Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout43-Substitute Planning Item · CITY OF SAN Bl!Rl .RDlMO fl.EQUEST l JR COUNCIL ACTION " f From: Larry E. Reed, Director Dept: Planning andP.lding Services Date: March 26, 19~ Su~~: Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of Sign Permit No. 89-119 (State College Self Storage) r,~ayor and Council Meeting Apr11 2, 1990, 2:00 p.m. Synopsis of Previous Council action: On October 26, 1989, Staff denied Sign Pemi.t No. 89-119. '!his decision 'Nas a~ed to the Planning Ccmni.ssion. On February 6, 1990, the Planning Ccmni.ssion denied, by six to zero vote (boo absent), the appeal of the denial of Sign Pemi.t No. 89-119. '!his decision was appealed to the Council. On March 19, 1990, the Council continued the appeal until April 2, 1990. Recommended motion: 'lbat the hearing be closed, and, that the appeal be denied and that Sign PeJ:mi.t No. 89-119 be denied. OR ':hat the hearing be closed, and, that the appeal be approved in concept and tr.at applicai1t be advised to file application arrending the applicable portions of City's General Plan "'" Urqency Ordinance to allow pole signs. ~ r:- k/ Larry E. Reed Signature Contact person: Larry E. Reed Phone: 5357 Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: 6 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (Acct, No.) (Acct, DescriPtion) Finance: Council Notes: 75-0262 ~/r(JT~enda Item No, J/-3 'CITY OF SAN .ERN. .RDINO - REQUEST J .JR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT . ~" SUBJECT: aPPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF SIGN PERMIT NO. 89-119 MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL MEETING-APRIL 2, 1990, 2:00P.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 a 40' "modified monument" sign with landscaping as detailed in Exhibit "E", (a revised Sign Permit Plan). 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. A similar sign proposal was denied by Staff on 1989 because of non-compliance with General 1.45.6. This policy reads as follows: Policy 1. 45.6 prohibits the development of "pole" signs at the key entries to the City: October 26, Plan Policy - Waterman at Hospitality Lane - State Route 18 at National Forest boundary - State Route 330 (City Creek Road) at Highland Avenue - 1-215 Freeway at Shandin Hills - 1-215 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. 75-0264 DEN~~L OF SIGN PERMIT NO. 89-119 MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 2, 1990 MARCH 26, 1990 PAGE 2 I'.' In addi1:'. 1:0 the noncompliance with the General Plan the original sign (see Exhibit "D") was also denied because'part of the sign face identifies a U-Haul business which has not obtained city approval. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 88 35 was 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 b~ 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 to stay in business. " 4! service 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 non-conforming 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. Conditional Use Permit No. 88-35 did not specifically approve a pole sign. A standard requirement was checked as a Condi- tion of Approval. The requirement reiterates compliance with the Sign Code, which prohibits pole signs at this location. The Business and Professions Code requires inventorying pre-existinq signs to determine non-conformity, etc. sign proposed is a new sign and does not relate to provision. of The that DENIAL OF MAYOR AND MARCH 26, PAGB 3 SIGN PERMIT NO. 89-119 COMMON COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 2, 1990 1990 ;~.-, ~.~.-.- "MODIPIBD '~" SIGN PROPOSAL ANALYSIS The applicant is attempting to establish that a wrapped pole or pylon sign is a "modified monument" sign. The City's Interim Urgency Ordinance permits a "free-standing" sign, but the General Plan prOhibits pole signs at key entries into the city. Thus, staff interpreted that a free standing monument sign would be allowed. However, the applicant is maintaining that visibility and height is critical to the business and the business that sign would generate. A typical definition of a monument sign is a sign that is displayed on the ground or on a base which is the same width as the sign. Monument signs are usually not higher than 10 or 15 feet. The draft