renewable natural resource? 18, '~i II any grading or excavation be required in connection wi'th project whleh could alter any exh,tlng prominent surface land form, i.e.. hill- side, canyons, drainage courses, ete? 19. Will any effects of the subject project together or in conjunction with effects of other projects cause a cumulative significant adverse impact on the environment? 1'1 YES MAYBE x .i NO _X- .x -K. .1L .x .1L x x x x x '.J ERC. FORM A PAGE 2 OF , , "" '-' ,/ VAK NO, 87-'A "-' -- """l C. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS If any of the findings of fact 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). (See at t.'ll'hed) D. MITIGATION MEASURES Describe type and anticipated effect of any measures proposed to mitigate or eliminate potentially significant adverse environmental impacts: (See attached) ---,--~---_. -~ E, lJETEK1'II NATION Oil lhe hasis uf this initial evaluation, 0 We f lnd the proposed pruject COULD NOT have a significant effect on the envirunment and a NECATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared, 0 \Ie I lnd thal a I t!.out;h the proposed project could have a s ignif ican t l' f t l'C t on the environment, there will not be a signif icant effect in 1 t ili ~> (',:1::-;": because llie mitigation measures described un an attached sheet I havt' been add(.d to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PKEPAI<ED, I I 0 ih- I ilJd tlle pruposed project MAY have a significant effect on the env j, ran- I ment, and an ENViRONMENTAL HlPACT REPORT is required, I ! , ENV I K()N:1ENTA1. REV I EW COMMITTEE I CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA ~- -,~----,-,-- (Secrelary) VALERIE C, ROSS, Assistant' Planner DATI,: June 18. 1987 , . " llo.'-- . [ , ~ WAY 81 ERe FORM A PAGE :5 OF 3 ~..... ......./ -,",,,,,/ VAR NO. 87-18 C. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ANIl GUMUI.ATTVE EFFECTS 6. The proposed project will result in additional building'space in excess of the code allowance and thereby generate additional traffic in excess than that originally considered in the previous environmental analysis. 16. The subject property is located within the Liquefaction potential zone A, the lli!;h Susceptibility zone for an 8.0 earthquake on the San Andreas Fault, the Moderately High Susceptibility zone for a 6.75 earthquake on the Cucamonga Fault, and the High Susceptibility zone for a 7.0 earthquake on the San Jacinto Fault. D, MITIGATION MEASURES 6. The revised traffic analysis for Parcel Map 7968 submitted on June 17, 1987 indicated that traffic signal warrants'at the inter- section of Hunts Lane and Hospital ity Lane are not met. However, it is recommended that prior to approval of any additional structure north of Hospitality I.ane and west of Hunts Lane that signal war- rants be reviewed again and a new traffic study be prepared. 16. Submitted liquefaction potential studies (June 17, 1987) indicate that 1 iquefaction potential at the referenced site is low. The Soil and Foundation Investigation and Foundation Plan Review con- clude that U,epotential for liquefaction and the surface expression of sand soils is unlikely due in part to the engineered compacted fill mat required for the buildings. /"'~. ~ ,-,.....J r CiTY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT"' SUMMARY " ILl o <t o Variance No, 87-18 APPLICANT, OWNER' AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE WARD 11 ')/19/87 3 ~ EXISTING LAND USE Vacant Santa Ana River Indust, Office Bldgs. Indust. Office Bldgs, Indust, Office Bldgs, ZONING C-3A "at! C-3A C-M & C-3A C-3A FLOOD HAZARD ZONE eve opment 225 W, Hospitality Lane Suite IFlOO San Bdno, , CA 92408 Simchowitz Enterprises Same as above Applicant is requesting to waive Section 19,28,060 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code concerning the height of structures within the C-3A, Limited General Commercial District, In ILl :::> a !AI 0:: ..... <t ILl 0:: <t Subject property is located at the northwest corner of Hunts and Hospitality Lanes, PROPERTY South Horth South East West (GEO~ZIC I SEISMIC \. HAZARD ZONE ~--,- . . (" HIGH FIRE LHAZARO ZONE I' I ..J 1<1: 'l- I Z (/) : UJ C> ~Z Z- OO Q:Z S;ii: Z ILl Iil YES ONO DYES !Xl NO o NOT APPLICABLE o EXEMPT 89 NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS NOV, 1981 REVISED JULY 1182 SKY AIRPORT NOISE / CRASH ZONE o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS WITH M IT IGATING MEASURE S NO E,I. R, DEI H. REQUIREO BUT NO SIGN IFICANT.,EFFECTS WITH MITIGATING MEASURES o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E. R C, MINUTES Exhibit "n" , DYES OZONE A !Xl NO OZO E B DYES ~NO z o fi 1&.0 I&.ffi ,~2 02 o o ILl