HomeMy WebLinkAbout46-Planning
.
ReQUeST Fbl. COUNCIL ACTION
.
c1T~ "OF SAN BeRNaDINO -
From: Larry E. Reed, Director
Dept: Planning and Building Services]
Date:
Subject: Appeal of Variance No. 90-0B Denial
Mayor and Common Council meeting
of November 5, 1990, 2:00 p.m.
Synopsis of Previous Council ection:
On September 25, 1990, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to deny
Variance No. 90-0B application, (5-0).
;-." :','J
';'1
No previous Council action.
(';.
,'-'.',
/, -.,'
-. ,
Recommended motion:
That the hearing be closed, and that the appeal be denied and Variance No. 90-0B
be denied subject to the Findings of Fact contained in Attachment B, the September
25, 1990 Planning Commission staff report. (Supports staff's recommendation and
Planning Commissions action).
OR
That the hearing be closed, and that the appeal be upheld and that the matter be
refered to staff for the preparation of Findings of Fact in support of the
,pp"",'" """,. (,"pp.'" ,pp"",'" ""~
Ik/
Signature
Contact person:
Larry E. Reed
Phone:
3B4-5357
1
Supporting data attached:
Staff Report
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct. No.!
(Acct. Descriotion)
Finance:
Council Notes:
Agenda Item No_
'i~
CITY. OF SAN BERNMDDINO - REQUEST FcC COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
Subject: Appeal of the planning commission denial of variance No.
90-08, requesting approval to place wall signs on four
sides of a restaurant at 885 East Harriman Place,
whereas the Municipal code permits signs on a maximum of
two sides.
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
of November 5, 1990
REOUEST
The applicant, Yoshinoya West, Incorporated, through their sign
contractor, San Pedro Electric Sign Company, is appealing the
denial of Variance No. 90-08 by the planning commission. The
applicant requests the Mayor and Common Council approve a variance
from Code sections 19.60.220(B) and (E), which allow the placement
of signs on a maximum of two sides per building, to install wall
signs on four sides of a newly constructed restaurant in the
"Pace" shopping center located southeasterly of the intersection
of Harriman Place and Gage Canal.
BACKGROUND
On October 16, 1986 the Pace shopping center was approved by the
Development Review committee. under Review of Plans No. 86-66. On
January 9, 1990, the Planning commission approved a Conditional
Use Permit (C.U.p.a9-37) to construct a 2,400 square-foot
"YoShinoya Beef Bowl" restaurant on the site of the Pace center.
On May 21, 1990, the applicant submitted the application for
Variance No. 90-08, requesting to place signs on all four sides of
the approved restaurant building.
On september 25, 1990, the Planning commission held a properly
noticed public hearing on Variance No. 90-08. During the course of
the public hearing, Staff discussed the generally accepted view
that the excessive use of signage is visually offensive which led
to General Plan Policy No. 1.45.4 to minimize signs in private
development and to the current Code restrictions on the number and
placement of signs. Based on a site analysis, Staff stated that
there are no unique circumstances applicable to the subject
property that would warrant the approval of the variance, and that
allowing excessive signage on the restaurant would undermine the
overall character of development occuring in the Tri-City area
(see Exhibit B - Staff Report to the planning commission). Based
on the discussion and in agreement with the Staff recommendation,
a motion for denial was made and seconded, and then carried by a
unanimous vote of the five attending Commissioners.
75-0264
,
,
o
o
.
Appeal of Variance No. 90-08
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of November 5,.1990
Page 2
When the variance application was submitted to staff, San Pedro
Electric Sign company submitted plans for all "Yoshinoya" signs
proposed for the site, including plans to reface a sign can below
the "Pace" sign can on the 40-foot freeway sign identifying the
center. Several weeks prior to scheduling Variance No. 90-08 for
public hearing, Staff informed George Castro, representative from
the sign company with whom staff had been in contact regarding the
variance application, that no such sign can exists for them to
reface. Mr. Castro was informed that the Code would not permit the
new installation of such a sign can because the overall sign area
would exceed the maximum allowed by Code Section 19.60.220(F.3)
and because freestanding signs in multi-tenant centers must
identify the name of the center and/or everv tenant, rather than
just selected tenants (SBMC 19.60.220E and F). Mr. Castro was
advised that his client must revise the variance application to
request the installation onto the freestanding sign structure or
delete that section from the plans. The following week, Mr. Castro
informed Staff that the request for the freestanding sign would
not be pursued at the present time.