Development Code defines a Monument Sign as an independent structure supported on the ground having a solid base aa opposed to being sup-ported by poles or open braces. Thua, a 40 foot free-standing sign is by definition and intent not a monument sign. The signs proposed by the applicant all contain pole supports as their basic structural support ~. element and should be considered as pole signs. Allowing - pole signs of this height would be the first signs of this type between the University exit and Devore along I-215, and would not meet the intent of the General Plan policy. The applicant is also maintaining that freeway identification is necessary for the viability of his business. It is staff's opinion that a mini-storage business is not an "impulse" type business which requires such a sign. Con- sumers either know of a mini-storage location or look up a location in the yellow pages. They do not drive around with a load of household items, see a location off the freeway and decide to pull-off. violation of Covenants. Conditions and Restrictions lCC & R's) for State Colleae Business Park The proposed project is located in the State College Business Park. There are filed Covenants, Conditions and Restrict- tions (CC & R's) for the Business Park. These CC&R's state the following: "Detailed plans of all permanent signs in form satis- factory to the City shall be submitted to the City for approval prior to commencement of construction. only monument-types or flush wall-mounted signs shall be permitted, unless otherwise expressly approved in writing by the city and by Declarant." DENIAL OF SIGN PERMIT NO. 89-119 MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 2, 1990 MARCH 26, 1990 PAGE 4 ~'-~ Thus, ,-, roposed pole siqn would be a violation of the stat. COl.' . Business Park CC&R' s, unless approved by the city and project owner. COMMENTS RECEIVED The Department has received Center a letter stating their (See Exhibit "C".) CONCLUSION General Plan Policy 1.45.6 prevents pole siqns at the pro- posed location. A Conditional Use Permit for aU-Haul business has not been approved. The proposed siqn permit is not in compliance with the zoning ordinance of the city. The "modified monument" sign is a pole siqn. Freeway identi- fication signage is of questionable merit for a mini-storage bus1i'ness. A pole sign is a violation of the State College S Bus ness Park CC&R's, unless approved by the City and ~ Declarant. A letter of protest from the University Service Center has been received. A 10 foot high monument siqn or a wall sign would provide the applicant ample opportunity to provide freeway signage for the mini-storage business (see attached pictures). Government doesn't have any commitment to help a business in economic distress by waiving or amending City Policy/Standards. from the objection university Service to the pole siqn. 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. A normal-sized monument sign (10 feet maximum height, with landscaping) could be approved, if submitted by the applicant. DENl~L OF SIGN PERMIT NO. 89-119 MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 2, 1990 MARCH 26, 1990 PAGE 5 L. RECOMMEN~ staff recommends that the appeal be denied and that Sign Permit No. 89-119 be denied. Prepared by: John Montgomery, AICP, Principal Planner for Larry E. Reed, Director Planning and Building Services A - Letter of Appeal to the Mayor and Council B - statement of Official Planning Commission Action C - Letter of Protest D - Original Sign Permit Plan E - Revised Sign Permit Plan F - Location Map EXHIBITS: M&CCAGENDA: SP89-119A EXHIBIT A :~ SIG~S BY ./ ~ .---. _~Q"r. .; '. '", ..~ :.:..~' 272 SOUTH I STREET. 9~1 SE::;~,AROI~;O. CALIF 92~10 PH. 7'4.aa5.~.17S FAX 714.813e~~~p,ICr;.-("" q ~1 IB-l' \ '~ '90 FEB -9 P 4 :00 FEB 1 ::: 1990 February 9, 1990 City of San Bernar~~~o 300 North D St. San Bernardino, CA 92404 Attn: Xayor Holeo~ & City council RE: SIGN p~~IT 89-119 STATE COLLEGE SELF STORAGE ,., ::J " ,", I " <, .t ,; -,., r.:'I P-' .;:n . .. .J ..::, ~l " "0 --- x ..,::;; 0 .." "''1 "T\ .