Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout40- Development Services 'NY r t CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION From: Valerie C. Ross, Acting Director Subject: An appeal of Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Dept: Development Services Permit No. 00-05—To establish an indoor retail concession mall in an existing building Date: July 11, 2000 located at the NEC of Waterman Avenue and 91h Street in the CG-1, Commercial General, and CH, Commercial Heavy, land use districts. MCC Date: July 24, 2000 Synopsis of Previous Council Action: None Recommended Motion: That the Public Hearing be closed, the appeal be denied, and the Planning Commission's approval of CUP 00-05 be upheld based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements. /AbAttl el, RX441 Valerie C. Ross Contact person: Margaret Park Cen;nr Planner Phone: 384 5057 Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: 2 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. Description) Finance: Council Notes: Agenda Item No. A4 t) [;,q) j)0 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO -REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT Subject: An appeal of the Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 00-05 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of July 24, 2000 APPELLANT: OWNER: APPLICANT: Lansing Industries,Inc. Harold Willis Jin Ho Suh Family Ranch Center,LLC 1033 N. Waterman Avenue,#K 57 Glenflow Ct. 291 S. La Cienega Blvd. San Bernardino, CA 92410 Glendale, CA 91206 Suite 307 889-0829 888-8448 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 (310) 657-5191 BACKGROUND The Planning Commission reviewed Conditional Use Permit No. 00-05 and Variance No. 00-05 at its June 6, 2000 meeting. Conditional Use Permit 00-05 was approved to establish an indoor retail concession mall in an existing building at the northeast corner of Waterman Avenue and 9th Street. Variance No. 00-05, to reduce landscaping requirements was denied. Commissioners Welch, Garcia,Duff, Sauerbrun and Thrasher voted in favor of the motion. Commissioners Coute and Enciso voted against the motion. Commissioners Adams,Lockett and Ramirez were absent. Refer to the Planning Commission staff report for a complete discussion. The appeal was filed on June 20,2000. The basis for the appeal is that the Planning Commission approval violated the California Environmental Quality Act in that the Categorical Exemption used for this project was not applicable. The Application for Appeal submitted is attached as Exhibit 3. Appeal issues Staff believes that the exemption is appropriate in this situation. The existing building(the old K- Mart)was previously a retail use. The use being proposed is essentially the same. Staff does not believe that the indoor retail concession mall is a change in use or an intensification of use, and therefore,no additional environmental review is required. Staff is not aware of any provision in CEQA that says the exemption does not apply if the building has been vacant. Air Quality. As noted above,the building is existing and any air quality issues related to traffic will be similar to the previous retail use.No new construction is proposed. Parking. A parking analysis is not required. The site plan contains the parking required as per Development Code Section 19.24.020. Risk of Liquefaction. A liquefaction report is not required—no new construction is proposed. CUP No.00-05 Page 2 Risk of Subsidence. A soils study is not required—no new construction is proposed. Demolition. A demolition permit was issued in compliance with City and SCAQMD requirements. The demolition permit authorized removal of interior walls. Traffic. Both Waterman Avenue and 9t1i Street are major arterials, capable of handling 30,000-40,000 daily trips. Current average daily traffic levels are approximately 25,200 on Waterman Avenue, and 11,000 on 9t" Street. The intersection operates at Level of Service C+on weekdays. Weekend traffic levels are less on both streets. The trip generation rates cited by the appellant are correct. The Free-Standing Discount Store trip generation rates in the ITE Manual are consistent with the previous discount store and the proposed use. It should be noted that the trip generation rates are based on leaseable area. The total leaseable area for the indoor retail concession mall is likely to be less than the previous use. A traffic study was not required since the proposed use is similar to the use for which the building was originally constructed. The Traffic Division of Public Works has provided a memorandum regarding traffic generation and trip counts for this project. (Exhibit 4) Lot Line Adjustment/Aesthetics. A lot line adjustment has not been requested as part of this project. Adequate parking is proposed. The applicant requested a reduction in the required landscaping and the landscaped setbacks from the streets,but the Planning Commission denied the request. Risk of additional vacancy. The appellant has not provided any analysis supporting oversaturation of indoor retail concession malls. As the appellant noted, this business is tenuous in nature. Therefore,there is no assurance that the tenants will remain with or without a new mall. It is likely that the tenants could move to Highland Avenue to the indoor retail concession mall approved last year by the Planning Commission. Fire Hydrants. The Fire Department reviewed the proposed project and added appropriate conditions and standard requirements. City estopped from exempting the project from CEQA. A categorical exemption is in compliance with CEQA. City has improperly split up project. The demolition permit could have been issued at any time for the removal of interior walls. Building owners often obtain permits to remove interior walls to make the building more marketable. Issuing the demolition permit does not"guarantee"any future use of the building. 9 CUP No.00-05 Page 3 �I CUP Findings. The staff report to the Planning Commission contains the findings necessary for approval. The proposed project is in compliance with the City's development standards,with the exception of landscaping for which a variance was sought. The appellant has not provided substantial evidence that the project will have an impact on the environment that would negate the findings. The Development Code contains provisions for undergrounding utilities or participation in an assessment district,as per the Public Works requirement. Variance Findings. The Planning Commission did not approve the variance. Due Process Violation. The project files are not considered"sensitive"nor was that representation made by staff. A representative of the appellant came to the front counter on Friday,May 26,2000 prior to the Memorial Day Weekend and requested numerous copies that staff was not able to immediately provide.As such,because of the quantity of documents requested, and other staff priorities, copies could not be made until the following week. Therefore,the representative was asked to fill out a public records request form so that staff could copy the requested materials and notify the representative upon their availability. One page of the Preliminary Project Description Form was inadvertently omitted from the copies. This form is filled out by the applicant prior to project submittal and does not include any staff analysis. It is intended to be a preliminary description of the project only. It asks questions pertaining to existing land uses, size of the project, and existing vegetation,trees and wildlife on site. This form was not withheld,nor is it a critical document. The Development Services Department complied with all public information and noticing requirements. The appellant submitted a 12-page letter(dated June 5,2000)to the Planning Commission describing in detail their objections to the project. This letter was received on June 6d' and distributed to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission considered the issues raised, and staff's responses before making their decision on the project. FINANCIAL IMPACT None. The appellant paid the required appeals fees for this appeal. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 00-05. Exhibits: 1. Location Map 2. Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 6, 2000 3. Application for Appeal including June 5, 2000 and May 31,2000 letters from Rutan& Tucker 4. Public Works Division Memo dated July 18, 2000 rf t E ' NMI � • r � I IVAIR la R I � i EXHIBIT 2 SUMMARY MMARY CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION CASE: Conditional Use Permit No.00-05 and Variance No. 00-05 AGENDA ITEM: 3 HEARING DATE: June 6, 2000 WARD: 2 APPLICANT OWNER: Jin Ho Suh Harold W. Willis 57 Glenflow Court 1033 N. Waterman Ave., Suite K Glendale, CA 91206 San Bernardino, CA 92410 REQUEST/LOCATION: The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit under authority of Development Code Section 19.06.020, Table 06.01, to establish an indoor retail concession mall in an existing building. The applicant is also applying for a variance to reduce the landscape requirement from 15% to 10% and to reduce the setback requirements from 10 feet to 0 feet. The property is located on the northeast corner of Waterman Avenue and 9' Street, otherwise known as 999 North Waterman Avenue. This property is located in both the CG-1, Commercial General and CH, Commercial Heavy land use districts. CONSTRAINTS/OVERLAYS: NONE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: ❑ Not Applicable Exempt, Section 15301 -Existing Facilities • No Significant Effects • Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Plan STAFF RECOMAMNDATION: 0 Approval - Conditional Use Permit El Conditions ® Denial - Variance ❑ Continuance to: iditional Use Permit No.00-05 Meeting Date:June 6, 2000 Page 2 REQUEST AND LOCATION The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit under authority of Development Code Section 19.06.020, Table 06.01 to establish an indoor retail concession mall in an existing building. The applicant is also requesting a variance to reduce the overall landscaping requirement from 15% to 10% and to reduce the front and side setback requirement from 10 feet to 0 feet along both Waterman Avenue and 9th Street. The property is located on the northeast corner of Waterman Avenue and 9`h Street in the CG-1, Commercial General, and CH, Commercial Heavy, land use districts and is otherwise known as 999 North Waterman Avenue. SETTING/SITE CHARACTERISTICS The existing building is 104,020 square feet and the property is 11.8 acres. A retail center and a gas station are to the north. To the south is a vehicle salvage and wrecking yard. To the east is an elementary school and to the west are existing commercial businesses. The property was previously a K-Mart store but has been vacant a number of years since its closure. BACKGROUND The current project was reviewed by the DRC on April 20, 2000 and continued pending receipt of revised plans. The issues of concern included the landscaping requirements, interior configuration of the concession booths, and required setbacks. A variance was filed to request a reduction in landscaping and setback requirements. The project was reviewed again by the DRC on May 11, 2000 and at that time it was cleared to Planning Commission. ditional Use Permit No.00-05 Meeting Date:June 6, 2000 Page 3 FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS FOR CUP No. 00-05 1. Is the proposed use conditionally permitted within the subject land use district, would it impair the integrity and character of the subject land use district, and does it comply with all of the applicable provisions of this Development Code? Yes. Pursuant to Development Code Section 19.06.020, Table 06.01, I6, an indoor retail concession mall is permitted in the CG-1 and CH land use districts subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed project complies with all applicable provisions of the Development Code as shown below in Table 1. TABLE 1 —DEVELOPMENT CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE CATEGORY PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT GENERAL PLAN CODE Indoor Concession Permitted subject to Permitted Use Mall Conditional Use N/A Permit Height 20 feet 45 feet 52 feet Setbacks - Front 0 feet * 10 feet - Side (street) 0 feet * 10 feet - Side (interior) 0 feet 0 feet N/A - Rear 0 feet 0 feet Landscaping 15,660 square feet 53,520 square feet (4.4%) t(15%) N/A Lot Coverage 20 percent 50 percent N/A Parking :978 spaces .690 spaces - Standard 954 682 N/A - Handicap 24 g * As requested under Variance 00-05 G�` ' = 4 t 6 iditional Use Permit No.00-05 Meeting Date:June 6, 2000 Page 4 2. Is the proposed use consistent with the General Plan? Yes. Policy 1.19.10 of the City of San Bernardino General Plan states: "It shall be the policy of the City of San Bernardino to permit a diversity of community-serving retail and service uses . . ." An indoor retail concession mall would add to the diversity of retail stores in the neighborhood by providing a variety of retail uses in one building. 3. Is the approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed use in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and Section 19.20.030(6) of the Development Code? This project is exempt from CEQA per §15301, Existing Facilities. This exemption is for uses that consist of the "operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing or minor alteration of existing...private structures...involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing." The property was constructed as a retail commercial building and under this proposal will be reused as an indoor retail concession mall which is also a retail commercial use. 4. Are there potentially significant negative impacts upon environmental quality i and natural resources that could not be properly mitigated and monitored? As noted on the Summary page and in Finding #3, this project is exempt from CEQA per §15301, Existing Facilities. 5. Are the location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use compatible with the existing and future land uses within the general area in which the proposed use is to be located and will it create significant noise, traffic or other conditions or situations that may be objectionable or detrimental to other permitted uses in the vicinity or adverse to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City? General Design The existing building is a large beige box with a combination of stucco and brickwork on the front exterior. Extras on the building such as the poles supporting the overhang are painted dark brown. There is a top mounted sign above the front entrance. The applicant proposes to paint the upper central portion of the Waterman Avenue fascia an aqua green color and also add aqua green storefronts and a matching horizontal stripe. These color additions will break up the large beige walls and add some visual interest to the Waterman Avenue side of the building, which has the most visibility. ►ditional Use Permit No.00-05 Meeting Date:June 6, 2000 Page 5 Parking The site as it exists provides 978 parking spaces including 24 handicap spaces. According to §19.024.040 of the Development Code, 690 spaces are required. The applicant is proposing to resurface the parking lot and re-stripe it to conform to Development Code requirements. Landscaping The Development Code requires that both of the 10' front and street side setback areas be landscaped. However, the applicant has submitted the variance request that both street setbacks be reduced to 0', thus eliminating the landscaped setbacks along both Waterman Avenue and 9`h Street. The applicant is proposing to use the existing landscaped areas within the street right-of-ways in substitution for on-site setbacks. The Development Code requires that 15%, or 24,989 s.f. of the 166,590 s.f. parking area be landscaped. As presented, the applicant proposes to landscape only 15,660 square feet, or 4.4%. As part of the landscaping required, the Development Code requires that the entire parking area provide 25% permanent shading for parked vehicles. The landscape plan submitted shows approximately half of the required parking area is provided with shade trees. Staff recommends that the entire parking area comply with the landscaping and shading requirements. Operational Characteristics The business will operate 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily. A project description was provided j by the applicant and is included as Attachment F. All of the uses described are permitted in the land use district but it is important to note that all work and business must be done within an enclosed structure. The existing outside storage area is understood to be for storage only and will be screened with a combination of newly installed chainlink and matching aqua colored slats. 6 Is the subject site physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed? Yes. The site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of the project being proposed as evidenced by project compliance with all applicable Development Code Standards as noted above except for those items for which the variance has been submitted. 7. Are there adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use would not be detrimental to public health and safety? Yes. All agencies responsible for reviewing access, and providing water, sanitation and other public services have all had the opportunity to review the proposal, and none have indicated an inability to serve the project. The proposal will not be detrimental to the public health and safety in that all applicable Codes will apply to the construction of this project. :ditional Use Permit No.00-05 Meeting Date:June 6, 2000 Page 6 FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS FOR VARIANCE No. 00-05 1. Are there special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of this Development Code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical land use district classification? No. The current City standards are not depriving the property owner any privileges. Per the Development Code, the proposed use requires only 690 parking spaces and the site plan identifies 978 parking spaces. As such, there is ample room to install the required landscaped setbacks and shade trees. Landscaping will not prevent the applicant from operating his business or from providing adequate parking. 2. Is granting the Variance necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and land use district and denied to the property for which the Variance is sought. No. The inclusion of the required landscaping will not eliminate required parking or prevent the use of the building for the indoor retail concession mall. The Development Code regulations were adopted to protect business by enhancing aesthetic value and therefore, creating a comfortable environment for consumers. i 3. Will granting the Variance be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and land use district in which the property is located? Yes. The purpose of landscaping and setback regulations is to enhance the aesthetic appearance of the City, to increase compatibility with surrounding land uses, to reduce heat axd glare generated by development, and to minimize the impact of all forms of physical and visual pollution. No alternative means of addressing these issues has been put forward by the applicant. Therefore, granting this Variance would be detrimental to the public health and welfare, and injurious to the property improvements in the vicinity. 4. Will granting the Variance constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and land use district in which such property is located? Yes. Although the adjacent market has little landscaping, all setback requirements are met. Also, other surrounding businesses and the high school have met the landscaping and setback requirements. Granting this Variance would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity. S. Will granting the Variance allow a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject parcel? :ditional Use Permit No.00-05 Meeting Date:June 6, 2000 Page 7 No. Reduction of the setback and landscape requirements will not allow a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject parcel. 6 Will granting the Variance be consistent with the General Plan? The General Plan supports the economic growth of existing businesses and the City as a whole, including indoor concession malls. However, the General Plan does require the inclusion of site landscaping (Policy 1.19.30 (e)) and that street frontages of CH, Commercial Heavy, sites incorporate an extensive setback in which landscaping and decorative screening walls are provided (Policy 1.30.30). CONCLUSION Although Conditional Use Permit No. 00-05 meets all the necessary Findings of Fact for approval, Variance No. 00-05 does not. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 00-05 based upon the Findings of Fact contained in this Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval (Attachment C) and Standard Requirements (Attachment D). 2. Deny Variance No. 00-05 based upon the Findings of Fact contained in this Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval (Attachment C) and Standard Requirements (Attachment D). Respectfully Submitted, Michael E. Hays ` Director of Development Services h P Margaret ark Senior Planner Attachment A Location Map Attachment B-1 Site Plan Attachment B-2 Floor Plan Attachment B-3 Elevations 7ditional Use Permit No.00-05 Meeting Date:June 6, 2000 Page 8 Attachment B-4 Landscape Plan Attachment C Conditions of Approval Attachment D Standard Requirements Attachment E Applicant's Variance Findings Attachment F Project Description ass all 7 WOO AVIAMM As ,p �• MOtt�o71u1L330mv (�M) "mil Km OR IB[:woj Q fY tit Tim L u0waa XTFU TA.1.?vow ` aAY t1Vi(?i uyx X 1 r KLWW Fw AMON w.i all tr«sw.a.ai an a.w m. NX 3 ------ ---- \\R\ \ \\\\ \\\ I tr o f- \\\\\\\\\\\\ + wpm a I Q lmm or IP, oil Y � 11111 I ac•�rt �, s«ww>r + 3 fl N 3 A-V N 3 � 31 d M - • - r TT � atesaAacf ia1Lb! e h �iwuoi a.+6-m Tm Imoo a 1TJMLLT1.J;D-Vv d Yd E L<i L j O fa Q F " z JJF H N •_• ' H 7 W % W1i VJ W o � � �i lii ki 1►i $i �i 12i �i 1+; �i •� � Ea J4 I �, z x � •� � la Wit 1 f Lq N �a rw 4 J4 0 14 14 z 14 J4 J4 J4 14 p 1' > 14 14 14 14 14 hi 9 x 0 1 1 PIN 14 14 •14 14 14 14 a ON J441 --rs In TD=0V0 •rK&a e =40 •LSD t4 d m i (r) memo 0"0-t" (60) -M*%i R4 ar bW;jai r I 1 ded"" 10 0 ti b z ui vi a I �, i , i , , ► ; a � z , O '0 Jwr ` N o > z c id h ( 044 O 10 F ` < ■ z Ifs it Z 3 z FI it O �� °' i 1 " z Q O a , ••I pq „ H C< •• F a F � V C � li • : IF J M " < 04 M -- " An It °' III i j• a � xl z y h I ra F I O z uj� z ►7 It I o " E4 rti �� ►w I� -- - w V LLW n i W ao sd g � m m nn� a r r �� '➢ i L sP < x L T7 E 9 3 o i _ V m de 0 _ I 8 I 8 I I III. I 1 i . I n I I� r n Z O 1 �, Q ee ee ee o• ee o I I i l k � I � p I II . I � I x� I i i i i i I ill III it I � t 1 O ( -i— 111 1 � 1 -1^IZIISIQ ;Sn QNVI 9NIISIXG 1 n II ' II 1111 1 IP I I Sz �(ny __ __ SdAS Tdl'9M�LJ0'J'75H R '. iditional Use Permit No.00-05 Meeting Date:June 6, 2000 Page 9 ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit No. 00-05 and Variance No. 00-05 1. Within two years of development approval, commencement of construction shall have occurred or the permit/approval shall become null and void. In addition, if after commencement of construction, work is discontinued for a period of one year, then the permit/approval shall become null and void. Phasing of project construction/development shall be as follows: Project: Conditional Use Permit No. 00-05 and Variance No. 00-05 Expiration Dat5,layl,2002 6 2. The review authority may, upon application being filed 30 days prior to the expiration date and for good cause, grant a one-time extension not to exceed 12 months. The review authority shall ensure that the project complies with all current Development Code provisions. 3. In the event that this approval is legally challenged, the City will promptly notify the d applicant of any claim or action and will cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. Once notified, the applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of San Bernardino. The applicant further agrees to reimburse the City of any costs and attorneys' fees which the City may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action, but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his or her obligation under this condition. 4. Construction shall be in substantial conformance with the plan(s) approved by the Director, Development Review Committee, Planning Commission or Mayor and Common Council. Minor modification to the plan(s) shall be subject to approval by the Director through a minor modification permit process. Any modification which exceeds 10% of the following allowable measurable design/site considerations shall require the refiling of the original application and a subsequent hearing by the appropriate hearing review authority if applicable: a. On-site circulation and parking, loading and landscaping; b. Placement and/or height of walls, fences and structures; c. Reconfiguration of architectural features, including colors, and/or modification of finished materials that do not alter or compromise the previously approved theme; and, d. A reduction in density or intensity of a development project. iditional Use Permit No.00-05 Meeting Date:June 6, 2000 Page 10 5. No vacant, relocated, altered, repaired or hereafter erected structure shall be occupied or no change of use of land or structure(s) shall be inaugurated, or no new business commenced as authorized by this permit until a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued by the Department. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued by the Department subject to the conditions imposed on the use, provided that a deposit is filed with the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of the Certificate, if necessary. The deposit or security shall guarantee the faithful performance and completion of all terms, conditions and performance standards imposed on the intended use by this permit. 6. This permit or approval is subject to all the applicable provisions of the Development Code in effect at the time of approval. This includes Chapter 19.20 - Property Development Standards, and includes: dust and dirt control during construction and grading activities; emission control of fumes, vapors, gases and other forms of air pollution; glare control; exterior lighting design and control; noise control; odor control; screening; signs, off-street parking and off-street loading; and, vibration control. Screening and sign regulations compliance is important considerations to the developer because they will delay the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy until they are complied with. Any exterior structural equipment. or utility transformers, boxes, ducts or meter cabinets shall be architecturally screened by wall or structural element, blending with the building design and include landscaping when on the ground. 1 7. Signs are not approved as a part of this permit. Indoor retail concession malls shall be considered to be one tenant for purposes of Development Code sign standards. Prior to establishing any new signs, or replacing existing signs. the applicant shall submit an application, and receive approval, for a sign permit from the Planning Department. 8. The developer is to submit a complete landscape and irrigation plan (5 sets) to the Public Works Department with the required fee for review (Note: issuance of a building permit by the Department of Planning and Building Services does NOT waive this requirement). No grading permit will be issued prior to approval of the landscape and irrigation plans. The landscape and irrigation plans shall comply with the "Procedure and Policy for Landscaping and Irrigation" provided by the Department of Parks and Recreation and included with their standard requirements. 9. Parking lot landscaping shall be subject to the requirements of Development Code Sections 19.24 and 19.28. 10. The former outdoor garden display area shall be enclosed with a new 6' chainlink fence in combination with new aqua green slats. If the area is to be used for retail display and sales (instead of storage only), the applicant shall install a 3' block wall + 3' wrought iron for a total fence height of 6'. In addition, climbing vines shall be planted along the south wall of the building to the east of the garden center. nditional Use Permit No.00-05 Meeting Date:June 6, 2000 Page II 1 11. The existing pole sign on Waterman Avenue shall be repaired so that it does not spin loosely and shall be maintained consistent with Development Code Section 19.22.110 (Sign Construction and Maintenance). 12. Parking areas shall be equipped with lighting capable of providing a minimum of 1- foot candle across the surface of the parking area. Any illumination, including security lighting, shall be directed away from adjoining properties and public rights-of-way. 13. The applicant shall install a new 6' chainlink fence along the east property line. The 10' section closest to 9`h Street shall be wrought iron consistent with Development Code Section 19.20.030(8)(C)(2). 14. This permit or approval is subject to the attached conditions or requirements of the following City Departments or Divisions: a) Department of Development Services—Plan Check Division b) Department of Development Services—Public Works Division c) Fire Department d) Public Services Department—Refuse Division e) Water Department fl Parks, Recreation & Community Services Department i f I J ATTACHMENT D City of San Bernardino STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DRC Date: April 20, 2000 Development Services/Plan Check Division CUP 00-05 Property address: 999 N Waterman Avenue 1. Submit 4 sets of plans, minimum size 18" x 24", drawn to scale. If plan check is for expeditious review, submit 5 sets. The plans shall include (if applicable): a. Site plan (include address & assessors parcel number) b. Floor plan (label use of all areas) address concerns of travel distance to exits. C. Interior elevations d. Electrical, mechanical, & plumbing plans e. Cross section details on booth design, supports, attachment, etc. L Show compliance with Title 24/Accessibility (disabled access) 2. The title sheet of the plans must specify the occupancy classification, type of construction, if the building has sprinklers, & the current applicable codes. The current model code is the 1997 editions as amended by the 1998 California codes. 3. The person who prepares them must sign the plans. Also, provide the address & phone number of that person. Some types of occupancies require that the plans are prepared, I stamped, and signed by an architect, engineer, or other person licensed by the State of California. 4. Since the building has been vacant for more than 180 days, a Certificate of Occupancy will be required. (It can be included with the permit for the tenant improvement.) 5. For structures that must include an engineers design, provide 2 sets of stamped/wet signed calculations prepared by a licensed architect/engineer. 6. Submit site and/or landscape plans to Public Works/Engineering for plan check approval and permits. For more information, phone 909-384-5111. 7. Fire sprinkler plans, fires suppression system plans, etc., shall be submitted to the Fire Department for plan check approval and permits. For information, phone 909-384-5388. 8. Signs require a separate submittal to the Planning Division for plan check approval and permits. For information, phone 909-384-5057. 9. Occupancies that include restaurants may require approvals and permits from San Bernardino Water Reclamation. For information, phone 909-384-5141. 10. Clearances and approvals will be required from San Bernardino County's Health Dept. Contact Jane Brinkerhoff at 909-387-3043. 11. An air quality permit may be required. Contact South Coast Air Quality Management Division for information, phone 909-396-2000. 