On September 28, 1990, three days after the Planning commission
denied Variance No. 90-08, the sign company submitted revised sign
plans for the restaurant, but still proposed a double-faced sign
on the freestanding structure. Staff deleted the freestanding sign
from the plans and approved the remainder, which consisted of a
wall sign on the north elevation and a wall sign on the east
elevation.
On October 2, 1990, Mark Frank of the sign company called the
planning Division to ask why the freestanding sign was denied, and
was given the same answer that George Castro, his employee,
received previously. Mr. Frank said that he was never informed by
Castro that the freestanding sign would not be permitted and that
he would appeal the denial of the variance. On October 4, 1990, an
appeal was submitted based on "disagreement with staff's 'firidings
of fact.'"
OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL
The Mayor and council may deny the appeal and
90-08 or the Mayor and Council may uphold the
Variance No. 90-08.
deny Variance No.
appeal and approve
,
,
o
o
Appeal of variance No. 90-08
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of November 5,'1990
Page 3
RECOMMEN1)ATION
It is recommended that the Mayor and Council deny the appeal and
deny Variance No. 90-08.
Prepared by:
Gregory S. Gubman,
Assistant Planner
for Larry E. Reed,
Director of Planning and Building Services
Exhibits:
A - Letter of Appeal
B - Staff Report to the Planning commission
C - Official Notice of Public Hearing before the
Mayor and Common Council
,
.
0'
SAN PEDRO
ELECTRIC
SIGN COMPANY
EXHIBIT A
o
?1:(<= .-
"C!i
",
~~-
-4 nQ ::1
October 02, 1990
TELEFAX LETTER
714-384-5461
city Of San Bernardino
city Clerks Office
C/O Shawna Edwins / MELANIE VALE
300 North "D" Street 2 ND FLOOR
San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001
RE: Appeal variance No. 90-08
Yoshinoya Beef Bowl Restaurant
881 lIarrison Avenue
San Bernardino, ca
Dear Ms. Edwins:
This letter is to serve notice of our intention to appeal the
planning commission action of September 25, 1990 for variance
90-08.
We wish to appear before the city council to state our case for
the additional wall signs to properly identify the Yoshinoya Beef
Bowl establishment.
we are in disagreement with the staffs "findings of fact" as per
the attachment "B"exhibit provided by Larry Reed on 90-27-90.
Please advised me of when the next available city council meeting
will be held so that I can notify my clients.
Also, please let me know if you need. more sign plans or
presentation materials and I will be happy to provide you with
them.
S~ Yours,
/:{",.~~./~ C~"'_~' /
/p t""y- tv.......:.--,....~,.;......y~
Mark A. Frank
MAF/sp
ce: Katsutoshi Tsunafuji
Yoshinoya West Inc.,
ENCLOSURES: CHECK FOR $100. 00 ~,~\~~
- ...~
, .
~... ..,.;- .. ", '....
. ..,:;~; ,: ~ .
, '.
'3:'.: ;':'.:. ." .' .-
735 Lakme Avenue I Wilmington. California 90744 I 213-549-4661 I FAX 213-549-2482
.
.
EXHIBIT B
CIlY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING seRVICES DEPARTMENT
SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
WARD
7
9-25-90
1
~r-- r /" APPUCANT: San Pedro Electric Sign
III Company
~ VARIANCE NO. 90-08 735 Lakme Avenue
OWNER: Wilmington, CA 90744
U Haagen Tri-City Center
~ \.. \.. 3500 sepulv~ Boulevard
M i"n 66
.
The applicant requests a variance from Code Section 19.60.22
m IE) to allow wall signs on four sides of a building, whereas,
the code allows signs on a maximum of two sides.
::I
53
a::
-
C The site encompasses approximately 12.35 acres located at the
III southeasterly corner of the intersection of Harriman place and
a::
C Gage Canal.
