HomeMy WebLinkAbout43-Planning
CITY OF SAN BERtblADINO';' ~~_QUEST FuR COUNCIL ACTION
F-"m: Larry E. Reed, Director-'~'-'.'D_-'>_Y::~oi. Suoject: Appeal of Planning Commission's
,,-- Denial of Sign Permit No. 89-119
~ , ; ~
Dept: Planning and Building sEf~~,es-7 .. - (State College Self-Storage).
Mayor and Council Meeting: March 19,
Date; February 28,1990 1990,2:00 p.m.
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
On October 26, 1989, Staff denied Sign Permit No. 89-119, and this
decision was appealed.
On February 6, 1990, the Planning Commission denied,by a six to zero vote
(two absent), the appeal of the denial of Sign Permit No. 89-119, and this
decision was appealed.
At their meetinq of January 22, 1990, the Mayor and Common Council tabled
this item, as it had not had Planning Commission review.
Recommended motion:
That the hearing be closed; and that the appeal be denied and that
Sign Permit No. 89-119 be denied.
rr
i#f, c--- ~
Larry E. Reed Signature
Director
Contact person: Larry E. Reed
Supporting data attached: Staff Report
Phone: 384-5357
VVard: 6
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct, No,)
(Acct, DescriPtion)
Finance:
r-.mcil Notes:
75-0262
Agenda I tem No.
~3
CITY OF SAN BERNA - 'UINO - REQUEST FO" COUNCIL ACTION
,
,
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT:
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF SIGN
PERMIT NO. 89-119
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL MEETING - MARCH 19,
1990, 2:00 P.M.
REOUEST
The applicant, Quiel Brothers, is appealing the denial of
Sign Permit No. 89-119 by Staff and subsequently by the
Planning Commission. The applicant requests that the Council
reconsider the decision and allow pole signs at the proposed
location.
BACKGROUND
Sign Permit No. 89-119 is a proposal to construct a 40 foot
pole sign, with a 10' x 15' double-sided face, located in the
northern corner of a 3.8 acre parcel situated in the State
College Industrial Park at the easterly side of the inter-
section of Hallmark Parkway and Lexington Way. (See the sign
plan and location map - Exhibits "0" and "E").
This sign was denied by Staff on October 26, 1989 because of
non-compliance with General Plan Policy 1.45.6. This policy
reads as follows:
Policy 1.45.6 prohibit the development of pole signs at
the key entries to the City:
- Waterman at Hospitality Lane
- State Route 18 at National Forest boundary
- State Route 330 (City Creek Road) at Highland
Avenue
- I-215 Freeway at Shandin Hills
- I-215 Freeway at Cable Wash
- I-215 Freeway at Inland Center Drive off-ramps
and in key activity districts, including the downtown,
Tri-CityjCommerce Center, Mount Vernon Theme Center,
Highland Avenue "Core", Santa Fe Railroad Depot
Speciality Center, Waterman Avenue Office Industrial
Park, California State University area, Verdemont
Commercial "village", and other pertinent areas.
The proposed sign was proposed to be constructed next to
I-215 near Cable Creek Wash.
The sign
identifies
approval.
was also denied because
a U-Haul business which
Conditional Use Permit
part
has
(CUP)
of the sign face
not obtained City
No. 88-35 was
'5.026.
city of San Bernardino
Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of Sign Permit
No. 89-119 Mayor and Common Council Meeting, March 19,
1990, 2:00 p.m.
Page 2
approved for this site as a mini-storage facility and not as
a U-Haul business. An amended CUP would need to be obtained,
allowing this additional business, prior to approval of a
sign advertising that business.
On February 6, 1990, the Planning Commission denied, by a six
to zero vote (two absent), the appeal of the denial by Staff
of Sign Permit No. 89-119.
BASIS OF APPEAL
The basis of the appeal included the following (see
Exhibit A):
The business owner needs to advertise his service
to stay in business.