Q: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Gen, Indus tria 1 Gen, Industrial Gen, Iridustrial Gen, Industrial Gen, Industrial SEWERS ~YES ONO k e REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ARE^ Iil YES DNO [l\I APPROVAL [l\I CONDITIONS o DENIAL o CONTINUANCE TO '- r CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE VAR NO. 87-18 OBSERVATIONS 11 5/19/87 2 AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 1. The applicant requests approval of a variance from San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.28.060 to allow the construction of a four (4) story, 62'4" foot high office building in excess of the maximum 45 foot height permitted in the C-3A, Limited General Commercial District. The site of the proposed building is located at the northwest corner of Hunts and Hospitality Lanes. 2. The property is zoned C-3A, while the City General Plan designation for the site is The building, as depicted by elevations, industrial nature much like other buildings area. of San Bernardino General rndustrial. is of an up-scale within the immediate 3. San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.28.060 restricts the height of buildings within the C-3A, Limited General Commercial District to 45 feet. The proposed four story building has an overall height of 62'4" feet. Reference is made to several height variances within the immediate area; 84-21, 84-28, 85-17 and 85-2l. The aforementioned variances were approved by the Commission on September 18, 1984, January 8, 1985, september 17, 1985 and December 3, 1985, respectively. The current proposal is basically for a four (4) sided structure comprising of 104,504 square feet. The I-IO Freeway (south of the proposed building) is elevated at that point. To establish greater visablity to freeway traffic, especially those individuals traveling on the east bound lanes, an increased height will provide a "balanced" look to Hospitality Lane. 4. The Environmental Review Committee at their regularly scheduled meeting of April 23, 1987, recommended the issuance of a Negative Declaration for Variance No. 87-18. The Committee indicated that the requested height waiver will not create a significant effect on the environment. (It was noted by the Committee that the project i. located within Liquefaction Zone nAn, thus the project will require a geology report prior to construction.) . I " l; 'i ~ ....... ... .J , \ , ~ '!!w"~ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE VAR NO, 87-18 OBSERVATIONS 11 5/19/87 3 AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE ALL APPLICATIONS FOR A VARIANCE ARE TO INCLUDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO EACH OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS IN ORDER TO CLEARLY ESTABLISH THE NEED OF A VARIANCE. The following are the four findings of fact for Variance No. 87-18, including the applicant's and staff's response to each: 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 and neighborhood. ARPllcant's Response: This property is located in the Sunwest Professional Park which is located within the Commercenter area. The area currently has 1,2,3 & 4 story office buildings existing. There are two (2) major office developments within one-half (1/2) mile of each other. Applicant desires to build four (4) story buildings to be able to compete with adjacent project. Staff'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, location or surroundings. Within the immediate area, multiple story buildings, up to four levels are witnessed. The I-IO freeway is elevated at this point and in an attempt for greater visibility from the 1-10 freeway, additional building height may be required. No residential uses are intended for the Hospitality area, thereby, eliminating the possibility of future residential intrusion into this project which could be negatively affected by the additional height of the building. B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. 82211cant's Response: Applicant desires to construct four (4) story office building which will allow them to compete with other projects in the same area that we have four (4) story buildings casting and under construction. . 'I ., , , ~. '--' -~ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE VAR NO. 87-18 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM '11 HEARING DATE ~/1q/R7 PAGE staff's Response: Substantial property right refers to the right to use the property in a manner which is on a par with uses allowed to oth~r property owners which are in the vicinity and have a like zonlng. 