-
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
PROPERTY I AND USE :ZONING DFSIGNATlON
Subject Restaurant/Pace Center CR-3 Commercial Regional
North Vacant CR-3 Commercial Regional
South 1-10 FreewaY CR-3 Commercial Regional
East Gage Canal/Vacant CR-3 Commercial Regional
tiest Residential CR-3 Commercial Regional
\.. "'
[Jt YES ....., FLOOD HAZARD 0 YES 0 ZONE A ....., ( )
GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC SEWERS: at: YES
\.. HAZARD ZONE: o NO ZONE: [JI:NO o ZONE B o NO
( HIGH FIRE 0 YES )r AIRPORT NOISE! o YES "'I r REDEVELOPMENT at YES ,
HAZARD ZONE: 13 CRASH ZONE: )\ PROJECT AREA:
NO [}:NO o NO
r---. r Z
..I o NOT o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT 0 APPROVAL
C APPLICABLE EFFECTS WITH 0
!Zen MmGATlNG MEASURES ~ 0
NO E.I.R. CONDITIONS
1Il~ II.Cl
:2Z Kl EXEMPT o HR. REQUIRED BUT NO !am Ga DENIAL
Z- SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
OCl WITH MITIGATING t):2
a::; MEASURES ~ 0 CONTINUANCE TO
-II.
ffi o NO SIGNIFICANT o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS fd
EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E.R.C.
MINUTES a::
\.. \.. ~
.... - - ~
:;;,&.:.::r:==
PLAN-all2 PAGE IOF 1 (..ell)
, .
OBSERVATIONS
CASE
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
VAR 90-08
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
7
9-25-90
2
,...
....
REOUEST
The applicant is requesting a variance from
19.60.220(B) and (E), which allow the placement
maximum of two sides per building, to locate wall
sides of an approved restaurant under construction.
Code Sections
of signs on a
signs on four
SITE LOCATION
The site of the proposed restaurant is the 12.35 acre "Pace Club"
center located at the southeasterly corner of the intersection of
Harriman Place and the Gage Canal. The site consists of a
six-tenant, 162,525 square foot retail building and the 2,400
square foot "Beef Bowl" restaurant located in the northwestern
quadrant of the center.
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Municipal Code Sections 19.60.210(B) and (E) state that wall signs
are permitted on a maximum of two sides per building in the CR-3
land use designation, provided that those sides of the bUilding
have a frontage on a public street or parking lot. This variance
application is inconsistent with said Code sections in that the
applicant is requesting to place signs on four sides of the
building, wherein one of those sides has no street or parking lot
frontage.
The proposal is inconsistent with the General Plan, in that Policy
No. 1.45.4 of the land use element states that it shall be the
policy of the City to "minimize the number, size and placement of
signs in private development."
BACKGROUND
On July 7, 1986, an application to construct a 162,525 square foot
shopping center on 12.35 acres was submitted to the Planning
Department under Review of Plans No. 86-66. The project was
approved on October 16, 1986.
On August 8, 1989, the application for Conditional Use Permit No.
89-37, to construct a 2,400_ square foot "Yoshinoya Beef Bowl"
restaurant on the site of the shopping center was submitted to the
Planning Department. On January 9, 1990, the Planning Commission
approved the application. On May 21, 1990, the applicant submitted
the application for Variance No. 90-08, requesting to place signs
on all four sides of the approved restaurant building.
llIWt -
___'OJ' _
.
CITY OF SAN BER RDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
OBSERVATIONS
CASE
VAR 90-08
7
9-25-90
3
AGENDA ITEM
HEAAINGDATE
PAGE
,..
"
ANALYSIS
The request for the variance is based on the applicant's claim
that due to the location of the restaurant, the Municipal Code
sign' regulations are too restrictive to allow the proper identity
of the business. In the written response to the required variance
findings (Attachment Cl, the applicant stated that the
restaurant's proximity to the 1-10 freeway and its location within
a retail complex necessitates additional signage.