Conditional Use Permit No. 88-35 allowed in its
approval on-premise pole signs, provided they met
the requirements of the Municipal Code.
Business and Professions Code section 5491.1
requires the inventory of nonconforming signs when
the sign code is amended.
APPEAL BASIS ANALYSIS
Business or economic reasons are not valid reasons to grant a
sign permit in violation of Code or General Plan policies.
Policy 1.45.6 prohibits new pole signs; however. freestandinq
monument siqns are not prohibited and would be allowed, if
the business use was allowed.
Conditional Use Permit No. 88-35 did not specifically approve
a pole sign. A standard requirement was checked as a
Condition of Approval. The requirement reiterates compliance
with the Sign Code, which prohibits pole signs at this
location.
The Business
pre-existinq
sign proposed
provision.
and Professions Code
signs to determine
is a ~ sign and
requires inventorying of
nonconformity, etc. The
does not relate to that
CONCLUSION
General Plan Policy 1.45.6 prevents sign poles at the
proposed location. A Conditional Use Permit for aU-Haul
business has not been approved. The proposed sign permit is
not in compliance with the General Plan or zoning ordinance
City of San Bernardino
Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of Sign Permit
No. 89-119 - Mayor and Common Council Meeting, March 19,
1990, 2:00 p.m.
Page 3
of the City and must be denied
freestanding monument sign is
applicant ample opportunity to
the business.
unless
allowed
provide
they are changed. A
which provides the
adequate signage for
MAYOR AND COUNCIL OPTIONS
The Mayor and Council may uphold the appeal in concept only
and direct Staff or the applicant to amend the applicable
portions of the city's General Plan and Urgency Ordinance to
allow the proposed pole sign or deny the appeal and deny
sign Permit No. 89-119.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the appeal be denied and that Sign
Permit No. 89-119 be denied. The sign code is one of many
portions of the Development Code that will be considered by
the Mayor and Council in the spring of 1990. Ample oppor-
tunity for debate of those provisions will be available. The
applicant can obtain a large, monument freestanding sign for
the self-storage business at the present time.
Prepared by: John Montgomery, AICP, Principal Planner
for Larry E. Reed, Director
Planning and Building Services
EXHIBITS:
A - Letter of Appeal to the Mayor and Council
B - Statement of Official Planning Commission
Action
C - Public Hearing Notice
D - sign Permit Plan
E - Location Map
M&CCAGENDA:SP89-119
2/28/90
sh
EXHIBIT A
SIG~jS Sy :/ ~--'~ . , , =".
, ~Q. u.le~" '
'"0, .....~.
-..--...=-~
272 SOUTH I STP.EET, S':'~l 9ER~,AROI~;O, CALIF 92~10
PH, 7g.aa5.~.l75 FAX 714-888~~:et!,ICl'Lr'" q ~U:B.J{
.9{} FES -9 P 4 :00
FEB 1 2 1990
February 9, 1990
City of San BernarJi~o
300 North D St.
San Bernardino, CA 92404
Attn: _~yor Holco~ & City Council
RE: SIGN p~~IT 89-119
STATE COLLEGE SELF STORAGE
1':1 ::::J
" '-J IT'
C, J c-,
...,., -
r1 Cl
en
f'. ,J ~.:~ . :1
" ..
.. :1:
'':"T' C
....,
(.:'1 -:-~
J;~
Dear Honorable Mayor and ~embers of City Council:
Our client. Mr. Rebert W. Hammond from State College Self Storage,
wishes to appeal t~e denial of the Planning Commission that took
place on Tuesday. Fe':lruary 6. 1990.
Please read the atta=hed letters from Mr. Ha=mond, State College
Self Storage. Mr. Robert Keenan. S.V.C.C. and Xr. John Lightburn,
Lightburn & Associates. all of which were presented before the
Planning Commission.
As a resident of this fine city. I realize the importance of various
sign restrictions that need to be implemented; however I believe that
a business owner should be able to advertise his product by means of
an adequate sign i~ order to stay in business. Signs can be constructed
with various archite~tural elements to enhance the beauty of the land
and also advertise the business.