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. The granting of the variance would afford the same privilege as other property owners in the same general area, including Variance No. 85-17, which approved the construction of a building 69 feet in height on the east side of Business Center Drive, approximately 400 feet north of Hospitality Lane. C. That the granting of the variance detrimental to the public welfare or improvements in the zoning district the property is located. bEEli~gD~ Response: will not be materially injurious to property and and neighborhood in which The variance will in fact buildings that are similar their area. allow the owners to construct to projects that are existing in Staff's Response: In determining the application for a variance, the best interest of the entire community is the controlling factor rather than the suitability or adaptability of the property in question for a particular use. The granting of Variance No. 87-18 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or lnJurious to property and improvements in the zoning district. The building at the requested height will be compatible to other buildings to the south and east along the Hospitality corridor. In addition, there are no residential districts within the vicinity which would be negatively impacted or suffer from increased height of the building in question. i ,I' ";> (' i: '., I . , .J , . ... r -- CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE VAR NO 87-18 '" OBSERVATIONS '11 C;/l Q/R7 " ' AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE D. That the granting of such a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Master Plan. Applicant's Response The master plan agrees with the use of multi-level buildings in this area. ~ff~~_Response: The City of San Bernardino General Plan designates the site as General Industrial. The approval of this variance is in conformance with the General Plan. RECOMMENDATIQN Based upon the observations and findings of fact contained herein, staff recommends adoption of the negative declaration and approval of Variance No. 87-18, subject to the compliance with the conditions and standard requirements attached hereto. Respectfully Submitted, DAVID ANDERSON, Acting Planning Director M~~ssociate Planner f , ~:1il 1";' '\.. ~ (CITY OF SAN BERNA~DINO PLA~NG DEPARTMENT , CASE VAR NO. 87-18 CONDITIONS AGENDA ITEM 11 HEARING DATE 5/19/87 PAGE h J 1. Applicant to conform to all requirements of the Uniform Fire Code. 2. Applicant to conform to all requirements of the Uniform Building Code. ~ ,~, , - ...." , CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO CASE VAR NO 117-111 11 'i/lQ/R7 7 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE , '" COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL -L. VAR NO. 87-18 shall be in effect for a period of 12 months from the date of approval. However, if no development has been initiated at the end of the 12-month period, the application shall expire. Additional time may be approved upon request of the applicant prior to expiration of the l2-month period. Expiration Date: May 19, 1988 --2-- PARKING: a. This development shall be required to maintain a minimum of wstan- dard off-street parking spaces. b. All parking and driving aisles shall be surfaced with two inches of AC over a suitable base or equivalent as approved by the City Engineer. Parking spaces shall be striped and have wheel stops installed at least three feet from any building, wall, fence, property line, or walkway. c. Whenever an off-street parking area is adjacent to or across an alley from property Zoned residential, a solid decorative wall six feet in hei9ht shall be erected and maintained along the property line so as to separate the parking area physically from the residentially zoned pro- perty provided such wall shall be three feet in height when located within the required front or street side yard setback. Where no front or street side yard is required, such wall shall be three feet in height when located within ten feet of the street line. d. Whenever an off-street parking area is located across the street from property zoned for residential uses, a solid decorative wall or equiva- lent landscape berm not less than three feet in height shall be erected and maintained along the street side of the lot not closer to the street than the required depth of the yard in the adjoining residential area. No fence or wall located in the front setback shall obscure the required front setback landscaping. __1-. REFUSE ENCLOSURES: Whenever refuse bins are located within or adjacent to a parking area used by the public, they shall be enclosed by a decorative wall six feet in height along the rear and sides and screened gate(s) six feet in height along the front. The enclosure shall not be placed within the required front or street side yard setback area. Exact location and size of refuse enclosures are to be determined by the Planning Department and Division of Public Services Superintendent. " " ..I ,,':1' ,> ",) " I ' ,~ ~ "- NAY'" U fOIl.. 8 'ACll I 01 3 , ' 1..