A field examination of the site did not support the applicant's
findings. Three sides of the restaurant front on a street or
parking lot: the north side faces Harriman Place; the east side
faces the Pace Club parking lot; and the south side faces both the
parking lot and the 1-10 freeway. Under current Code requirements,
the applicant can place a sign on any two of those sides and would
be provided ample visibility.
An obvious advantage of the location of the restaurant is that it
is located within a major shopping center with high freeway
visibility. This advantage works three ways. First, through
advertising, the restaurant can simply state that it is located
within the Pace shopping center. Secondly, customers visiting
Pace, Sportmart or any of the other stores in the complex have a
clear view of the Beef Bowl restaurant and its associated signs.
Third, because the restaurant is a separate building from the
remainder of the center, its visibility is much more prominent
than that of the tenants occupying the suites.
Thus far, there are
building, Pet World
tenants has a single
be suffering no ill
for over a year.
two minor tenants occupying the Pace Club
and Pita Feast restaurant. Each of these
wall sign facing Harriman Place and appear to
effects. Both businesses have been licensed
COMMENTS RECEIVED
No comments have been received as of the date of preparation of
this staff report.
IlWit -
Ii.
...011
. PUIIMa '_'~1 t_
-, .
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
OBSERVATIONS
CASE VAR 90-08
7
9-25-90
4
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
CONCLUSION
It is the intent of the General Plan and Municipal Code to prevent
the domination of City streetscapes by signs whose overexposure is
associated with the degradation of the aesthetic integrity of
commercial areas. The placing of excessive signage on the
restaurant is not consistent with the quality of development
occuring in the area, and would undermine the overall character of
the Tri-City area.
There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property that would necessitate the
granting of this variance. Adding two more wall signs would only'
marginally increase the exposure of the building, while adding a
degree of garishness to the center in which it is located. By
means of this application, the applicant is requesting a special
privilege; the granting of this variance is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
applicant.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Variance No.
90-08 based on the attached Findings of Fact (Attachment B).
Respectfully submitted,
L'~~'d~
Director of Planning and Building Services
Gregory S. Gubman
Assistant Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Municipal Code and General Plan conformance
B - Findings of Fact
C - Applicant's response to findings
D - Site plan and elevations
E - Location map
::.Ill -
. P\MaI _,.. _
;
,0
o
Attachment "A"
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERviCES DEPARTMENT
CASE VAR 90-08
.....
7
9-25-90
5
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
~
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
cateqory ProDosal .~ General PlAn
Use Wall sign Permitted NIA
Number of Four Maximum of "
wall signs two
Sign area:
north 63 square feet 120 sq. ft. max. "
south " " " " " " " "
west " " " " " " " "
east 27.5 square feet " " " " "
...
s.c-
-- -..., -
,
ATTACHMENT "B"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
VAR 90-08
FINDINGS OF FACT
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
7
9-25-90
6
"'I
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the
intended use of the property, which do not apply generally to
other property in the same zoning district in that the
restaurant has similar or superior visibility to other
commercial developments in the area.
2. The granting of this variance is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of.
the applicant in that existing land use standards
sufficiently address the business's needs for adequate on
site advertising.
3. The granting of this variance will be materially detrimental
to the public welfare and be injurious to property and
improvements in the land use district in which the property
is located in that excessive signage is generally accepted to
be visually assaulting and would therefore undermine the
overall character of the Hospitality Lane area.
4.
The granting
objectives of
General Plan
development.
of
the
:to
the variance will be
General Plan in that it
limit the number of
contrary to the
is a policy of the
signs in private
..
ll!l.&'= =.::.
PLAN-I.DI PAGE, OF' ~4-10)
"
1./. ..'
ATTACHHENT "C"
ALlAPPLICATIONS FORA VARIANCE MUST INCLUDE A WRITTEN RESPONSETOEACHOFTHEFOLLOWING
ITEMS IN ORDER TO CLEARLY ESTABLISH THE ~ FOR THE VARIANCE. PLEASE ANSWER ALl ITEMS
DIRECTLY ON THIS SHEET,
l'Jl....~~~11 '0, ....~ . . -q"lncIudIng......... ~r"", ~ -In or'~"
~.,..t' ~ J*Jil_euchJlllll*lYaI~en~V.UIf"pIopeIlyln~
........,.......-rldiilill.IIandUMcllIlrillclrr rl:,"'un; .