12. State of California Business & Professions Code/Contractors License Law requires that permits can be issued to licensed contractors or owner-builders (that are doing the work). Contractors must provide their State license number, a city business registration, and workers com ensation policy carrier & policy number. Owner-builders must provide proof of nersh,P. GERI ERANSKEIPLAINS CHECKERIDEVELOPNIENT SERVICES } l CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO FIRE DEPARTMENT STANDARD REQUIREMENTS Case: P— 00— Is Date: 5Z a 0/0 a Reviewed By: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Provide one additional set of construction plans to Building and Safety for Fire Department use at time of plan check. Contact the City of San Bernardino Fire Department at (909) 384-5388 for specific detailed requirements. ❑ The developer shall provide for adequate fire flow as computed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. Minimum fire flow requirements shall be based on square footage, construction features, and exposure information supplied by the developer and M=be available prior to placing combustible materials on site. WATER PURVEYOR FOR FIRE PROTECTION: ❑ The fire protection water service for the area of this project is provided by: ❑ San Bernardino Municipal Water Department - Engineering (909) 384-5391 ❑ East Valley Water District - Engineering (909) 888-8986 ❑ Other Water Purveyor: Phone: PUBLIC FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES: ❑ Public fire hydrants are required along streets at intervals not to exceed 300 feet for commercial and multi-residential areas and at intervals not to exceed 500 feet for residential areas. • Fire hydrant minimum flow rates of 1,500 gpm at a 20 psi minimum residual pressure are required for commercial and multi-residential areas. Minimum fire hydrant flow rates of 1,000 gpm at a 20 psi minimum residual pressure are required for residential areas. • Fire flow requirements may be met from the combined flow of two adjacent fire hydrants. Fire flow requirements may be adjusted, as deemed appropriate by the Fire Department, based on individual site specific conditions and available mitigations. ❑ Fire hydrant type and specific location shall be jointly determined by the City of San Bernardino Fire Department in conjunction with the water purveyor. Fire hydrant materials and installation shall conform to the standards and specifications of the water purveyor. ❑ Public fire hydrants, fire services, and public water facilities necessary to meet Fire Department requirements are the developer's financial responsibility and shall be installed by the water purveyor or by the developer at the water purveyor's discretion. Contact the water purveyor indicated above for additional information. ACCESS: ❑ Provide two separate, dedicated routes of ingress/egress to the property entrance. The routes shall be paved, all weather. ❑ Provide an access road to each building for fire apparatus. Access roadway shall have an all-weather driving surface of not less than 20 feet of unobstructed width. Extend roadway to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior wall of all single story buildings. }Extend roadway to within 50 feet of the exterior wall of all multiple-story buildings. a ;Provide "NO PARKING" signs whenever parking of vehicles would possibly reduce the clearance of access roadways to less than the required width. Signs are to read "FIRE LANE-NO PARKING -M.C. Sec 15.16". ❑ Dead-end streets shall not exceed 500 feet in length and shall have a minimum 40 foot radius turnaround. ❑ The names of any new streets (public or private) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval. SITE: ❑ All access roads and streets are to be constructed and usable prior to combustible construction. ❑ Private fire hydrants shall be installed to protect each building located more than 150 feet from the curb line. No fire hydrants should be within 40 feet of any exterior wall. The hydrants shall be Wet Barrel type, with one 2'/Z inch and 4 inch outlet, and approved by the Fire Department. Fire hydrants shall be designated as a "NO PARKING" zone by painting an 8 inch wide, red stripe for 15 feet in each direction in front of the hydrant in such a manner that it will not be blocked by parked vehicles. f PPILDINGS: ' PI' Address numerals shall be installed on the building at the front or other approved location in such a manner as to be visible from the frontage street. Commercial and multi family address numerals shall be 6 inches tall, single family address numerals shall be 4 inches tall. The color of the numerals shall contrast with the color of the background. P Identify each gas and electric meter with the number of the unit it serves. �} Fire Extinguishers must be installed prior to the building being occupied. The minimum ating for any fire extinguisher is 2A 106/C. Minimum distribution of fire extinguishers must be such that no interior part of the building is over 75 feet travel distance from a fire extinguisher. ❑ Apartment houses with 16 or more units, hotels (motels) with 20 or more units, or apartments or hotels(motels) three stories or more in height shall be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers designed to NFPA standards. ❑ All buildings, other than residential, over 5,000 square feet shall be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system designed to NFPA standards. This includes existing buildings vacant over 365 days. 0, Submit plans for the fire protection system to the Fire Department prior to beginning construction of the system. Tenant improvements in all sprinklered buildings are to be approved by the Fire Department prior to start of construction. Provide fire alarm (required throughout). Plan must be approved by the Fire Department prior to start of installation. ❑ Fire Department connection to (sprinkler system/standpipe system) shall be required at Fire Department approved location. Note: The applicant must request, in writing, any changes to Fire Department requirements. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: i C-F. 11-L /_/J r .� �� � �i'7l✓i-Q�t., <- L.,r v�,�/•- v IVAv 2 IV At A- FPS 170(11.94) CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBUC SERVICES DEPARTMENT—REFUSE & RECYCUNG DIVISION STANDARD DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 300 North D Street—4th Floor CA 9241 B-0001 909-384-5335 Project Number l' �t �,� - ``! Project Planner Project Description/Business Name Project LocatioNAddress c Reviewed By M, mJ � —.._. Review Date (Office Use Only. City Service Application No. Date Completed Application Retumed COMMERCIAL 1. Establish commercial refuse enclosure(s) according to City Pubic Works Standard 508 with a width of and a length of . Location and orientation of enclosure(s), gates, and compactor unit(s) shad be shown on Site Plans, labeled with dimensions and specifications to meet Pubic Works Standard 508. 2. Locate refuse enclosure(s) and compactor unit(s) to be safely accessible for service vehicles and without obstruction to drive aisles, driveways, loafing zones, parking, or handicap access. Enclosure must be at least 5' from combustible walls, eave fines, or openings[98 CA Fire Code 1103.22]. Minimum radii of 40' for all drive turns h/ along the main ingress to and egress from enclosures and compactor pads. 3. Install compactor��. p unit(s)with a minimum capacity of cubic yards for each unit. Roll-off box unit(s) shag meet Pubic Works Standard 510. 4. Refuse and recycling service to this location shag be provided by the City of San Bernardino unless otherwise noted. New accounts require a completed Service Application with a fug deposit returned to the City of San Bernardino Refuse& Recycling Division prior to issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy. S.City front-load collection services shag be established at the following minimum levels: REFUSE SERVICE RECYCLING SERVICE ORGANICS SERVICE 07Y BIN DAYS/WEEK- AYS/WEEK QTY BIN DAYS/WEEK QTY BIN DAYS/WEEK 1-2 CY 1-2 CY 1-2 CY 3 CY 3 CY 3 CY 4 CY 4 CY 4 CY 6CY 6CY 6 C S. Sealed compactor units)shag be installed with a recommended minimum 30 cubic yard roll-off box: unit(s)for refuse, urAs)for commingled dry recyciables, and unit(s)for organics. 7. Applicant shag submit a completed Integrated Waste Management Survey to the Pubic Services Department Refuse and Recycling Division a minimum of 5 City work days for approval prior to issuance of any City permits. Contact 909-384-5549# phone or 909-384-5190 fax. RESIDENTIAL _ 1. Residential refuse and recycling services are to be provided by the City of San Bernardino Refuse & Recycling Division. The City shag provide one set of a blue, green, and black 96 or 64-gallon automated service carts to each single family unit OR one set to every two-unit multiple family dwelling up to six units. 2. Residential units shag have a minimum 3 feet by 9 feet concrete pad boated out of view of pubic right-of-way for storage of each set of three automated carts. Minimum gate openings shag be 3 feet, and the path of travel from the storage pad to curb shag be continuously paved. 3. A minimum 12-foot space along the curb on the street must be dear for residential automated service carts, including a minimum 2-foot setback of all structures,fences, and raised landscaping. 4. Day of automated cart service shag be: M T W Th ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OR NOTES r i yl t�- 4A=, , L r.rvc-a- �-n < < u,P cm� M7 rte-A0Pk8 [Ye+ow-PNn4na jft*-Ratrss a R.cyaw(CSRs)1/CaoMnmd-D Rc F&I 2 arv» SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL WATER DEPARTMENT STANDARD REQUIREMENTS Review of Plans: �Q �( Ot�-O,S Date Compiled: Owner/Developer: `A Compiled By: Type of Project: hL- 51S Number of Units: Location: OF WATER DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING: Contact: bo- Upro Phone: CJ'( Fax: 384-6S3-z- 1 Note: All Water Services are Subject to the Rules & Regulations of the Water Department. XSize of Main Adjacent the Project: Approximate Water Pressure: 5 O Elevation of Water Storage: jay 9 Hydrant Flow®20 psi: Type, Size, Location, and Distance to Nearest Fire Hydrant: Pressure Regulator Required on Customer's Side on the Meter. ❑ Off-site Water Facilities Required. • Area Not Served�byy San Bernardino Municipal Water Department. • Comments: ACV is-n"e, 1ATER QUALITY CONTROL- Contact: o rt4 A R.%-\V T Pr Phone: 139 Fax: R.P.P. Backflow Device Required at Service Connection.Cb-C, � Double Check Backflow Device Required at Service Connection.C,imi`C,4-'jv, YBackflow Device to be Inspected Before Water Service can be Activated. ❑ No Backflow Device Required at This Time. ENVIRON1biENTAL. CONTROLZINDUSTMAL WASTE: Contact: [7 I0�1 C'. �0 Phone: $ 3S 3 Fax: 3$e 7 - 515g' Note: No Brine Regenerative Water Softeners May be Installed, Unless Holding and Hauling is Provided for the Brine. All Interceptors will be a 1200 Gallon Capacity with a Sample Box Included. ❑ Industrial Waste Pernut Required. I Ali)u5 FOJ6 - W46 7-e W� 6 S(�#A7Q 5 gt6l E�lr ❑ Grease Interceptor Required. ❑ Sand/Oil Interceptor Required. ❑ No Issues at this Time. ❑ Pre-treatment Required. SEWER CAPACITY INFO 1 IATION• Contact: NU L T{�,�s F N Phone: -;g 4-5 D 9,3 Fax: 0 - 7 C-X Note: Proof of Payment Must be Submitted to the Building& Safety Department Prior to Issuance of the Building Permit. /'(No Sewer Capacity Fee Applicable at This Time. ewer Capacity Fee Must Be Paid to the Water Department for Gallons Per Day, Equivalent Dwelling Uttits: ubject to Recalculation of Fee Prior to the Issuance of Building Permit. Breakdown of Estunated Gallons Per Day: STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION CASE NO: C.U.P. NO. DESCRIPTION: ESTABLISH AN INDOOR 00-05 RETAIL CONCESSION MALL APPLICANT: XN H. SUH LOCATION:.N/E WATERMAN AVENUE AND 9TH STREET .i ♦ NOTE TO APPLICANT.• Where separate Engineering plans are required, the applicant is responsible for submitting the Engineering plans directly to the Engineering Division. They maybe submitted prior to submittal of Building Plans. 1. Grading and Landscaping a) If more than 1' of fill or 2' of cut is proposed, the site/plot/grading and drainage plan shall be signed by a Registered Civil Engineer and a grading permit will be required. The grading plan shall be prepared in strict accordance with the City's "Grading Policies and Procedures" and the City's "Standard Drawings", unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. b) An on-site Improvement Plan is required for this project. Where feasible, this plan shall be incorporated with the grading plan and shall conform to all requirements of Section 15.04-167 of the Municipal Code (See "Grading Policies and Procedures"). c) The on-site improvement plan shall include details of on-site lighting, including light location, type of poles and fixtures, foundation design, conduit location and size, and the number and size of conductors. Photometry calculations shall be provided which show that the proposed on-site lighting design will provide 1 foot-candle of illumination uniformly distributed over the surface of the parking lot during hours of operation and 0.25 foot-candles security lighting during all other hours. Pape 1 of 5 Pages 61112000 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION CASE NO: C.U.P. NO. DESCRIPTION: ESTABLISH AN INDOOR 00-05 RETAIL CONCESSION MALL APPLICANT: J/N H. SUH LOCATION: N/E WATERMAN AVENUE AND 9TH STREET .07: d) The design of on-site improvements shall also comply with all requirements of The California Building Code, Title 24, relating to handicap parking and accessibility, including retrofitting of existing building access points for handicap accessibility, if applicable. e) A handicap accessible path of travel shall be provided from the public way to the building entrance. All pathways shall be concrete paved and shall provide a minimum clear width of 4 feet. Where parking overhangs the pathway, the minimum paved width shall be 6 feet. f) Where the handicap accessible path of travel crosses drive t aisles, it shall be delineated by striping or textured/colored concrete pavement. g) The project Landscape Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. Submit 5 copies to the Engineering Division for Checking. h) The public right-of-way, between the property line and top of curb (also known as "parkway") along adjoining streets shall be landscaped by the developer and maintained in perpetuity by the property owner. Details of the parkway landscaping shall be included in the project's on-site landscape plan, unless the parkway area is included in a landscape maintenance district, in which case, a separate landscape plan shall be provided. Page 2 of 5 Pages 61117000 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION CASE NO: C.U.P. NO. DESCRIPTION: ESTABLISH AN INDOOR 00-05 RETAIL CONCESSION MALL APPLICANT: J/N H. SUH LOCATION: N/E WATERMAN AVENUE AND 9"H STREET 2. Utilities a) Design and construct all public utilities to serve the site in accordance with City Code, City Standards and requirements of the serving utility, including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer and cable TV (Cable TV optional for commercial, industrial, or institutional uses). b) Utility services shall be placed underground and easements provided as required. c) A street cut permit, from the City Engineer, will be required for utility cuts into existing streets where the street is not being repaved as part of the required improvements. d) All existing overhead utilities adjacent to or traversing the site on either side of the street shall be undergrounded in accordance with Section 19.20.030 (non-subdivisions) or Section 19.30.110 (subdivisions) of the Development Code. e) As an alternative to undergrounding required by Section 19.20.030 (non-subdivision) or Section 19.30.110 (subdivisions).of the Development Code, the developer will provide a letter of agreement for participation in an assessment district, if one is formed, to fulfill the requirement for undergrounding utilities. Prior to recordation of a map or issuance of building permit subdivider/developer shall have the letter of agreement recorded with the deed. Page 3 of 5 Pages 61112000 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICESIPUBLIC WORKS DIVISION CASE NO: C.U.P. NO. DESCRIPTION: ESTABLISH AN INDOOR 00-05 RETAIL CONCESSION MALL APPLICANT: JIN H. SUH LOCATION: N/E WATERMAN AVENUE AND 9T" STREET 3. Street Improvement and Dedications a) All public streets within and adjacent to the development shall be improved to include combination curb and gutter, paving, handicap ramps, street lights, sidewalks and appurtenances, including, but not limited to traffic signals, traffic signal modifications, relocation of public or private facilities which interfere with new construction, striping, shall be accomplished in accordance with the City of San Bernardino "Street Improvement Policy" and City "Standard Drawings", unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Street lighting, when required, shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's Street Lighting Policies and Procedures". Street lighting shall be shown on street improvement plans except where otherwise approved by the City Engineer. b) Construct sidewalk adjacent to the site in accordance with City Standard No. 202, Case "A" (6' wide adjacent to curb). c) Construct Driveway Approaches per City Standard No. 204, Type Il, including Handicap by-pass. Remove existing driveway approaches that are not part of the approved plan and replace with full height curb & gutter and sidewalk. d) Install Street Lights adjacent to the site in accordance with City Standard Nos. SL-1 and SL-2. 4. Required Engineering Permits a) Grading permit (If applicable.). Page 4 of 5 Pages 61117000 a STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION CASE NO: C.U.P. NO. DESCRIPTION: ESTABLISH AN INDOOR 00-05 RETAIL CONCESSION MALL . APPLICANT: JIN H. SUH LOCATION: N/E WATERMAN AVENUE AND 9'''' STREET b) On-site improvements construction permit (except buildings - see Development Services-Building Division), including landscaping. C) ~ Off-site improvements construction permit. 5. Applicable Engineering Fees'' a) Plan check and inspection fees for off-site improvements - 4% and 4%, respectively, of the estimated construction cost, of the off-site improvements. b) Plan check and inspection fees for on-site improvements (except buildings - See Development Services-Building Division) - 2% and 3%, respectively, of the estimated construction cost' of the on-site improvements, including landscaping. c) Plan check and inspection fees for grading (If permit required) - Fee Schedule available at the Engineering Division Counter. 1 All Fees are subject to change without notice. 2Estlmated Construction Cost for Off-Site Improvements is based on a list of standard unit prices on file with the Public Works Division. 3 Estimated Construction Cost for On-Site Improvements is based on a list of standard unit prices on rile with the Public Works Division. Page 5 of 5 Pages 61112000 toomey & = ATTACHMENT E associates F Variance Findings Indoor Concession Mall — Harold Willis Property May 1, 2000 City of San Bernardino Planning Division Project Owner/Applicant: Harold C. Willis Enterprises Project Description: Occupy Existing Building with Indoor Concession Mall Planning Applications: Conditional Use Permit (Indoor Concession Mall) Variance (Required Setback) SUMMARY The property owner is preparing to lease the 104,000 square foot building on the subject site, located at 999 N. Waterman Avenue, to an indoor concession mall operator. The indoor concession mall applicant requesting occupancy has filed a Conditional Use Permit application. The parcel is currently 515,927 square feet in area (11.84 ac.) with general dimensions of 796 feet wide and 690 feet deep. The proposed buildings are generally located at the east end of the parcel, adjacent to the east property line. The site is within the General Commercial and Heavy Commercial Land Use Districts and is required to have a 10-foot front and street side setback for buildings and parking. Given the amount of landscaping currently provided along the street frontage and side street frontage on Waterman Ave. and 9`" Street, respectively, landscaping the required yard areas is considered overly burdensome. With 10 feet of landscaping currently provided on Waterman Avenue and 5 feet provided on 9`h Street, the landscape setbacks have essentially been satisfied. Therefore, due to the physical characteristics of the site and the currently established landscaped frontages, a Variance is requested for the reduction of the front and side street setbacks along a portion of the west and south property lines. Therefore, the items listed below make up the Variance application: Variance Request: Reduce landscaped front & side yard building setback as required in Development Code Section 19.08.030, Table 06.02: Front- 10'required; 0'proposed. Street Side - 10'required; 3'proposed. 34590 county line road, suite 5 Yucaipa, ca 92399 (909) 705-1899 Variance Findings h VARIANCE FINDINGS A. There are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of this Code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical land use district classification; The project site has Land Use designations of CH and CG-1 and is located on the northeast corner of Waterman Avenue and 9"' Street. The east half of the site is designated CH, the west half is CG-1. The property adjacent on the east is designated PF and is a public school. The CG-1 land use designation extends across Waterman and 9h streets to the west and south. The commercial development is bounded on the north by Olive Street and consists of 4 separate parcels. On Waterman Avenue the street right of way is located approximately 10 feet behind the sidewalk. In most commercial areas throughout the city the right of way line is typically adjacent to the sidewalk. While Waterman Avenue may be widened some day, where the sidewalk would be reinstalled at the right of way line, Public Works has indicated there are no specific plans or need to undertake this street widening. The 9t' Street frontage has a four-foot parkway along with an approximately five-foot wide landscape planter behind the sidewalk. The right of way falls approximately three feet behind the sidewalk. This condition is very similar to the parcel located at the corner of 9t' and Waterman, where the landscape area behind the sidewalk along 9t' extends to five feet behind the property line. Landscaping is currently provided along Waterman and 9t' streets that area generally consistent with established commercial development in the vicinity. Although, due to the unique circumstances on Waterman Avenue where the right of way is a substantial distance from the sidewalk, this landscaping cannot be included as part of the front yard requirement. 1 Variance Findings �- B. That granting the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and land use district and denied to the property for which the Variance is sought; It is the development standards of the district, not a particular land use, to which the Variance request is related. The installation of ten feet of landscaping along the street frontage of Waterman Avenue would normally satisfy the landscape setback requirement in most CG-1 properties in the city. However, given the property line location, this landscaping does not count towards the setback requirement. A recent example of a shopping center where landscaping has been installed as part of a site improvement would be the Stater Bros. shopping center on Baseline Avenue, west of Waterman Ave. It would appear that the setback requirements have not been met as part of this improvement. C. That granting the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and land use district in which the property is located; The architecture of the new buildings is compatible with the existing structures and other buildings in the area. Although the front setback is substantially less than the required distances, the layout of landscaping provided on the site meets the development code requirements. Total landscaping (proposed and existing) amount to 15,660 square feet, which is 10% of the parking and circulation area. New landscape planters are provided as required along the existing building, drive aisles, and within the parking lot. The reduction in the setback does not permit building construction in excess of what is permitted by the CG-1 or CH land use districts. i 2 Variance Findings D. That granting the Variance does not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and land use district in which such property is located; The reduction in the front yard setback does not affect the amount of landscaping currently provided on the site. In addition, where a new, similar business is proposed and given the size of the parcels in the immediate area vicinity, other properties are subject to similar constraints and would need the same remedy to achieve a viable development under the current standards. E. That granting the Variance does not allow a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject parcel; Granting this variance only provides for the reduction on setback area, a development standard issue, not permitting additional uses in the CG- 1/CH district. The proposed use is permitted in this district by approval of a conditional use permit. F. That granting of the Variance will not be inconsistent with the General Plan. Goal 1 H states: Continue existing and establish new residential, commercial, industrial, open space, and public districts which are uniquely characterized by their functional role, permitted uses, densitylntensity, and physical form. Under this goal, Objective 1.19 of the Community-Serving Commercial Uses section includes language to retain, enhance, and provide for new and existing commercial uses. In addition, the proposed project is consistent with the implementation policies, including the Design and Development Guidelines section 1.19.33. Through consistency with these goals, policies, and objectives, the proposed variance can be found consistent with the General Plan. As a result, the granting of the 3 Variance Findings Variance does not violate, directly or indirectly, the goals, objectives or policies of the General Plan. Pre ar d by, TOOMEY & A TES Paul Toomey Planner I 4 GENTRY/SEL�Y ATTACHMENT F DENNIS GENTRY — Architect ARCHITECTURE / DESIGN J 3600 Hitt Road Suite 'l RICHARD SELBY — Building Designer Apr'.e Valley, California 9230 Phone No. & FAX (760)247-317 May 2, 2000 City of San Bernardino Fire Department 200 E. Third St . San Bernardino, Ca . Ref . : CUP-00-05, Waterman Discount Mall Indoor Swap Meet, Vendor Operations Information . The proposed Indoor Concession Mall use will house up to 170 individual vendors which primarily sell soft wares . The following is a list of the types of vendors that currently have reserved spaces in this building. The vendors are listed in the product type that they sell . 1 . Jewelry 2 . Athletic Shoes 3 . Ladies Shoes 4 . Western Boots & Shoes 5 . Men ' s clothing 6 . Alterations 7 . Women 's clothing 8 . Baby clothing 9 . T-Shirts 10 . Hats 11 . Socks 12 . Bath towels 12 . Toys 13 . Home electronics 14 . Pagers & cell phones 15 . Cassette & Video tapes 16 . Tools 17 . Flower shop 18 . 1 Hour Photo 19 . 99 cent store; toiletries gifts, en accessories, etc. 20 . Auto Accessories; No petroleum f etc . products, bolt-on parts, 21 . Car stereos; using the old K-Mart Garden Shop as the installation area . These vendors typically do not storage their products . It is usual to display all the products they have in their space . The typical space is approximately 400 square feet with the exception being the 99 Cent Store which will be approximately 4700 square feet . The building has existing storage areas in the rear which may be used for inventory, but only in very few cases will a vendor have inventory stored away. The typical vendor space is defined by a steel tube welded structure frame as space dividers . This steel frame does not exceed 96 inches in height and is the divider at the space side and end with the other side and end being open to the aisles . No product display is to exceed 8 feet in height nor will interfere with the aisles . Other possible vendors that may be eventually involved could be the following: I . Leather goods 2 . Dress shoes 3 . Beauty supplies 4 . Purified water sales 5 . Carpets 6 . Furniture 7 . Artworks & crafts 8 . Cobbler 9 . Bilk plants We hope that this list and information helps in the understanding of this operation . Please be advised that no high Pile storage is proposed to be in this building or related to this project . I Sincerely: Gentry/Selby File: 232CUPFD K_1 EXHIBIT 3 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUIIMING SERVICES DEPARTNMT Sao AbrA &D'AW&W. 3M Plow,sm.Bamm?&ne. CA 9ZSra A wo OW)38#-5057 Paz AM)384,5W APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF A DIRECTOR DETERMINATION, DEVELOPMFNIYF_NVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMrF=DE ERMINA77ON OR PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION Appellant's Name, Address & LANSING INDUSTRIES, INC. & FAMILY RANCH Phone CENTER, LLC, 291 S. LA CIENEGA BLVD. , STE 307 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211 - ( 310 ) 657-5191 Contact Person, Address & M. KATHERINE JENSON Phone RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP 611 ANTON BLVD. , SUITE 1400 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 - (71 4 ) 641 -51 00 Pursuant to Section 19.52.100 of the Development (Municipal) Code, all appeal must be filed on a City application form within 15 days following the final date of action, accompanied by the appropriate fee. Appeals are normally scheduled for a determination by the Planning Commission or Mayor and Common Council within 30 days of the filing date of the appeal. You will be notified, in writing, of the specific date and time. Date Appeal Filed (0 bO Received by Receipt No. Receipt Amount 3 . Wl DD Aj; -`VA C Tr 3 Er 2 1 ND _.:T S�F':!CES DEPARTMENT v Appeal Application Page 2 the following information must be completed: Specific action being appealed and date of that action The Pianning Commission' s approval of Conditional Use Permit ( "CUP" ) No. 00-05 for the indoor Swap Meet at the Northeast corner of Water- man Ave. and 9th Street and the Commission' s determination that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA" ) . The action was taken on June 6 , 2000 . Specific grounds for the appeal The Planning Commission' s approval of the project violated CEQA. The Categorical Exemption is not applicable and cannot be used. The Planning Commission ' Windings are not supported---by substantial evidence. The Citv has denied access to information. aaa also the Action cm9ht June 5, 2000 from Ruta.n u Tucker, LLP, attached which is corporated herein by this reference. AD Pl 1 ant-G QPPk a reuersal of the R1 anni ng C'nmmi -,si nn ' s approval of CUP No 00-05 and of the determination that the protect is exempt from CEQA. Additional information On June 5 , 2000 , Appellants ' legal counsel , Rutan & Tucker, submitted a letter which detailed the Appellant ' s objections to the Project. That letter is incorporated herein by the reference, and is attached hereto as Exhibit "A. " See also Ex "B, " which is incorporated herein by reference. ,Tung- 1 9, 2000 'g 11' te ant Date ing A.W.RUTAN(1880-1972) JAMES B.TUCKER,SR.(1888-1950) RUTAN RICHARD A.MOORE' WILLIAM NUTT PHILIP D.JKO N NAK ROBERT 0.OW EN ER TODD O.LI"N RINGTON NATASHA L.PAV A PORT III LEONARD A.HAMPEL JOEL D.KUPERBERG ADAM N.VOLKERT KARA 5.CARLSON RICHARD D.ARKO &TUCKER. THEODORE E 1. JR. JR.- EVRIDIMLW'CK BNDLLH SON L.ELISE KHTR ISON RB JEFFREY DT.RMREE LHINGRKER JEFF C.RISHER.A JOSEPH D.CARRUTH MARY M.GREEN LARRY A.CERUTTI MARLENE POSE JURGENSEN JOHN T.BRADLEY RICHARD P.SIMS MICHAEL F.SITZER CAROL D.CARTY APRIL LEE WALTER ALISON I ROSSMAN A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W JAMES B.0.NEAL THOMAS I.CRANE PATRICK D.-CALLA KAREN ELIZABETH WALTER BILL H.IHRKE ROBERT C.BRAUN MARK B.FRAZIER RICHARD K.HOWELL NATALIE SIBBALD DUNDAS ALLISON LEMOINE-BUI THOMAS S.SALINGER' PENELOPE PARMES JAMES S.WEISZ' ALISON M.BARBAROSH KAREN L.MARTINEZ A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS DAVID C.LARSEN' M.KATHERINE JENSON DAVID H.HOCHNER JOHN W.HAMILTON,JR. CHYI G.CHEN CLIFFORD E,FRIEDEN DUKE F.WAHLQUIST A.PATRICK MUIJOZ JOHN A.RAM IREZ T.LAN NGUYEN 611 ANTON BOULEVARD,FOURTEENTH FLOOR MICHAEL D.RU81N RICHARD G.MONTEVIDEO S.DANIEL HARBOTTLE LYNN LOSCHIN LISA V.NICHOLAS COSTA MESA,CALIFORNIA 92626-1998 IRA G.RI VIN' LORI SARNER SMITH PAUL 1.SIEVERS PHILIP I.BLANCHARD JEFFREY M.ODERMAN' ERNEST W.KLATTE,III JOSEPH L.MAGA,Ill TERENCE J.GALLAGHER OF COUNSEL: DIRECT ALL MAIL TO:POST OFFICE BOX 1950 STAN WOLCOTT' ELIZABETH L.MARTYN KRAIG C.KILLER ROBERT E.KING EDWARD D.SYBESMA,JR.- ROBERT 5.BOWER KIM D.THOMPSON DEBRA DUNN STEEL DEJA M.HEMINGWAY DAVID J.GARIBALDI,III COSTA MESA,CALIFORNIA 92628-1950 DAVID 1.ALESHIRE JAYNE TAYLOR KACER DAN SLATER JULIE K.WHANG TELEPHONE 714-641-5100 FACSIMILE 714-546-9035 MARCIA A.FORSYTH DAVID B.COSGROVE KENT M.CLAYTON DENISE L.MESTER 'A PROFESSIONAL WILLIAM M.MARTICORENA HANS VAN LIGTEN MARK BUDENSIEK W.ANDREW MOORE CORPORATION INTERNET ADDRESS www.rutan.com JAMES L.MORRIS STEPHEN A.ELLIS STEVEN J.GOON ALISON L.TSAO Direct Dial:(714)641-3413 E-mail:kjenson @rutan.com July 21, 2000 VIA Via Telecopier and Federal Express Honorable Judith Valles, Mayor, and Members of the City Council City of San Bernardino 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 Re: Objections to Conditional Use Permit No. 00-05 - Northeast Corner of Waterman Ave. and 9th Street - City Council Meeting on Monday, July 24, 2000—Agenda Item#40 Dear Mayor Valles and Members of the City Council: Rutan & Tucker, LLP, represents Lansing Industries, Inc. ("Lansing") and Family Ranch Center, LLC ("Family Ranch"), and potentially others with regard to the above-referenced project, which involves the establishment of 170 retail vendors in the vacant 104,020 square foot structure located on the northeast corner of Waterman Avenue and 9th Street ("Project"). Lansing is the owner of the property located at 263 E. 9th Street in San Bernardino. Family Ranch is the owner of the property located at 275 E. 9th Street in San Bernardino. Since 1993, the former K-Mart structure has been vacant, and has produced no environmental impacts on the surrounding properties and businesses. The "existing environment" in the vicinity of 9th Street and Waterman Avenue includes no traffic from that site, no air emission from vehicle going to or from it, and no noise from vehicles or delivery trucks. Lansing, Family Ranch, their tenants, and may other persons in the area have serious concerns regarding the Project, which is being rushed through the City's land use process without the required environmental review, and without any study or regard for the impacts upon the surrounding property owners and businesses. This Project comes on the heals of a similar proposal by the same property owner which was approved in 1998. That project authorized the conversion of the 20,100 square foot space adjacent to the former K-Mart building, into a five-vendor indoor concession area. These two projects together, completed without any environmental analysis, will convert the northeast corner of 9th Street and Waterman Avenue into a mega-124,120 square foot indoor concession area with 175 separate businesses. 