- Dear Honorable Mayor and ~embers of City Council: Our client. Mr. Rc~ert w. Hammond from State College Self Storage. wishes to appeal t~e denial of the Planning Commission that took place on Tuesday, Fe~ruary 6, 1990. " ,"' 'C Please read the atta:~ed letters from ~r. Ha=mond, State College Self Storage, ~r. lc;ert Keenan, S.V.C.C. and ~. John Lightburn, Lightburn & Associ3t~s. all of which were presented before the Planning commission, As a resident of this fine city, I realize the importance of various sign restrictions ttat need to be implemented; however I believe that a business owner s~culd be able to advertise his product by means of an adequate sign i~ crder to stay in business. Signs can be constructed with variouS archite:tural elements to enhance the beauty of the land and also advertise t:.e business. Sincerely, QUIEL BRCS. I:;:; 't2;;?' INC. Gary ~l' Vice President //' /j k ' I / L ' ~l/!t~t':./~(~- Raymond Qutel. Chairman of the Board './ GQ/jf ene. SALES' SERVICE' LEASING. MAINTENANCE. CRANE SERVICE. NEON Calif. ConllactolS ween.. NO. 2173>15 -- / 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"D Street San Bernardino. CA 92418 RE: SIGN PERMIT 89-119 STATE COLLEGE SELF STORAGE Dear Mr. Lindseth: In 1989. we cOlll1lenced 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 we 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 never have purchased the land and built the self storage facility if the freeway pole sign was not per.mitted. Its absence will reduce the overall resale value. should we be fortunate enough to sel~ the property by approximately $400,000 - $500,000 and result in a I 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 SIG: USERS COUNCIL OF CI lFORNIA 415 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD. SUITE 212 . CLAREMONT. CALIFORNIA 91711 · PHONE (7141 828-4983 P,O. BOX 45 . SAN MATEO. CALIFORNIA 94401 . PHONE (415) 343-0297 /J - ," .) "--,F-, -?--;-~':;; flJ2?YU 1/ /)1 , ;rl~W~/ / i/~~ /;W<d /}z.lji-- .. ~tP'/~ / March 7, 1990 ~ayor Robert Holcomb City of San Bernardino 300 North "0" Street San Bernardino, CA 92~18 Dear Mayor Holcomb, Encrosed you will find the letter that ,",'as submitted to the Planning Commission during an appeal hearing in February. To this date. we have not received an answer from the Commission nor the City Attorney, We are deeply concerned that policy has taken precedent over law in your sign code and is being enforced on a daily basis. I have enclosed a copy of the sign criteria received from the Planning Department that to the best of our understanding is in conflict with the existing sign code and a copy of Chapter 2.5 of the Business & Professions Code, The Sign Users of California are concerned because there is definite confusion as to ~hat is allowed or not al10~ed. We understand that the City is now considering amending the General Plan and has included a sign code in the package. We request that the sign code be handled General Plan since signage is a secondary land to the primary land uses in the General Plan. separately from the use and is auxiliary Furthermore, the proposed sign code has many areas that are legally questionable and potentially economically disastrous for the business developments in the City. Our staff is completing its reView and critique of the proposed sign code and will submit our suggestions and revisions in a few days. Mavor Holcomb, the Sign Csers Council would appreciate the following actions: 1) An answer to our concerns as stated in our letter to Mr. Lindseth of February 6; SERVING THE COMMUNITY 2) The cessation of appointed bodies mandating the enforcement of "policy" over city sign law; 31 A clarification as to whi'lt the actual sign code says and what is legally permissible in (-3, C-3A, C-~, (-H, H-l, M-1A, M-2 and P districts; ~l The completion of the hearing process for the General Plan proposal with the sign portion deleted; 5) Separate study sessions and hearings should be scheduled for Chapter 19.16 Sign Regulations; 61 The immediate enforcement against and removal of illegal and abandoned signs plus a concerted effort for sign maintenance. We would appreciate your review of these matters at the earliest possible time, especially with regard to clarifying what signage is legally allowed at this time so that the sign users in your city and potential new users (new business) can comply with the least amount of delay and confusion. If you have any comments or questions, please contact me at our Claremont office, ~15 Foothill Blvd., Suite 212 or (7141 626-4983. , ' /~tA.