HomeMy WebLinkAbout65-Planning
~ITY OF SAN BERhoARDINO fj.EQUEST ~ ~R COUNCIL ACTION
From: Larry E. Reed, Director
Subject: Appeal of Planning Conunission' s
Denial of Sign Permit No. 89-119
(State College Self Storage)
De~: Planning and Building Services
Date: March 26, 1990
r:ayor and Council Meeting
Aprll ~, 1990, ~:OO p.m.
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
On October 26, 1989, Staff denied Sign Permit No. 89-119. This decision was appealed
to the Planning Ccmnission.
On February 6, 1990, the Planning Ccmnission denied, by six to zero vote (two absent),
the appeal of the denial of Sign Permit No. 89-119. '!his decision was appealed to the
Council.
On March 19, 1990, the Council =ntinued the appeal until April 2, 1990.
Recommended motion:
'!hat the hearing be closed, and, that the appeal be denied and that Sign Permit No.
89-119 be denied.
OR
':lliit the hearing be closed, and, that the appeal be approved in =ncept and that applicant
Ce advised to file application arrending the applicable portions of City's General Plan
and Urgency Ordinance to allow pole signs.
~~1L
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:
'-
Anenda Item NO~S -
CITY OF SAN BERh..tRDINO - REQUEST h)R 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, Quie1 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 October 26,
1989 because of non-compliance with General Plan Policy
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:
- Waterman at
- State Route
- State Route
Avenue
- 1-215 Freeway
- 1-215 Freeway
- 1-215 Freeway
Hospitality Lane
18 at National Forest boundary
330 (City Creek Road) at Highland
at
at
at
Shandin Hills
Cable Wash
Inland Center
Drive off-ramps
and in key activity districts, including the downtown,
Tri-city/Commerce 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 1-
215 near Cable Creek Wash.
"7<;_n.,":;:4
DENIAL OF SIGN PERMIT NO. 89-119
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 2, 1990
MARCH 26, 1990
PAGE 2
In addition to the noncompliance with the General Plan, the
original sign (see Exhibit "0") 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 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 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
ore-existinq signs to determine non-conformity, etc.
sign proposed is a new sign and does not relate to
provision.
of
The
that
DENIAL OF SICN PERMIT NO. 89-119
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 2, 1990
MARCH 26, 1990
PAGE 3
"MODIFIED MONUMENT" 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 busine~s 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 as
opposed to being sup-ported by poles or open braces. Thus, 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 1-215, 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'sl for State Col1eQe 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, the proposed pole sign would
State College Business Park CC&R's,
City and project owner.
be a violation of the
unless approved by the
COMMENTS RECEIVED
The Department has received
Center a letter stating their
(See Exhibit "C".)
from the
objection
University Service
to the pole sign.
CONCLUSION
General Plan Policy 1.45.6 prevents pole signs at the pro-
posed location. A Conditional Use Permit for aU-Haul
business has not been approved. The proposed sign permit is
not in compliance with the zoning ordinance of the City. The
"modified monument" sign is a pole sign. Freeway identi-
fication signage is of questionable merit for a mini-storage
business. A pole sign is a violation of the State College
Business 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 sign 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.
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.
DENIAL OF SIGN PERMIT NO. 89-119
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 2, 1990
MARCH 26, 1990
PAGE 5
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the appeal be denied and that Sign
Permit No. 89-119 be denied.
Prepared by:
EXHIBITS:
M&CCAGENDA:
SP89-119A
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
SIGNS BY g _ ~
~"lTe.e "
~"""~"D'.
272 SOUTH I STREET, SAN BERNARDINO, CALIF. 92410
PH. 714-885-4476 FAX 714-888-2239
April 11, 1990
City of San Bernardino
City Clerks Office
300 No. "0" st.
San Bernardino, CA
RE: Sign Permit #89-119
~
-
B
o
N
w
v:;
a
;;0
IT1
(")
'"
-<
T1
='
:->
-0
""
..:
~-" )
AJ
Due to the newly found information presented by the city staff at our last
meeting on April 2, 1990, we are in need of a continuance from the scheduled
meeting of April 16. We are asking to be scheduled for the meeting of April
30, 1990.
If you have any questions, please call.
Thank you,
QUIEL BROS.
ELE~~ SIGN SE ~CE CO.,~INC.
Hvl.-Ii /
Ga~y QUll
Project Engineer
GQ:gz
SALES. SERVICE. LEASING. MAINTENANCE. CRANE SERVICE. NEON
Calif. Contractors License No. 217345
EXHIBIT A
SIG~iS BY /..Q.' r=--. .. ~
,_ ' u,e/!,
~ ..."."