# - ....",,;' , CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO CASE V A R NO f\ 7 _ 1 R 11 5/19/-s:J- 8 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE """ WALLS: a. Six-foot high solid decorative walls shall be required on the north ,south , east , and west or perl pheral property 1 i nes. (OnT:Y'those marked with "X" or check mark app'1"y.") b. Chain-link fencing may be used, subject to approval by the Planning Department. 4 LANDSCAPI NG: The intent and purpose of this section Is to prevent trees and other landscaping from damaging public Improvements. a. Street trees must be installed at a minimum of 30 feet on center. Varieties and exact location shall be determined by the Director of Park and Recreation. b. All required setbacks abutting a public right-of-way shall be landscaped (except for walks and driveways which bisect or encroach upon the required landscape area). c. Three copies of a landscape plan (Including plant material specifications) shall be submitted to the Planning Department and Park and Recreation Department for review and approval. d. All requi red 1 and scapi ng sh all be protected from parking areas and shall be provided with automatic sprinkler facilities which shall be maintained in an operative condition. e. Interior planting shall be required and maintained equal to at least five percent of the open surfaced parking area excluding the area of landscaping strip required by subsection "b" and shall include at least one tree for every five spaces or major fraction thereof. Measurements shall be computed from the inside of perimeter walls or setback lines. f. The required setback(s) from the north , south , east , west_____ property line shall be densely landscaped with mature trees, shrubs, and groundcover. A -foot landscaped earthen berm shall be erected and maintained within the setback along the above Indicated property line. ~ ILLUMINATION: 0(" I' a. All lighting fixtures in the 'parJ(lng areas shall be directed away from adjacent properties and the public right-of-way. ... MAV'I4 " 'ORII . "01 2 aI I I..... ,~ - -- , CASE VAR riO, 87-18 'CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO STANDARD REQUIREMENTS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 11 5/19/87 q 6 ~ 7 8 9 -1Q \. MAY 14 ""'10 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT: a. Air conditioning and vent ducts shall be directed away from any adja- cent residential uses. b. All mechanical equipment located on the roof shall be screened and located away from adjoining residential uses. Screening design shall be approved by the Planning Department. Compliance with all recommendations of the Geology Report shall be required (if applicable). Grading and revegetation shall be staged as required by the City Engineer in order to reduce the amount of bare soil exposed to precipitation. During construction, the City Engineer may require a fence around all or a portion of the periphery of the site to minimize wind and debris damage to adjacent properties. The type of fencing shall be approved by the City Engineer to assure adequate project site maintenance, clean-up and dust control. Within 75 feet of any single-family residential district, the maximum height of any building shall not exceed one-story or 20 feet unless the Commission determines that due to unusual topographical or other features, such restrictive height is not practical. All utility lines shall be installed underground subject to exceptions approved by the Planning Department and the City Engineer. No Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued prior to compliance with these Standard Requirements as well as all provisions of the San Bernardino Municipal Code. 11 SIGNS: All signs shall be in conformance with San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.60. Three copies of a plot plan and elevation of the sign drawn to scale shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the sign permit from the Building and Safety Department. a. Monument-type si9ns shall not be located within the required setback for the zoning district in which the sign is located. The monument sign shall be located a minimum of 5 feet from the property line. If the monument sign is located within, the setback, it shall not exceed an overall height of 3 feet.' b. All freestanding signs must have 8 feet of clearance between average ground level and the bottom of the sign. ,) J,R, 'ORM e PAGE 