Sincerely,
QUIEL BRGS.
:;::; 't2:e?' INC.
Gary ~l. Vice President
//,4/
/ ,,- ,1/" ,11.A.~/
" L. --'" to' ,;t~t',0 /'/'" ~'-'-
Raymond Quiel. Chairman of the Board
.....'
GQ/jf
enc.
SALES. SERVICE. LEASING. MAINTENANCE. CRANE SERVICE. NEON
Cam, Conlractors License No. 2173015
STATE COLLEGE SELF STORAGE
2255 AVENIDA DE LA PLAYA, SUITE 2
LA JOLLA, CLAIFORNIA 92037
(619) 454-5600
February 6, 1990
Mr. Michael Lindseth
Chairman, Planning Commission
City of San Bernardino
300 North' '0 Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
RE: SIGN PERMIT 89-119
STATE COLLEGE SELF STORAGE
Dear Mr. Lindseth:
In 1989, we conunenced building the State College Self Storage facility.
Our financing and decision to go ahead with the 657 units of self
storage was based on an absorption of 45 net storage units per month.
This forecast was based on economic need for units in this area and
the absolute necessity of a freeway pole sign under your existing sign
regulations in effect at the time \~e commenced building. These same
regulations are in effect today. When we applied for a conforming sign
to the existing sign regulations in 1989, we were turned down because
of a proposed change in your general plan - because of a change in the
sign ordinance. This has severely impacted our rental absorption at
the subject self storage site.
We are falling behind approximately 15 units per month from our forecast.
This will result eventually in a default in our construction loan, which
comes up for renewal in six months. Since we will not have reached
occupancy objectives necessary to obtain permanent financing, we will
be unable to refinance out of the construction loan. We may persuade
the construction lender to extend the construction loan, but at this
time that appears somewhat questionable. If we are successful, it
means an additional $16,000 in points and $150,000 in negative cash
flow caused by excess interest charges due to the slow lease up.
We would ne~er have purchased the land and built the self storage
facility if the freeway pole sign was not permitted. Its absence
will reduce the overall resale value, should we be fortunate enough to
sell the property by approximately $400,000 - $500,000 and result in a
potential negative cash flow per month of $10,000, This is based on
our assumption that we cannot achieve over 60% occupancy without
the permitted pole sign.
We have built a beautiful tile roofed self storage facility in your
redevelopment park, and feel it is only equitable that you approve
our request for a freeway pole sign.
Your favorable response to this request will be appreciated.
Rez;;~
Robert W. Hammond
Managing Partner
STATE COLLEGE SELF STORAGE
SIGN USERS COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA
415 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD. SUITE 212 . CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA 91 711 . PHONE (714) 626-49B3
P,O BOX 45 . SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA 94401 . PHONE (4151343-0297
February 6, 1990
Mr. Michael Lindseth
Chairman, Planning Commission
San Bernardino City Hall
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Dear Mr. Lindseth,
It has come to my attention that the city planning department is
enforcing a policy banning freestanding (pole) signs at the city
entry corridors.
We maintain the position that policy does not have the stature of
law and as policy is subject to change and/or subjective and-
arbitrary interpretation, such as the vague phrase "other pertinent
areas".
The Sign Users Council of California believes that since on-premise
signage is a secondary land use, the General Plan (primary land
use) is not the document to address signage control or signage
issues.
If in fact city staff and/or commissions are enforcing the policy
1.45.6 and it is not sign law, then they are taking legislative
action which is beyond their legal scope of activity.