119/026069-0001 95094.01 a07/21/00 RUTAN &TUCKER I T T O R N E Y S AT L A W Honorable Judith Valles, July 21, 2000 Page 2 What is particularly alarming is the way in which this Project is being processed without public disclosure and public review. While the public notice for the Planning Commission hearing indicated that the files relating to this matter were available to public review at the City, this office was first denied access to the files on May 26th because they contained "sensitive material," and then told we could "look but not copy" the files until the City determined whether the public records in the planning files were exempt from disclosure. See Letter to Gerald Budlong, dated May 31, 2000. After receiving this letter, on June 2nd we received from City staff some,but not all, of the requested documents. What did appear from the documents produced on June 2"d is the fact that the City has already issued one of the permits for this Project. On March 17, 2000, the City's Development Services Department issued Permit No. D0000016, which authorized the property owner to begin converting the building into an indoor swap meet. (In actuality, it appears that the T.L. Murray Construction had already begun the demolition work before getting the City's permit or the required permit from SCAQMD—correspondence in the file demonstrates that as of March 13th, the demolition process had already begun. See Letter dated March 16, 2000 from Joseph Johnson to Sung Cho.) Why is the City permitting the construction process of this Project to begin prior to the public hearing and Planning Commission approval and the ultimate decision by the Council? The demolition of a structure in conjunction with a project is part and parcel of that project, and should may not legally proceed in a piecemeal fashion. See Orinda Assn v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 182 Ca1.App.3d 1145. These action make it appear that the City has already at least incrementally approved the Project, in advance of the public review process and without any environmental scrutiny. The City Council is precluded by law from approving the project as presented for numerous reasons. First, the Council would be violating the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq., to approve the Project without the required environmental review. Second, the Council would be violating the City's own code by approving the CUP since the requisite findings cannot be made and if made, would not be supported by substantial evidence. Third, the project is inconsistent with many of the requirements and policies the that City itself has adopted. The Use Of The Categorical Exemption In CEQA Guideline 15301 Is Not Proper In This Instance. According to the public hearing notice and the Staff Report, the City is proposing to treat this Project as "categorically exempted" from the application of CEQA by CEQA Guideline 15301. While that exemption applies in certain limited circumstances, it does not apply in this instance for at least five reasons: (1) on its face, it does not apply to changes in use or to an intensification of use; (2) it does not apply to situations in which the structure has been vacant for seven years; (3) it does not apply in situations where there was no environmental review in 119/020269-0001 95094.01 a07/21/00 RUTAN &TUCKERS A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W Honorable Judith Valles, July 21, 2000 Page 3 the first instance; (4) it does not apply in situations such as this where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances; and (5) the City previously represented that "Any business that would locate here must comply with all ... requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)." Initial Study for General Plan Amendment No. 97008. There can be no dispute that the proposed CUP is a discretionary project subject to CEQA review. See Miller v. City of Hermosa Beach, (1993) 13 Cal.App.4`h 1118, 1138-1142; CEQA Guideline 15357. While in certain limited circumstances, the CEQA Guideline 15301 exempts from CEQA review the operation or minor alteration of an existing building, the exemption only applies in situations "involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. " The Guideline states: "The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use." On its face, this exemption is inapplicable here since the proposed land use is not the existing use, and since the installation of 170 individual vendors at this location cannot be categorized as involving "negligible or no expansion of an existing use." The "indoor retail concession" land use is considered a separate and distinct use under the City's zoning code, and is subject not only to a CUP requirement, but also to special zoning code regulations. There is no question that it is a change in use rather than a continuation of an existing use. There is no existing authorized use of the structure. All of the permits relating to the prior land use expired long ago and have not been renewed. Moreover, the conversion of the building from a single-tenant structure, which, as it exists today, produces no impacts whatsoever, to a structure housing 170 different businesses, each with its own employees, customer base, merchandise delivery, and merchandise pickup, will greatly intensify the use of the site over the existing condition, and even over the condition which existed some seven years ago when a single tenant occupied the site. In situations where an existing structure has been vacant for an extended period and where its use is no longer authorized by existing permits, CEQA does not authorize the lead agency to pretend as if it has been fully operational. While the Legislature has carved out limited exceptions to this rule (e.g., Public Resources Code § 21083.8.1, which authorizes lead agencies dealing with closed military bases to utilize the "full operations" baseline), no such exception exists here. Instead, the rule that the existing environment means exactly that—the current traffic, air quality, noise, solid waste and other environmental levels. Since CEQA was modeled after the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), 42 U.S.C. section 4321, et seq., cases decided under NEPA are considered persuasive authority in determining issues under CEQA. See Western States Petroleum Assn. V. Superior Court, (1995) 9 Cal.41h 559, 579. The case of Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Vaugh, (D.C. Dist. 1983) 566 F.Supp. 1472, is highly relevant to this situation. There, various environmental and 119/020269-0001 95094.01 a07/21/00 RUTAN &TUCKERS A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W Honorable Judith Valles, July 21, 2000 Page 4 citizen groups filed a NEPA challenge against the U.S. Department of Energy relating to its decision to reopen an existing nuclear reactor without the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. The Department argued that since the reactor existed, the fact that it had not been operational for a number of years was irrelevant and that the Department only had to consider whether the reactivated reactor would create a greater impact than when it was fully operational years before. The court rejected the Department's argument because as of the time of the Department's decision, it had not been operating. The court held that the environmental "recuperation during any hiatus" must be taken into account in environmental decision. Id. At 1475-1476. The court concluded: "This Court holds that it is the environment as it is found contemporaneously with an agency's decision to embark upon an action which may change it, not the condition which it may have been left before, which is the benchmark from which alteration of the status quo is to be measured in assessing the significance of the action for [environmental] purposes." Ibid. Moreover, it appears that the building at issue was constructed without any environmental review. According to the original building permit, the 104,020 square foot structure currently existing at the site was constructed between November of 1968 and February of 1970. This was before the enactment of CEQA, and therefore no environmental review would have been completed. As explained in Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster, (1997) 52 Cal.App.4t" 1165, 1198, "The apparent rationale for the existing facility exemption [CEQA Guideline 15301] is that the environmental effects of the operation of such facility must already have been considered." Obviously, where there has been no environmental review at all, there is no rationale for application of this exemption. Further, where, as here, there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment, use of the categorical exemption is prohibited. See CEQA Guideline 15300.2(c). Further, it is also inappropriate to utilize this exemption from CEQA where successive types of project of the same type are approved in the same area which may have cumulative impacts. See CEQA Guideline 15200.2(b). Just as one example, two years ago, the City approved the conversion of the 20,100 square foot building (which is adjacent to the building now at issue) into a five-tenant indoor concession market. This conversion took place without environmental review. With the Project now before the Council, this site would become a mega-124,120 square foot indoor concession area with 175 separate businesses. This mega- market, when combined with the other businesses in the area, may very well produce cumulatively significant impacts. Just a few examples of the potential impacts are as follows: Air Quality. 119/020269-0001 95094.01 a07/21/00 RUTAN &TUCKERS A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W Honorable Judith Valles, July 21, 2000 Page 5 According to the SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook, Table 6-2, copy attached, in smaller size shopping centers, the operation of even 22,000 square feet of sales area can be expected to produce air quality emissions which could exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds of significance. According to the SCAQMD Handbook, a lead agency "may determine if a project is likely to be significant by screening the project using Table 6-2." SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook, p. 6-2. Because this project exceeds the square footage listed in Table 6-2 by nearly five times, a detailed air quality analysis is necessary before this project proceeds further. This is particularly true given the Project's proximity to the adjacent school site. Parking. From the Conceptual Landscape Plans for this Project provided by the City, it appears that the Applicant plans to essentially abandon large portions of the existing parking lot, thereby reducing the amount of overall parking in the area. Before any such abandonment should be permitted, a detailed parking analysis is needed. The Municipal Code indicates that parking studies may be required to address the sufficiency of the off-street parking for establishments which are proposed within the existing multi-tenant, commercial centers. Moreover, the parking study should analyze whether customers of the mega-indoor swap meet are likely to use any of the surrounding parking areas, such as the Market Place Swap Meet parking area. Given the similarity in the businesses, it is quite possible that customers may come to the area and visit all three indoor concession buildings. While the Market Place Swap Meet has sufficient parking for its customers, it will not have sufficient parking if customers leave their vehicles in the Market Place Swap Meet parking lot while they shop for hours elsewhere. While this may not be a concern if the Project now under consideration is required to improve and utilize the full existing off-street parking area available to it, it is of great concern if the Applicant's request for a reduced parking area is approved. Risk of Liquefaction. According to the staff materials, this site has "high liquefaction susceptibility." See Project Evaluation Checklist. Indeed, in the Initial Study prepared for the General Plan amendment on the subject site in 1998, stated the following: "The proposal is located in an area identified as having a high potential for liquefaction as identified in the General Plan, Section 12.0 Geologic and Seismic, Figure 48. Compliance with the requirements of the City's liquefaction ordinance, MC-676, which stipulated the preparation of a liquefaction report by a registered geologist or a registered engineering geologist will reduce any potential impacts to below a level of significance." 119/020269-0001 95094.01a07/21/00 RUTAN &TUCKER A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W Honorable Judith Valles, July 21, 2000 Page 6 It is our understanding that no such report has been prepared for this Project. Has one been prepared? If not, why not? Given the large number of persons who may be within the structure at any given time, it would be hazardous to proceed with this Project without first requiring compliance with this requirement. It appears that the Staff Report has omitted any reference to this potential problem in order to minimize the issue. Why did the Staff Report prepared in 1998 for this exact site list "Liquefaction" in the "Constraints/Overlays" section while the Staff Report to the Planning Commission for this Project states "none" in that segment of the report? Has something happened in the intervening two years which has removed this property from the liquefaction area? The Staff Report to the Council dismisses this risk on the basis that this is not new construction, even though this site is listed within an area of"High Liquefaction Susceptibility". See EIR for General Plan Update, Figure 20. Yet the City's General Plan does not limit the requirement for a liquefaction report to new development, but is instead focused upon "proposed projects". See General Plan,p. 12-30, Implementation Measure I12.16. Risk of Subsidence. According to the Initial Study prepared for the 1998 General Plan amendment on this subject site, "[t]he proposal is located in an area identified as having a high potential for subsidence as identified in the General Plan, Section 12.0, Geologic and Seismic, Figures 48 & 51. Figure 5 in the General Plan shows the extent of the historic area of subsidence which is within the thick, poorly consolidated alluvial and marsh deposits of the old artesian area north of Loma Linda. Potential subsidence within this area may be as great as 5 to 8 feet if ground water is depleted from the Bunker Hill-San Timoteo Basin. In 1972, the San Bernardino Municipal Water District began to maintain groundwater levels from recharge to percolation basins which filter back into alluvial deposits. Since the recharge program began, problems with ground subsidence have not been identified. Adherence to the Building Services Division Standard Requirement regarding the submittal of a soils study and the implementation of standard engineering practices for foundation design will reduce any potential impacts to below a level of significance." Has a soils study been submitted for this Project? If so, it was not provided for our review. If it has not been required,why is this Project being exempted from this requirement? 119/020269-0001 95094.01 a07/21/00 TAN CKER3 A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W Honorable Judith Valles, July 21, 2000 Page 7 It appears that the Staff Report has omitted any reference to this potential problem in order to minimize the issue. Why did the Staff Report prepared in 1998 for this exact site list "Subsidence" in the "Overlays/Overlays" section while the Staff Report for this Project states "none" in that segment of the report? Has something happened in the intervening two years which has removed this property from the subsidence area? Demolition. According to the Preliminary Project Description Form completed by the applicant's representative, it is anticipated that some demolition will occur, and that asbestos surveys will be necessary and clearance by the SCAQMD will be required. The staff report fails to mention anything about such demolition, and no conditions of approval relating to demolition are proposed. Obviously, the demolition of structures has the potential to cause significant environmental impacts, including dust and air emissions, noise impacts, and health hazards. If asbestos or other hazardous materials are present, this will create the potential for additional risks. Traffic. No traffic analysis of any sort has been conducted for the 170 businesses to be located within the former K-Mart building. Obviously, no study has been conducted to review the total traffic generation from all of the businesses which will be operating on the north east corner of 9th Street and Waterman Avenue. The combined traffic for this site would include three fast food restaurants, a gas station, the existing commercial shops along Olive Street (approximately 30,000 square feet), and the 124,120 square feet of indoor retail concession operated by 175 separate businesses. While a formal traffic study should be required to determine the impacts, based upon the 6th Edition of the ITE Manual, the following can be concluded: The ITE Manual has no specific land use category for indoor retail concession establishments. The closest land use category in the ITE Manual would be the Discount Club (Land Use 861), a Discount Supermarket (Land Use 854), or a Free-Standing Discount Store (Land Use 815). For a Discount Club on a typical Saturday, it can be expected that for every 1000 square feet, a total of 53.75 additional trips would be generated. Thus, 5,590 additional vehicles would travel into and out of the area. During the peak hour on Saturday, an additional 672 vehicle trips could be expected. If this is likened to a Discount Supermarket, and additional 9,506 vehicles would be traveling to the area on a typical Saturday, with an additional 1,052 peak hour trips. Finally, if considered to be a Free-Standing Discount Store, the additional Saturday traffic would be 7,491 vehicles for the day, 797 additional trips per peak hour. 119/020269-0001 95094.01 a07/21/00 TAN CKER A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W Honorable Judith Valles, July 21, 2000 Page 8 Any one of these scenarios, when added to the existing traffic generated from the site and in the area could cause congestion problems and safety hazards. These impacts should be studies. The City Staff concludes that the trip generation figures set forth above are correct. However, Staff recommends ignoring these impacts on the basis of alleged conditions which existed over seven years ago. No data has even been presented regarding the prior traffic levels. Nor does CEQA allow such pretending. Pursuant to the City of San Bernardino Department of Public Works Traffic Policy, page 4, this project triggers the City's requirement for the preparation of a traffic study. Specifically, under general criteria Lb., "any project that generates more than ... 1000 trip ends commercial ... as determined by the average trip rates contained in the ITE Trip Generation Report." As set forth above, on a typical Saturday, it is expected that this project will generate an additional 5,590 to 9,506 vehicle trips. This is five to nine times the amount of traffic, which, pursuant to the City's own guidelines, would trigger the requirement to prepare a traffic study. Moreover, the City's General Plan requires that as a condition of approval for commercial projects, the City shall institute a Transportation Demand Management Program, in accordance with the provisions of the Circulation Element. General Plan, p. 10-42, Policy No. I10.20. This was not done in this instance. Lot Line Adjustment/Aesthetic of Un lands caped/Unmaintained Parking Lot. It appeared from the Applicant's submittals that a lot line adjustment is being requested as part of this Project. However, according to Staff, no such adjustment has been requested or will be permitted. We wish to confirm that not such request part of the Project. If it is to be considered as part of the project, the land use impacts of the adjustment must be considered. This includes the creation of what will essentially be a "no-mans land" in the area of the abandoned parking lot. It will also result in visual blight, since the abandoned area would not be subject to the maintenance and landscaping requirements applicable to the retained parking area. It could also result in parking shortages, as mentioned above. Risk Of Additional Vacancy And Business Closures. While economic concerns are often beyond the scope of CEQA, in this instance they are not. Given the tenuous nature of indoor retail concession businesses, it is highly likely the addition of 170 individual businesses in this area will cause the failure of the existing businesses of this nature in this vicinity, including the vendors who conduct their businesses at the Market Place Swap Meet. The Applicant for this Project has already approached many of the vendors at the Market Place Swap Meet and requested them to move across the street to the new location. 119/020269-0001 95094.01 a07/21/00 TAN CKER3 A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W Honorable Judith Valles, July 21, 2000 Page 9 Will this City consider it progress to have one center reopen, only to cause another recently remodeled and reopened center to close and become vacant? Pursuant to CEQA, these types of impacts are environmental, and must be considered. See Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mt. Shasta, (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 445 (because rezoning 35-acre parcel for commercial and manufacturing uses could cause loss of business and resulting physical deterioration of existing business areas, it must be analyzed in EIR); Citizens Assn for Sensible Development v. County of Inyo, (1985) 172 Ca1.App.3d 151 (EIR should have been required for proposed shopping center because project might draw business from downtown are and result in its eventual physical deterioration). While competition is good, over saturation of one kind of business is not. On March 20, 1998, Toomey & Associates submitted a letter to the City relating to this Project site, a copy of which is attached. It outlines how difficult it would be for an indoor concession mall to survive in this area. The letter states that because of the location of the site, research had demonstrated that it was not economically viable to establish that type of use in the area. The letter quotes the City as stating that "we don't need another dead commercial center in the city." With regard to the very use now proposed for the Project, the letter states: "Given this level of concern expressed for the economic success of a multi-tenant center, it would appear potentially inconsistent with city goals to force a commercial site to develop in such a way that would most likely yield unsuccessful results." Thus,just two years ago, the Applicant represented to the City that the business it is now proposing would likely be unsuccessful. Since that time, the City has approved two such indoor concession malls consisting of 65,000 square feet in this very area. Has some study been done to suggest that an additional 170 vendors should be added to this area to satisfy the consumers' needs? Does the market exist for all of these businesses to survive? It hardly makes sense for the City to simply transfer the vacancy problem which currently exists in the area from one street corner to the next, particularly since the Applicant itself predicted failure for this type of venture just two years ago. Enclosed for the Council's consideration is a map showing the existing oversaturation of indoor swap meets in the area. Shortage of Fire Hydrants. From the limited documentation provided to date, it appears that there may be an insufficient number of fire hydrants for this Project. Are a sufficient number of hydrants being provided for; and where are they located? There appears to be only one fire hydrant which may service this building, and it would service only a small portion of the structure. It is located on the east side of the building, approximately 35 feet from the structure. The other two fire hydrants are located too far away from the structure to service the building in the event of a fire. More specifically, the fire 119/020269-0001 95094.01 a07/21/00 TAN CKER A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W Honorable Judith Valles, July 21, 2000 Page 10 hydrant on Ninth Street near the southeast corner of the parcel is located approximately 210 feet from the building. The third fire hydrant is located on Olive Street, approximately 250 feet away from the structure. These are inadequate to provide fire protection service and do not meet applicable fire codes. The City Is Estopped From Exempting This Project From CEQA. The City previously represented to the public that "Any business that would locate here must comply with all ... requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)." Initial Study for General Plan Amendment No. 97008. Given this representation, it is inappropriate for the City at this juncture to waive this requirement. Moreover, in the EIR prepared for the City's General Plan Update, the City committed, as a mitigation measure, to require traffic impact studies "for all new developments or substantial improvements to existing developments which will result in significant increased trip generation so that an adequate evaluation of potential significant traffic impacts associated with proposed new developments is obtain prior to project approval and shall require the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures prior to or in conjunction with project development." EIR, p. 4- 108-109. The City is not complying with this mitigation measure in this instance. The City Has Improperly Split Up This Project. As stated above, this Project has already received its initial approval from the City by way of the issuance on March 17`h of a demolition permit. The demolition permit should have been processed only after the Project was approved, not before. This improper piecemealing and precommitment to the Project is improper under CEQA. For purposes of CEQA, the "project" is the whole of the action and the underlying activity being approved, not each separate permit or approval. CEQA Guideline 15378. Moreover, it is obvious from the documentation that the actual demolition began in advance of any clearance from the City or from SCAQMD. A letter dated March 16, 2000, from Joseph Johnson to Sung Cho refers to demolition having already taken place as of March 13, 2000. Why was the property owner permitted to proceed with the Project in advance of the public hearings on this Project, and without even obtaining a demolition permit (particularly given the identified risk of asbestos)? The City Is Unable To Make The Requisite Findings Necessary For The CUP. The findings made by the Planning Commission are legally defective. Even from the limited information which has been made available to date, it is clear that there is no substantial evidence to support any of the findings. Just as one example, the Commission found that the Project is in full compliance with the City's development standards. The Staff Report to the 119/020269-0001 95094.01 a07/21/00 RUTAN &TUCKER A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W Honorable Judith Valles, July 21, 2000 Page 11 Planning Commission itself demonstrates that the Project is out of compliance with the code requirements. With regard to the environmental findings (Nos. 3-4), for the reasons stated above, we do not believe that the City can legitimately make these findings. Moreover, without environmental review, it is simply not possible for the City to truly assess finding Nos. 5-7. Further, given the size of the Project, the undergrounding of utilities would be required pursuant to the City's Code. Yet it appears that condition No. 2.e imposed by the Development Services/Public Works Division lets the Applicant avoid this requirement by simply writing a letter. The Staff Report to the Council suggests that it is the Appellants' burden to negate the findings made by the Commission. This is contrary to law. The Commission was required to have substantial evidence to support its findings before making them. Conclusion In conclusion, it would violate numerous laws if the City Council were to approve the Project based upon the current state of the proceedings. We therefore respectfully request that the Council (1) deny the Project, (2) request Staff to undertake appropriate environmental review; or(3) continue this matter for further consideration. Thank you for you consideration. Very truly yours, RU D1N& TUCKER, LLP M. Kath rine Jenson MKJ:jlp Enclosures 1. Letter dated May 31, 2000 to Gerald Budlong from M. Katherine Jenson 2. Letter dated March 16, 2000 to Sung Cho from Joseph Johnson 3. SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook, Table 6-2 4. Letter dated March 20, 1998, from Toomey&Associates to the City of San Bernardino 5. Map of Swap Meets cc: Mr. Greg Lansing Mr. Trip Hord, Hord and Associates 119/020269-0001 95094.01 a07/21/00 A W RUTAN 911140.1171[ .—IS 11.TUC[[R-Ut IIN4-I+Sa C APIA"RUTAN ICI rat 04 QN: U. MICHAE 4Ra10tNAL RFFREYO lRTHIN1R TRIG pAK(ITPID(It ON RAF�y A. ,�R7111 LEONARD w HAMPIt KxI D I'v"ISM; ADAM N VUt[ERT [wU s CAtts 7 RICHARD O.ARRO PAVIA & 1011N TUCKER.-, 4 W DAI4'IN S7(VIN w WHIM tA,NfY A.GOLOt ARL CATS l DUNN MA;L M_Mglpy(„ MISIIAII W IMMILI THOMAS G[ROCKIM.TON ( KEVIN LRAZIL FRED CALANTE NHIRI NCUY[N MIIf ORD W OAlll.IR WKllwy W WYNDII (AYM M.MEIZ[A CATS"IOMENZO PAt[[A MATTHEW I.N[[SON 1HICIDOR(1 WALLAS[.It' (VR104[I 4VICKII DALLAS I.SKI HARRISON JEFFREY T.MELCHING KIT C.RISH(R GIt RERI N eRUGEt RANDALL M■A1111USH EIRE K.TRATNUM SEAN P.FARRELL 11--ft S.ANDERSON IOS(PH O CARRUTH MARY M GREEN LARRY A.CI allTTI MARLIN[POST IUKGINS(N 1041N T.11LADL[Y RICHARD P S-S MKNAIL I.SITZIR CAROL D.CAATY APR N LEE WALTER AIFSON 1 uxs—N A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W 4.S.A 111 O NEAL THOMAS;CRANE PATRICK D ANCALLA [A[(N(HZA8(TH WALTER /alt H.INNR, "C"I"C.4RAUN —K II lIU2" RICHARD K.HOWELL NATAIIE USIALD DUNDAS AIMED.twoom-11LN THDMAs S sw91NGrt' PENELOPE'ARMES IAM(S S.W[ISZ' MISON M.RAR11AROSH —(-I MARTINEZ A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS DAVID C 1ARSIN' M KATHERINE I(NSON DAVID H.HCICHNER IOHN W.HAMILTON.IN CHYI G.CHIN CLIFFORD E ERI(D[N DUKE I WAHLOUIST A.PATRICK MU4OZ IOHN A.RAMIRIZ T.LAN NCUYEN 611 ANTON BOULEVARD,FOURTEENTH FLOOR "W"AIL D RU111N RICHARD G.MONTEVIDEO S.DANIEL HAR110TTUt IYNN LOSCHIN LISA V NICHOLAS COSTA MESA,CALIFORNIA 92626-1998 IAA G tIVIN' LORI EARNER SMITH PAUL I.A[V(ts PHILIP L ItANCHARo I[FFR(Y M.ODIRMAN' EtNE ST W KLATT I-III IOSIPH L.MAGA.141 TERENCE 1.CAILAGHIR OF COUNSEL: DIRECT ALL MAIL TO'POST OFFICE BOX 1950 STAN WOLCOTT- ELIZABETH L MARTYN KRA1G C.[LAGER IORCRT(.[LNG EDWARD D.S,Rl ANA,1t.' Ro[IT S so ft KIM O THOMPSON OIBRA DUNN STEEL DIIA M.HEMINGINAY DAVID I.GARIBALDI.IN COSTA MESA,CALIFORNIA 92628-1950 UAVIO I-ALESHIR[ IAYNE TAYLOR KACER DAN SLATER PALM[.—ANC, TELEPHONE 714-641-5100 FACSIMILE 714-546-9035 MARCIA A FORSYTH DAVID 11 COSCAOVE KENT M.CLAYTON DENISE L.MERER 'A PROFESSIONAL 71—AMM MAI Fat OtI NA PANS VAN LIGTEN MARK BUOENSIEK W ANDREW 440ORE CORPORATION INTERNET ADDRESS Www.rutanxom uy(s I M(IKL1s It[PH A ELUS STEVEN I.GOON AUSON L.TIAO Direct Dial:(714)641-3413 E-mail:kjenson @rutan.com June 5, 2000 VIA FACSIMILE AND OVERNIGHT EXPRESS Carol Thrasher, The Honorable Chairwoman and Members of the Planning Commission City of San Bernardino 300 North 'D' Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Re: Objections to Conditional Use Permit No. 00-05 and Variance Application 00-05 - Northeast Corner of Waterman Ave. and 9th Street — Planning Commission Agenda for June 6, 2000—Agenda Item 3 Dear Chairwoman Thrasher and Members of the Commission: Rutan & Tucker, LLP, represents Lansing Industries, Inc.("Lansing") and Family Ranch Center, LLC ("Family Ranch"), and potentially others with regard to the above-referenced project, which involves the establishment of 170 retail vendors in the vacant 104,020 square foot structure located on the northeast corner of Waterman Avenue and 9th Street ("Project"). Lansing is the owner of the property located at 263 E. 91h Street in San Bernardino. Family Ranch is the owner of the property located at 275 E. 9th Street in San Bernardino. Since 1993, the former K-Mart structure has been vacant, and has produced no environmental impacts on the surrounding properties and businesses. The "existing environment" in the vicinity of 9th Street and Waterman Avenue includes no traffic from that site, no air emission from vehicle going to or from it, and no noise from vehicles or delivery trucks. Lansing, Family Ranch and their tenants have serious concerns regarding the Project, which is being rushed through the City's land use process without the required environmental review, and without any study or regard for the impacts upon the surrounding property owners and businesses. This Project comes on the heals of a similar proposal by the same property owner which was approved in 1998. That project authorized the conversion of the 20,100 square foot space adjacent to the former K-Mart building, into a five-vendor indoor concession area. These two projects together, completed without any environmental analysis, will convert the northeast 1 1 9/026069-OW I 84230.01 aO6/05 100 RUTAN &TIUCKER1 wr roar.