1 Of 5 ....... .....',~ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO CASE VAR NO, 87-18 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 11 5/19/87 1 n , " ENGINEERING DIVISION Project Descr1ption: Variance 87-18 Construct 4-story building at NWC Hospitality Lane and Hunts Lane Da te: Prepared By: Page 1 ~/l3/81 MWG Reviewed By: of 4 pages GRK Owner/Applicant: The Simchowill Corll, NOTE TO APPLICANT: Where separate Engineering plans are required, the app11cant is responsible for submitting the Engineering plans directly to the Engineering Divi sion. They may be submitted prior to submittal of Bu11ding Plans. STANDARD REQUIREMENTS 12. Payment of all applicable Eng1neer1ng fees. Contact Engineering Division for schedule of fees. LJ. Submittal of a grading/drainage plan conforming to all require- ments of Title 15 of the Munic1pal Code. including submittal of a satisfactory soils investigation containing recommendations for grading, prior to issuance of a grading or building per- mi t. 1I. . All drainage from the development approved puolic drainage facility. drainage facilities and easements satisfaction of the City Engineer. shall be directed to an If not feasible, proper shall be provided to the 15. Design and construction of all pUblic utilities to serve the si te in accordance wi th Ci ty Code, Ci ty Standards and requi re- ments of the serving ut11ity. , :~ "" ) ,e.. .., / , ~ - - CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC WORKS/ENGR. CASE VAR NO, 87-18_ REQUIREMENTS AGENDA ITEM ~.L HEARING DATE -srl 9 i8 7 PAGE --11-_ _ Project Description: Variance 87-18 Con,trlJct 4-story building at NWC Hospitality Lane and-- Hunts Lane Date: Prepared Page 2 5/13/87 By: MWG Reviewed of 4 pages By: GRK ---- SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS Drainage and Flood Control: 16. All necessary drainage and flood control measures shall be sut,ject to the requirements of the Ci ty Engineer, which may be based in part on the recommendations of the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. The Subdivider's Engineer shall furnish all necessary data relatin9 to drainage and flood control. 17. Proper faci lities for disposing of spring water from known sources or if discovered durin9 construction shall be provided to protect proposed building foundations. it). The site is located in Flood Zone nBn, therefore, the building pa1s shall be elevated as required by City Code. I;r,id~ L9. If more than l' of fill or 2' of cut is proposed. the site/plot grading and drainage plan shall be signed by a Registered Civil En1ineer and a grading permit will be required. 20. If more than 5,000 cubic yards of earthwork is proposed, a grading bond will be required and the 9rading shall be super- vised in accordance with Section 7014 (c) of the Uniform Building Code. 21. The site/plot/grading and drainage plan submitted for a buildin9 permit shall contain sufficient ground elevations (both exi sting and proposed), building pad and fini shed floor elevations, grade slopes, and gradients to define the amount of grading to be done and the means of draining the site. F--~' CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PU IC WORKS/ENGR. CASE "A R NC\ R Llli__ ,,, ;/ REQUIREMENTS AGENDA ITEM _J..L_ HEARING DATE -5...Ll 'lj K 1 r Project Description: Variance 87-18 Co~struct 4-story building at NWC Hospital ity Lane ana Hunts Lane Date: 5/13/87 Prepared By: MWG Reviewed By: GRK Page 3 of 4 pages n. Slope planting with an irrigation system to prevent erosion shall be pro~ided as sp~cffied by the City Engineer. Utilities: 23. A sewer backflow prevention device is required for any Units wi th building fini shed floors lower than the nearest upstream manhole rim of the serving sewer main. :'>4. Sewer main extensions required to serve the site shall be constructed at the Developer's expense. 15. Each parcel shall be provided with separate water and sewer facilities so it can be served by the City or the agency providing such services in the area. 26. Utility services shall be placed underground and easements pr0~ided as required. Street lmprovemen ts: 27. Driveway approaches shall be constructed per Standard No. 204 except that the main entry on Hospitality Lane can be inter- section type wi th curb return radius of 20' minimum. Handi- cap ramps per Standard No. 205 shall be provided at each return. 