-- Rober.'/ Kenan Jdt. Executir Director~ RJK/hk Enclosure \; SIGN USERS COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA 415 ,F"OOTH ILL BOULEVARD, SUITE 212 . CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA 91711 . PHONE (714111211.49B3 p,O BOX 45 . SAN MATEO. CALIFORNIA 94401 . PHONE 14151343.0297 -,.-.' -. .. February 6, 1990 Mr. Michael Lindseth Chair.an, 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 ~ty 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, 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. \.;'" strong;ly r'pcnmmend that 'intii " modified or amended sis;n code is enacted WhiCh affects frees(,an'11n~ freeway-oriented signs thdt the present sign code be adhered to regardless of the "policy" SERVING THE COMMUNITY ~"l -=. , Hicha.l~- Chaiuan. _.-. - Comm',,'on Ci ty of ' ,. 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 perti.9A..t~. ~ areas" to cause the removal of those signs that are not le~.rti""'-'""" allowed now under the existing city sign code'~d' - \- ?!" RJK/hk Lightburn &Xssociates ~,"',.~."." - Plan.. .!& Commission City of San Bernardino 300 North 0 Street San Bernardino. CA. 92418 February 6. 1990 Post Office Box 1622 San ~ Cali{omia 92402 (714)381.2656 Subject: APpeal of Sign Permit 89-119 State College Self Storage, OWner Quiet Bros. Electric Sign Service. Inc.. Applicant Honorable Memben. The appeal ol Sign Permit No. 89-119 is before the Commission as a resull or the Department of Planning and Building Services denial d. the permit application based on a conclusion that the proposed sipge is inconsistent with the General Plan. Specifically. poliCY statement 1.<t5.6 declares the intent of the city to prohibit pole signs at certain freeway entries into the city. Additionally. t11e staff report indicates t11at t11e sign permit request is not in compliance with t11e Municipal Code. ,', ;'i/it"-' .."....">.-.~,,-:;.;. T11ese contentions are addressed as folloWS: 1. In September of 1988 t11e Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 88-3S allowing for the development of a mini-storage in t11e 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 19.60). This project has been built subject to all condilOns 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 l.-ondition. In-doing-SO. the owner contends that the Citys action is no more than 11 taking of his property and/or property rights. Without the on-premise signage. the owner believes he will 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 City as well as the developer, We do not believe that the City intended any or its General Plan Policy ,tawments to abrogate. amend or otner,,!,e denY rightS and entitlements incorporated as conditions and standards in an approved Conditional Use Permit. -Page Two. Appeal Sign Permit 89-119 The owner s. that the approved Conditonal Use Permit 88-35 is lawfull an~ b'-- the City and the developer, On this basis alone the owner believes, uld be allowed to construct an on-premeise sign. '2. We believe tl1e General Plan Policy statements. specificallY 1.45.6, describes tl1e City's intent to enact legislation to achieve certain goals pending an appropriate review and examination of all relevant facts and implications of such intended actions. In the matter noW before the Com.m.ission. staff contends that policy statement 1.~S.6 specific~l1Y bars tl1e owner from having a sign at this location. thereby amending the Municipal Code. unless the City amends its General Plan PoliCY statement and the }'lunicipal Code, It should be noted that the staff repott 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 stafr asserts. then the City would not be incompliance witl1 state law. Business and Professions Code - Section 5"i91.1 ' 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 illegal or abandoned signs within its jurisdiction and shall do so within Sil months from the date of adoption, Additionally, the City shall 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- Ih f tate College Self Storage EXHIBIT B + City ot San Bernardino OP OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION PROJECT Number: Appeal of Statt Denial of Siqn Permit No. 89- 119 Applicant: Quiel Brothers Electric Siqn Service for state colleqe Self-Storaqe ACTION Meetinq Date: -"]f;~ -- February 6, 1990 