[.s wr [ww Carol Thrasher, The Honorable Chairwoman and Members of the Planning Commission June 5, 2000 Page 2 corner of 91h Street and Waterman Avenue into a mega-124,120 square foot indoor concession area with 175 separate businesses. What is particularly alarming is the way in which this Project is being processed without public disclosure and public review. While the public notice for the Planning Commission hearing indicated that the files relating to this matter were available to public review at the City, this office was first denied access to the files on May 26`h because they contained "sensitive material," and then told we could "look but not copy" the files until the City determined whether the public records in the planning files were exempt from disclosure. See Letter to Gerald Budlong, dated May 31, 2000, copy attached. After receiving this letter, on June 2"d we received from City staff some of the requested documents. However, as set forth below, certain critical documentation was omitted from the production, thereby inhibiting our review of this matter. What did appear from the documents produced on June 2"d is the fact that the City has already issued one of the permits for this Project. On March 17, 2000, the City's Development Services Department issued Permit No. D0000016, which authorized the property owner to begin converting the building into an indoor swap meet. (In actuality, it appears that the T.L. Murray Construction had already begun the demolition work before getting the City's permit or the required permit from SCAQMD—correspondence in the file demonstrates that as of March 131h, the demolition process had already begun. See Letter dated March 16, 2000 from Joseph Johnson to Sung Cho.) Why is the City permitting the construction process of this Project to begin prior to the public hearing and Planning Commission approval? The demolition of a structure in conjunction with a project is part and parcel of that project, and should may not legally proceed in a piecemeal fashion. See Orinda Assn v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 182 Ca1.App.3d 1145. These action make it appear that the City has already at least incrementally approved the Project, in advance of the public review process and without any environmental scrutiny. The Planning Commission is precluded by law from approving the project as presented for numerous reasons. First, the Commission would be violating the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq., to approve the Project without the required environmental review. Second, the Commission would be violating the City's own code by approving the CUP since the requisite findings cannot be made and if made, would not be supported by substantial evidence. Third, the requested variance cannot legally be granted based both on the City's code provisions and on state law. Finally, proceeding at this juncture would deprive Lansing, Family Ranch and others of procedural due process because they have been deprived of their right to review critical data contained in public records which have been withheld from this office. 1 1 9/0202 69-000 1 64230.01 a06105100 H JTAN & KERI s f 1 0 a u E V S A t l w w Carol Thrasher, The Honorable Chairwoman and Members of the Planning Commission June 5, 2000 Page 3 The Use Of The Categorical Exemption In CEQA Guideline 15301 Is Not Proper In This Instance. According to the public hearing notice and the Staff Report, the City is proposing to treat this Project as "categorically exempted" from the application of CEQA by CEQA Guideline 15301. While that exemption applies in certain limited circumstances, it does not apply in this instance for at least five reasons: (1) on its face, it does not apply to changes in use or to an intensification of use; (2) it does not apply to situations in which the structure has been vacant for seven years; (3) it does not apply in situations where there was no environmental review in the first instance; (4) it does not apply in situations such as this where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances; and (5) the City previously represented that "Any business that would locate here must comply with all ... requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)." Initial Study for General Plan Amendment No. 97008. There can be no dispute that the proposed CUP is a discretionary project subject to CEQA review. See Miller v. City of Hermosa Beach, (1993) 13 Cal.App.41h 1118, 1138-1142; CEQA Guideline 15357. While in certain limited circumstances, the CEQA Guideline 15301 exempts from CEQA review the operation or minor alteration of an existing building, the exemption only applies in situations "involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. " The Guideline states: "The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use." On its face, this exemption is inapplicable here since the proposed land use is not the existing use, and since the installation of 170 individual vendors at this location cannot be categorized as involving "negligible or no expansion of an existing use." The "indoor retail concession" land use is considered a separate and distinct use under the City's zoning code, and is subject not only to a CUP requirement, but also to special zoning code regulations. There is no question that it is a change in use rather than a continuation of an existing use. There is no existing authorized use of the structure. All of the permits relating to the prior land use expired long ago and have not been renewed. Moreover, the conversion of the building from a single-tenant structure, which, as it exists today, produces no impacts whatsoever, to a structure housing 170 different businesses, each with its own employees, customer base, merchandise delivery, and merchandise pickup, will greatly intensify the use of the site over the existing condition, and even over the condition which existed some seven years ago when a single tenant occupied'the site. 1 19/020269.0001 $4230.01 a06/05100 I , RUTAN &TUCKER1 A t 1 O 4 h!Y S A t l w Carol Thrasher, The Honorable Chairwoman and Members of the Planning Commission June 5, 2000 Page 4 In situations where an existing structure has been vacant for an extended period and where its use is no longer authorized by existing permits, CEQA does not authorize the lead agency to pretend as if it has been fully operational. While the Legislature has carved out limited exceptions to this rule (e.g., Public Resources Code § 21083.8.1, which authorizes lead agencies dealing with closed military bases to utilize the "full operations" baseline), no such exception exists here. Instead, the rule that the existing environment means exactly that—the current traffic, air quality, noise, solid waste and other environmental levels. Since CEQA was modeled after the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), 42 U.S.C. section 4321, et seq., cases decided under NEPA are considered persuasive authority in determining issues under CEQA. See Western States Petroleum Assn. V. Superior Court, (1995) 9 Cal.41h 559, 579. The case of Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Vaugh, (D.C. Dist. 1983) 566 F.Supp. 1472, is highly relevant to this situation. There, various environmental and citizen groups filed a NEPA challenge against the U.S. Department of Energy relating to its decision to reopen an existing nuclear reactor without the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. The Department argued that since the reactor existed, the fact that it had not been operational for a number of years was irrelevant and that the Department only had to consider whether the reactivated reactor would create a greater impact than when it was fully operational years before. The court rejected the Department's argument because as of the time of the Department's decision, it had not been operating. The court held that the environmental "recuperation during any hiatus" must be taken into account in environmental decision. Id. At 1475-1476. The court concluded: "This Court holds that it is the environment as it is found contemporaneously with an agency's decision to embark upon an action which may change it, not the condition which it may have been left before, which is the benchmark from which alteration of the status quo is to be measured in assessing the significance of the action for [environmental] purposes." Ibid. Moreover, it appears that the building at issue was constructed without any environmental review. According to the original building permit, the 104,020 square foot structure currently existing at the site was constructed between November of 1968 and February of 1970. This was before the enactment of CEQA, and therefore no environmental review would have been completed. As explained in Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster, (1997) 52 Cal.App.41h 1165, 1198, "The apparent rationale for the existing facility exemption [CEQA Guideline 15301] is that the environmental effects of the operation of such facility must already have been considered." Obviously, where there has been no environmental review at all, there is no rationale for application of this exemption. 119/020269-0001 84230.01&06/05/00 RUTAN &TUCKER A T T O It M!Y S A l l^W Carol Thrasher, The Honorable Chairwoman and Members of the Planning Commission June 5, 2000 Page 5 Further, where, as here, there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment, use of the categorical exemption is prohibited. See CEQA Guideline 15300.2(c). Further, it is also inappropriate to utilize this exemption from CEQA where successive types of project of the same type are approved in the same area which may have cumulative impacts. See CEQA Guideline 15200.2(b). Just as one example, two years ago, the City approved the conversion of the 20,100 square foot building (which is adjacent to the building now at issue) into a five-tenant indoor concession market. This conversion took place without environmental review. With the Project now before the Commission, this site would become a mega-124,120 square foot indoor concession area with 175 separate businesses. This mega-market, when combined with the other businesses in the area, may very well produce cumulatively significant impacts. Just a few examples of the potential impacts are as follows: Air Quality. According to the SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook, Table 6-2, copy attached, in smaller size shopping centers, the operation of even 22,000 square feet of sales area can be expected to produce air quality emissions which could exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds of significance. According to the SCAQMD Handbook, a lead agency "may determine if a project is likely to be significant by screening the project using Table 6-2." SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook, p. 6-2. Because this project exceeds the square footage listed in Table 6-2 by nearly five times, a detailed air quality analysis is necessary before this project proceeds further. This is particularly true given the Project's proximity to the adjacent school site. Parking. From the Conceptual Landscape Plans for this Project provided by the City, it appears that the Applicant plans to essentially abandon large portions of the existing parking lot, thereby reducing the amount of overall parking in the area. Before any such abandonment should be permitted, a detailed parking analysis is needed. The Municipal Code indicates that parking studies may be required to address the sufficiency of the off-street parking for establishments which are proposed within the existing multi-tenant, commercial centers. Moreover, the parking study should analyze whether customers of the mega-indoor swap meet are likely to use any of the surrounding parking areas, such as the Market Place Swap Meet parking area. Given the similarity in the businesses, it is quite possible that customers may come to the area and visit all three indoor concession buildings. While the Market Place Swap Meet has sufficient parking for its customers, it will not have sufficient parking if customers leave their vehicles in the Market 119/020269-MI 84230.01 a06/05/00 ,�I)TAN &T CKER1 A l i 0 M t r S A T L A W Carol Thrasher, The Honorable Chairwoman and Members of the Planning Commission June 5, 2000 Page 6 Place Swap Meet parking lot while they shop for hours elsewhere. While this may not be a concern if the Project now under consideration is required to improve and utilize the full existing off-street parking area available to it, it is of great concern if the Applicant's request for a reduced parking area is approved. Risk of Liquefaction. According to the staff materials, this site has "high liquefaction susceptibility." See Project Evaluation Checklist. Indeed, in the Initial Study prepared for the General Plan amendment on the subject site in 1998, stated the following: "The proposal is located in an area identified as having a high potential for liquefaction as identified in the General Plan, Section 12.0 Geologic and Seismic, Figure 48. Compliance with the requirements of the City's liquefaction ordinance, MC-676, which stipulated the preparation of a liquefaction report by a registered geologist or a registered engineering geologist will reduce any potential impacts to below a level of significance." It is our understanding that no such report has been prepared for this Project. Has one been prepared? If not, why not? Given the large number of persons who may be within the structure at any given time, it would be hazardous to proceed with this Project without first requiring compliance with this requirement. It appears that the Staff Report has omitted any reference to this potential problem in order to minimize the issue. Why did the Staff Report prepared in 1998 for this exact site list "Liquefaction" in the "Constraints/Overlays" section while the Staff Report for this Project states "none" in that segment of the report? Has something happened in the intervening two years which has removed this property from the liquefaction area? Risk of Subsidence. According to the Initial Study prepared for the 1998 General Plan amendment on this subject site, "[t]he proposal is located in an area identified as having a high potential for subsidence as identified in the General Plan, Section 12.0, Geologic and Seismic, Figures 48 & 51. Figure 5 in the General Plan shows the extent of the historic area of subsidence which is within the thick, poorly consolidated alluvial and marsh deposits of the old artesian area north of Loma Linda. Potential 119/020269-0001 94230.01 a06/05/00 RUTAN &TUCKER e r t o w r•s •r w Carol Thrasher, The Honorable Chairwoman and Members of the Planning Commission June 5, 2000 Page 7 subsidence within this area may be as great as 5 to 8 feet if ground water is depleted from the Bunker Hill-San Timoteo Basin. In 1972, the San Bernardino Municipal Water District began to maintain groundwater levels from recharge to percolation basins which filter back into alluvial deposits. Since the recharge program began, problems with ground subsidence have not been identified. Adherence to the Building Services Division Standard Requirement regarding the submittal of a soils study and the implementation of standard engineering practices for foundation design will reduce any potential impacts to below a level of significance." Has a soils study been submitted for this Project? If so, it was not provided for our review. If it has not been required, why is this Project being exempted from this requirement? It appears that the Staff Report has omitted any reference to this potential problem in order to minimize the issue. Why did the Staff Report prepared in 1998 for this exact site list "Subsidence" in the "Overlays/Overlays" section while the Staff Report for this Project states "none" in that segment of the report? Has something happened in the intervening two years which has removed this property from the subsidence area? Demolition. According to the Preliminary Project Description Form completed by the applicant's representative, it is anticipated that some demolition will occur, and that asbestos surveys will be necessary and clearance by the SCAQMD will be required. The staff report fails to mention anything about such demolition, and no conditions of approval relating to demolition are proposed. Obviously, the demolition of structures has the potential to cause significant environmental impacts, including dust and air emissions, noise impacts, and health hazards. If asbestos or other hazardous materials are present, this will create the potential for additional risks. Traffic. No traffic analysis of any sort has been conducted for the 170 businesses to be located within the former K-Mart building. Obviously, no study has been conducted to review the total traffic generation from all of the businesses which will be operating on the north east corner of 91h Street and Waterman Avenue. The combined traffic for this site would include three fast food restaurants, a gas station, the existing commercial shops along Olive Street (approximately 30,000 square feet), and the 124,120 square feet of indoor retail concession operated by 175 1 19/020269-0001 84230.01&06105/00 UTTAN &TUCKERS .1?on t TS Al t A Carol Thrasher, The Honorable Chairwoman and Members of the Planning Commission June 5, 2000 Page 8 separate businesses. While a formal traffic study should be required to determine the impacts, based upon the 6`h Edition of the ITE Manual, the following can be concluded: The ITE Manual has no specific land use category for indoor retail concession establishments. The closest land use category in the ITE Manual would be the Discount Club (Land Use 861), a Discount Supermarket (Land Use 854), or a Free-Standing Discount Store (Land Use 815). For a Discount Club on a typical Saturday, it can be expected that for every 1000 square feet, a total of 53.75 additional trips would be generated. Thus, 5,590 additional vehicles would travel into and out of the area. During the peak hour on Saturday, an additional 672 vehicle trips could be expected. If this is likened to a Discount Supermarket, and additional 9,506 vehicles would be traveling to the area on a typical Saturday, with an additional 1,052 peak hour trips. Finally, if considered to be a Free-Standing Discount Store, the additional Saturday traffic would be 7,491 vehicles for the day, 797 additional trips per peak hour. Any one of these scenarios, when added to the existing traffic generated from the site and in the area could cause congestion problems and safety hazards. These impacts should be studies. Lot Line Adjustment/Aesthetic of Un Ian dscaped/Unmaintained Parking Lot. It appears from the Applicant's submittals that a lot line adjustment is being requested as part of this Project. The purpose of the adjustment is to reduce the size of the parcel, thereby reducing the landscaping and parking requirements. This lot line adjustment was not mentioned in the public hearing notice or the Staff Report. Is it part of the Project? If so, the land use impacts of the adjustment must be considered. This includes the creation of what will essentially be a "no-mans land" in the area of the abandoned parking lot. It will also result in visual blight, since the abandoned area would not be subject to the maintenance and landscaping requirements applicable to the retained parking area. It could also result in parking shortages, as mentioned above. Risk Of Additional Vacancy And Business Closures. While economic concerns are often beyond the scope of CEQA, in this instance they are not. Given the tenuous nature of indoor retail concession businesses, it is highly likely the addition of 170 individual businesses in this area will cause the failure of the existing businesses of this nature in this vicinity, including the vendors who conduct their businesses at the Market Place Swap Meet. The Applicant for this Project has already approached many of the vendors at the Market Place Swap Meet and requested them to move across the street to the new location. 119ro20269-0001 64230.01 a06/05/00 RUTAN &TUCKER •f f O 4 M 4'S •I a A w Carol Thrasher, The Honorable Chairwoman and Members of the Planning Commission June 5, 2000 Page 9 Will this City consider it progress to have one center reopen, only to cause another recently remodeled and reopened center to close and become vacant? Pursuant to CEQA, these types of impacts are environmental, and must be considered. See Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mt. Shasta, (1988) 198 Ca1.App.3d 433, 445 (because rezoning 35-acre parcel for commercial and manufacturing uses could cause loss of business and resulting physical deterioration of existing business areas, it must be analyzed in EIR); Citizens Assn for Sensible Development v. County of Inyo, (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 151 (EIR should have been required for proposed shopping center because project might draw business from downtown are and result in its eventual physical deterioration). While competition is good, over saturation of one kind of business is not. On March 20, 1998, Toomey & Associates submitted a letter to the City relating to this Project site, a copy of which is attached. It outlines how difficult it would be for an indoor concession mall to survive in this area. The letter states that because of the location of the site, research had demonstrated that it was not economically viable to establish that type of use in the area. The letter quotes the City as stating that "we don't need another dead commercial center in the city." With regard to the very use now proposed for the Project, the letter states: "Given this level of concern expressed for the economic success of a multi-tenant center, it would appear potentially inconsistent with city goals to force a commercial site to develop in such a way that would most likely yield unsuccessful results." Thus,just two years ago, the Applicant represented to the City that the business it is now proposing would likely be unsuccessful. Since that time, the City has approved two such indoor concession malls consisting of 65,000 square feet in this very area. Has some study been done to suggest that an additional 170 vendors should be added to this area to satisfy the consumers' needs? Does the market exist for all of these businesses to survive? It hardly makes sense for the City to simply transfer the vacancy problem which currently exists in the area from one street corner to the next, particularly since the Applicant itself predicted failure for this type of venture just two years ago. Shortage of Fire Hydrants. From the limited documentation provided to date, it appears that there may be an insufficient number of fire hydrants for this Project. Are a sufficient number of hydrants being provided for; and where are they located? 119/020269-0001 84230.01 0"5/00 RUTAN &TUCKER ♦T T 0 w t T i •T l A N Carol Thrasher, The Honorable Chairwoman and Members of the Planning Commission June 5, 2000 Page 10 The City Is Estopped From Exempting This Project From CEQA. The City previously represented to the public that "Any business that would locate here must comply with all ... requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)." Initial Study for General Plan Amendment No. 97008. Given this representation, it is inappropriate for the City at this juncture to waive this requirement. The City Has Improperly Split Up This Project. As stated above, this Project has already received. its initial approval from the City by way of the issuance on March 171h of a demolition permit. The demolition permit should have been processed only after the Project was approved, not before. This improper piecemealing and precommitment to the Project is improper under CEQA. For purposes of CEQA, the "project" is the whole of the action and the underlying activity being approved, not each separate permit or approval. CEQA Guideline 15378. Moreover, it is obvious from the documentation that the actual demolition began in advance of any clearance from the City or from SCAQMD. A letter dated March 16, 2000, from Joseph Johnson to Sung Cho refers to demolition having already taken place as of March 13, 2000. Why was the property owner permitted to proceed with the Project in advance of the public hearings on this Project, and without even obtaining a demolition permit (particularly given the identified risk of asbestos)? The City Is Unable To Make The Requisite Findings Necessary For The CUP. The Staff Report sets forth the various findings that the Planning Commission would have to make in order to approve the CUP for this Project. Even from the limited information which has been made available to date, it is clear that there is no substantial evidence to support any of the findings. Just as one example, the Commission must find before it approves the CUP that the Project is in full compliance with the City's development standards. The Staff Report itself demonstrates that the Project is out of compliance with the code requirements. With regard to the environmental findings (Nos. 3-4), for the reasons stated above, we do not believe that the City can legitimately make these findings. Moreover, without environmental review, it is simply not possible for the City to truly assess finding Nos. 5-7. Further, given the size of the Project, the undergrounding of utilities would be required pursuant to the City's Code. Yet it appears that condition No. 2.e imposed by the Development Services/Public Works Division lets the Applicant avoid this requirement by simply writing a letter. 119/020269-0001 84230.01 a06/05 100 :RUTAN &TUCKERI A T t p•w e♦i A T t w w Carol Thrasher, The Honorable Chairwoman and Members of the Planning Commission June 5, 2000 Page 11 The City Is Unable To Make The Requisite Findings Necessary For the Variance. As the Staff Report concludes, the Commission is not able to make the findings necessary in order to approve the Variance Application. Moreover, the stated justification for the Variance is not sufficient under state law to grant a variance. See Gov't 65906. The Staff recommendation should be adopted. Approval of the Project Would Violate Due Process. On behalf of Lansing and Family Ranch, this office has been attempting to obtain basic public records regarding this Project since Friday, May 261h. As set forth in the attached letter, we initially were denied access to the files because they were considered to contain "sensitive material," but after we persisted were provided the right to review the files. However, we were denied copies of the materials and informed that the copies could not be obtained for up to 10 days. After we objected in writing to this delay, we were finally provided with some documents, but at least one critical document has been withheld. Specifically a portion of the Preliminary Project Description Form is missing. Sections B, C, D and E were omitted from the copies provided. It is believed that the missing sections contain questions and answers regarding the project's environmental impacts. In addition, no document were made available to us regarding the Applicant's apparent request for a lot line adjustment. Are such documents in existence? As neighboring property owners, Lansing and Family Ranch are entitled to review the evidence relating to the Project prior to the Commission's decision. See Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 612-614. Any denial of that right is a denial of procedural due process. See Corcoran v. San Francisco City and County Employees'Retirement System (1952) 114 Cal.App.2d 738, 745; English v. City of Long Beach (1950) 35 Cal.2d 155, 158. Due to the delay in obtaining documents and the fact that certain documents have yet to be provided, we ask that the matter be continued and that Staff be directed to provide to the public all existing public record relating to this Project. Conclusion In conclusion, it would violate numerous laws if the Planning Commission were to approve the Project based upon the current state of the proceedings. We therefore respectfully request that the Commission (1) deny the Project, (2) request Staff to undertake appropriate environmental review; or(3) continue this matter for further consideration. 119/020269-0001 84230.01 a06/OS/00 FRUTAN &TUCKER A f f 0 a w!•S AT l A W Carol Thrasher, The Honorable Chairwoman and Members of the Planning Commission June 5, 2000 Page 12 Thank you for you consideration. Very truly yours, RUTAN &TUCKER, LLP M. Katherine Jenson MKJ/j 1p Enclosures 1. Letter dated May 31, 2000 to Gerald Budlong from M. Katherine Jenson 2. Letter dated March 16, 2000 to Sung Cho from Joseph Johnson 3. SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook, Table 6-2 4. Letter dated March 20, 1998, from Toomey & Associates to the City of San Bernardino ccs: Mr. Greg Lansing Mr. Trip Hord, Hord and Associates 1191020269-0001 84210.01 a06/05/00 ` RUTAN A.W RUTAN II!l Nwal .LS t RUC[tt.tR IIMI6 Nfp PALK R O(RIC • MI.CHARt L NORM WTTM(W K.tISiS p TAKE`A`1.O[NNINGTOM "AL L[S A.OAV(MPOti.fM ITCH RD O([K W[[ "AAA,l T NORMAN 20114 10 OWEN TC D w.tLI T. NAT t.DREW IKNAtO A CU[NJ1I PHRI O."O"N lOtERI O Ow(N (0000.LI7fM MAIASNA l IAWA LEONARD A NAMNL 10[L O[U.ER.ERG ADAM M VOL[[R7 [,.RA S CARLSON RICHARD &TUCKER MINN NUtlA, It THOMAS w NICHOIf rcrf VIN GOLOI ARR IRICI DJNN O AR[O MAR[Y MAEOyOs M1CNA[t W N.MEII Tt1oAIAf G RlOC[IMGTON f R[VIN tRAER ItEO GALANTE 1[[I NGVY[N Q WIfEMO W DAM.IR WILIEAM W.WYMO(R IAYN(N.MEEIER CRMTY IOWWO 1AR[(R W7iM(W 1.M(ISON JJ t"[0000[1 WALIAC[.It• (V[IOI[I MCKA OAIIA$ L.SRI NAIta"ON RIf[[Y T.MCtCH,MG I(fr C.RSSN([ Grctllf N.[RVGIR RAMOALL M.IIAIIII 5 (144 K.CRAYNLIM S4AN I EMRELL K.Wit S.ANO(,H N IOSENI O CM[UTH MALT M.GRAN LARRY A.CCRUTiI MARLtM(POSE WRG(NSEN 'OHN T.tRAOt[Y =At0I S.MS MICHAEL r SITEIt CAROL O-CAR7Y AFAR L(t WALTER ASHON 1 ADS A T T O R N E Y $ A T L A W MM[$t O MAL THOAAAS I CRAM[ PATRICK O MICALLA AAR(N(LIIAINTN WALTER RILL H.NE[K(RON (AT TIIO.A C SMAN Mwe[[rRAIrcR RICHARD A.HOW(ll NAVAL MttALD OUNDAS AIEIfOM LEMOINt.[UI TIpwIAS 3.SALING(R• P(IIILOP(PA4rtS ~ S.WEISI• ALMON M.WKAROSN KAREN L.MARTINEZ A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS DAVIOC-LARSEN• M.RATIIERINE 14NSON DAVID H.NUCMN(R IONN W.HAMNTON.1f. CH"G.CN(N 611 ANTON BOULEVARD,FOURTEENTH FLOOR CU!'"O[_rlrcOtN OtIK[f WAMLQUIST A.PATRICK MVf4OZ PONN A.L-111Z T.LAH NGUYIN MICMA(L O RURIN RICHnfO G.MONTEVIDEO S.DANIEL HARROTTLE LYNN LOSCNIN LISA V.NICHOLAS COSTA MESA,CALIFORNIA 92626.1998 IRA G.RIVIN• LOtl SAAXER SMITH PAUL I.S1(V(RS PNIIO 1.RLANCMARD IEfi[[Y M. I 00(RWM• [RMii W.[IATTE.IN JOSEPH JOSEPH 1.MAGA.II T([ENC[1.GALLAGHER Or COUNSEL : DIRECT ALL MAIL TO:POST OFFICE BOX 1950 STAN WOtCOTT. a1LJ(TH L.MARTIN KRAIG C.KR.C(R ROBERT E.KING [DWARO D.SYtISW.IR, COSTA MESA,CALIFORNIA 92628-1950 ROBERT S.ROW([ ASIA O.THOMPSON OCtRA NN STEEL DfN M.HEMINGWAY DAVID I.CARIRALDI 111 DAVID I.ALISHIt[ IAYME TAYLOR RACER DAN SLATOUER WILE[.WNAMG TELEPHONE 714-641-5100 FACSIMILE 714.546-9035 MARCIA A.FORSYTH DAVID..COSGROVE KENT M.CLAYTON D(NISE L.MISTER •A PROFESSIONAL .LL INTERNET ADDRESS W—rutan.com AMCIS M M.WRTM'O!(NA NAYS VAN LICTFN MARK tUO(NSI(K W.ANDR[W MMAE TAMES 1.MORRO ST[M[N A_ELLIS STEVEN 1.GOON —SON L.TSAO CORPORATION Direct Dial:(714)641-3413 E-mail: kjenson @rutan.com May 31, 2000 VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Mr. Gerald Budlong Associate Planner City of San Bernardino Development Services Dept. 300 North 'D' Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 Re: Public Records Act Request of May 26, 2000 -- CUP and Variance Nos. 00- 05 at Northeast Corner of Waterman Ave. and 9th Street Dear Mr. Budlong: This letter will confirm that on May 26, 2000, Dennis Nakata, a paralegal from my office, attempted to obtain multiple public records relating to the applications for CUP and Variance Nos. 00-05, which is scheduled for public hearing before the Planning Commission on June 6, 2000. According to the public hearing notice, the file relating to this matter is to be made available to the public at the Development Services Department. However, when Mr. Nakata arrived and requested the files relating to this project, the clerk stated that a few persons had already been in to see the files and were protesting the project, and that therefore-the City was considering the files as "sensitive material." After Mr. Nakata reminded the clerk that these were public records he had a right to see, the clerk checked with her supervisor and was told that Mr. Nakata could look at the files, but in order to get copies of any of them, he would have to explain, in writing, why he wanted them. Requiring such an explanation clearly violates the Public Record Act. See Government Code § 6257.5. Mr. Nakata nonetheless complied with the request and indicated that he would pay all applicable copying charges. It is my understanding that once you became available, you met with Mr. Nakata regarding this matter. This will confirm that you told Mr. Nakata that the City would take up to 10 days to determine if it will make copies of the requested documents available. Mr. Nakata offered to have a bonded copy service come onsite to undertake the copying so that the documents could be obtained without delay. Mr. Nakata was told this was not possible. 1 19/099999-0084 83880.01 a0501i00 RATAN i CKE ) A 1.O am I T S AT l A W Mr. Gerald Budlong May 31, 2000 . Page 2 Pursuant to Section 6253(b) of the Public Records Act, a public agency must "promptly" make copies of public records available to the public. The 10-day waiting period referenced in the code section is applicable only in situations where the agency must examine the records to determine whether any of them are exempt from disclosure under Section 6254 of the Act. No argument can be made that the planning files we have requested are exempt from disclosure simply because the project has become controversial. Moreover, having released the files for public review, no exemption would apply to them in any event. (Gov't Code § 6254.5.) It is imperative that we be given copies of the requested records immediately so that we may properly evaluate the project prior to the Planning Commission hearing on June 6, 2000. The City's failure to provide the documentation violates not only the Public Records Act, but also is inconsistent with the notice of public hearing. If the City is unable to immediately provide the requested documents, we must insist that the public hearing scheduled for June 6, 2000 be continued to allow us the opportunity to review the file in advance of the hearing. Please contact me or have the City Attorney contact me at (714) 641-3413 to discuss this matter as soon as possible. RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP M. Katherine Jenson MKJ cc: James Penman, City Attorney City of San Bernardino, via telecopier eneral En 16 _ronmenta! n meet riri E'S — Env/ronmenta/ Testfn nd Consultfn :March 16, 2000 Sung Cho P.O. Box 400157 Hesperia CA 92345 Re: 999 N. Waterman Ave., San Bernardino, CA On March 13'h '-7000, GEM Services visited the above referenced location to collect samples of several walls that were to be demolished during a renovation project. The walls that were to be demolished were constructed with d p J drywall and compound. Seven samples of the wall were collected from randomly selected areas of the walls and submitted for analysis by Polarized Light.Llicrosco was present. The sample results showed py.(PL-K to determine if asbestos that no asbestos was detected in the samples. We have enclosed a summary of the laboratory results for your files. Please contact o office if we can be of further assistance. 'u Jose Johnson Ce ed Asbestos Consultant. 