28. Lane width on main driveway with median shall be 18' minimum each direction instead of 14' shown on site plan. Required Engineerin9 Permits: 2~. Grading permit (if applicable) 30. On-site improvements construction permit (except buildings-- see building and Safety) '" \.... ,e) CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC WORKS/ENGR. CASE IIAIl NO ill -1 H REQUIREMENTS 11 ~/1() lil. i :,~ AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE "" Project Description: Variance 87-18 Construct 4-story building at NWC Hospitality Lane and Hunts Lane Date: Prepared Page 4 5/13/87 By: MWG Reviewed By: of 4 pages ,GRE 31. Off-site improvements construction permit Applicable Engineering Fees:' 32. Plan check and inspection fees off-site improvements 33. Plan check and inspection fees for on-site improvements (except building - see Building and Safety) 34. Plan check and inspection fees for grading (if permit requjred) , '- 4..'.~ - -' - CASE VAR 87-18 r CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO STANDARD REQUIREMENTS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 11 5/1987 I ~l. .J " .... J5- ---'lb..- 37. 'jd, 39. yu. ~l. "- ",.\y I. POLICE OEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS SECURI TV Ll GH TI HG Lighting levels on the exterior of building is to provide a minimum of Jne (I) foot candle of "maintained" illumination on the parking surface from dusk "nti1 the termination of business each operating day. All e.terior doors to building shall be equipped with an illumination device capable of providing a minimum of one (l) foot cand~e of maint!ine~ illumination at ground level during hours of darkness. All ederior ligr,ting devices are to be inaccessible to conmon reach or climbing shall be protected by weather and vandalism-resistant and be valdal reslstant, All exterior lighting shall be projected so as not to cast :ight onto adjoining prJperties. All roof openings giving access to the building shall be secured with either iron bars, metal gates, stamped metal or shall be alarmed and meet wi th lpproval of the Police Department. , lntenor night lighting shall be maintained in those areas that are visible from the street 'ground floor only). DOORS, LOCKSL ANO WINDOWS Swinging e.terior glass doors, wood or metal doors Wi th gL1SS panels, solid wood Jr metal doors shall be constructed or protected as follows: a. ~ood Goors soa11 be of solid core construction wlth a ~inimum thickn~ss d I 3/4 incnes. b. I'I)llow meta] doors shall be constructed of a minlmum equivalent to six- :een U. S. guage steel and have sufficient reenforcement to maintain :he dESi gned thi CKness of the door when any locki ng devi ce is install ed '"Lh as reenforcement being able to restrict collapsing of the door 1round the lJcking device. c, except when double cylinder dead bolts are utilized, any glazing uti- 'lled wi thi n 40' of any door locking mechani sm shall be constructed or protected as follows: Fully tempered glass or rated burglary resistant gluing or iron or steel grills of at least 1/8" metal with the madmum 2" mesh secured on the inside of the glazing may be uti lized or the glazing shall be covered with iron or steel bars of at least 1/2" round or I" x 1/4" flat metal, space not more than S" apart and secured on :he inside of the glazing. All swinging exterior wood and 'iteel doors shall be equipped as follows: .J SR FOR.. C PAOl I 0' l!l ~, '- - - 'K,"'/ " CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ""' CASE VAR 87-18 REQUIREMENTS STANDARD \. AGENDA ITEM II HEARING DATE 5/19/87 PAGE --.l5 ~ a. A single or double door shall be equipped with a double or single cylinder dead bolt. The bolt shall have a minimum projection of I" and be constructed so as to repel cutting tool attack. b. The dead bolt shall have an embedment of at least 3/4" into the strike receiving the prOjected bolt. The Cylinder shall have a cylinder guard, a minImum of five pin tumblers and shall be connected to the inner portion of the lock by connecting screws of at least 1/4" in diameter. The recommendation does not apply when panic hardware is required or an equivalent device is approved by the Building Code. j,') ~ Doub1e doors shall be equipped as follows: a. The active leaf of double doors shall be equipped with metal flush bolts having a minimum embedment of 5/8" into the head and threshhold cf the door frame. Oouble doors shall have an astragal constructed of steel, a minlmum of .125" thick which wi 11 cover the opening between the doors. This astragal shall be a minimum of 2" wide and extended a mi ni mum of I" beyond the edge of the door to whi ch it is attached. The astragal shall be attached to the outside of the active door by means of welding or wi th nonremovable bolts spaced apart on not more than 10" centers. Hinges for outswinging doors shall be equipped with nonremo- vable hinge pins or a mechanical inner lock to preclude removal of the door from the exterior by removing the hinge pins. Strike plates ,hall De a ~n ni mum of 