. ..-..""/
.' ~.-_.~
272 SOUTH I STREET, 5','1 SER~.AROI~.O, CALIF 92"~O
PH 714-865-~'~5 FAX 714-802~~~!,/C['\.J""" ",~r-.Q,j{
.~{) FES -9 P 4 :00
FES 1 .; I'Xj'O
............ 1-..
February 9. 1990
City of San Bernarj~Jo
300 North D St.
San Bernardino, CA 92404
Attn: l1ayor Holco;:D & City council
RE: SIGN p~~IT 89-119
STATE COLLEGE SELF STORAGE
"::"i
I r~
I. I CJ
-. r, ~:l
[",m)
c.;: )
I
..
:,i,:
'";'T' c
-..,
'. -:"l
"'-
Dear Honorable Xayor and ~ernbers of City Council:
Our client, Mr. Reoe"t 'vi. 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.
Please read the atta:~ed letters from Mr. Ha=mOnd, State College
Self Storage, Mr. Rc':>err Keenan, S.V.C.C. and Mr. John Lightburn,
Lightburn & Associates. all of which were presented before the
Planning Commigsion.
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 should be able to advertise his product by means of
an adequate sign in 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 BRCS.
;J;'tz;? m
b:;;.~iel, Vice President
/,,.. /? k
/J ~-1~" ,/I~//
" L. ....V'f,,":..;t~t'..V'l0"'''--;,......~
Raymond Quiel, Chairman of the Board
v'
GQ/jf
enc.
SALES. SERVICE. LEASING' MAINTENANCE. CRANE SERVICE. NEON
~ ... __~.______ I ;.._n_ No. 2'f73"5
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 cQlTlllenced 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 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 fora freeway pole sign.
Your favorable response to this request will be appreciated.
Re7Z~
Robert W. Hammond
Managing Partner
STATE COLLEGE SELF STORAGE
SIGN USERS COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA
415 FOOTHill bOULEVARD. SUITE 212 . CLAREMONT. CALIFORNIA 91 711 . PHONE (7141 626-4983
PO 80X 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, 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.
\..:e stron~ly recommend that llnt i 1 n modified or amended sign code
IS enacted which affects freestandin~ 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.
RJK/hk
Lightbum
&Xssociates
Planmng Commission
City of San Bernardino
300 Nonh D Street
San Bernardino. CA. 92418
February 6. 1990
POSt Office Box 1622
San Bernardino, California 92402
(714) 381.2656
subject: Appeal of Sign Permit 89-119
State College Self Storage. OWner
Quiel 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 E,uilding 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 sinns 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 a~ folloWS:
1. In September of 1988 the Planning Commission approved Conditional
Use Permit 88- 3S allowing for the development of a mini-storage in the
State College Industrial ParI:.. One of the conditions of approval was to
alloW the project to have an on-pr~mise pole sign provided it met the
requirements of the Municipal Coele (Section 19.60). 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 condition.
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 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 of its General Plan Policy statements to abrogate. amend or otherwise
deny rights and entitlements incorporated as conditions and standards in
.._ ..~M""".i C"nditional Use Permit.
,
Page Two - Appeal S;gn 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 all relevant facts and
implications of such intended actions. In the matter noW before the
Commission. staff contends that policy statement 1.45.6 specificallY bars
the owner from having a sign at this location, 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 illegal or abandoned signs within its jurisdiction and shall
do so within six 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.
J h Lightbur
f tate College
Self Storage
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.
Official Action
of the Planning
r::/
~. /
/Lt?i I ~:
Signa'ture
~/
"
. ,.,.c./'/
?7fto
l>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
UNIVERSITY SERVICE CENTER
March 15, 1990
Mr. Larry Reed
Planning De?artment
San Bernardmo City Hall
300 North "D" 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 express our opposition to the
current proposed construction of a 40 foot pole sign which is to be located on the
northern comer 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 preserve the value, attractiveness and desirability of our
buildings and the surrounding 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.
Sincerely,
fj] (5 f{:.' ,'"" ~
U~ '-'.J (~! :,.:J ....' n,/f' I'~
'-'~, ,I 1_'_/ ~'~
w :.../ /'~. ! f7 1
MAR -- ! ii)'
19 lnnr; 1...,-
CITy p' '. .
LJ-j.t_'''J'~Jn
r> '..'i/:-!, r~.~
'AN ,W U;' ""',
U BEFiM"'D': '''UVri'
'~;;:l 11i._:' t-,
'--, ",j
Russ E. Hatle
REH/lh
uscsign.doc
26722Plaz.a.St. . Su1te230 . MlsslonVl!llo.Ca.lJfornl&92691 . (714) 364-2120 FAX (714) 364-5321
l
!