Tb"\'D \~G! UC.K\\ot-l r>'I- n.-t~ ~e.o~e..<<..TVC~e.f\l())
1\2J\\'& -I'\!si-P___ ~AjfA\.h" t~ 1..d'J'oiie.O \~ ~ ~
C-'e.~t7~ ~() Np"'9 A- ~(l-Wf ,'1''l-\t'~ t'rI~_ -ALl.n',JQ;;-
~ ~ ~'G"'I\-l '?€.~ '\4"TO/f"~ .'f)7~fi r_l(UrJf't\~Th,[{'p ,
OF ""FW'I,,! ~u.'"'f-f'!o!('" rPtJTel? ?.A.$(7 -pCntAI
..Jde. 1-1,,,,0 ~t4 PO lIA'(lS,IC:dC. 1?P-AQ... ~ ~ ~ '( ~leJATI 0..(.
III r..;t~ ~ ResrflVtZANr P/ZOt'(1l. 7rY."~ ;ri1'.4"i-r'/c,v"
lr:::f ' If DI-f-+
~ ro~~p91l,hJac 11C.ftr?fl4(.tP. 'J'Or.f~TITy' -t:=ofl..J'l.y;-rtJllefl..,.
.AND [0 A.1'fi'r. T.1ljt.lJ' ~ "''1' PI..L(J t"etN./.PI!. I
. B. That granting the Variance is nacassary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right
possessed by other property in the same vicinity and land use distrid and denied to the property lor which the
Variance is sought;
\' \..'~G iZ.-N-n IN"I~' VA\2. (A'I--lc..~ I.fi Nf' cesSntW FML
7/-te R"S.iLlul2.4.~1 o'FTffth Ptzof'klZ"Y < w4/1r~ IA/L A.ee-
A~k.o.{c., (5(GNS,,) <I 5/t;,1I/.( , LooT-o"; "F 'II,!'!! 6//,N5
""/,A~ D<!Sf&t-lCO FO~ //I5/I8/tl T..,/ ANi) PRO.j"'f!L J-DYI-IT'Tr
Or n-t~ 12.l?STI2/J/lA.M B,uPG'ft' of tHt? rlNO 6.1(te8T~
"'Am T4.A~F/t: ~I.t:lu/. d~LAJ TH~ ~/e,,",<; J"'I'A"TlEn
014 \:',,,d"\~(~ 'f()lZ.. 'B\;,LClo.lO 'IC>rET\'Fyt'~"T'O"""
. C. That granting the Variance will not be materially datrimentalto the public heatth. safety, or weWare. or injurious
to the property or improvements in such vicinity and land use distrid in which the property is located;
-rl~e. .s1t,~C. '""'F "\\...\<1.. 's.:l,D P120<j'e''''v \1;, ...{o PeT~(l>'\Q...\,,,,
I,~ 'I/.i", 'f' "f5?1 I'e. i~~v:\.Li<-\ 1$11\ rE,,, I Ot? WH -'::/1>'(('. r.)'F 'il-l....
'~r..o~I2..,-1 .11.-\"-
,Ue.. ~c:lIICliJc.
'b\~t..I~ WLLI B~ I-. CcMfll6W\€r-I'\:i"""..
AILe. i-\ lie ('T /J fZ.e AI4 (\ c. CMlfV\O!-l .T ~J
,
~.=.=,;j
P~Jl3 PMJUOFI _
..
. .'
""II
r'
D. That granting the Variance. does not constitute a spacial privilege Inconsistent with the limitations upon other
properties In the vicinity and land use district In which such property Is located;
TI-I~ P,zoA';z'7"v /$ "'~N~ ~/l... tze$"7J4///2#;tIT- t:4~.
J~ n-I/(" V/!.IL'",^/C.c: F":)oeS,..t'7 e-o/ll6TII.';?~ A s'/'ec..flll-L
pt!///I/e(".e Of? 1..1""1 T/-f7,"rJA/(' IAI ";./c V,el4J;'Y ".)<0<_ j'l.l,~
F/Z.ope,f..T-T 1$ LoC-ltf7I'P.