3!" in; ength and secured to the jamb wi th screws a mInimum of 2!" in length. Wi nd~w,>: a. All moveable windows shall be equipped with a locking device and shall be constructed in a fashion to restrict them from being lifted out of I ts track when in closed position. ~ Garage type door,>; roiling overhead, solid overhead, swinging, sliding or accordion style. a. The above-described doors shall conform to the following standards: ! I) Wood doors shall have panels a minimum of five-sixteenths (5/16) inch in th i ckness wi th the lock i ng hardware bei ng attached to the support framing. (2 ) Aluminum doors shall be a m1nlmum thickness of .0215 inches and riveted together a minimum of eighteen (l8) 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 pi lot, or pedestrian access, door framing within three (3) inches of the strike area of the pi lot or pedestrian access door. MAY 'I. SR '0ItM C PAGE Z Of L6 "" - /",--,", '--' "-,,,I CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO CASE VAR 87-18 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS AGENDA ITEM -.!2____ HEARING DATE ...'2119/p,.L__ PAGE 16 ~ (3) Fiberglass doors shall have panels a minimum density of six (6) ounces per square foot from the bottom of the door to a height of seven (7) feet and panels in residential structures shall have a density of not less than five (5) ounces per square foot. b. Where sliding or accordion doors are utilized, 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 (l6) feet in width shall have two (2) lock receiving points; or, if the door does not exceed nineteen (19) feet, a single bolt may be used if placed in the center of the door with the locking point located either in the floor or door frame header. d. Overhead doors shall be equipped with slide bolts which shall be capable of utilizing padlocks with a minimum nine-thirty-seconds (9/32) inch shackle. (1) Slide bolt assemblies shall have a frame a minimum of .l20 inches in thickness, a bolt diameter a minimum of one-half (i) inch and protrude at least one and one-half (Ii) inches into the receiving guide. A bolt diameter of three-eights (3/8) ;nch may be used in a residential building. (2 ) Slide bolt assemblies shall be attached to wh i ch are nonremov ab 1 e from the exteri or. to attach such assemblies. the door with bolts Rivets shall not be used e. Padlocks used wi th exterior mounted slide bolts shall have a hardened steel shackle a minimum of nine-thirty-seconds (9/32) inch In diameter wi th heel and toe locking and a minimum five (5) pin tumbler operation. The key shall be nonremovable when In an unlocked operation. f. Doors utilizing 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 Inch. Q!l:!fI!. REQIJIR~f>!ENTS -----'1.~~ 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 background. Numbers shall be placed parallel to street address as assigned. At the entrances of complex, an'illu~inated map or directory of project shall be erected with valdal-resistant cover. The directory shall not to contain names of tenants but only address numbers, street names, and their locations in the complex. Nort~ shall be at the top and so indicated. _-".5.. \.. .J NAY '14 S.A FORM C PAGE :5 Of 15 ..... '-' -- J CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO CASE VAR 87 18 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS AGENDA ITEM _____Ll__ HEARING DATE --V.L'WiL PAGE U ~ Each building in the complex shall display street address numbers placed in a prominent location as near the street as practical. Numbers shall be J minimum of six (6) inches in height and a contrasting color to the background. All individual offices and buildings within the complex shall be clearly identified by numbers, letters, or a combination thereof. The exterior business walls shall be posted with Municipal Code Section 9.52.070 relative to trespass. The irterior cashier/sales counter shall be located so it is visible from the bui ldi ng exterior. The floor area inside the counter shall be elevated a minimum of six (6) inches above the floor of the business. "'" ,..