Denied. Y2n 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. /). ~ tb ~. / I~~ ( ~: S'igna~re Official Action of the Planninq r:~ /- , ~'/ ,;7 /? t: Date Larry E. Reed Director of Planning and Building Services Name and Title cc: Project Applicant Project Property Owner Buildinq and Safety Department Engineering Division Case File mkf PCAGENDA: PCACTIONA EXHIBIT C UNIVERSITY SERVICE CENTER March 15, 1990 Mr. Larry Reed Planning De,partment San Bernardino City Hall 300 North "0" Street 3rd Floor San Bernardino, CA 92418 RE: Opposition to Appeal of Sign Permit No. 89-119 Scheduled for March 19, 1990 Public Hearing Dear Mr. Reed: On behalf of University Service Center, this letter is to e~ress our opposition to the". current proposed construction of a 40 foot pole sign which is to be located on the; - northern corner of a 3.8 acre parcel situated in the State College Industrial Park at the easterly side of the intersection of Hallmark Parkway and Lexington Way. We feel strongly about the standards and uniform high quality of development of this area. Our goal is to )?reserve the value, attractiveness and desirabihty of our buildings and the surroundmg areas; we feel these signs detract from this goal. It is our wish that this appeal be denied. Should you have any questions, please contact me directly at (714) 792-7111. Russ E. Hatle 0u~/ ~-!,; ~; M .MM ":- ,--..., Url - I 'r, , ~ 'ilf I MAR 19 Li j CiT;.' ,); ._ ~, ; ':....'; , ~}/'I': ."', " vAN s;.'~! ;'-", ,'_".}ifl. ,'L',; , ,. :..',.t Sincerely, REH/lh uscsign,doc 26722P1aza.St. . Su1te230. WssIonVlejo,Ca.liforn1a.92691 · (714)384-2120FAX(714)364-6321 -- EXHIBIT. -, OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC BEFORI THE CITY OF SAN MAYOR AND COMMON APPEAL OF HEARING BERNARDINO COUNCIL SIGN PERMIT NO. 89-119 "I' 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 'situated 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 a U-Haul rental business. / PUBLIC HEARING LOCATION: SAN BERNARDINO CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 NORTH "0" STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CA 9241 e \.. HEARING DATE AND TIME: March 19, 1990, - 2:00 p.m. A DETAIl.ED DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAl. IS ON FILE IN 1ME Pl.ANNING DEPARTMENT AT CITY HALl., IF YOU WOUl.D l.IKE FlJRTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THIS PROPOSAl. ,PRIOR TO 1ME PUBl.IC HEARING,. PLEASE CONTACT THE Pl.ANNING DEPARTMENT IN PERSON OR BY PHONING (714) 384-5057. THANK YOU. ~.J .., ,... '" .... EXHIBIT "0" 89-119 0- ,0' ii ~. t. \J - ... I ", I 7 il ~ ; . 'I I ~ 5 I i ;\ ~ I 1 h ~ ~ -i I I ~, 1 . 1<~~~.ll.D ,I II ili I,il .,i "1 'I'i'ii!l' I I" l'II,/,1 I ,II/.Il filii I, . .. ~... . . I" t . ' _I' I ;'i I'j :,i 1 ; ~ l;;j . J :J '1 " " ~, " ~ ~ .~~; ',i ~.J c-=~:.:~ .i ~ i jl-:~ .0: 1........-. :; ~ HJ t1 I tf~.I:~ i-!~~.' ~ -, .' :,-~~J ~ ~ ,1.. '1Uaun.p911't ~ J :J:: 1 ~'vO,OJoo- . . --- -- ~'':' Ekn..ui1'1' E -~~ Z72 SOUTH I STREET, SAN BERNARDINO, CALIF, 92410 PH,714-885-4476 FAX 714-888-2239 March 21, 1990 John Montgomery San Bernardino Planning Dept. 300 North "0" St. San Bernardino, CA Dear John: Enclosed is the color landscape detail regarding Sign Permit 89-119. The planter area as shown is existing with the trees. The Oleander's would be added. Please call if you have any questions. l '" Thank you, QUIEL BROS. ELECTRIC SIGN SERVICE CO., J./, /') . ' i.....- .' ~/ Ct/~ Gary Quie1 Project Engineer INC. ....-- GQ:gz SALES. SERVICE. LEASING. MAINTENANCE. CRANE SERVICE. NEON Calif, COntractors License No, 217345 t ,g& r ol \ ~ l>> ~' ~ i~m '2 eo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- w 16 I ~ <J) .d ;:: . en 0 ~ a.! <J) z ~;::;:: w (!) ~~~ -' ~ ~ en ~ .::z ~ ~ . *. Ii ~~ 'iI\ :=- a::: IIi, 11,- ~.'? ~ ! ii 'Ii H \i'\ :ll.l'rii!i , , ~ u.. ~ a.. .. S II \i "' ! !!!\!!!!!!!!III I: S \.U ~N _I' ! -l 5A. 'J\~~ Q...\II I!J .. ~~- '2 ~ .. ..s:a '2 ~ ~'i)! ~ < -..).....~ "t. ~ v ~..)~2 ~ \J\ ~<(ai ~ i 11l:t:'U) ~ ~ ~ IJ'l.z o ~ ~<t: ;~ h \1\ \f\ \J\ -Q r-- ~ ']:~ '!:~"2 ~ 3 0 at\!l~ 1A12.c; r-~ :2'""- ~~ ~ " tl,trb . .. " ,.. ::- ~ ,\ \1\ - t ~ - ~ ~C) t... . . \b- '3~ A"" ~ ~ W lIJ -w EXHIBIT "F" HEARING DATE 3/19/90 AGENDA ITEM #: 1 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE SIGN PERMrT 89-11 Q f f'fC, ! O! , Oi 01 (\J, t /..