~' ~t
.
:~
'..
'0-
'!i
'S ~
~ i! : .
I; 13 .:!l
: ~
~ w ~
: a 't!
<
'I ~
!~ g
5...
I
~
~
"
..
';
~
~
U
I
~ i
I ~
; ~
~ t>
~
.,
~
~
EXHIBIT "D"
'89-119
I
,
~
~
4
rj
,<=w~'lil _0'
.
: li~' ~ I
II! I~., II
'II Ii' :'Iq ~ U
ill il!..,ilW!I ~~I'
lii'III,I1'I'I~" Ib'"
l !!!!!!!I!,!!!!,:;! I lfl
.. 1, i
I .....1
~J~-u.~;f; illi !
"', ,=--- --0\ ;,! q: ~
~'" ',_ --'r-', ,t, :j
..._ _ -. I" I I ~1
2'_';':',,;~ ::;---;r . LNil~ j
--~:.: ~""'D~:D"--I= --' ",' '~~ ,
':.!t:~ ::; ", ::~': :,~.: :. '::'1'\ =f$J: /.;
1: '4 1 -..!-' i~- , I
':.- '~~... i
[if- ;
.Il ~
~
.,. ,",..on" "
J
~
'.
~
:~
~-j
"
~>?~ ~: ~
":":..!.~J ;.: ~1
c:: ',.~ :- ~
I )il~~
10' ... ..,1.:s3
III t1
~ :", . ':.,;..J iJ
~ I: ':.{'~;.;~ ~:l
;~-~~~
1':.:Vt'{:-1
i.l1t\$~ '
'~;~9 ~
,- ._.._,~~
"",.",.,,--.
!
~
~
t
, ~
!J.#'l.O/op..
_ . '''L _ _ _
'~ - ,
,-..-
EXHIBIT E
SIGNSBY~.~f.e~
272 SOUTH J 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.
Thank you,
QUIEL BROS.
ELECTRIC SIGN SERVICE CO.,
c- /0 , (
1'-- ?.../IA_T' (".( ~
.Gary Quiel
Project Engineer
INC.
1;0-
GQ:gz
SALES. SERVICE. LEASING. MAINTENANCE. CRANE SERVICE. NEON
Calif. Contractors License No. 217345
::-
~
-I
'"
{
1
Jr
JI'
,,0-;01
~
Cz
WWz
D::ECJ
-:::::>>-
Cz(l)
00
:2:1
;
VI
a
~
"-
co
a::
"-
o!.
~
'2
~
-l
tl
~..
""lS
-.;7.
30~
"''Z~
{!!\=,<!I
2~-
.q:-
~-
'~
I~
r
I!J
2.
'i.
~
~
r;-IJ-I?
II I
-'--'-'1
- '-" I
-. "
"T" ", ....:.... I
":"'---:- -" -,- ,.- '_ '.1
-<;:)
,
'2 'I
'=~
Ie:: -::oo
<bl
">..1
~~
o:l
lil(
~
~
Ck!
~
~
':%
~~
G'i~
,
S ~\
\.U ->I
-;s:.
'> ,.
'2 ~
<c <t
~~
~
~
~
\l\ .
U- ~
-I _
\ii~()
1/I~'2
i~~~
- ..L..I.2-
~-'~ffi
':i ~:t' ltl
nI \II '2
cg ~ ~ <l:1J\
h \1\ ,11\
~
-
'"
~t:)
-:\\:~
iii':'
'3~
Al'I
w
()
~
w
'"
w
z
..
a:
()
>-0'"
w-:ot
W~R
O::~N
t>!:!::ci
-~z
:rC)d
. ~6~
g~
1;~
z
a:
w
m
~
w
()
z
..
z
w
!z
;;:
::;
CON~
~ON
"~'1'
'f,..
"''''..
"N..
....,
, '..
....-
;::::;::::,...
:i:i~
Q,Q,-
Cl
Z
~
W
~
w
()
~ iD
'"
. en
'" z
~ (!l
iii ii5
" l~ '; i i ~'~
I!i!i" '.
'II' . !ill
I " .!1lI
! " ":~ ,I a....
d!I!I!!!Willi;" ~:
~
EXHIBIT "F"
,.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT ""l
~
AGENDA
ITEM #
1
LOCATION
CASE SIGN PERMIT 89-119
3/19/90
HEARING DATE
'lo..
~
.
t
~ ~
~r .f
~ ~
.. ;;
..
..
. ~
~ \
'"
f'fC,
.".
/
o
o
o
C\J