-----"11_ Acces~iontrols An access control override device shall be provided for use by Police Department personnel to gain immediate access. Common walls shall be as sound proof as possible. lockable cold beverage (beer) cases shall be locked at 2:00 a.m. A pre-set gas monitoring system that allows for prepayment of gasoline shall be installed to reduce petty theft attempts. A photo--electric beam across entry door which will audibly notify or ring when customers enter the store shall be installed. lee machines shall not be installed in front of store windows. Uti 11ldllon of outside intercom speakers is prohibited. The r1ilcement of outside public telephones shall be restricted to an area immeolately adjacent to the front door of the store. There shali be a minimum of twenty (20) foot candles of illumination per square foot of surface area adjacent to gas pumps. Any 1isplay of light should take into account adequate pos'tioning of fix- ture~ in order that "stray" light does not affect adjoining property owners. Perimeter fencing or cross fencing to prevent criminal movement or acti-- vi ty shall be installed. Reflective wall--mounted mirrors shall be installed to discourage shop1i fting. The placement of machInery dentlal areas to abate the 1 (compressor 'equi pment) intensity of noise. shall be away from resi-- 'lo.. ~ MAY 14 S.R fORM C PA.uE 4 of If! ~HII _.:-"::.~~ [______ H'._'_.,-~_ -..-..............-........ "...0;) IJ.lII'IOH:UU. JHl _,,_ ,__~,___ _--_,0, ~~~,~ _,_~_,_"___,__,____,_ " , ~ ." ,..... "'" .,,",;0; "H' 'NOSUJIU IOUnINUU ,"''''0'' .. '01"" . I." )1. i.1 ." i 1" '1 '" II i~i~ ~:I~! L-" ~~ qi~ ;,i uu 1:;.; , . ii~ '..1; :..t . .~ :l, I ~ ~; ( . . - .~: - I ~! ~ I !.", "11 ,.. . , I" .~~ - I u ~ IIII ;;; 11 I!II . . !1l1 I l"q 11j, II;l , I ! Ii Ill' lni II I j ! It~ iI' , :1 ~~ ; . . I ..I .:: ;:: I' I, .. ~' . I :. \f> t j "".. iifimi:ilifn'rr,,) ti11~,>- ,c"- ~ [(llllmrimllIf{TIr~f{ 't\'~~'=~ d J j III "t Ihi; m II il~ [TIll U , ~:~ :. j. hm~LAW;m'm;~ ~imrm" ~ - ~ , ) ~ !II III I ! j 11 LUl~l i 111.11) , lJfrn It r I,i] TlIl1 i1')T 1111 U . ',. ~L,lJlljljIUL1n~IUllMl."" , \Fm ifJ.'Y lTITTT IlJTTm 1J , ,~ !i~~1lli~ft.jljI~;~'~'~,'" t....JJ oog.........-ti tL.. 0."."...._11 .. , .' ~ii:-,-,,,-..... /. j;',- <_,,"'\ 0 ~ -I, ~",< ,"-. ,".. 'j ';./, c. ::,I;! .-. !II ~~; .--,. F '-1: . i" :-ii:. I .::" , 'I =1'... , - 't'-.'l' ,-:; I.,. ..-' l'~r! ' ~~~,olI.l\:!_:.::.// I coli I . ri't"~~C.i<'~'f - "........ ....,....-.. -.1I"'4WNOI\\UOIkl .L'~,~_ns ~D~ ~J~ z <( , ... / Q. f .. L/J J i l- I '" .1 '1 I I I I I II f ? "1 I' ii' I 1 '. "~11It '~I co ,... I r-- <X) ~ a: <C > ~l,rnTl "I I'.' lOHu9 H110 ~O~IIJ411 onnz~uu '. --===-:..~,----'---....~--~-~_._~--;:.~.:~~-~~=-- f'..' 1- II' ____"___ rrTI I J]~ ~~"~~~,~.l~~~''':'':: j __n,_ __,. ___ _ __ .,_ u. _ .a.t.NDS Ii l:~I',Sll .\ CO JI1 n ~ \ ~ -, ~.--- , ~ I , (x i 1 (~ : 1. . ~ 1: I H' (~ ! 1 J\ I J, ,oJ ~I I (m, \ IL J,L".., . , . .[ _._..~_._.. . -"--.r,-~~' ..,'..... -.--,,--,----.-- a II u . i~ u u ~~ IC'Q./.F ~~ j I) ,f; ~f~' r ur,J [, r ,'i ol'fi'~{1 ~ ~~ \} ~t.'t}'lr! ~ J', ~ I, ! Jill r l~'i[, ~a ~ u -flr. ,-- " . ~..,. -"'r i (U) , ~~~.j 1<( b... '_.. . . (€i z ...- '" . .J D. ...... 0: ro 0 0 .J ~ " ~I a: II u <( > L-_ . Q Q ~"_."'-'V u ; ~ u Q II II -'1 H I II l,~,=,~:-,~ :=t,.~l-=~,='~c!:-:-, 1- \.- "-' ~~-~~~---l' I~ - '" " - ---~"I , -""-.-... , [II nil .' ...~:;;;;0::~7"= ' , , ~ 'I l I (i< l'_d I . . " , ! , . I f!') ; . i @ 1 , . ' C"){ l w ~ ' 1 " ""1\ ) l (!>) t , I , @ (1- I , . 'j r ~ , I !;>OJt'j : I eJil "'.." . . . ~t~l'~~ "'-'1 . j ! ~ ~ p ~: ! . . , . rn-Ci'C1l} I ~~] I . J QhJ~~'I'I~ or \ orfrJ~t~ ~~I i '~~~I'~~ Mi. . : . . : 1 ~ i ! i 1 ~11. &m.~~ U i~ u " n n . . ,,'" :L,' I, . . , ";w~~~- tHI[~1 to (~i ~ ,.. r:. I' a; '" g ex) ...J lL ~ o Z' ~i a: ::: <( > . <, . . - -- ---w u l1 . II II 0'1 Ii I "-i--l I II .ic:""::~) -;~- - ,i, -'."~ ~~;;;.c1:__-=~5-c 1 ...... <-n]~ ""r-r~-r----~-- , . - '''-'-l , . ---).. ..........._~ ';..,..,1 r~'" . )n .. _000> '~M_O~>~:=;.~ _ _ _ . ]TIT'm:rr""l .- - -. .-.--- \ Z ~; 0 ~~,; t- o( > - - .- - w ... ~ w X ! t- ) a:: 0 z ~ ! ,:1 . L~ ~ .~ / ! I I, - -~,. --............;..--...........-... lIliV.l WNOI\SHOU.J _ _ ..l~N~S_ T ., - - _._"-~. -J .. : ;- IJJ ~ ... . : .: It" ~ .' - Xl .. I~_i..' I t : ~ '-f.. i , i 1,1"1 . co ..... I ..... to ~ a:: <t: > z o t- o( > w t- CIl W ~ ~'j'-~-- ""-\' ..=...., ..;.~:=.::.)wt I r .' . ._...OH~MO.>.:.:,~ '_."" ----~~.;o......-...-- lnIVoI1YNC:lK.SlJOl:l.l n "'1~lInS___ ].~'~I:I.~i ,~ ~1 co ..... I ~ co ex: <t: > ~.. ____.___ __. __ ..,__ _u____ _ } '~.~'''''''~'''-:7::',j~l'' "l;'~ I . . I . I . i ! . Iii , . ,I ' i . , . I I I : j . i I : I I ~ I ~ I / --- \ z 0 z 0 t- c( .... I > <( b w > ... ... ~ W ...l h ... x ) t- .... / ::> CIl 0 <( II> W -.- ~ 1- - ~ -- ~ J ' ~ ~ i ~..~.., l . , I H' "-.. - ....., , CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM # LoeA TION CASE VAR NO i!7-1i! 11 HEARING DATE 5/19/87 \.. :-lol 101-1 101-1 , Ctlt1~ , .M "0" e.COIl) 101-' C.M C'lol 5. "0" . "0" 101 ~ CoM -" ~ C-lol ~~ C'3A 3 ~l C3A . C-3A ~-' CoM # :------., " f I C ~ C.M C.M J C.M C'3A y C-3A , C'3A C'3A CoM C 3A CtOtl - CM ~ ! . , ' C.M co~ ---- , ) ~ . M-' . -------=::::::' C-M INTERSTATE @ '3A \... c-3A \ IT ~'3A_ ,-, ,-, ,-, ,,[ C'3A . . -..- .- RSTATE ,~ e-Iol C.M M-' 101-1 C-M ...,