Furthermore, the General Plan Policy 1.45.6 is in direct conflict
with the city sign code and if it was actually adopted on June 21,
1989 as a legal modification or amendment to the city sign code,
then the city is in violation of the California Business and
Professions Code, Chapter 2.5 I Section 5491.1. This section
requires that the city begin inventorying all on-premise signs in
the city to locate all illegal and abandoned signs within 6 months
(December 1989) and remove all those found illegal or abandoned in
the next 2 months (February 1990),
If this policy has or were to become law, the status of all such
freestanding signs in the city would change from legal to legal
non-conforming signs, therefore affecting them greatlY,
\,,,, strone:1y recommend that 'lntil i1 modified or amended si~n code
is enacted whLch affects freesLanaln~ freeway-oriented signs that
the present sign code be adhered to regardless of the "policy"
SERVING THE COMMUNITY
'Michael Lindseth
Chairman, Planning Commission
City of San Bernardino
Page two
which mayor may not be adopted legally into the sign code later
this year.
As a member of the State AssemblY Advisory Committee on Unlicensed
Contractors, I personallY recommend the immediate enforcement
against the illegal and abandoned signs in your city before you
create additional restrictions on those wishing to install legal
on-premise signage. I further suggest that such enforcement begin
in the entry areas noted in policy 1.45.6 and "other pertinent
areas" to cause the removal of those signs that are not legally
allowed now under the existing city sign code.
~
Keenan
Director
RJK/hk
Lightbum
&,A:ssociates
Planning Commission
City of San Bernardino
300 North D Street
San Bernardino. CA. 924 l8
February 6, 1990
Post Office Box 1622
San Bernardino. California 92402
(714) 381.2656
subject: Appeal of Sign Permit 89-l 19
State College Self Storage. OWner
Quiet Bros, Electric Sign Service. Inc.. Applicant
Honorable Members.
The appeal of Sign Permit No, 89-119 is before the Commission as a result
of the Department of Planning and Building Services denial of the permit
application based on a conclusion that the proposed signage is inconsistent
with the General Plan. Specifically, policy statement 1.45.6 declares the
intent of the city to prohibit pole signs at certain freeway entries into the
city, Additionally. the staff report indicates that the sign permit request is
not in compliance with the Municipal Code.
These contentions are addressed as folloWS:
1. In September of 1988 the Planning Commission approved Conditional
Use Permit 88-35 allowing for the development of a mini-storage in the
State College Industrial Park. One of the conditions of approval was to
allow the project to have an on-premise pole sign provided it met the
requirements of the Municipal Code (Section l 9,60), This project has been
built subject to all conditons of approval with the exception of the
on-premise signage.
For the City now to deny the owner the right to construct an on-premise
sign is tantamount to the City violating this approved <..'Ondition.
In-doing-so. the owner contends that the City's action is no more than a
taking of his property and/or property rights. Without the on-premise
signage. the owner believes he wilt suffer a significant loss of income and
the value of the business and property will be substantially deminished.
The owner's decision to develope this project was based. in part. on the
ability to construct an on-premise sign.
We believe that all approved conditons of development are also binding on
the Cit~' as well as the developer, We do not believe that the City intended
any of its General Plan Policv statements to abrogate, amend ur otherwise
, '
deny rights and entitlements incorporated as conditions and standards in
an approved Conditional Use Permit.
.Page Two - Appeal SIgn Permit 89-119
The owner contends that the approved Conditonal Use Permit 88-35 is
lawfull and binding on the City and the developer. On this basis alone the
owner believes he should be allowed to construct an on-premeise sign,
2, We believe the General Plan Policy statements. specifically 1.45,6,
describes the City's intent to enact legislation to achieve certain goals
pending an appropriate review and examination of aU relevant facts and
implications of such intended actions. In the maller now before the
Commission, staff contends that policy statement 1.45.6 specifically bars
the owner from having a sign at this local ion. thereby amending the
Municipal Code, unless the City amends its General Plan Policy statement
and the Municipal Code, It should be noted that the staff report does not
reference which section of the Municipal Code that has been affected by
this policy statement.