92-0698 GEM Services 10970 Arrow Route, Suite 212, Rancho Cucamonga, G4, 91730 (800)886-2589 Table 6-2. Screening ,,,ale for Operation—Daily Thresholds of Poi,,Jal Significance for Air Duality k t. #:,:::.::.::::.:..... �SGN1�:I..°::.. a �:� .a� ?:\:•:::a`,2•\:::: -.... .. a ....a..::. ......:.::.....a: � - ::. a-a..aa vaaaaaavaaaaaaa.visa,.-a h\M`tlWS.}}}}}:.xoNNW_ .. ........h.. .......::..}.a.:.\a}.}}}} aaa a •C}� ..:::: ti1�.;a�lttAlt'tY--� "�`�.. .. ......:..:..}............. :.va.:::._. RESIDENTIAL Single Family Housing 166 units Apartments 261 units Condominiums 291 units Mobile Homes 340 units Retirement Community 612 units EDUCATION Elementary School 220,000 sq.ft. High School 177,000 sq.ft. Community College 150,000 sq.ft. University 813 students COMMERCIAL ` Airport 1 S Daily Commercial Flights Business Park 136,000 sq. I. Day Care 26,000 sq.fi. Discount Stare 32,000 sq.fi. Fast Food w/o Drive-Thru 3,500 sq.ft. Fast Food with Drive-Thru 2,800 sq.h. Hardware Store 28,000 sq. fi. Hotel 213 rooms Medical Office 61,000 sq. fi. Motel 220 rooms • Movie Theatre 30,000 sq. Car Sales 43,000 sq. Office (small, 10-100) 96,221 sq. Office(medium, 100-200) 139,222 sq. I. Office (large,200—>) 201,000 sq.ft. Office Park 171,000 sq.ft. Racquet Club 98,000 fi. Research Center 245,000 sq.ft. Resort Hotel 199 roams Restaurant 23,000 sq. • Restaurant (high-turnover) 9,000 sq. ft. Shopping Center(small, I(—500) 22,000 sq. fi. Shopping Center(medium,500-1,000) 50,000 sq.ft. Shopping Center(large, 1,000-1,600) 64,000 sq. ft. (continued on next page) X d Appen tx >far metftadofi tes andn papa tfs tabfe NOTES: ` Trip generation rates from the Sth Edition ITE Manual were based upon small sample sizes. These size construction projects have the potential to exceed the daily emissions significance thresholds. local governments should use these thresholds as screening tools when a project proponent first approaches the{end agency for a permit,to determine whether or not the proposed project will be significant. Moreover,using these thresholds,a project proponent should be advised to include feasible mitigation measures at the project design level rather than in the later stages of the protect. DEFINITIONS: *Manufacturing'means to make goods and articles by hand or by machinery,often on a large stole and with division of labor. Industry'means any large-stole business activity or manufacturing producfrve enterprises collectively,especially as d'istingu'ished from ogriculture. 6-10 • 1 Table 6-2. Screet:4 Table for Operation—Dairy Tbresbolds of Potentia Sgaificance for Air Quartty((ontinued) COMMERCIAL *Special Activity Centers 81 Employees (continued) Supermarket( f �amusement Parks) 12,500 sq.ft. INDUSTRIAL/ light Industrial 276,000 ft. MINING `Heavy Industrial 1,284,000 sq .ft. Industrial Park 216,000 sq.h. Aircraft Manufacturing& Repairs '• Bulk Terminals =« Cement Plant «« Chemical Plant «_ Hazardous Waste Treatment&Storage «• Manufacturing 500,000 sq.ft. Mini «« Pul�/raper Mills «« Refinery «« INSTITUTIONAL/ « (link 44,000 sq.ft. GOVERNMENTAL = Government(enter 83,000 ft. = Hospital 17'61 eds Ulra Nursing 51,000 Home 71sgeds U.S. Post Office 26,000 sq.ft. Freeway Lane Addition All Designation of a New All Transportation Corridor New Freeway/Highway All Auxiliary lanes Beyond One Ramp Waterport «« Sewage Treatment Plant «« Rail All (ogeneration Project «« Landfill «s Incineration Hazardous,Medical or Municipal Waste Power Generating Facility =« Waste-To-Energy Plant «_ .-..:--�..•.,-. :..\•tip.: - .a\\.\}.•�y.. .�:...,,.. ..,�... ..�4,�.. ::\�,.\\� l\Z.:ha.:a.a.: .m\.�ax�\Y :�aisis�R_:a�:::;::;»:::o-:-::.:>::;;::<;»:»:o ,_..;.,::... +?:-:::_.::::::::.;::::::::::.:::. :::::ry:: }........... ....:....:aced , �\n �:, `C•.•bh h:}:.::.k.},\•4iiii'^C+\�i'v }}:JX^i>}-}if}nC:ti:�_'iiJi is�:i�ij-:iii?<Li::�'ii?:iii::::::::-i:::: ........,,:::'-v.:•};:n.�..v:::.v::..,:::vv:•nvv1::•:ti„::R.::•.:v?.:..�.\v...:..vJi}::titiw::.:.::.:::: ..... ..+.....\.v^:::{..,v::::::}:`}}}}}ii::ii:-iiij:ii^i:i:: NOTES: • Trip generation rates from the 5th FJ&n ITE Manual won based upon small sample sizes. '• New f -kws,expansions or other change that could result in emissions exceeding the significance thresholds. These size construction projects have the potential to exceed the daily emissions significance thresholds. local governments should use these thresholds as screening tools when a project proponent fist approaches the lead agency for a permit,to determine whether or not the proposed project will be significant. Moreove;using these thresholds,o proied proponent should be advised to include feas16 mitigation measures of the project design level rather than in the later doges of the project. DEFINITIONS: *Manufacturing'means to make goods and articles by hand or by machinery,often on a large stole and with division of bboc Vu*y'means nay large-scale business ck*ity or manufacturing produce enterprises collectively,especially as dstingushed from agriculture. 6-11 r 7- ! %oomey & ATTACEMIENT NCM associates r March 20, 1998 MAR 2 6 1998 D City of San Bernardino CITY OF BAN BMNAROINO DEPARTMENT Of PLANNING i Planning & Building Services BUILOINO 81AVIC14 300 N. `D' Street San Bernardino. CA Attention: Margaret Park, AICP, Associate Planner Regarding: General Plan Amendment at Ninth St. and Waterman Ave., Harold Willis proponent. Application No.: GPA 97-08. Dear Margaret: As part of our request to amend the General Plan Land Use Designation on the subject parcel, we are providing this letter as support documentation. As you are aware, the building occupying the site was constructed for Kmart, and was occupied by Kmart until 1993. Since that date, Mr. Willis has been searching for a replacement user for the 104,200 square foot building. With the site designated CG-1, those contacted have been limited to retail uses. However, the number of users capable of supporting 104,200 square feet of floor area are extremely limited. Food forLess considered taking about half of the building but declined. Other supermarkets showed little interest. WalMart did not consider the location appropriate for their needs. In general, after years of trying to land a tenant for this site, it has become clear that while the size of the building may be suitable for the large retail user, the location is not. The demand for a large scale retailer in this portion of the city is insufficient to warrant occupancy of the site. As an alternative to the large retail user, dividing the interior into several smaller units, much like a mall, was considered. This would be the only effective method of creating retail units of reasonable size that could attract tenants which are set up for smaller space needs. However, after researching the demand for such space (interior retail units), it was clear that location was again a critical factor which would limit the leasing of sufficient units to achieve economic viability for the center. In fact, the owners of the large swap meet in the old Sears building in Pomona were contacted to consider this building in the same way. They visited the site and chose not to convert the building to a large indoor concession mall. In addition, city officials have expressed concern with the economic health of retail centers throughout the city. As part of a review for the commercial project at Kendall Drive and 34590 county line road, suite 5 • yucaipa, ca 92399 (909) 795-1899 llis General Plan Amendment University Parkway, comments from staff and/or city council showed concern for the health of the project by asking what the exact nature of the proposed commercial uses would be and commenting that `wve don't need another dead commercial center in the city." Given this level of concern expressed for the economic success of a multi-tenant center, it would appear potentially inconsistent with city goals to force a commercial site to develop in such a way that would most likely yield unsuccessful results. Amending the land use designation to CH allows a much greater flexibility in locating a user with a need for over 100,000 square feet in building size. The general plan identifies the permitted uses in the Commercial Heavy district to include "new and used automobile and truck sales and repair facilities, lumbervards, and related building materials and hardware sales, plant nurseries, light industrial manufacturing and storage facilities and similar uses which require extensive outdoor or indoor space for their sales, service, and/or storage." These uses are much more likely to need a building of this size than the uses found in the standard commercial sector. This site is configured in such a way that permits a light manufacturing use to occupy the building and site without extensive changes or modifications. The site provides the ability to offer loading at the rear of the building and parking and/or storage (with appropriate screening) at either in the Ninth Street or Waterman Avenue parking lot area. The building is setback a significant distance which reduces impacts to the street areas. The mechanical and electrical systems in the building are currently adequate for any number of users. For those users that house manufacturing activities with the sales or administrative activities, where a large floor area, outdoor storage, and a large parking area is a requirement, this facility is ideal. Relative to the land use compatibility with the surrounding uses and districts, the proposed amendment affects a change to only two of the adjoining land use districts. By retaining the CG-1 designation on the west and north portions of the Willis property, the district change to CH affects the east and south property lines. The use on the east is a elementary school and the uses on the south are primarily commercial and industrial. The land use district directly opposite the subject site is currently, IL, Light IndustriaL The parcel to the east has been designated PF, Public Facility, and is occupied by an elementary school. The west portion of the site, along Waterman Avenue, is to remain CG-1. The north parcel will remain CG-1 as well. Therefore, along the west and north boundaries of the site the appearance of typical commercial development will not change. The front of the CH designated area will actually be Ninth Street. With the distance from the street to the CH designation totally 200 feet, there is sufficient area to develop additional commercial sites on property fronting on Waterman Avenue. Given the depth of the parcel, the split- zone condition resulting from the proposed amendment would be similar to many other properties. There are about a half a dozen sites throughout the city where the CH designation shares a boundary with the CG designation. On the north side of the property, the CH designation ends approximately 300 feet south of Olive Street. Across the street is the RM designated property. With the CG-1 2 rillis General Plan Amendment designation remaining intact at this location, no change or impact should occur to the residential properties. In addition, it should be noted that the city recently approved the amendment changing the CG-2 designation to CH along Baseline Ave. from just east of Waterman to Del Rosa Avenue. Which seems to indicate the incomparibility between residential districts and the CH district is relatively minor or insignificant. While the approval of the proposed amendment would create the only area designated CH among the adjacent properties, so called "spot-zoning," the land use designation across Ninth Street is IL. Of course there are many examples of spot-zoning occurrences throughout the city, some very small parcels and some large. It is generally accepted that where a district exceeds a minimum size it would no longer be considered spot-zoning. With the proposed district size totaling 8.9 acres, this would not necessarily be considered a spot-zone condition. There are no minimum district sizes established in the General Plan or Development Code; however, the county establishes five acres as the minimum size for all commercials districts. The proposed CH site can be argued to be an extension of the existing light industrial/manufacturing area, so designated as IL. With the subject property fronting on Ninth Street, the manufacturing use is quite consistent with most of the uses along Ninth Street. In fact, between Waterman and Tippecanoe, the IL designation makes up two-thirds of the street frontage. One use on Ninth Street that could be considered incompatible with some of the permitted uses in the CH district would be the elementary school adjoining the east property line. Although the Development Code identifies a large variety of commercial and light industrial uses permitted in the CH district, the only component of these uses allowed outside is storage or lot sales. Any form of the use's operation must occur within an enclosed structure. Therefore, any operational impacts should be found to be insignificant, since it occurs indoors. Given the limited amount of space between the building and the east boundary/school property, essentially only deliveries and distribution will likely occur at this location. Outdoor storage would be found in the larger open areas on the site. Of course the necessary solid screening walls would be required to surround any outdoor storage areas. In conclusion, we must recognize that, like the city itself, the General Plan is a living, ever- changing document. While it provides an overall plan that shapes the character of a city, it also becomes responsive to the direction a city appears to heading, which is one of the reasons the state requires the plan to be updated on a regular basis. As the larger retail commercial uses locate in the southern section of the city, near the freeway interchange, the function of the center of the city, relative to commercial uses, is changing. Larger retailers find more economic success located in the vicinity of other similar uses. This leaves the smaller retailers left to niche markets and residential support uses. As pointed out in this discussion, the subject site in not conducive to these businesses. As a result of changes in market conditions and demographics, this area of the city is evolving to more of a light manufacturing center. The recent general plan amendment on Baseline Avenue from CG-2 to CH is a prime example of the predominance of the heavy commercial nature of the uses in the area. Unless the city is bound and determined to make a stand to keep 3 � f �- Is General Plan Amendment large commercial uses at this location, the proposed amendment is just another step in acknowledging the ever-changing conditions of the city. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Respectfully submitted, T04NEY& ASSOCIATES Paul Toomey Planner 4 ;. ....��.r• C�rh �--�II��IIr�I I�l'_ © \ � �� i'. "' � �EL� 1 ��Y�' I" � -- :.• .. �I sires �;,_� .�. Milo =ILA Ell lift F ' wo ��► �; l n�� m SAW, WINE 31M 8i ■G It'L"�i �] f� 'I iii ►' _ �._ CMG� �L■I'J ,Otli■Ijl ,`...� 71bA n �0.�4^.,.�I� r� •1.,M`'4I~ ltap��l 1. �' �If��CSS3�7dA�_ILY;FIPI�!�M�13■ '.�� mk aa.�rl�"UECp��\9i1���.'1� �A./�,i�,. I r/ •i7 •.��L I� ��` ���Y���++[� ..7��7 �.5�,'.'�.+i 1��y� ts'I� I •-•�-•-_- .�, ,�. � s.uau:. Muff Sol MIR RifL'ifrl r�.ili �9G'^'^'�RP� � '�'l .�k,;p r.., -- � .� � y L7� '� ►x - ry { �i. `LI �I. lip .-. 1 • 0 ■oil MEHL 19 WWI= Olt e • �- E, .F r � �� I .}IBS � -'� .. ., n-°►IL i •.��TT•��..�R'' �ice-. _ �'� 'D�. li © 1AMEN_ , KE 1 ' • 4 � w r Exhibit "B" Additional Information Regarding Fire Hydrants. There appears to be only one fire hydrant which may service this building, and it would service only a small portion of the structure. It is located on the east side of the building, approximately 35 feet from the structure. The other two fire hydrants are located too far away from the structure to service the building in the event of a fire. More specifically, the fire hydrant on Ninth Street near the southeast corner of the parcel is located approximately 210 feet from the building. The third fire hydrant is located on Olive Street, approximately 250 feet away from the structure. These are inadequate to provide fire protection service and do not meet applicable fire codes. 119/020269-0001 89827.01 a06/19/00 EXHIBIT 4 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Memorandum TO: Margaret Park, AICP FROM: Ron Blymiller, Engineering Assistant III RE: CUP 00-05 —Traffic Generation DATE: July 18, 2000 COPIES: Ray Casey, City Engineer Anwar Wagdy, Traffic Engineer A question was raised regarding trip generation rates for the proposed Indoor Retail Concession Mall proposed under CUP 00-05. Weekend traffic at the intersection of 9h Street and Waterman Avenue is less because of the combination of three factors. First, weekend traffic is less because there are fewer employees going to work. Since it is not standard practice to conduct traffic counts on weekends, this factor is based on the observations of Traffic Division staff. Second, this area is not heavily retail commercial, which typically generates higher weekend traffic. Third, the ITE Manual specifies that Free Standing Discount Stores generate a weekend trip generation of 55.06 per 1000 s.f. Although this is slightly higher than the weekday generation rate of 46.96 per 1000 s.f., the reduction in job related traffic compensates, and as such the overall count is lower. In terms of weekday traffic, traditionally retail commercial uses miss the AM peak because these uses open later than the 7:30am—8:30am weekday peak. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION TYPE OF PERMIT CASE #'s: - Z Amendment to Conditions ❑ Development Code Amendment ❑ Conditional Use Permit DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: C.U.p. -Standard -ABC license -Condo/PRD ❑ --- Design Review El Iina[oor Retail Concession Mall Development Agreement ❑ Development Permit -Type II ❑ PROJECT SITE ADDRESS: 263 E. 9th Street -Type III ❑ San Bernardino, CA Extension of Time 1 2 3 ❑ -Case#: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL#: 0140-241-49 -Expiration Date: General Plan Amendment ❑ RELATED PLANNING CASE#, Lot Line Adjustment ❑ IF APPLICABLE: Minor Exception ❑ Minor Revision/Modification ❑ APPLICANT(S): Moreno Valley Indoor Swap Meet Phasing Plan Review ❑ Edward Kim, President Pre-App: RC Review ❑ MAILING ADDRESS: 24725 Alessandro Blvd. pc Moreno Valley, CA 92553 Specific Plan ❑ Specific Plan Amendment ❑ TELEPHONE: 909-247-4953 Tentative Subdivision FAX: 909-247-4002 -Parcel Map# ❑ -Tract Map# ❑ PROPERTY OWNER(S):The Kroger Co. -Revision# ❑ MAILING ADDRESS: -Vesting Map# ❑ Variance ❑ 1014 Vine St. Cincinnati, OH 45202 TELEPHONE: ENVIRONMENTAL FAX: Environmental Impact Report ❑ Negative Declaration ❑ ENGINEER/ARCMECT: Trip Hord Associates Notice of Exemption ❑ MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 1235 ALL REQUIRED ITEMS MUST BE SUBMITTED FOR YOUR APPLIC4 TION TO BE DEEMED Riverside, CA 92502 COMPLETE INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE TELEPHONE: 909-789-4951 ACCEPTED. FAX: 789-4953 File the required application with the Development Services Department on any non-holiday weekday between the hours of 7:30 a.m.and 5:00 p.m.(Mon.-Thurs.)and 7:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.(Fridays). OFFICE USE ONLY / Date Application Filed: I I "� Receipt Issued By: Receipt No.: DO ) Receipt Amount: S CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION FORM A. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant/Developer: Contact person for environmental: Mr. Edward Kim Trip Hord 789-4951 Name Name Phone Moreno Valley Indoor Swap Meet Trip Hord Assoc. ! '' Firm Firm 1. Address/General Location of Project: 263 E. 9th Street, San Bernardino — a 42,075 SF building and parking field west of the SWC of 9th Street and Waterman Avenue. 2. Describe the actual type of business or development proposed,particularly any features unique to this type of business or operation: multi—tenant indoor marketplace. ± 50 stores. General merchandise (brand new) retail. 3. Hours of operation: Mon. , Wed. , Thurs. , Fri. , Sat. , Sun. 10AM-7PM Closed on Tuesdays Max.#of employees 4. Total anticipated number of employees: at any one time: 5. Does the business involve the sale of any food or beverages? Yes X No 6. Will any permits be required from agencies other than the City? (including a Hazardous Materials Business Plan)? Yes X No 7. Will the project use,store or dispose of potentially hazardous chemicals,materials,toxic substances,flammables or explosives? Yes X No If the-answer to Questions 5,6 or 7 is YES,please describe in detail on a separate sheet. 8.Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the Planning Department to make available to applicants the most current list of"Identified Hazardous Waste Sites"from the State Office of Planning and Research. (Notebook available at Planning Counter.) All applicants must sign the following statement in order to deem the application complete. 1, Trip Hord ,certify that I have reviewed the list of"Identified Hazardous Waste Sites" from the State Office of Planning and Research(OPR)and have determined that the site subject to this application is/is not on that list." _ _ p Name Trip Hord Date r�77- ( ' 9(F Title Applicant ' s Representative CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION FORM F[BPROJECT SUMMARY ea: 4.22 acres w/ 42,075 SF bldg 3. Number of Floors: I /r 2. Building Height: 4. Building Area: 42,075 SF 5. Will project be built in phases? Yes X No If YES,a phasing plan is required to be submitted. C. EXISTING LAND USES Subject Property: existing shopping center — vacant anchor tenant space North commercial East 1 shopping center tenants South vacant West vacant / public utility bldg D. PHYSICAL SITE 1. Will the project modify existing natural features, YES X NO, please explain on attached sheet. 2. Estimate cubic yards of grading involved in the project: Cut= N/A Fill= N/A X None 3. Is the project in the Hillside Management Overlay District(HMOD)? YES NO X If YES,please provide a slope analysis of the property. 4. Maximum height and grade of constructed slopes: none E. FLORA AND FAUNA Types of vegetation and trees in project area Types of wildlife found in project area N/A N/A Number of trees on site: landscapingNumber of trees to be removed: nnn - If more than 5 trees are to be removed,a Tree Removal Permit application must be submitted. z CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION FORM F. ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL 1. Is the project in an area of archaeological sensitivity in accordance with San Bernardino General Plan Figure 8? YES G. HUMAN SAFETY POTENTIAL 1. Will the project increase existing noise levels in the project area? YES /NO/ 2. Will the projeecctiinncrease the amounts of light,vibration, dust,ash,smoke or odors during construction or after development? YES �� If YES, please describe in detail on a separate sheet. H. ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS I. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability,and that the facts,statements,and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. l Name 12� Date Signature Representative for: &/ L l 61W 7 Title ............................ ............................................................. ............................ ........................... FROM : PHONE NO. : 0 Jan. 12 1999 02:20PM P2 J i-M l 12 1959 :6 29 FR CGER Cal ? 513 762 401-2 TO 913106S70.}24 CM OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PROPERTY OWNER'S AUTHORIZATION FORM TO: CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEYBLOPIvffiNT SERVICES DEPARTMENT FROM;(OWNER NAME(S)): - Kroger Company (ADDRESS): 1014 Vin atr,..ra Cincinnah9 np 45907 (PHONE NO.): ( 513 ) 762-4208 RE: APPLICATION NUMSER(S}: THIS LETTER SHALL SERVE TO NOTIFY YOU AMID VERIFY THAT ILWE AMlARB TIC LEGAL OGVNBRM OF THE PROPERTY DESCRMED IN TSE ATTACHED APPLICATION AND DO HEREBY AMORIZ& (APPLICANTAI" AleMore= valley Indoor Swap meet DD (ARESS): 24 2 ssandro Blvd., Moreno valle C.A 92553 (PHONENO•): ( 909 ) 247-4453 TO FILB-kND R]EPRBSENT My/OUR 124MLEST IN TIM ABOVE REFERENCED APPLICATION(S� IIWE AbVARE THE LBGAL OWNERS)OF&A',>PROPERTY;HAVE READ THE FOREWING LETTER OF AUTHOMATIDN AND KNOW THE CONTE' M TMMF;AND DO HERBY CER- TIFY THAT THE SA IS TRUE OF MY/OUR OWN KNOWLEDGE. UWE CERTIFY(OR DECLARE) UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF TfM STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT TIM INFORMATION CONTA MD IN THE ABOVE CED AP CATIONS)IS TRUE AND CORRFsCT. � SIGNATURES)OF LEGAL OWNERS}; 2 '1 DATE SUBSCRIDWAM ORN TO BEFORE ME �1� •�, 5'AY OF 19 em a. LANE NIt"r; powic, State of a ifu FxPina ANO AD.2M » TOTAL PAGE.03 kHc 2 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: ALL REQUIRED ITEMS MUST BE SUBMITTED FOR YOUR APPLICATION TO BE DEEMED COMPLETE. INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. FOR OFFICE USE OR ALL PROJECTS: ONLY eAPPLICATION (Attached) --------------------- ❑ I RELIMINARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION FORM (Attached) —— — — — — — — ❑ SITE PLAN CHECKLIST (Attached. Must be completed & signed) — — — — — —NOTARIZED PROPERTY OWNERS) AUTHORIZATION FORM,(A,ttached) —SITE PLAN - 25 COPIES* ——— —————————OP —— ❑FLOOR PLANS - 25 SETS* --QL�---------------- ❑ ELEVATIONS (ALL FOUR SIDES) -25 SETS* ——2�7�7:2�S ——————— ❑ ❑ 8 1/2" x 11"TRANSPARENCIES of all plans & elevations - 1 SET — — — — — — ❑ ❑ CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLANS - 5 COPIES ❑ ❑ COLORED ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS - 1 SET — ————— ❑ ❑ MATERIALS SAMPLE BOARD - 8 1/2" x 14" MAXIMUM SIZE —84 — — — ❑ lil"PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT (Must be prepared within last 6 months.) — — — ❑ ❑ SPECIAL STUDIES: ———————— ❑ ❑ FEES: -------- ❑ FOR TENTATIVE TRACT/PARCEL MAP APPLICATIONS ONLY: ❑ TENTATIVE TRACT OR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP -25 COPIES — — — — — ❑ FOR PROJECTS THAT REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING: ———————— ❑ ❑ ADHESIVE PROPERTY OWNERS' ADDRESS LABELS -2 SETS —————— ❑ ❑ PROPERTY OWNERS' ADDRESS LIST- 1 LIST ———————————— ❑ ❑ ADDRESS LIST CERTIFICATION FORM (Attached) ——————————— ❑ ❑ 500' PROPERTY OWNER'S MAP (Sample Attached) ——————————— ❑ ALL PLANS MUST BE COLLATED & FOLDED TO A MINIMUM SIZE OF 8 1/2" x 11" AND A MAXIMUM SIZE OF 8 1/2" X 14". ROLLED PLANS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. 25 SETS OF FOLDED PLANS(ADDITIONAL PLANS MAY BE REQUIRED AS A RESULT OF REVISIONS AND/OR IF PROJECT REQUIRES APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL). Additional studies or fees may be required after initial review of the application. These environmental resources/constraints studies may include, but are not limited to: biology, history, archaeology, soils, geology and traffic studies. These studies and/or design review may require consultant review, the cost of which is required to be borne by the applicant. A deposit for such studies or independent review will be required when circumstances merit. The application may be deemed incomplete if additional studies and/or fees are required, until such studies are submitted. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT SITE PLAN CHECKLIST + Plans shall be drawn to scale by a qualified individual such as an architect,engineer or licensed building designer. + Distinguish between existing(dashed lines)and proposed(solid lines)and show sufficient dimensions to define all items. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHALL BE SHOWN AND LABELED ON THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN: [✓�❑ Property lines and dimensions - El Lg Dimensions and nature of all easements. ? 9(���i,, [✓� ❑ Building and structure footprints - [r ❑ Location of water/sewer mains. ? 5-rh r-LP- [,� ❑ Preliminary grading and method of draining = ❑ Ultimate right-of-way(see Dept. of Public Works). 7 2,-o the site. ❑/❑ Frontage streets: name,centerline,curbline,right-of- [Jf ❑ Driveways: a)show all points of ingress and way, improvements and utili oles. ? egress; b)show conflict points such as other - [� ❑ Location, height and composition_ of walls and fences.? driveways,streets or alleys within 300 feet - L� ❑ Location of refuse enclosures with wall height and type -f% of proposed driveways(can be on a separate of materials. plan); c)must show path of travel across Er El Outside storage areas and method of screening. N/A driveway. ET Location and method of lighting(hooding devices).1V/14 [� ❑ Parking layout showing sizes and location - Location of fire hydrants. ? of each stall, backout areas and driving ❑ Yard and spaces between buildings or between property aisles, and type of surfacing proposed. lines and buildings.S6r8,i r S [�❑ Handicap parking, ramps, signs and - Er❑ Setback distances: a)zoningj b)earthquake;c)flood pavement markings. control. See o bye red M t [[ ❑ Concrete curbing separating all paved - [jr❑ Sidewalk and interior walks including ramps and curb vehicular areas from landscaping. ramps. Qlf [�❑ 6"x 6"wheel curb and minimum 2 1/2 foot - [�❑ Landscaping: building setbacks,parkway and required landscape divider around property lines and percent of parking lots. O14 ? structures. D/❑ Location map(vicinity map). T%zor? E3/11 -Loading zones(19' x 15') [�/❑ North arrow and scale(1"=10',20' 30' etc.). E] �I tree per 4 parking stalls required. ? THE PLANS SHALL CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IN A LEGEND: E� ❑ Square footage or gross and net acreage of dE] Building occupancy n property. a ❑ Number of employees(if known). ❑ Square footage of building or addition. [�' Square footage of seating(if applicable). El Square footage of landscaping, existing and Nature of business. proposed with dimensions and percent of (o Assessor's Parcel Number, legal description and address. landscaping. Name,address, and phone number of plan preparer and Lot coverage(%). applicant. Parking required, parking provided(covered ❑ ❑ Liquefaction Zone(Yes or Of Ce /YY1 and uncovered). ❑ Type of building construction. Automatic sprinklers in building, (yes or no). 1217,}- 1/,oNT/ _��d�� ❑ Land Use District. 3PP I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE INCLUDED ALL OF THE ITEMS LISTED ABOVE AND UNDER- STAN7,T MI ING ITEMS WILL RESULT IN THE DELAY OF THE PROCESSING OF MY APPLICATION. /L /- SIGNATU ( RE ARER) DATE SIGNATURE(APPLICANT) DATE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-02 Ward No. 1 PROPOSAL: To permit an indoor retail concession mall in the CG-1, Commercial General, land use ; district, under authority of Code Section 19.06.030(2)0. PROPERTY LOCATION: The subject property is an irregularly shaped parcel of land consisting of about 4.22 acres located at the southwest comer of 9`h Street and Waterman Avenue, having a frontage of about 255 feet on the south side of 9' Street, being located about 240 feet west of the centerline of Waterman Avenue, and further described as being located at 263 E. 9`h Street. Environmental Recommendation: Exempt from CEQA, Section 15301, Existing Facilities PUBLIC HEARING LOCATION: HEARING DATE AND TIME: San Bernardino City Hall Council Chambers Tuesday, April 6, 1999, at 7 p.m. 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, California 92418 A detailed description of the proposal is on file in the Planning Division at City Hall. If you would like further information about ; this proposal prior to the public hearing, please contact the Planning o. � Division in person or by phoning(909)384-5057. E The Planning Commission is requesting your participation. If you . 3 are unable to attend, you may submit written comments in favor of 9th St or in opposition to the proposal to the Planning Division, City Hall, _ 4=PM 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, CA 92418. `- Decisions of the Planning Commission are final concerning Conditional Use Permits, Development Permits, Tentative Tract ...� Maps and Variances, unless appealed to the Mayor and Common Council. Appeals to the Mayor and Council must be made in writing, stating the grounds of the appeal and must be submitted to ctNtr.wr the City Clerk along with the appropriate fee within fifteen days of the decision. =Mb �..J Final review and action concerning General Plan Amendments, �� G do Development Code Amendments, Specific Plans and Development e Agreements will be made by the Mayor and Common Council. GG� If you challenge the resultant action of the Mayor and Common Council in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, i or in written correspondence delivered to the City Planning Division N at, or prior to,the public hearing. J � f '! a J Individual testimony on agenda. items will be strictly limited to five St tit minutes per rson. The City of San Bernardino recognizes its obligation to provide equal access to public services to those individuals with disabilities. Please contact the Director of Facilities Management (384-5244) two working days prior to the meeting with any requests for reasonable accommodation, to include interpreters. I CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION TYPE OF PERMIT CASE #'s: Amendment to Conditions ❑ Development Code Amendment ❑ Conditional Use Permit DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: -Standard C_u_ p_ -ABC license -Condo/PRD ❑ ___ Design Review ❑ Indoor Retail Concession Mall Development Agreement ❑ including Food related concessions Development Permit -Type II ❑ PROJECT SITE ADDRESS: 263 E. 9th Street -Type III ❑ Extension of Time 1 2 3 ❑ San Bernardino, CA -Case#: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL#: -Expiration Date: 0140-241-49 General Plan Amendment ❑ RELATED PLANNING CASE#, Lot Line Adjustment ❑ IF APPLICABLE: Minor Exception ❑ Minor Revision/Modification APPLICANT(S): ❑ Moreno Valley Indoor Swap Meet Phasing Plan Review ❑ Edward Kim, President Pre-App: DRC Review ❑ MAILING ADDRESS: 24725 Alessandro Blvd. Specific Plan ❑ Moreno Valley, CA 92553 Specific Plan Amendment ❑ TELEPHONE: 909-247-4953 Tentative Subdivision FAX: 909-247-4002 -Parcel Map# ❑ -Tract Map# ❑ PROPERTY OWNER(S): The Kroger Co. -Revision# ❑ -Vesting Map# ❑ MAILING ADDRESS: Variance ❑ 1014 Vine St. Cincinnati, OH 45202 ENVIRONMENTAL TELEPHONE: Environmental Impact Report ❑ FAX: Negative Declaration ❑ ENGINEER/ARCHITECT: Trip Hord Associates Notice of Exemption El ALL REQUIRED ITEMS MUST BE SUBMITTED LING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 1235 FOR YOUR APPLIC4 TION TO BE DEEMED Riverside, CA 92502 COMPLETE INCOMPLETE APPLIG4 TIONS WILL NOT BE TELEPHONE: 909-789-4951 ACCEPTED. FAX: 789-4953 File the required application with the Development Services Department on any non-holiday weekday between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. (Mon.