If indeed the sign code has been changed. as staff asserts, then the City
would not be incompliance with state law. Business and Professions Code -
Section 5491.1 . This section requires any city modifying or amending any
ordinance or regUlation which regulates or prohibits the use of any
on-premises sign shall include provisions for the inventorying and
identification of i11egal or abandoned signs within its jurisdiction and shaH
do so within six months from the date of adoption. Additionally. the City
shaH commence abatement within sixty days after the six month period,
In conclusion. the owner contends that General Plan Policy statement
1.45,6 has not amended the provisions of the Citys sign code. and therefore
has no bearing on his sign permit application. The owner further contends
that he has a valid Conditional Use Permit allowing for the construction of
an on-premise sign. and that the conditions and standards incorporated in
Conditional Use Permit 88-35 are binding on the City as well as the
developer,
Based on the foregOing. the owner request the Planning Commission to
approve Sign Permit 89-119,
EXHIBIT B
City of San Bernardino
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
PROJECT
Number:
Appeal of Staff Denial of Sign Permit No. 89-
119
Applicant:
Quiel Brothers Electric Sign Service for State
College Self-Storage
ACTION
Meeting Date:
X
February 6, 1990
Denied.
VOTE
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
Clemensen, Jordan, Lindseth, Lopez, Sharp, Stone
None
None
Cole, Corona
I, hereby, certify that this Statement of
accurately reflects the final determination
commission of the City of San Bernardino.
//'
Y" ~/ /
/d'r) t ~
Signa~re
Official Action
of the Planning
~ /,/
/ ~//
J? /? c::
z,ate
Larry E. Reed
Director of Planning and Building Services
Name and Title
cc: Project Applicant
Project Property Owner
Building and Safety Department
Engineering Division
Case File
mkf
PCAGENDA:
PCACTIONA
EXHIBIT C
'"
r
OFFI'CIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
APPEAL OF SIGN PERMIT NO. 89-119
J
,
r
THIS IS TO INFORM YOU THAT THE FOLLOWING ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL BY QUIEL BROTHERS SIGN COMPANY
\.
/ ......
SUBJECT: SIGN PERMIT NO. 89-119 APPEAL WARD :#:
6
\.
PROPERTY, Located in the northern corner of a 3.8 acre parcel
LOCATION, si tuated in the State College Industrial Park at the
easterly side of the intersection of Hallmark Parkway
and Lexington Way.
\.
" ""
PROPOSAL: To allow the construction of a 40 foot pole sign, with
a 10' x 15' double-sided face, for aU-Haul rental
business.
\..
r
PUBLIC HEARING LOCATION: SAN BERNARDINO CITY HALL
COUNCI L CHAMBERS
300 NORTH "0" STREET
SAN BERNARDINO I CA, 92.41 e
\. .I
r ""
HEARING DATE AND TIME : March 19, 1990, - 2:00 p.m.
\.
r ""
A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL IS ON FILE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT CITY
HALL, IF YOU WOULD LIKE F\JRTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC
HEARING.. PLEASE CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN PERSON OR BY PHONING
(714 ) 384-5057.
THANK YOU,
\. .I J
'"
jol, I". lay
~
~
".-.,
EXHIBIT
S 3-119
HOlt
[J,~;~~~ -,
lit:
~. - ~.J
o.
.
.
!
;
.~ ~
.~
!~ :;: :
~ '! : ;
" u a
~ I !i
~ I a ~
.
:h~
;~ ~
!~ 8
;5 ~
I
~
~
~
~ i
ij
~
~
u
~
'iin;;;~I~'1I1 .01
.
~ "
.\ <
I ~
I ~
S t\:
~
-;
r-
~.i. ,UiaW\p."v
-
~
t
~' ~t 1
- .' . ~ .... ~ .. -_. -
~
J
~
t
~ '110 lOp.-
'~.' .
4i~'
EXHIBIT "E"
LOCATION
CASE SIGN PERMIT 89-11 9
....., r AGENDA .....
ITEM #
1
r
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
3/l9/90
HEARING DATE
\..
~ Ill....
~
~ i f
~ ~
" ~
..
'{
...
I' -
~l
I
I
,
f'fC, i
I "".
/
01
0
0
N
~~