-Thurs.)and 7:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. (Fridays). OFFICE USE ONLY Date Application Filed: Receipt Issued By: Receipt No.: Receipt Amount: S MEMEL- CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION FORM A. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant/Developer: Contact person for environmental: Mr. Edward Kim Trip Hord 789-4951 Name Name Phone Moreno- Valle-y- Indoor Swap Meet Trip Hord Assoc. Firm Firm 1. Address/General Location of Project: 263 E. 9th Street, San Bernardino — a 42,075 SF building and parking field west of the SWC of 9th Street and Watprman Avenue, 2. Describe the actual type of business or development proposed, particularly any features unique to this type of business or operation: multi—tenant indoor marketplace. ± 50 stores. General merchandise (brand new) retail., including food related concessions. 3. Hours of operation: Mon. , Wed. , Thurs. , Fri. , Sat. , Sun. 10AM-7PM Closed on Tuesdays Max. #of employees 4. Total anticipated number of employees: at any one time: 5. Does the business involve the sale of any food or beverages? Yes X No 6. Will any permits be required from agencies other than the City? (including a Hazardous Materials Business Plan)? Yes X No 7. Will the project use,store or dispose of potentially hazardous chemicals, materials, toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Yes X No If the answer to Questions 5, 6 or 7 is YES, please describe in detail on a separate sheet. 8.Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the Planning Department to make available to applicants the most current list of"Identified Hazardous Waste Sites" from the State Office of Planning and Research.(Notebook available at Planning Counter.) All applicants must sign the following statement in order to deem the application complete. "I, Trip Hord , certify that I have reviewed the list of"Identified Hazardous Waste Sites" from the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR)and have determined that the site subject to this application is/is not on that list." Name Trip Hord d0l Date Title Applicant ' s Representative IL ATTACHMENT A CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AGENDA AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ITEM # CASE LOCATION HEARING DATE OR4a) ST J E�..�E I s ION 1.1p 3 9t ' Is 2 i 0 • . d� CC..tTMt 3 E � T ✓i T Er Cou%TY r N GC[MT[R L3UQl � C kT ST dL 4/ r PIP RIALTO �lLJI � l . bbh � •� N PWi4.tt PAGE t OF 1 (�99) SUMMARY CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION CASE: Conditional Use Permit No.99-02 AGENDA ITEM: 3 HEARING DATE: April 6, 1999 WARD: 3 APPLICANT OWNER: Moreno Valley Indoor Swap Meet The Kroger Co. Edward Kim, President 1014 Vine Street 24725 Alessandro Blvd. Cincinnati, OH 45202 Moreno Valley, CA 92553 REQUEST/LOCATION: The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit under authority of Development Code Section 19.06.030(2)(J) to establish an indoor retail concession mall. The proposed use is located at 263 E. 9' Street in the CG-1, Commercial General, land use district. CONSTRAINTS/OVERLAYS: Liquefaction ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: ❑ Not Applicable 0 Exempt, Section 15301 ❑ No Significant Effects ❑ Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Plan STAFF RECOMA1ENDATION: o Approval o Conditions ❑ Denial ❑ Continuance to: nditional Use Permit No. 99-02 Meeting Date:April 6, 1999 Page 2 REQUEST AND LOCATION The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit under authority of Development Code Section 19.06.030(2)(J) to establish an indoor retail concession mall. The proposed use is located at 263 E. 9`h Street in the CG-1, Commercial General, land use district. The use would occupy an existing 42,075 square foot building previously used as a market. The proposed floor plan includes space for 58 vendors to sell general merchandise (new retail), and possible food vendors. The hours of operation would be 10 a.m. to 7p.m. daily, except for Tuesday. SETTING/SITE CHARACTERISTICS The 4.22 acre site is developed with a 42,075 square foot building and 254 stall parking lot. The lot has direct access from 9`h Street and additional access from Waterman Avenue via an adjoining parking lot. Surrounding land uses include commercial and retail development to the east; vacant land zoned PF, Public Facilities to the south and west; a utility building to the west of the front parking lot; and single and multi-family structures across 9`h Street to the north. The subject property has an existing six foot block wall around the rear parking area and on the west side of the front parking area. BACKGROUND The Development Review Committee reviewed this project on February 11, 1999 and cleared it to the Planning Commission. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS 1. Is the proposed use conditionally permitted within, would it impair the integrity and character of the subject land use district, and does it comply with all of the applicable provisions of this Development Code? Pursuant to Development Code Section 19.06.030(2)(J), an indoor retail concession mall is permitted in the CG-1 land use district subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. The proposed project complies with all applicable provisions of the Development Code as shown in Attachment C. 2. Is the proposed use consistent with the General Plan? General Plan Objective 1.19 states that it is the objective of the City of San Bernardino to: "Provide for the continued use, enhancement, and new development of retail, personal service, entertainment, office and related commercial uses along major transportation corridors and intersections to serve the needs of the residents..." The establishment of the indoor retail concession mall will provide additional retail opportunities for residents and visitors. �nditional Use Permit No. 99-02 Meeting Date:April 6, 1999 Page 3 3. Is the approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed use in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and Section 19.20.030(6) of the Development Code? The project is exempt from CEQA per Section 15301, which exempts existing facilities. 4. Are there potentially significant negative impacts upon environmental quality and natural resources that could not be properly mitigated and monitored? As noted on the Summary page and in Finding #3, this project is exempt from CEQA review under Section 15301. 5. Are the location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use compatible with the existing and future land uses within the general area in which the proposed use is to be located and will it create significant noise, traffic or other conditions or situations that may be objectionable or detrimental to other permitted uses in the vicinity or adverse to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City? General Design The proposal is in compliance with all applicable Development Code Standards, and is consistent with the General Plan as noted elsewhere in this staff report. The proposal is for the use of an existing building and parking lot, which is screened from adjoining properties by a six-foot block wall, and will be compatible with surrounding uses. Parking The Development Code requires 1 space for each vendor plus 1 space for every 200 square feet of floor area. The proposal includes 42,075 square feet in building area and 58 spaces for vendors, which require a total of 268 parking spaces to be provided, seven of which must be handicap accessible. The site plan depicts 254 parking spaces, approximately 130 in front of the building and the rest at the side and rear of the property. The Development Code allows the review authority to permit up to a 25 percent reduction in the number of required parking spaces for existing non-conforming structures. As such, staff recommends a 5 percent reduction in required parking spaces-for this use, as the amount of proposed parking should be sufficient for the use. Landscaping The Development Code requires that 15% of the parking area be landscaped. Non-conforming structures may have this requirement reduced if it is physically impossible to meet the minimum standard. Also, no landscape improvements are required in areas not visible and/or accessible to the public. Currently, approximately 5 percent of the parking area is landscaped. As a condition of approval, the applicant will be required to install tree wells in the front parking lot, and plant additional trees in existing landscape planters to meet the requirement for 1 tree for each 4 parking spaces. Additional landscaping is not required in the side and rear parking areas under non-conforming structure provisions, as these lots will be used primarily as employee parking. -)nditional Use Permit No. 99-02 Meeting Date:April 6, 1999 Page 4 6 Is the subject site physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed? The site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of the project being proposed as evidenced by project compliance with all applicable Development Code Standards as noted above and in Attachment"C". 7. Are there adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use would not be detrimental to public health and safety? All agencies responsible for reviewing access, and providing water, sanitation and other public services have all had the opportunity to review the proposal, and none have indicated an inability to serve the project. The proposal will not be detrimental to the public health and safety in that all applicable Codes will apply to the construction of this project. CONCLUSION The proposal meets all necessary Findings of Fact for approval of the Conditional Use Permit. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 99-02 based upon the Findings of Fact contained in this Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval (Attachment D) and Standard Requirements (Attachment E). Respectful Submitted, L � Mich el E. Hays Director of Development Services //1 0-1 Ild V�' Michael Martin Assistant Planner Attachment A Location Map Attachment B Site Plan Attachment C Development Code and General Plan Consistency Table Attachment D Conditions of Approval Attachment E Standard Requirements ATTACHMENT B t L I f IL-- Z+► , n tL Or 6+p C -a f y ; ... _ '. •. .. MPm i rnt use re�tq L AMQQR RET JI I; NCiygI.4H�i1!)�: _* "1 . -� iDrwhTh9N- 1"LAN - __ '9nditional Use Permit No. 99-02 Meeting Date:April 6, 1999 Page 7 ATTACHMENT C DEVELOPMENT CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE CATEGORY PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT GENERALPLAN CODE Indoor Retail Permitted subject to Permitted Use Concession Mall Conditional Use N/A Permit Height 1 story 2 stories or 30 feet 2 stories or 30 feet Setbacks - Front 268 feet 10 feet - Side (E. interior) 30 feet 0 feet Within 25 feet of - Side (W. interior) 45 feet 0 feet sidewalk - Rear 155 feet 10 feet Landscaping 7,126 sq.ft.' 20,193 sq.ft. N/A Lot Coverage 22.9 percent 50 percent N/A Parking 254 spaces 268 spaces - Standard 247 261 N/A - Handicap 7 7 Floor Area Ratio .23 N/A 0.70 See discussion regarding parking and landscaping 'onditional Use Permit No. 99-02 Meeting Date:April 6, 1999 Page 8 ATTACHMENT D CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit No. 99-02 1. Within two years of development approval, commencement of construction shall have occurred or the permit/approval shall become null and void. In addition, if after commencement of construction, work is discontinued for a period of one year, then the permit/approval shall become null and void. Phasing of project construction/development shall be as follows: Project: Conditional Use Permit No. 99-02 Expiration Date: April 6, 2001 2. The review authority may, upon application being filed 30 days prior to the expiration date and for good cause, grant a one-time extension not to exceed 12 months. The review authority shall ensure that the project complies with all current Development Code provisions. 3. In the event that this approval is legally challenged, the City will promptly notify the applicant of any claim or action and will cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. Once notified, the applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of San Bernardino. The applicant further agrees to reimburse the City of any costs and attorneys' fees which the City may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action, but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his or her obligation under this condition. 4. Construction shall be in substantial conformance with the plan(s) approved by the Director, Development Review Committee, Planning Commission or Mayor and Common Council. Minor modification to the plan(s) shall be subject to approval by the Director through a minor modification permit process. Any modification which exceeds 10% of the following allowable measurable design/site considerations shall require the refiling of the original application and a subsequent hearing by the appropriate hearing review authority if applicable: a. On-site circulation and parking, loading and landscaping; b. Placement and/or height of walls, fences and structures; c. Reconfiguration of architectural features, including colors, and/or modification of finished materials that do not alter or compromise the previously approved theme; and, d. A reduction in density or intensity of a development project. onditional Use Permit No. 99-02 Meeting Date:April 6, 1999 Page 9 5. No vacant, relocated, altered, repaired or hereafter erected structure shall be occupied or no change of use of land or structure(s) shall be inaugurated, or no new business commenced as authorized by this permit until a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued by the Department. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued by the Department subject to the conditions imposed on the use, provided that a deposit is filed with the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of the Certificate, if necessary. The deposit or security shall guarantee the faithful performance and completion of all terms, conditions and performance standards imposed on the intended use by this permit. 6. This permit or approval is subject to all the applicable provisions of the Development Code in effect at the time of approval. This includes Chapter 19.20 - Property Development Standards, and includes: dust and dirt control during construction and grading activities; emission control of fumes, vapors, gases and other forms of air pollution; glare control; exterior lighting design and control; noise control; odor control; screening; signs, off-street parking and off-street loading; and, vibration control. Screening and sign regulations compliance are important considerations to the developer because they will delay the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy until they are complied with. Any exterior structural equipment, or utility transformers, boxes, ducts or meter cabinets shall be architecturally screened by wall or structural element, blending with the building design and include landscaping when on the ground. 7. Signs are not approved as a part of this permit. Prior to establishing any new signs, or replacing existing signs, the applicant shall submit an application, and receive approval, for a sign permit from the Planning Department. Indoor retail concession malls are considered to be one tenant for purposes of Development Code sign standards. 8. The developer is to submit a complete landscape and irrigation plan (5 sets) to the Public Works Department with the required fee for review (Note: issuance of a building permit by the Department of Planning and Building Services does NOT waive this requirement). No grading permit will be issued prior to approval of the landscape and irrigation plans. The landscape and irrigation plans shall comply with the "Procedure and Policy for Landscaping and Irrigation" provided by the Department of Parks and Recreation and included with their standard requirements. 9. The applicant shall be required to install three tree wells in each of the three parking aisles in front of the building. A 24 inch box tree shall be installed in each of the tree wells and where they are missing in the existing landscape planters that bound each of the parking aisles — for a total of seven trees in each of the three parking aisles in front of the building. 10. All activities must take place in a completely enclosed structure. 11. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the County Health Department and the City for any food service activities. 12. The hours of operation shall be 10 a.m. to 7p.m. onditional Use Permit No. 99-02 Meeting Date:April 6, 1999 Page 10 13. This permit or approval is subject to the attached conditions or requirements of the following City Departments or Divisions: a. Department of Development Services—Public Works Division b. Public Services Department—Refuse Division C. Water Department d. Fire Department e. Department of Development Services—Plan Check Division j AITACEMIENT "E" STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION CASE NO: CUP 99-02 DESCRIPTION: INDOOR CONCESSION MALL IN EXISTING 42.075 SF BUILDING APPLICANT: MORENO LOCATION: W/S WATERMAN AVENUE VALLEY INDOOR SWAP MEET S/S 9m STREET • NOTE TO APPLICANT: Where separate Engineering plans are required, the applicant is responsible for submitting the Engineering plans directly to the Engineering Division. They may be submitted prior to submittal of Building Plans. 1. Drainage a) All drainage from the development shall be directed to an approved public drainage facility. If not feasible, proper drainage facilities and easements shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. b) If site drainage is to be outletted into the public street, the drainage shall be conveyed through a parkway culvert constructed in accordance with City Standard No. 400. Conveyance of site drainage over the Driveway approaches will not be permitted. C) Applicant shall mitigate on-site storm water discharge sufficiently to maintain compliance with the City's NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit Requirements. 2. Site Development and Landscaping a) Seven Handicap parking spaces conforming to City Standard No. 507 shall be provided for this project. b) A refuse enclosure constructed in accordance with City Standard Drawing No. 508. The minimum size of the refuse enclosure shall be•8 feet x 15 feet, unless the Public Services Department, Refuse Division, approves a smaller size, in writing. Page 1 of 5 Pages 211511999 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION CASE NO: CUP 99-02 DESCRIPTION: INDOOR CONCESSION MALL IN EXISTING 42,075 SF BUILDING APPLICANT: MORENO LOCATION: W/S WATERMAN AVENUE VALLEY INDOOR SWAP MEET S/S 9T" STREET C) The Refuse Division shall approve the number and placement of refuse enclosures. d) Retaining walls, block walls and all on-site fencing shall be designed and detailed on the On-site Improvement Plan. This work shall be part of the On-site Improvement permit issued by the City Engineer. e) An on-site Improvement Plan is required for this project. This plan shall conform to all requirements of Section 15.04-167 of the Municipal Code (See "Grading Policies and Procedures"). f) The design of on-site improvements shall also comply with all requirements of The California Building Code, Title 24, relating to handicap parking and accessibility, including retrofitting of existing building access points for handicap accessibility, if applicable. g) Handicap accessible paths of travel at least 4 feet wide shall be provided from the handicap parking spaces to the building entrance. These paths shall be combined into a single path where practical. h) Where a handicap accessible path of travel crosses drive aisles, it shall be delineated by textured/colored concrete pavement which is clearly marked as a crosswalk. i) A reciprocal easement shall be recorded prior to grading plan approval if reciprocal drainage, access, sewer, and/or parking is proposed to cross lot lines, or a lot merger shall be recorded to remove the interior lot lines. Page 2 of 5 Pages 211511999 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION CASE NO: CUP 99-02 DESCRIPTION: INDOOR CONCESSION MALL IN EXISTING 42,075 SF BUILDING APPLICANT: MORENO LOCATION: W/S WATERMAN AVENUE VALLEY INDOOR SWAP MEET S/S 9T" STREET j) The project Landscape Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. Submit 5 copies to the Engineering Division for Checking. k) The public right-of-way, between the property line and top of curb (also known as "parkway") along adjoining streets shall be landscaped by the developer and maintained in perpetuity by the property owner. Details of the parkway landscaping shall be included in the project's on-site landscape plan, unless the parkway area is included in a landscape maintenance district, in which case, a separate landscape plan shall be provided. 1) An easement and covenant shall be executed on behalf of the City to allow the City to enter and maintain any required landscaping in case of owner neglect. The Real Property Section for execution by the property owner and shall ensure that, if the property owner or subsequent owner(s) fail to properly maintain the landscaping, the City will be able to file appropriate liens against the property in order to accomplish the required landscape maintenance. A document processing fee in the amount of 200.00 shall be paid to the Real Property Section to cover processing costs. The property owner, prior to plan approval, shall execute this easement and covenant unless otherwise allowed by the City Engineer. 3. Utilities a) Design and construct all public utilities to serve the site in accordance with City Code, City Standards and requirements of the serving utility, including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer and cable TV (Cable TV optional for commercial, industrial, or institutional uses). Page 3 of 5 Pages 2/15/1999 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION CASE NO: CUP 99-02 DESCRIPTION: INDOOR CONCESSION MALL IN EXISTING 42.075 SF BUILDING APPLICANT: MORENO LOCATION: W/S WATERMAN AVENUE VALLEY INDOOR SWAP MEET S/S 9T" STREET b) Each parcel shall be provided with separate water and sewer facilities so the City or the agency providing such services in the area can serve it. C) This project is located in the sewer service area maintained by the City of San Bernardino therefore, any necessary sewer main extension shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's "Sewer Policy and Procedures" and City Standard Drawings. d) Utility services shall be placed underground and easements provided as required. e) A street cut permit, from the City Engineer, will be required for utility cuts into existing streets where the street is not being repaved as part of the required improvements. f) Existing Utilities which interfere with new construction shall be relocated at the Developer's expense as directed by the City Engineer, except overhead lines, if required by provisions of the Development Code to be undergrounded. See Development Code Section 19.20.030. 4. Street Improvement a) Modify Driveway Approaches on Waterman Avenue and 9`h Street per City Standard No. 204 to add 4 foot wide PCC Handicap by-pass. 5. Required Engineering Permits a) On-site improvements construction permit (except buildings - see Development Services-Building Division), including landscaping. Page 4 of Pages 211511999 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION CASE NO: CUP 99-02 DESCRIPTION: INDOOR CONCESSION MALL IN EXISTING 42,075 SF BUILDING APPLICANT: MORENO LOCATION: W/S WATERMAN AVENUE VALLEY INDOOR SWAP MEET S/S 9TH STREET b) Off-site improvements construction permit. 6. Applicable Engineering Fees'- a) Plan check and inspection fees for off-site improvements - 4% and 4%, respectively, of the estimated construction cost2 of the off-site improvements. b) Plan check and inspection fees for on-site improvements (except buildings - See Development Services-Building Division) - 2% and 3%, respectively, of the estimated construction costa of the on-site improvements, including landscaping. C) Plan check and inspection fees for grading (If permit required) - Fee Schedule available at the Engineering Division Counter. d) Traffic system fee based on $16.298 per new trip generated by the project. The City Traffic Engineer shall determine exact amount at time of application for Building Permit. All Fees are subject to change without notice. 'Estimated Construction Cost for Off-Site Improvements is based on a list of standard unit prices on file with the Public Works Division. 3 Estimated Construction Cost for On-Site Improvements is based on a list of standard unit prices on file with the Public Works Division. Page 5 of 5 Pages 211511999 ♦ BAR ♦ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO y PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REFUSE d RECYCLING DIVISION n,, 300 North T)'SbvK 4°"Floor 0 San Semardino, CA 92418-0001 S"°'""""' �oED is (909)384-5335 STANDARD DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS F.....OP.wftD"- PROJECT IDENTIFICATION Project Number Cup # 99' D-2 Meeting Date Property Address -2(03 e 9 95--G Project Planner A'J'a Reviewed by Lvr n ,���«pct✓ CONDITIONS(Applicable If checked): Commercial Refuse d Recycling Services _1. Applicant to establish commercial refuse enclosure according to City Standard No.508 with a length of and a width of _2. Applicant shall place commercial refuse enclosure In a location easily accessible for proper refuse truck pick-up and without obstruction to drive aisles, driveways, loading zones, parking, etc. Location and orientation of enclosure and gates shall be as shown on plans. _,,�;_3. Applicant shall establish City commercial refuse service at the following minimum level: Bin size cubic ds) Mckup Frequency Bh Compedor I io 1 1.5 i5 2 2 20 3 3 30 4 4 35 5 e 40 a _L_4. Applicant shall install CA 6e compactor(s) as shown on plans. Compactor configuration shall meet City Standard No.510,a copy of which is attached. A 5. Applicant shall complete a Service Application prior to Issuance of final Certificate of Occupancy. Application number —ho 7 is attached and must be retuned to the Public Services Department. X6. Applicant shall contact M i cifct F 9Uck with the Public Services Refuse and Recycling Division at(909)384-5549 ext. 3 1 c..1 to establish a commercial recycling program prior to Issuance of final Certificate of Occupancy. Residential Refuse 6 Recycling Services 1. Residential refuse and recycling services to be provided by City of San Bernardino. Collection day Is . City shall provide one set of refuse and recycling carts to each single family residential unit Qj3 one set to every two-unit multiple family unit up to six total units. 2. Each residential lot shall have a 3'xg'concrete pad located out of view of public right of way for storage of three automated containers and shall have a concrete path of travel from storage pad to curb. Minimum gate widths shall be 3 feet. _3. Applicant must provide adequate space for residential trash collection at curb by refuse trucks. Addidonal Conditions: 'Z lrl/ i 7 Signature Dale punning-White/F'do-Yellow/Custanw Service-Pink Version I.o—[Hename:F0Rb1--96mhj SAN BER.NARDINO MUNICIPAL WATER DEPARTMENT STANDARD REQUIREMENTS Review of Plans: �/ ©� Date Compiled: Owner/Developer: Compiled By: Type of Project:f ADICC S - Number of Units: Location: ���� . WATER DEPART),fEYr -N ,IN IN Contact: Phor -J Fa� Note: All Water Services are Subject to the Rules & Regulations of the Water Department. Sl,Size of Main Adjacent the Project: �� t � �`ZN �� fig .•_ �� Approximate Water Pressure: Elevation of Water Storage:[rZ1� _ Hydrant Flow® 20 psi: ❑ Type, Size, Location, and Distance to Nearest Fire Hydrant: ❑ Pressure Regulator Required on Customer's Side on the Meter. • Off-site Water Facilities Required. • Area Not Served by San Bernardino Municipal Water Department. �orrunents: ��Lr�T V�� �l i�1 � t L!.<'� ►�.�C 1—' �A►1--�.ryt��L�1�,� ��C' 1 L�L�-�' WATER QUALITY CONTROL Contact: —� &Vv Pho 6 e ' Faxt� • R.P.P. Backflow Device Required at Service Connection. • Double Check Backflow Device Required at Service Connection. • Backflow Device to be Inspected Before Water Service can be Activated. • No Backflow Device Required at Tlus Time. V 1 C0NTR01./1NMUSTgIAI, WASTE: Contact: Pho l 533Faar� , � Z Note: No Brine Regenerative ater Softeners May be Installed, Unless Holding and Hauling is Provided for the Brine. All Interceptors will be a 1200 Gallon Capacity with a Sample Box Included. ❑ Irklustrial Waste Peniut Required. • Grease Interceptor Required. Sand/Oil Interceptor Required. ANo Issues at thus Tine. • Pre-treatment Required. RINIATIONo / Contact: Pho¢ �� )`�r � Fa) L<J - 2 Note: Proof of Payment Must be Submitted to the Building & Safety Department Prior to Issuance of the Building Permit. No Sewer Capacity Fee Applicable at This Time. • Sewer Capacity Fee Must Be Paid to the Water Department for Gallons Per Day, Equivalent Dwelling Units: _ • Subject to Recalculation of Fee Prior to the Issuance of Building Permit. Break-clown of Estumated Gallons Per Day: �tT _ im Via KE_ � J ' � - • �' "CtT�1l�OF;�S BERl1tARDtN 1 ©E MME �' - �� Date: i//9 Reviewed By: PzD JENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Provide one additional set of construction plans to Building and Safety for Fire Department use at time of plan check. Contact the City of San Bernardino_Fire Department at(909) 384-5388 for specific detailed requirements. D -The developer shall provide for adequate fre-flow as computed by the Fire Prevention Bureau.-Minirrnirn fire flovKtequaemeMS shalt be based on square footage,construction features;and exposure information supplied by the,deJefoper and 1hij be 6f fable)kg to-placing combustible materials on site. = _ WATER PURVEYOR FOR FIRE PROTECTION: ❑ T fire protection water service for the area of this project is provided by: San Bernardino Municipal Water Department - Engineering (909) 384-5391 East Valley Water District - Engineering (909) 888-6986 ❑ Other Water Purveyor: Phone: PUBLIC FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES: # ;1 (_ Public fro hydrants are required along streets at intervals not to exceed 300 feet for commercial and mufti-resrdentW areas and st rttervals not to eicceed 500 feel foiresidentiar areas `r" `°r -•^rr^�'�.- .` `�" ,tr{,rsT - ,N A Fie hydrant minirtxrm flow rates of 1,500 gpm at a 20 psi minimum residual pressure are required for commercial and multr_residentiall areas. K _ MbtiirwriLfire hydrant:flow rates of,1.000 gpm at a 20 psi minimum residual pressure are required fcK residentiat areas: D E.Fire flow'requi►ements,nWbe met fromthe combined flow1of two adjacent fire[rydrants.`Fire 064reQurements ma}-be'adpst as ed appropriate by the Fire Department,based on individual sits specific conditions and available mitigations ,:;, %;, Fre hydrant type and specific location shall be jointly determined by the City of Sari Bernardino Fne Department in eonjunettort wRti the water purveyor. Fire hydrant materials and installation shall conform to the standards and specifications of the water purveyor. Public fire hydrants, fire services, and public water facilities necessary to meet Fire Department requirements are the developer's financial responsibility and shall be installed by the water purveyor or by the developer at the water purveyor's discretion. Contact the water purveyor indicated above for additional information. ACCESS: ❑ Provide two separate, dedicated routes of ingress/egress to the property entrance. The routes shall be paved, all weather. Provide an access road to each building for fire apparatus. Access roadway shall have an all-weather driving surface of not less than 20 feet of unobstructed width. Extend roadway to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior wall of all single story buildings. Extend roadway to within 50 feet of the exterior wall of all multiple-story buildings. Provide "NO PARKING" signs whenever parking of vehicles would possibly reduce the clearance of access roadways to less than the required width. Signs are to read "FIRE LANE-NO PARKING -M.C. Sec 15.16". ❑ Dead-end streets shall not exceed 500 feet in length and shall have a minimum 40 foot radius turnaround. ❑ The names of any new streets (public or private) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval. SITE: 0 All access roads and streets are to be constructed and usable prior to combustible construction. Private fire hydrants shall be installed to protect each building located more than 150 feet from the curb line. No fire hydrants should be within 40 feet of any exterior wall. The hydrants shall be Wet Barrel type, with one 2'/=inch and 4 inch outlet, and approved by the Fire Department. Fire hydrants shall be designated as a 'NO PARKING" zone by painting an 8 inch wide, red stripe for 15 feet in each direction in front of the hydrant in such a manner that it will not be blocked by parked vehicles. BUILDINGS: �( Address numerals shall be installed on the building at the front or other approved location in such a manner as to be visible from the frontage street. Commercial and multi family address numerals shall be 6 inches tall, single family address numerals shall be 4 inches tall. The color of the numerals shall contrast with the color of the background. ❑ Identify each gas and electric meter with the number of the unit it serves. Fire Extinguishers must be installed prior to the building being occupied. The minimum rating for any fire extinguisher is 2A 106 1C. Minimum distribution of fire extinguishers must be such that no interior part of the building is over 75 feet travel distance from a fire extinguisher. ❑ Apartment houses with 16 or more units, hotels(motels) with 20 or more units, or apartments or hotels(motels) three stories or more in height shall be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers designed to NFPA standards. ❑ All buildings, other than residential, over 5,000 square feet, shall be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system designed to NFPA standards. This includes existing buildings vacant over 365 days. ❑ Submit plans for the fire protection system to the Fire Department prior to beginning construction of the system. Tenant improvements in all sprinklered buildings are to be approved by the Fire Department prior to start of construction. ❑ Provide fire alarm (required throughout). Plan must be approved by the Fire Department prior to start of installation. ❑ Fire Department connection to (sprinkler system/standpipe system) shall be required at Fire Department approved location. Note: The applicant must request, in writing, any changes to Fire Department requirements. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: / �) ,Sl//L. S /J, ,• !� c4 ` �rLA F 9�ti�iL rt ��. ,.c d ( T.C�,�', � / ,— or f z- AA IV J �/ ♦o/, �D /JC�rts ��u/S —Cvt/j /DU l "� FPS 170(11-94) . City of San Bernardino STA-NNDARD REQUIREMENTS Date: February 11, 1999 Development Services/Plan Check Division Property address: 263 E. 9`h Street CUP #99-02 1. Submit 4 sets of plans, minimum size 18" x 24", drawn to scale. If plan check is for expeditious review, submit 5 sets. The plans shall include (if applicable): a. site plan (include address & assessors parcel number) b. foundation plan C. floor plan (label use of all areas) d. elevations e. electrical, mechanical, & plumbing plans f. detail sheets (structural) Z9 cross section details h. show compliance with Title 24/Accessibility (disabled access) i. a plan check deposit fee will be required upon submittal of plans. Call Development Services (plan check) 909-38.1-5071 for amount. 2. The title sheet of the plans must specify the occupancy classification, type of construction, if the building has sprinklers, & the current applicable codes. 3. The person who prepares them must sign the plans. Also, provide the address & phone number of that person. Some types of occupancies require that the plans are prepared, stamped, and signed by an architect, engineer, or other person licensed by the State of California. 4. For structures that must include an engineers design, provide 2 sets of stamped/wet signed calculations prepared by a licensed architect/engineer. .5. Provide 2 sets of Title 24/Energy compliance forms and calculations. Some compliance forms are required to be printed on the plans. 6. Fire sprinkler plans, fires suppression system plans, etc., shall be submitted to the Fire Department for plan check approval and permits. For information, phone 909-384-5388. 7. Signs require a separate submittal to the Planning Division for plan check approval and permits. For information, phone 909-384-5057. 8. An air quality permit may be required. Contact South Coast Air Quality Management Division for information, phone 909-396-2000. 9. State of California Business & Professions Code/Contractors License Law requires that permits can be issued to licensed contractors or owner-builders (that are doing the work). Contractors must provide their State license number, a city business registration, and workers compensation policy carrier & policy number. Owner-builders must provide proof of ownership. 10. Your plan check submittal needs to include occupancy load calculations. The calculations are needed in order to determine if the exiting complies. Plans must address path of travel based on the Uniform Building Code plus accessibility. 11. Label use of four rooms at the southwest corner of building. You can only exit through 1 intervening room. 12. The bathrooms do not appear to be accessible. Whole building & path of travel will be required to be accessible. 13. A new Certificate of Occupancy will be required. NOTE: PLAN CHECK TIME ON THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS IS APPROXIMATELY 3-4 WEEKS FOR 1sT CORRECTIONS. EXPEDITIOUS REVIEW IS APPROXIMATELY 10 WORKING DAYS. THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IS NOT THE BUILDING PLAN CHECK AND DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THE DESIGN AS SUBMITTED WILL BE APPROVED WITHOUT CORRECTIONS. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO "OFD " STATEi41ENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION PROJECT Number: Conditional Use Permit No. 99-02 Address: 263 E. 9th Street Owner: The Kroger Co. Applicant: Moreno Valley Indoor Swap Meet/Edward Kim, President Description: To establish an indoor retail concession mall in the CG-1, Commercial General, land use district. The use would occupy an existing 42,075 square foot building previously used as a market. The proposed floor plan includes space for 58 vendors to sell general merchandise (new retail), and possible food vendors. The hours of operation would be from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily, except for Tuesday. ACTION: APPROVED, AS AIMENDED Meeting Date: April 6, 1999 The Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 99-02, based on the Findings of Fact, subject to the Conditions of Approval (Attachment "D"), as amended, and Standard Requirements (Attachment "E"). VOTE Ayes: Durr, Garcia, Hendrix, Lockett, Schuiling, Suarez and Thrasher Nays: None Abstain: None Absent: Enciso The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless a written appeal is filed, with the appropriate fee, within 15 days of the Planning Commission's action, pursuant to Section 19.52.100 of the Municipal (Development) Code. I hereby certify that this Statement of Official Action accurately reflects the final determination of the Planning Commission of the City of San Bernardino. 4 '17' Margaret ark, Seaior Planner Date Enclosures cc: Owner/Applicant, Plan Check, Public Works/Engineering, Case File, Department File, Address File Conditional Use Permit No. 99-02 Meeting Date:April 6, 1999 Page 8 ATTACHMENT D CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit No. 99-02 1. Within two years of development approval, commencement of construction shall have occurred or the permit/approval shall become null and void. In addition, if after commencement of construction, work is discontinued for a period of one year, then the permit/approval shall become null and void. Phasing of project construction/development shall be as follows: Project: Conditional Use Permit No. 99-02 Expiration Date: April 6,2001 2. The review authority may, upon application being filed 30 days prior to the expiration date and for good cause, grant a one-time extension not to exceed 12 months. The review authority shall ensure that the project complies with all current Development Code provisions. 3. In the event that this approval is legally challenged, the City will promptly notify the applicant of any claim or action and will cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. Once notified, the applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of San Bernardino. The applicant further agrees to reimburse the City of any costs and attorneys' fees which the City may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action, but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his or her obligation under this condition. 4. Construction shall be in substantial conformance with the plan(s) approved by the Director, Development Review Committee, Planning Commission or Mayor and Common Council. Minor modification to the plan(s) shall be subject to approval by the Director through a minor modification permit process. Any modification which exceeds 10% of the following allowable measurable design/site considerations shall require the refiling of the original application and a subsequent hearing by the appropriate hearing review authority if applicable: a. On-site circulation and parking, loading and landscaping; b. Placement and/or height of walls, fences and structures; c. Reconfiguration of architectural features, including colors, and/or modification of finished materials that do not alter or compromise the previously approved theme; and, d. A reduction in density or intensity of a development project. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-02 Meeting Date:April 6, 1999 Page 9 5. No vacant, relocated, altered, repaired or hereafter erected structure shall be occupied or no change of use of land or structure(s) shall be inaugurated, or no new business commenced as authorized by this permit until a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued by the Department. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued by the Department subject to the conditions imposed on the use, provided that a deposit is filed with the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of the Certificate, if necessary. The deposit or security shall guarantee the faithful performance and completion of all terms, conditions and performance standards imposed on the intended use by this permit. 6. This permit or approval is subject to all the applicable provisions of the Development Code in effect at the time of approval. This includes Chapter 19.20 - Propem' Development Standards, and includes: dust and dirt control during construction and grading activities; emission control of fumes, vapors, gases and other forms of air pollution; glare control; exterior lighting design and control; noise control; odor control; screening; signs, off-street parking and off-street loading; and, vibration control. Screening and sign regulations compliance are important considerations to the developer because they will delay the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy until they are complied with. Any exterior structural equipment, or utility transformers, boxes, ducts or meter cabinets shall be architecturally screened by wall or structural element, blending with the building design and include landscaping when on the ground. 7. Signs are not approved as a part of this permit. Prior to establishing any new signs, or replacing existing signs, the applicant shall submit an application, and receive approval, for a sign permit from the Planning Department. Indoor retail concession malls are considered to be one tenant for purposes of Development Code sign standards. 8. The developer is to submit a complete landscape and irrigation plan (5 sets) to the Public Works Department with the required fee for review (Note: issuance of a building permit by the Department of Planning and Building Services does NOT waive this requirement). No grading permit rill be issued prior to approval of the landscape and irrigation plans. The landscape and irrigation plans shall comply with the "Procedure and Policy for Landscaping and Irrigation" provided by the Department of Parks and Recreation and included with their standard requirements. *9. Two shade trees shall be provided in each of the landscape endcaps in the front parking lot — for a total of twelve trees. If trees do not currently exist, a 24 inch box tree shall be installed. 10. All activities must take place in a completely enclosed structure. 11. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the County Health Department and the City for any food service activities. 12. The hours of operation shall be 10 a.m. to 7p.m. *Amended per Planning Commission on April 6, 1999. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-02 Meeting Date:April 6, 1999 Page 10 13. This permit or approval is subject to the attached conditions or requirements of the following City Departments or Divisions: a. Department of Development Services—Public Works Division b. Public Services Department—Refuse Division C. Water Department d. Fire Department e. Department of Development Services—Plan Check Division *14. A gate shall be installed at the northwest corner of the building across the driveway that provides access to the side and rear of the building. The gate shall be locked and secured during hours of non-operation, subject to approval by the Fire Department. *Amended per Planning Commission on April 6, 1999. ATTACHMENT "E" STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICESIPUBLIC WORKS DIVISION CASE NO: CUP 99-02 DESCRIPTION: INDOOR CONCESSION MALL IN EXISTING 42.075 SF BUILDING APPLICANT: MORENO LOCATION: W/S WATERMAN AVENUE VALLEY INDOOR SWAP MEET I S/S 9T" STREET + NOTE TO APPLICANT. Where separate Engineering plans are required, the applicant is responsible for submitting the Engineering plans directly to the Engineering Division. They may be submitted prior to submittal of Building Plans. 1. Drainage a) All drainage from the development shall be directed to an approved public drainage facility. If not feasible, proper drainage facilities and easements shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. b) If site drainage is to be outletted into the public street, the drainage shall be conveyed through a parkway culvert constructed in accordance with City Standard No. 400. Conveyance of site drainage over the Driveway approaches will not be permitted. C) Applicant shall mitigate on-site storm water discharge sufficiently to maintain compliance with the City's NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit Requirements. 2. Site Development and Landscaping a) Seven Handicap parking spaces conforming to City Standard No. 507 shall be provided for this project. b) A refuse enclosure constructed in accordance with City Standard Drawing No. 508. The minimum size of the refuse enclosure shall be-8 feet x 15 feet, unless the Public Services Department, Refuse Division, approves a smaller size, in writing. Page 1 of 5 Pages 2/15/1999 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION CASE NO: CUP 99-02 DESCRIPTION: INDOOR CONCESSION MALL IN EXISTING 42,075 SF BUILDING APPLICANT: MORENO LOCATION: W/S WATERMAN AVENUE VALLEY INDOOR SWAP MEET S/S 9TH STREET C) The Refuse Division shall approve the number and placement of refuse enclosures. d) Retaining walls, block walls and all on-site fencing shall be designed and detailed on the On-site Improvement Plan. This work shall be part of the On-site Improvement permit issued by the City Engineer. e) An on-site Improvement Plan is required for this project. This plan shall conform to all requirements of Section 15.04-167 of the Municipal Code (See "Grading Policies and Procedures"). f) The design of on-site improvements shall also comply with all requirements of The California Building Code, Title 24, relating to handicap parking and accessibility, including retrofitting of existing building access points for handicap accessibility, if applicable. g) Handicap accessible paths of travel at least 4 feet wide shall be provided from the handicap parking spaces to the building entrance. These paths shall be combined into a single path where practical. h) Where a handicap accessible path of travel crosses drive aisles, it shall be delineated by textured/colored concrete pavement which is clearly marked as a crosswalk. i) A reciprocal easement shall be recorded prior to grading plan approval if reciprocal drainage, access, sewer, and/or parking is proposed to cross lot lines, or a lot merger shall be recorded to remove the interior lot lines. Page 2 of 5 Pages 211511999 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION CASE NO: CUP 99-02 DESCRIPTION: INDOOR CONCESSION MALL IN EXISTING 42,075 SF BUILDING APPLICANT: MORENO LOCATION: W/S WATERMAN AVENUE VALLEY INDOOR SWAP MEET S/S 9r" STREET j) The project Landscape Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. Submit 5 copies to the Engineering Division for Checking. k) The public right-of-way, between the property line and top of curb (also known as "parkway") along adjoining streets shall be landscaped by the developer and maintained in perpetuity by the property owner. Details of the parkway landscaping shall be included in the project's on-site landscape plan, unless the parkway area is included in a landscape maintenance district, in which case, a separate landscape plan shall be provided. 1) An easement and covenant shall be executed on behalf of the City to allow the City to enter and maintain any required landscaping in case of owner neglect. The Real Property Section for execution by the property owner and shall ensure that, if the property owner or subsequent owner(s) fail to properly maintain the landscaping, the City will be able to file appropriate liens against the property in order to accomplish the required landscape maintenance. A document processing fee in the amount of 5200.00 shall be paid to the Real Property Section to cover processing costs. The property owner, prior to plan approval, shall execute this easement and covenant unless otherwise allowed by the City Engineer. 3. Utilities a) Design and construct all public utilities to serve the site in accordance with City Code, City Standards and requirements of the serving utility, including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer and cable TV (Cable TV optional for commercial, industrial, or institutional uses). Page 3 of 5 Pages 211511999 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION CASE NO: CUP 99-02 DESCRIPTION: INDOOR CONCESSION MALL IN EXISTING 42.075 SF BUILDING APPLICANT: MORENO LOCATION: W/S WATERMAN AVENUE VALLEY INDOOR SWAP MEET S/S 9T" STREET b) Each parcel shall be provided with separate water and sewer facilities so the City or the agency providing such services in the area can serve it. C) This project is located in the sewer service area maintained by the City of San Bernardino therefore, any necessary sewer main extension shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's "Sewer Policy and Procedures" and City Standard Drawings. d) Utility services shall be placed underground and easements provided as required. e) A street cut permit, from the City Engineer, will be required for utility cuts into existing streets where the street is not being repaved as part of the required improvements. f) Existing Utilities which interfere with new construction shall be relocated at the Developer's expense as directed by the City Engineer, except overhead lines, if required by provisions of the Development Code to be undergrounded. See Development Code Section 19.20.030. 4. Street Improvement a) Modify Driveway Approaches on Waterman Avenue and 9`" Street per City Standard No. 204 to add 4 foot wide PCC Handicap by-pass. 5. Required Engineering Permits a) On-site improvements construction permit (except buildings - see Development Services-Building Division), including landscaping. Page 4 of 5 Pages 2/15/1999 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION CASE NO: CUP 99-02 DESCRIPTION: INDOOR CONCESSION MALL /N7 EXISTING 42.075 SF BUILDING APPLICANT: MORENO LOCATION: W/S WATERMAN AVENUE VALLEY INDOOR SWAP MEET S/S 9T' STREET b) Off-site improvements construction permit. 6. Applicable Engineering Fees'- a) Plan check and inspection fees for off-site improvements - 4% and 4%, respectively, of the estimated construction cost2 of the off-site improvements. b) Plan check and inspection fees for on-site improvements (except buildings - See Development Services-Building Division) - 2% and 3%, respectively, of the estimated construction costa of the on-site improvements, including landscaping. C) Plan check and inspection fees for grading (If permit required) - Fee Schedule available at the Engineering Division Counter. d) Traffic system fee based on $16.298 per new trip generated by the project. The City Traffic Engineer shall determine exact amount at time of application for Building Permit. All Fees are subject to change without notice. 2Estimated Construction Cost for Off-Site Improvements is based on a list of standard unit prices on file with the Public Works Division. 3 Estimated Construction Cost for On-Site Improvements is based on a list of standard unit prices on file with the Public Works Division. Page 5 of 5 Pages 211511999 �e A , CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT Z REFUSE 6 RECYCUNG DMSION a. s� 300 NorM'D'S&9@4 4"Floor d San Benwilk o, CA 92418-0001 t-Y...a�. ~QED IN (909)384-5335 STANDARD DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS PROJECT IDENTIFICATION Project Number C VP # 99'a-2 Meeting Date Property Address Jto 3 E 9`4" � # Project Planner n^ ^� -A Reviewed by Lvtiti .�iE-«,ct_ CONDITIONS(Applicable if checked): Commercial Refuse 6 Recyci/ng Services _t. Applicant to establish commercial refuse enclosure according to City Standard No.508 with a length of and a width of _2. Applicant shall place commercial refuse enclosure in a location easily accessible for proper refuse truck pick-up and without obstruction to drive aisles, driveways, loading zones, parking, etc. Location and orientation of enclosure and gates shall be as shown on plans. 3. Applicant shall establish City commercial refuse service at the following minimum level: Bin 34ze cubic ywdal Pickup Frowency Bh compector 1 10 1 is Is 2 2 20 3 3 30 4 4 35 5 e 1 40 e _2�_4. Applicant shall install cnJQ compactor(s) as shown on plans. Compactor configuration shall meet City Standard No.510,a copy of which is attached. S. Applicant shall complete a Service Application prior to issuance of final Certificate of Occupancy. Application number -7i U 7 is attached and must be returned to the Pudic Services Department. _4L6. Applicant shall contact m i u rt.t iv waC with the Public Services Refuse and Recycling Division at(909)384-5549 ext. 3 i 1 to establish a commercial recycling program prior to issuance of final Certificate of Occupancy. Residential Refuse 6 Recycling Services _1. Residential refuse and recycling services to be provided by City of San Bernardino. Collection day is . City shall provide one set of refuse and recycling carts to each single family residential unit g$one set to every two-unit multiple family unit up to sic total units. _2. Each residential lot shall have a 3'x9'concrete pad located out of view of public right of way for storage of three automated containers and shall have a concrete path of travel from storage pad to curb. Minimum gate widths shall be 3 feet. _3. Applicant must provide adequate space for residential trash collection at curb by refuse trucks. Additional Conditions: , J ,zlrl/Ys _T Signature Date Planing-Wyit&gU*-Yallow k'ustarow 9Krios-Pink Version 1.0—[Filename:FORt_9emhl SAN BERNARDINO NfMCIPAL WATER DEPARTMENT STANDARD REQUIREMENTS Review of Plans: i( -� �� Date Compiled: Owner/Developer: Lx, Compiled By: Type of Project: - S �' Number of Units: Location: _ 'l(p�j Y . (/3 Tit; WATER DEPARTNIEN7 _N .I iY • — - Contact: LCJ � Phot �7 Fa� � 5� Note: All Water Services are Subject to the Rules & Regulations of the Water Department. -Q' ize of Main Adjacent the Project:,(:�?n tLL qr44 Approximate Water Pressure: D Elevation of Water Storage: Hydrant�Flow`-®-2�O�psi: ❑ Type, Size, Location, and Distance to Nearest Fire Hydrant: ❑ Pressure Regulator Required on Customer's Side on the Meter. ❑ Off-site Water Facilities Required. ❑ Area Not Served by San Bernardino Municipal Water Department. <omments: .tSTt V�., �►i{! t� t l s', :fit i b-} 1 .fit-�4f�'--:A--TT:�' t✓i 5-T-( i WATER QUALITY ON7RO cam, Contact: _ �,�/ ����� Pho Fax C n _A _.s -; ❑ R.P.P. Backflow Device Required at Service Connection. • Double Cheek Backflow Device Required at Service Connection. • Backtlow Device to be Inspected Before Water Service can be Activated. • No Backtlow Device Required at This Time. '44N IE Al CONTRO1 Contact. Pho br X363 Fa Lrt 41-_ _5 2 Note: No Brine Regenerative ater Softeners May be Installed, Unless Holding and Hauling w is Provided for the Brine. All Interceptc ill be a 1200 Gallon Capacity with a Sample Box Included. C Industrial Waste Pentut Required. C Grease Interceptor Required. C Sand/Oil Interceptor Required. } No Issues at this Tittle. ❑ Pre-treatment Required. / \ N R�I.aTIOIN: /� Contact: J�! Pho - Note: Proof of Payment Must be Sttbnutted to the Building& Safety Department Prior to Issuance of the Building Permit. XN'o Sewer Capacity Fee Applicable at This Time. • Sewer Capacity Fee !Must Be Paid to tite Water Department for Gallons Per Day, Equivalent Dwelling Units: _ • Subject to Recalculation of Fee Prior to the Issuance of Building Permit. Breakdown of Estutlated Gallons Per Day: smaepi Il Fk.N 12r, - ._ .:. =S7 " NDAR 'R•EQ REMENT --�- - - case. ` � :- 9¢-- i - •..• K ._ -. -mss_,.:::,., 11 07 Reviewed By: Oz.D NERAL REQUIREMENTS: Provide one additional set of construction plans to Building and Safety for Fire Department use at time of plan check. Contact the City of San Bernardino.Fre Department at(909) 384-5388 for specific detailed requirements. EI The developer shall provide for adequate,fire flow as eom puted by the Fire Prevention Bureau.,Affnimt fire tbvK.teQwemems shalt be bes 'on square.footage,construction features;and exposure infor itiort supplied by thi developer and jhj be evaJabie- materials on site_ [tv pfacirtg eombusti( WATER PURVEYOR FOR FIRE PROTECTION: ❑ The fire protection water service for the area of this project is provided by: San Bernardino Municipal Water Department- Engineering(909) 3845391 East Valley Water District- Engineering (909) 888-6986 - ❑ Other Water Purveyor- Phone: PUBLIC FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES =Public fee hydrants are required 4i, along streets at intervals not to exceed 300 feet for commer-daf and' to exced500feet for'residentiafareaa�-X1� ' n.; rrwfti-residtiaC - -a-E irtv n — Five hydrant minartum flow rates of 1,500 gprn at a 20 psi minimum residual pressure are required for commences(an .!p uhi-residerTtial area MuvmurgfJre hyifdram�tfow fates of.1.000 gpm at a 20 psi fi nimum residuaipressura are required 1--residenttaPar D Z Fra f10vii regtXemertts mW be met fromthe combined'floWo:two adlacem frs hydtartM`f F'rekio*'rsquiremettts appropriate by the Fire Department,based on individual site specific conditions and available mitigations--_- `r �y I j Fire hydrarn type and specific bcation shaft be by City III• putth determined the C of San Bernardino Fre Depertmertt in cortfunction withthe wat. purveyor. Fire hydrant materials and installation shall conform to the standards and specifications of the water purveyor. .7." '"r-1 ' Public fire hydrants, fire services, and public water facilities necessary to meet Fire Department requirements are the developer's financi responsibility and shall be installed by the water purveyor or by the developer at the water purveyor's discretion. Contact the water purvey indicated above for additional information. ACCESS: ❑ Provide two separate, dedicated routes of ingress/egress to the property entrance. The routes shall be paved, all weather. Provide an access road to each building for fire apparatus. Access roadway shall have an all-weather driving surface of not less than 20 fe( of unobstructed width. Extend roadway to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior wall of all single story buildings. Extend roadway to within 50 feet of the exterior wall of all multiple-story buildings. Provide 'NO PARKING- signs whenever parking of vehicles would possibly reduce the clearance of access roadways to less than the require width. Signs are to read -FIRE LANE-NO PARKING -M.C. Sec 15.16'. ❑ Dead-end streets shall not exceed 500 feet in length and shall have a minimum 40 foot radius turnaround. ❑ The names of any new streets (public or private) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval. SITE: 0 All access roads and streets are to be constructed and usable prior to combustible construction. Private fire hydrants shall be installed to protect each building located more than 150 feet from the curb line. No fire hydrants should be withi 40 feet of any exterior wall. The hydrants shall be Wet Barrel type, with one 2'/=inch and 4 inch outlet, and approved by the Fire Departmen Fire hydrants shall be designated as a 'NO PARKING' zone by painting an 8 inch wide, red stripe for 15 feet in each direction in front of th hydrant in such a manner that it will not be blocked by parked vehicles. BUILDINGS: Address numerals shall be installed on the building at the front or other approved location in such a manner as to be visible from the frontag street. Commercial and multi family address numerals shall be 6 inches tall, single family address numerals shall be 4 inches tall. The cole of the numerals shall contrast with the color of the background. ❑ Identify each gas and electric meter with the number of the unit it serves. X Fire Extinguishers must be installed prior to the building being occupied. The minimum rating for any fire extinguisher is 2A 10B/C. Minimun distribution of fire extinguishers must be such that no interior part of the building is over 75 feet travel distance from a fire extinguisher. ❑ Apartment houses with 16 or more units, hotels(motels)with 20 or more units,or apartments or hotels(motels) three stories or more in heigh shall be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers designed to NFPA standards. ❑ All buildings, other than residential, over 5,000 square feet, shall be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system designed to NFPF standards. This includes existing buildings vacant over 365 days. ❑ Submit plans for the fire protection system to the Fire Department prior to beginning construction of the system. Tenant improvements in all sprinklered buildings are to be approved by the Fire Department prior to start of construction. ❑ Provide fire alarm (required throughout). Plan must be approved by the Fire Department prior to start of installation. ❑ Fire Department connection to (sprinkler system/standpipe system) shall be required at Fire Department approved location. Note: The applicant must request, in writing, any changes to Fire Department requirements. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: c �o. r,A_ 1 / ( A� " f 7t. Fy -- 10 L J VAA J I , ..L /.v r6 Ace f A0 f �. G{�G y�1 .2•/ FPe 170(1194) City of San Bernardino STArDARD REQUIREMENTS Date: February 11, 1999 Development Services/Plan Check Division Property address: 263 E. 9te Street CUP #99-02 1. Submit 4 sets of plans, minimum size 18" s 24", drawn to scale. If plan check is for expeditious review, submit 5 sets. The plans shall include (if applicable): a. site plan (include address & assessors parcel number) b. foundation plan C. floor plan (label use of all areas) d. elevations e. electrical, mechanical, & plumbing plans f. detail sheets (structural) g. cross section details h. show compliance with Title 24/Accessibility (disabled access) i. a plan check deposit fee will be required upon submittal of plans. Call Development Services (plan check) 909-384-5071 for amount. 2. The title sheet of the plans must specify the occupancy classification, type of construction, if the building has sprinklers, & the current applicable codes. 3. The person Nvho prepares them must sign the plans. Also, provide the address & phone number of that person. Some types of occupancies require that the plans are prepared, stamped, and signed by an architect, engineer, or other person licensed by the State of California. 4. For structures that must include an engineers design, provide 2 sets of stamped/wet signed calculations prepared by a licensed architect/engineer. 5. Provide 2 sets of Title 24/Energy compliance forms and calculations. Some compliance forms are required to be printed on the plans. 6. Fire sprinkler plans. fires suppression system plans, etc., shall be submitted to the Fire Department for plan check approval and permits. For information, phone 909-384-3388. 7. Signs require a separate submittal to the Planning Division for plan check approval and permits. For information, phone 909-384-5057. 8. An air quality permit may be required. Contact South Coast air Quality Management Division for information, phone 909-396-2000. 9. State of California Business & Professions Code/Contractors License Law requires that permits can be issued to licensed contractors or owner-builders (that are doing the work). Contractors must provide their State license number, a cit} business registration, and workers compensation policy carrier & policy number. Owner-builders must provide proof of ownership. 10. Your plan check submittal needs to include occupancy load calculations. The calculations are needed in order to determine if the exiting complies. Plans must address path of travel based on the Uniform Building Code plus accessibility. 11. Label use of four rooms at the southwest corner of building. You can only exit through 1 intervening room. 12. The bathrooms do not appear to be accessible. Whole building & path of travel will be required to be accessible. 13. A new Certificate of Occupancy will be required. NOTE: PLAN CHECK TIME ON THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS IS APPROXIMATELY 3-4 WEEKS FOR 1sT CORRECTIONS. EXPEDITIOUS REVIEW IS APPROXIMATELY 10 WORKING DAYS. THE DEVELOPMENT RENEW PROCESS IS NOT THE BUILDING PLAN CHECK AND DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THE DESIGN AS SUBNUTTED WILL BE APPROVED `WITHOUT CORRECTIONS. Entered into Recordset -7 /U councillcmy0evcros M / �/ D by re Agenh. Irr. y U- CI-lY titt _tap! k ciRNAFd�1PlO DEV ,r '. P11 'chV10ES •.:..:his SBCy It has come to our attention that a swap meet bu'91`6 0% being contemplated for the former K-Mart store space at the northeast corner of Waterman Avenue and 9th Street. We are very concerned about the effects that this business will have on our neighborhood; we already have a swap meet store at that corner and another will, we think, have a negative effect on the community in many ways. We want this area to revitalize, not become a discount mecca for the city. Do we really need the added traffic and crime that will follow? Also the quality of the merchandise is often so poor that the so-called bargains are anything but; they instead end up costing the buyers more in the long run. We believe that another type of business should be encouraged at this site. You have an opportunity to join us at the City Council hearing for the required conditional use permit. This meeting is set for Tuesday, Jul�[ 24th at 11:00 am, at 300 N "D" itreet in the Council chambers, There you can voice your concerns and help create a better community for you and your families. You can also send written comments in oppositioi� to City of San Bernardino, Development-Sefv-ces Department, 300 N. "D" Street, San Bernardino, CA 92418. Reference Conditional Use Permit No. 00-05. T- , y �'._ �.)��".�E t R I .�jC—/r . —�t�t-`'�.—.is i✓`•1`"C..f�,�A V .c l�.. -�,fir ` Entered into Pw�n�l it h -- � NU GIIV CleMPOC Secy City Ot Safi berroardinu It has come to our attention that a swap meet business is being contemplated for the former K-Mart store space at the northeast corner of Waterman Avenue and 9th Street. We are very concerned about the effects that this business will have on our neighborhood; we already have a swap meet store at that corner and another will, we think, have a negative effect on the community in many ways. We want this area to revitalize, not become a discount mecca for the city. Do we really need the added traffic and crime that will follow? Also the quality of the merchandise is often so poor that the so-called bargains are anything but; they instead end up costing the buyers more in the long run. We believe that another type of business should be encouraged at this site. You have an opportunity to join us at the City Council hearing for the required conditional use permit. This meeting is set for Tuesday. July 24th at 11:00 a.m. at 300 N "D" Street in the Council chambers There you can voice your concerns and help create a better community for you and your families. You can also send written comments in opposition to City of San Bernardino, Development Services Department, 300 N. "D" Street, San Bernardino, CA 924,E 8. Reference Conditional Use Permit No. 00-05. r� C I T Y O F 5an j)ernardino R A C H E L C L A R K C I T Y C L E R K July 26, 2000 Lansing Industries, Inc. Family Ranch Center, LLC 291 S. La Cienega Blvd., Suite 307 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Gentlemen: At the meeting of the Mayor and Common Council held on July 24, 2000, the following action was taken relative to the public hearing on the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 00-05, to establish an indoor retail concession mall in an existing building located at the northeast corner of Waterman Avenue and 9' Street in the CG- 1, Commercial General, and CH, Commercial Heavy, land use districts: That the public hearing be closed; the appeal be denied, and the Planning Commission's approval of CUP No. 00-05 be upheld, based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, J� t Rachel G. Clark, CMC City Clerk RC:ls cc: Development Services Harold Willis, 1033 N. Waterman Ave., #K, San Bernardino, CA 92410 Jin Ho Suh, 57 Glenflow Ct., Glendale, CA 91206 P . O . B O X 1 3 1 8 S A N 8 E R N A R D I N 0 , CA 9 2 4 0 2 3 0 0 N O R T H D S T R E E T S A N B E R N A R D I N O C A L I F O R N I A 92 4 1 8 . 0 0 0 1 ( 9 0 9 ) 3 8 4 . 5 0 0 2 ( 9 0 9 ) 3 8 4 - 5 1 02 F A X - ( 9 0 9 ) 3 8 4 .5 1 5 8 T D D/T T Y -( 9 0 9 ) 3 8 4 -5 5 4 0 i GRESHAM, SAVAGE, NOLAN & TILDEN, LLP A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP LAWYERS•FOUNDED 1910 600 NORTH ARROWHEAD AVENUE,SUITE 300 FOR THE FIRM: SAN BERNARDINO CALIFORNIA 92401-1148 WILLIAM (1886-1947) , Penelope Alexander-Kelley DONALD W..JORDAN JORDAN(1907-1989) G-mail: PQtl y@gsnt-Iaw.COm (909)884-2171-FACSIMILE(909)888-2120 JOHN B.LONERGAN(RETIRED 1976) July 21, 2000 Frir¢red into Record at HAND DELIVERED f;r' ,r.,`);i�mYDevGms Mtg: "T lyUO Honorable Mayor Valles and Members of the City Council ry Item City of San Bernardino 300 North"D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Cie City clerkllOC Secy Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Oily a -Sa i Li�ir)aiai;itu Use Permit No. 00-05 999 N. Waterman Avenue Dear Mayor Valles and Members of the City Council: This law firm represents Harold W. Willis, President, HWW Enterprises, the owner ("Owner") of the real property located at 999 N. Waterman Avenue, San Bernardino, California ("Property"). A 104,020 square foot building, previously used as a K-Mart, exists on the Property. Our representation concerns the appeal now pending before the Council concerning Conditional Use Permit No. 00-05 for the Property ("CUP"). Application for the CUP was made by Jin Ho Suh under the City's Development Code Section 19.06.020, Table 06.01, to establish an indoor retail concession mall in an existing building. At the hearing on June 6, 2000, the Planning Commission approved the CUP.' At the Planning Commission hearing, the owner/operator of a nearby indoor retail concession, Lansing Industries, Inc. and Family Ranch Center, LLC (collectively "Project Opponents") and Edward Kim voiced their objections to the City's approval of the CUP. By letter to the Planning Commission dated June 5, 2000, Attorney Katherine Jenson stated various arguments opposing an approval of the CUP on behalf of the Project Opponents. The purpose of this letter is to provide the City Council with a legal response to Ms. Jenson's letter on behalf of the Project applicant and the Owner. First of all, Ms. Jenson's letter contains numerous factual errors, which Staff addressed at the Planning Commission Hearing. For example, Ms. Jenson asserts that there is an existing, approved five-vendor indoor concession area in a 20,100 square foot space adjacent to the K- Mart building. Ms. Valerie Ross advised the Planning Commission that the 20,100 square foot I Application was also made for a variance, which was denied by the Planning Commission. No appeal of the denial has been filed. RIVERSIDE OFFICE•3403 TENTH STREET,SUITE 518,RIVERSIDE,CA 92501•(909)684-2171•FACSIMILE(909)684-2150 �O VICTORVILLE OFFICE•14350 CIVIC DRIVE,SUITE 120,VICTORVILLE,CA 92392•(760)243-2889•FACSIMILE(760)243-0467 GRESHAM, SAVAGE, NOLAN &TILDEN, LLP Penelope Alexander-Kelley Honorable Mayor Valles and Members of the City Council City of San Bernardino July 20, 2000 Page 2 building referred to had burned and there is no current use of that building. Thus, the references in Ms. Jenson's letter to a "mega-124,120 square foot indoor concession area" are incorrect and should be disregarded. The actual proposal before the City is the re-use of an existing 104,020 square foot building which is zoned for, and has historically been used for retail sales. The CUP is for a retail use, which is permitted in the City's Land Use Districts, CG-1 and CH, with a conditional use permit. The Planning Department Staff has appropriately recommended that the CUP is exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), under CEQA Guidelines § 15301. If a project falls within a category exempt by administrative regulation, i.e., the CEQA Guidelines, no further agency evaluation is required. City of Pasadena v. the State of California (1993) 14 Cal. App. 4`h 810 (overruled on other grounds in Western States Petroleum Association v. Superior(1995) 9 Cal. 4th 559, 569-570). In City of Pasadena, the Court explained that according to CEQA Guidelines § 15002, the applicability of a categorical exemption is the first step in the CEQA process. If the project is exempt, the CEQA process need not proceed further and the lead agency may prepare a notice of exemption. Thus, in that case, it was proper for the State of California to find that its lease of vacant office space for a new parole office was exempt under CEQA Guidelines § 15301 because the office space was in an existing building. In Bloom v. McGurk (1994) 26 CalApp 4`h 1302 the Court upheld use of the exemption in § 15301 for the issuance of permits authorizing the continued operation of a medical waste treatment facility, which had never undergone any level of CEQA review. This was based on the fact that no possibility of a "substantial, or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment" could occur, from the mere renewal of permits under a new regulatory scheme. Accordingly, the City's Planning Department Staff has applied the § 15301 "existing structures" categorical exemption to CUP 00-05. Section 15301 applies to: "the operation, ... maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, . . . involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing." There is no question that the previously existing use of the K-Mart building has been for retail sales. The City's "Findings and analysis for CUP No 00-05" explains: "The property was constructed as a retail commercial building and under this proposal will be reused as an indoor retail concession mall which is also a retail commercial use." Contrary to the assertions in Ms. Jenson's letter, once the categorical exemption applies, there is no reason to further consider the "baseline" for the existing environment. According to i GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN & TILDEN LLP Penelope Alexander-Kelley Honorable Mayor Valles and Members of the City Council City of San Bernardino July 20, 2000 Page 3 CEQA, section 21084, the purpose of identifying categorical exemptions at all is to set forth those types of projects "which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and which shall be exempt" from further environmental review. (see, also, Li1y of Pasadena, supra, at pp. 819-820). The Project Opponents also assert through Ms. Jenson's letter that the use of the exemption is inappropriate where "there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances." CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(c). However, the opponents fail to identify any such "unusual circumstances," which would render application of the exemption impermissible. City Staff provided very thorough responses to the specific allegations of "significant effects" in its report to the Planning Commission (See, draft Planning Commission Minutes of June 6, 2000). As the use anticipated under CUP 00-05 is the same, i.e. retail use, as was previously existing, the environmental effects will not be different. A prime example of this is the traffic expected to,be generated by the indoor retail concession project as compared to the K-Mart. Using a standard traffic impacts calculation, the Discount Club (Land Use 861) from the ITE Manual, as applied to the 104,020 square foot building will result in exactly the same amount of traffic from retail operations whether the indoor concession mall operates, or whether a K-Mart type retail use operates. Each of these retail use will generate the same average daily trips. There are no "unusual circumstances" giving rise to significant effects which require further environmental review. The Project Opponents rely heavily on the case of Azusa Land Reclamation Co.. Inc. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4`h 1165, for the proposition that application of the categorical exemption is inappropriate for CUP 00-05. The Azusa case, is completely distinguishable and does not provide guidance for the City in this case. Azusa concerned the Azusa landfill, an 80-acre unlined municipal solid waste landfill located atop the Water Basin which was suspected of causing groundwater contamination and was located in the midst of a residential area. The landfill permit had been rescinded and the landfill closed. Later, the owner of the landfill sought to reopen the landfill to accept 3,200,000 tons of new solid waste. The permitting agency determined the action necessary to reopen the landfill was exempt from CEQA under § 15301. The court disagreed. The court determined that a landfill is not a "facility" as used in § 15301 and the dumping of 3,200,000 tons of new solid waste could not be construed as "minor." Additionally, expert opinion supported a reasonable possibility of significant adverse impacts because the continued use of the landfill could cause continued pollution of the Water Basin. In total contrast to the facts in Azusa, the K-Mart building is located in a commercial/retail area, there is no conflict with surrounding land uses, and a retail building is GRESHAM, SAVAGE, NOLAN & TILDEN, LLP Penelope Alexander-Kelley Honorable Mayor Valles and Members of the City Council City of San Bernardino July 20, 2000 Page 4 clearly a "facility" under § 15301. One retail use is simply being exchanged for another retail use with no increase in square footage and so only minor interior changes of the structure are necessary. Finally, the Project Opponent's arguments that approval of CUP 00-05 will result in a "risk of additional vacancy and business closures" is simply untenable. First of all, the indoor concession mall will be making use of a vacant building. Approval of CUP 00-05 will not "cause" vacancies, it will end a vacancy. Additionally, the economic competition complained of in Ms. Jenson's letter and in Mr. Kim's testimony are not the type of"environmental impacts" upon which CEQA focuses. CEQA requires that there be a physical change directly or indirectly caused by approval of the project. Such causation does not exist in this case, and no further environmental review is necessary. Mr. Kim testified before the Planning Commission that 20% of his vendors of the indoor concession mall built at the nearby vacant Rancho Market site in 1999, have already left his location, that 20% more have given notice to leave and another 30% are threatening to leave. Mr. Kim tries to blame the Project for this, but his tenants have left and are leaving even though this Project has not been approved. Ms. Jenson's letter asks whether "the market exists for all of these businesses to survive?" This question is far beyond the purview of CEQA, or the cases cited in her letter which considered the potential environmental consequences of new commercial development which would completely alter historic shopping patterns. This is not the case here, where in an area of difficult economic circumstances, appropriate re-use of an existing retail building will occur. On behalf of Mr. Willis and the applicant, we urge that the City Council deny the appeal and approve CUP 00-05. Very truly yours, Penelope Alexander-Kelley, of GRESHAM, SAVAGE, NOLAN & TILDEN, LLP PAK:kf cc: Harold Willis Henry Empefio, Assistant City Attorney Valerie Ross, Acting Director Planning N:\N494-000U.MMayerVallaBCityCouncil.doc . N PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO THE BUILDING OF A NEW SWAPMEET AT 9TH ST. & WATERMAN AVE, TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNATURES: , d �Z7 r The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9' Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAINM ADDRESS TELEPHONE 9 SIGNATURE K` LO 1 . >r 2.5 �ha,-,j �, 2 S174-3- c' A Ida. 2-3 — 1 (� AAO L 'c t, G. L, 0) D�L P Glict,/,-z iS- 736 r 4VT ��� I AJ M� qo.d ; A v4. zu The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9`h Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAINIE ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE Cie ij ItA i • �l . ��(�L 4j✓ C���'jl -.fir-j• !'f � fil viIvG C6. /;-/cr/ (,,; 7,0 s) nrx -;>3 c•�te�)f-At u.����� yz � ( \ J [LICYLt- / ar The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9'" Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAM ADDRESS TELEPHONE 9 SI/G&ATURE R& C "e 1' ZY j/�/� ill F vEi�lc-t i ��v inM � ctY cry/�"�� , e/}��3� %�"/ '�''-�-�J:� a �L✓��_ =L i �•� w' ��v��r, r 1lb l N • � • 'Jr�:Lon L-aiOL t i tI o ' i\ C A - L 110 AI IT V&r,awK zl;� ti "/Z�1�U rl, t� �Lcc� ��-tCl�• �� � G!��-� - fir, 172 �c� / ' 1 ,n , a cJ� 1 • The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9`h Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE L• a J a r 11 C. J' ) �J1!�iila Co G' (, r' 1 j:z II �• � r Noic 1 ai-1 I-0 A 1 Lik:rnA c/ l�d l The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9`h Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE L2 Ot 1ON, n , 6- lffl 6MG Le� -YO 0,061\ c�7 c s 1 C �. , 3�� �• �'`' �°'� vii� . -7 - a el A q5 96 i a 1 � � , •�� ;64-910 L� The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9`h Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE } T- NAst VIC' k k lci 02 3Z -SCC i 2Sff� Ut��N i w �hft I/Z ask 4f �`5- �������Z �� Scar,►-� ; y �#-/v 1/7 U` / S' " , D The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9th Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAME NDDRESS TELEPHONE 9 SIGNATURE -7, 7X L�'1'lJ L�tJti J it i J CCU 221-1-21-72 I go c 20 L1. 'C)z tl 1� Pk\L I�G � The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9`h Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE ,zc--) el,,-ZZ4� $rye�d � LLrL� �� �,t,t�Vi✓ ;. u�-Tv— �y cC 24"V/ 1 l�n�,��f� �/'��GI�CZF�-� JGi/1 �f►'�:1i t�i.l� 1:L/y1�C1;1 ;1 !/�,�(•��'�, r . The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9`h Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NA E ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE 'C �UO C T" C, 3' ►-C�4� Wa U,&�mv2br,, P um(4 X11► �. l t 1 Jim- � �I The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9`h Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NANTE ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE 17 0 6C �2-�D j �i .�/ � �, y� ZJ-C—,VY- !Z-4cl _d A-Zcu v j,• i�r%a Coj•�`�i4 a s �3� �' Ur•;�3-t• 9�yJ -V21-le, 7 Pr- �s3 N /t). 16 r GiL, I �� The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9`1' Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE 115 -7 j► k�, -�,rc d i>>u s `i CI 5 �, U fit I `r C� �zuv l r I .L j� L J f e7 1 70 MA I(-4 ("("I Dr 010q)-361 3 The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9`h Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NANIE ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE Pr rc - 1. I lA i J � The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9t' Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE 9 SIGNATURE /,6'9EN'a 4.SgSO 7t'Agf ' aVC 1- 9 (D Ei Y e .Nrl j L Otis ' ��© ��qHS V CIO a "P0 oe- } © o VO The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 90' Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NANIE ADDRESS TELEPHONE 9 SIGNATURE \ 1 J r'' ivi nC ) _ �S, uri- ,r 4 4r Cl Qom, ���� �,� ,l<" �•--7(- I1 t t )t ° 7 q'7 Ll � r The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9`h Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE# SIGNATURE �� ��� mac`"• • .. r U t'iM e,e,(� (���, —7 d,17 j 2tN O D c z tcc� `�\Y,fi Ss- CCCG (LY1(z�S f1Lt eel OT I ��k C� 0 F,rSltrc� its*F�re ��r,v�avP o-I d Le .2 ter s r r3 e � 1c�i-f��/l: kI-? ,, 5 It The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet 'h at 9 Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE 9 SIGNATURE �3 12411 0120 Cam, ff PA �D))9- UYl s� O/Jwuyl P The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9" F Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NA1E ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE r2rl,ce. i<01 P,IVers-Idz, C 5,0 7 929ito 16el i:kwOE2 L-1 -31204 M10 -2-S7iS s�� q O A#U:r Z,%E CL- CdL74 F 0 v-- L 3�- ``5 (1 o C) I ,TD 1- /V a Fc1rA c 63i E P1�N��R '''ft ZZ2-S lea#u�Z, 7747 4qvl(rk*/-k Vj iva i,�, ni► N 38 4 ?4-%3 The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9`h Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE 32 1 t. �0 7� o� 1 '11A I - 3 X5'3 8�as�t�e �0. SYo OcLROrAk C36-;L-S"l0� kerl N) i-{;c3 lc.o.(3 IAUP 757 Mc e—,4e CO"t elk- �3 5 T ,Di w ja-w.p ie e� LI"A o LU r :) Bzrn�rd� '� 3 33 1 �qo Und Lv The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9t' Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAiv E ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE -2 5 7`f� JJ , GlA YlC0. R Cos 9 5SO PG-C (F'C 3'E�3 -3 V/ �Go �5C2� SS ±iol ern ALkz. - The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9t` Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAI E ADDRESS TELEPHONE 9 SIGNATURE -11 CO X23 - `16 7 A/o olA a- h f�9 - 0/10 ��oSe 1396 µ,' /V 0 ze e L / --- S� rlct / G C L, 61,17204 bYN 1� 2� M The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9`' Street"and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE C �A/l '119��`1'N e� s �� cs Se �311 /! [DO Or ' t6 S� gee +Vd �� I-w 0�3 C a. Sao (q�> ,- I t E N 1 z QlCaq-�&M�y G�qq vQ; ► �� 311 c� 1 , sop e d;"Ib 31. 5" -e Nc�mgn Y1( 41 AO r u The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9`h Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE 2 G V i 16 DL J17 d zlvv0- ��1� 7 el ol QU I � ' C,A"L The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9' Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE CL I , •, z f . n z � �oa L I L Lt 0, lif 5 :fit C) � L S J q OAA 6 aaj Z J The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9L' Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE 9 SIGNATURE Jle- c; �J - �heY)r )VO 0 At ltlr uoerai Ice � �' mac•� S �tf�P.�✓✓/ctr"' �� ��-5.��7�G -� �� 2 clgq 5I01z:�5T s 9 C-A :� IV 613/ I Z IL Z The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9`h Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino, NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE 9 SIGNATURE VI CA �� )It , � ���:� 2 31 lo- ] 6 �l r 69.7 V f-A1n f AX'n'P Vii �d�-�,•-��� C�^/ 5a�"�T3C'xo IKCt�E' 0 SS G:C`�C I,rt 72- • C) t I c t S, YCQ IQ yZ ���_ 1`� - 2�• �(CQ1�Ct. S CiYZ�} ;7: 12 1 CA �� v T The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9`h Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE Aue (�CZ-)POJ-20-ILL'2 r I )(Ad 1 I Z 3 M f~ � � � hIrmw, 1 Z ' �v. The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second s�vapmeet at 9`h Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAB ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE__ ,z 5, q Cf i J i The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9"' Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE 9 SIGNATURE L�pi.�f � �7rGL2.G�t' C SGZ rL�� dC / '5� J -C-R— �1 t ►�l,tc� � .5��ti��� �- v ask I N Y(Q1Lr ��•L JG�Q l /t- PQ ^ b� qz4c 7S S Z6 1 c� l S .�. C' ►�- ��'-�C``�c`\l 1. v The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9`t' Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NANM ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE 001 OY�q� K) L 6 1 ?1�34— V -20 3 � /Z .K- 6 ho ell i ' The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9I' Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE 9 SIGNATURE I � �Al T�� C'J�� �C 49� �S�.cl S� G��i- J Y "-/5 C6 to t/Wli ,)Ie 0 z7 < <•1 0-�-M i) --Rr�C", ���,a s • Pa j c��S, y U�� '01 1 e-'e vi 13 it rf 4,1 o -0 44 n r7 O ! A"I"; I Ile,Taw& i - r - The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9`F' Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE X11 � 1, IA-IjIff 9 G ( �,>O c v%kSv10 e �/ O--C) S , ly it C7 Z,(- /z&s Je4,1D4ct w 7�E,4-4 X�> J� z L� w 1 y2 Z- (�t <7Y Cp k -f o52 The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9h Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE 9 SIGNATURE &JAM,�t�--rill LlO -� � k Duo ,, 132CQ ; 1.l�JCi�TL� J t fV0 K v The undersi;ned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9h Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NA,N� ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE r "r��l'✓lam ��� 13 L U 0 I I The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9`' r Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE 9 SIGNATURE LI LI tI I ��A � L I ('0 C 4 " A) &(C-, 61-3 \V 9- V ' ,-- YrOle cv WO. ,- ,�, 17 / 47 6) C�y���• ��rr� � san gdn.v C� The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9' Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAIN E ADDRESS TELEPHONE 9 SIGNATURE G� uuc, W 5 (r A J4- Vil/21-1- �q(le- //,,-42, 23�fit,�r�G� 131 � 0 kA 13s E of Sg ;� q2JV Dumo- /V�t/cx,�4-/" -,FKq qkV C) aLeA y \ _ C IZ fl'ec The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9`�'- Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE 9 SIGNATURE �t J �&tl //Cj// t� c, 'e, + .,cc, V G 7- �y &AVanL JCft7 C j Zy q OIakhL . _ 1iti_ in a �7 y6 71 , G n 50'39 C4 �5", -311 ,e s� ggg_ cox-34 as aU 6fe �,�� The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9h Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAIL ADDRESS TELEPHONE 1 ATURE - LD,2- Nit C", l-7 � - e C� G y)n e h 17(' r 0 Z r4 0 +04 VO L -AA VP J A v i 1"a f 25'07, i�J f rs '51 1�-A9 r-C�// r' ° Cy- C}1 o r C 3�? /V �.If e f V. 1 11,15 f`l% `UV `/ The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 91h Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAINE ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE ;��4YlC/�� 2lyc 01' 2111 =, p 373 ,f 1Nr 1 r5 1, 121 ,E5 trf v p, Ir m e tt- / .7 l The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9`h Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE If' vKc�C rL P,�Y pN121!/!( Rp f� •<'C r ��'� w n M4)V\r4LI - i,)NA ,U%l;tio The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9" Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE NJ A e�-Z zj J �nrTo,n.�0; S 5'14 f�� The undersi;ned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9' Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. r NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE 9 SIGNATURE 13 1 C'", 0 416 ,14 pd D. 4 \01 0 �V 12A A C, ZIPo / J .Y � /y acr>il� F The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9`h Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAlME ADDRESS TELEPHONE 9 SIGNATURE 0) 26 J T �9ts L �i„uoo"�c2 A p, 7216 30�3 e UC11 - \1 CU- ) Cil�.r✓t,�.�ct n �� =�.� ��E 1� 5 l Evell-r� Z -Icc/ 4 r - C� 7i J The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9" Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino, N Ai ADDRESS TELEPHONE # S / w 41 : /.► Pte '/Z�- i8 Cwt G a 6i, a J ZL&IZ/ 15 y6 -7 7 - 1 �L -�, CQ �''S'S'�r �✓'J �'- ,.,� .fir-'✓ The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9`h Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE 9 SIGNATURE LAAPn lax c� Z Cl Add AV(, 11910 ,� �' �'l�" /�'l� -�/tr'�• �/ `boy � � ,� c L� L1 3113.7 1 c2 IL B The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9t' Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NANTE ADDRESS TELEPHONE 9 SIGNATURE S L l rtdww, 5-f- APf it c Qcwd, ua6 .4ve �Q . )zMS YQ CI ell) nn 1 3o Z c �L -Sc/G 'Z Q •mac r a �-��d �1. ���� � - �t �L G� I-7 UG JAJ N20 C . �0 q CIO 6R. �c;� ��� � c ILI ��- 3 The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9`h Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NANIE , ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE L L L/�t - �l<< <y�Gel,�S 33 2 2 L y117 A-� -V— a-p"M�j Lle(,J jA Sr ji GC GL�e��—cue t Aq(Ot GI Ac�l jVq 3..3 X�j 11 oN s 7 L 'b�-,-X The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9I' Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. N IME ADDRESS TELEPHONE rt SIGNATLRE / ' 'y'���� CCU ti.�',` u a-t•����,�i,< ✓ � � 'Z �Z /� �� ,� a ra` 5`-� a►a�o S `� sqJ��I -�S l ii/ 5, S r C` n' LIZ /S, �� The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9`h Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE 9 SIGNATURE c AS111 'G? /1/ IM A, " a rIVe , X521 A &OA) �2� ►� g�_s�? �3 11el, N / ,fir rte. U v x sFF s 0 0 � � s7L P/I I A r! The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9' Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. I NAII E ADDRESS TELEPHONE 9 SIGNATURE i r 1 C,-_ V yl � 7;1 A 6/, m(67,1- s � -�� 13 J85 The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9' Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NN ME ADDRESS TELEPHONE 9 SIGNATURE :54e�- � f_j 2n, LAC n J ��tX/lfiji 1 - r- UL� The undersi,2ned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second sivapmeet at 9t' Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE 1 gC7I II. t Ct��ce,��k<< (�OCM ' awl - "j ���1 ��.U"t�}� ASS 1`s�1�1n(5c<vc�•►/q �1� �. n n� "�G'D5 5CxJecA4 N9 0O m�Cq S��t �� nn - ►�1 wol to L-o ►��f ee ctC SZZ e K v,CI klcyk 4 s� The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9`i' Street i et and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. IE ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE C�ct rz �Z &7 4)zz C91-774- iLL, rj r 96�i,,, ` q G �" /640�; The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9' Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE 7 V A4,r a M,� -Co�s 7 'JQ 7 t/PP71w�(Cro�) S a rt - ' I �° 6RE6jTi mJ �E ,j;MMlffli�;Cj M' " Lrn;D i, C ctocl,�g9-i37 03!� 9a� d The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 91' Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE 9 SIGNATURE / �f i.' iV ���. •-^ V& Lill Al ' L! J 20 < 6 ReAvol" IYY- - ,Z,O- rV.L� 49 ��az.G'a,. ?_2� 1��� L(i.il yW ���r— �13'�%��� �Ypj;•,�=--, The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9'Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE 9 SIG- ATURE 07 0 f� -'S. f) CJ I C� c �y�T��CGf &7117 1 . j G V bin -e7 35 c- L � �L �'� vS + � -� i \r S .5 C � �.I� l iii✓� t��_ c1r 70 The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9' Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAiN E ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE 1 �f dl ��%.f�=LU /'yam t L V ' JUL, I r The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9' Street and Waterman Avenue in the City f San Bernardino. no. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE �,�"'�4 r n �j1•n C'� _. O �r V) r ?d - C V'jc Lx 0 No 1 �9 o raw �y V / �U4 Pd d Z-7 - The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9,' Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE 7 7 �,-•-Q�>� 'o �$l�o Nil( 11,2 z / Cc LT jL 793 Kj--ki-;-IV- 56;ZI 14 Yh hilt mod/.' r.•r t, 3`i 27 The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9' Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NA:E ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE Y�Q�tto�ic(� (rsfF lhNtf (1-�ct � ntuZ� r /Ilr/ lip' ��cCk50�'15.1. 9 K� �Z(� (ztcLL ����� �c;i l a�•e.t� e. � e ` lle �Z2►' CIS L �S�1S C4SSe,.t -IRY • The undersisned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second s�vapmeet at 9 Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE Az r, i _f•.. � � fir:2�•/—�..._ �� f� 1 ' .3�o k VE• rih .3 -c \ L v�LY� Y-I (�l�Cl11JY1l�Cc:C�� v cirl u? � w IA 0.'�— t ; Ir 'U Y•Yl( P fG L )1 �y2rc•Ct''k r(��� V'�yV �ISL, �1�1 5 C�� tom') • 041) (���i Lc L'r� t�r'-• -7 J, j-ed� tI'GS {', rye; / g a _ I V 1 The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9`' Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAIVE ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE r - Yn p eV c% � �• � � -� Sin / o r � � •/� N ' (;�� ���� � a�(.G�v� � •% i LvL?% o gryL� tv � F z? - �• - ?—�. l '` ��ic//.sip 4`'� i • NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE 9 SIGNATURE a- 4b) dC1,11 4 Is -7, AY, LX m eiv 4 ZI, 1-7 -71 7/R is R 64 iv/ 07 CIA 'Z r NkNE ADDRESS TELEPHONE 4 SIGNATURE Z13 A�C GC RCS a37 l ! - 9237' 21 V,1- -S 74-. 4�2 17 /S- tci .7 AU'L-14,21 Cf-n rl r To o I r 01 b3 ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE lu /, •.��?l� �•% 1�J'�,1/ .�i fir,/ `+ Y��� /,�+� /•�i�'�,�`�/ i jr ov PIK •�L��-:.�I;�,�-� _ � � �'. I't's; . as &ryu 1 x•33 N-!E:; .rc%i><. c �c,•G q� "� � J � • ;.(fin v (_ca, � ^:��� ;�,�, r� •fi. -� 1, �J-if 1'1, ,.; NAlME ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE ... ..� � � l � iii •_' .� '{1 � t: :}�.,,;t_�';,i �._i�.rte"\/ Yin f+),.'�;:•+..c•�3 `�`�� L, =-L�;� '�i.!i%�ylrll?���-�;�7 r r 1 �� '�' +`"'p 30 el ' ie -? C. A • 1 NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE Lj- `"1 rye / 1 t l y ,��'•:,� � � ��,�, fir'', r!-. c� ,( ;r" 7 - ) •^ . y iii tilHr' /i� I•i !, '�_ // � ! •)'r-. ( j( ti� ''� / 'ko IN NA,�tE ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE -Cl QL `� �e;i!? j'i,r?�l Ll:ji_( ^•�-7 � �•�' '�i'f��!)f i?I[.i. r, '1 �' i-• i ,. IL 46 A,it ti AL ef Li i.— (��/ 7 �• •+-c r li..-..-�<</fit r ,..1 ��i.=�-�����Lc� i t.�� l (;�.t S �t 1 ' L ;e <f `f 'j�S•� / �; c i i -{ —fit;I 1 f t✓ //,•,t:JF/F./ ��i � � ��. NANM ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE ECG •:-:� -;.LGrLi vs -7,2110 i 1 z� Z_Iel e-1 4--• "II ' �_ iii. ,.1,. ! -•,,;� ;-•<-� `-_" �,. � �-' , 'i no/✓:vtb' a 4 r rt't , NANIE ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGN,ATLRE�� HT v6;r2 ,v C109 00 `k4,IL '°w �oq�3rz-�q g CA 0 76 16=x' 607 zvl- 1 223 mt. /no� Cl di. oq) r i u�G l, T3 Crh V. o / ca/l• r jl i NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE # I SIGNATURE IT ool HaA /c/ .�.� yo U H u o ),p P ti 3�d yf s�y 3 q ;q3zo3 -71 v The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9�' Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE 9 SIGNATURE t>/i~i s , HA 4-20 izi 3�� 7 70 c� �i-5 E 1�c) 5 IV- Z C,�1.._.TC.3►.1 The undersijned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9`h Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NANM ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE Y q 11 1 �J. lu fctZ-,, /mac% > 7 r4t kJ f1 The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9th Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE rLY (� . �{ z g qq . n Aw k 31 gar Leo`� /, / The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9' Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NA.'NlE ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE f �-L t�c� l�G Z�LL� I l cif`l ,17q 6d L 1 ellC tl 1333 Z. t� The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9t' Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE �v 106 17 crz Vj 7Z/ U3 - u*1 -I i 77C, C i3eck 45que, 5136 .SPI p qLI The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9" Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE I r � t {L ci San ��ii►1J1 o,�i I�J•wtLC. .>��, !�>:9r�.Al��L`)�rlb ��6` LGDC � G LC , ;i - NA, - ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE i b �� � � __lac•"���..z � -�; i / _ ' 1 � � _ G' C3 C' 4�jC(j�' �/ CJrj �l i AD kE4 P. I (,� IT 14 NAINE ADDRESS TELEPHONE 9 SIGNATURE 2, ........................... The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9' Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE jz- t IT r/e!;-i The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9`h Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE 7,72,W, _7"�,_ -p 6 4:j 22 1 g � t' The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeetat 9 Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE 9 SIGNATURE n r • /� �7 A, //-t 7 e F r The undersigned hereby protest and oppose the building of a second swapmeet at 9' Street and Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE # SIGNATURE �1f, (�` �f►l�'-Jc �1.�:1L' Sil .=yJ� �L; y —;3.juu ' % �' �t TuALL-c r S � ,. P r " C-q scc�r2t�� S7Z__