E. That granting the Variance does not allow a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the
regulations governing the subjact parcel; ...l.-
e? '#~VCy -ft..{l'! r/f'l-/!/A-/t/CR tr:e.....\.\ AI/"'.AJ /J.ce-,
OTUlltO \JJ ,Cop ~~ O"F ~J::l€. :Doe. To {Me tA/lIA-ifCe
r ~ (FOa fflOfllZ.. TreNTI ry e?F ~/Pd/b4-N/:
. F. That granting the Variance will not be inconsistent w.h the General Plan.
/?17.0fJOi.-Ty /5
" t'JA"r< I r..~'7 lAJ i 71-1 t7 eAt..- tC r,q ( f' L;II ..."
..
...
OT'J G' .. ......-0
ClINUIM.~ IIFl.
PLAN-4.ll3 PAGE 50Ft 12.10)
A'J."l'A\..t1Ml:.J.\i'1' " i.l "
.~ ~~.. 0 0
. 1:-:t, ,.'
. :::; .... . ...."..;;CC,..,:". K"',,,Ai1Mi'<'+70i'Y"::;;Y;
::,: ~~":":::::';' '.:: '~:",~",::""":"<'~'.:::.:' " ....:.::":. ".,:,:.,,";'.' ":-:":";~~l:'.," "'- ...." ..t..<::::,",::........j:;...
. " :' ""'.:.::, i: .:::;"" ',' '. .: " . " ',.' .l.. '. '
. ..... .'" ' '. J
JD . ~ .
o q Q- I.} ....
, , .. J'. . ..'" """'"
. , , ..... '., ". ...
.' ," ..... . ~~::. '; ,"' .:... :,,'-'~- "'.;;::'~=-:-. .}:.::::.::.::..::~.~.::...:.-:.~:~.~....:>
.... '.
~
EB~ -
I
i
,
I I,
t..: : . t ..," ..
,
11)111.
Iff
I. .
: I i J
! It
i II
~ .1
J S
. "
11
~
1
n
I i
J..I ...,_ @<< ~
I~ 1 ~
Iri i
I~t
-!lit
It I,'
I J I I' i I
~ - ......, I
........
. . ,- '..
. ..... . .....
I i
. lu'l_
./. ....~~:...-:;;. :~:.: ....
.... "..
" ::.....
. ..",
.., ,..>..t~:/:':'-:'.. .....
~ .,
)f - .... ........
. . ...:.:....... .' .;. ."
..... . " .
...,.,. .....
.s;)
o
. .' f
. .-.-
.... ..
,.
p~~ ;
.;.
I
- .' .. t.
o
. ...... ";--':
. ;"-::'~"" ....:
'~., .
:. ;,;';:::i~':~i ~i::: ::::;
..>>.</ ;:"
@
~
. .
.- '-
"
....
" ;.
.......
...... ."
I
~
~.
....
......
":".:;0
. ;....:R......
.. . . . -: ':~ '.; ".!:~~:. ..,
. .~. '", .
......<:. .
":. .
::.
" .
......
......
':. . ...........,........:...:..:..::.:;~::. ..
';':'.>" .
:':., .-:;:;. -. '. '~'.:;' ,';":'
. ";:. ':..' .......;:....~<-::; . .:: :.~::;<:
. ..-.- ....
"..;
.....;:
;.;:;.;....
;.:.:
......
;....... ":'-.:..' '.
.:.e - -+-'1
~ t
.;.:. ..
. . .
.:. .~:t::;' .<::~~::~..:.:..:~.:;:.;~..~t. ':.:A-:::
. '.
"-.".
..
"'.' .
1<.
i .,
).0
,'.t'
...-
. .
..
. .
,', .,.. .
....: .',', .
" ~.
.. ..;..-=;....:..
,',:
'"':'.: .
. ........
. .:....
)~-:...
.'
.,.- ....
ATTACHMENT "E"
AGENDA """"Il
ITEM #
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE VAR. 90-08
LOCATION
7
HEARING DATE 9-25-90
..
.
r __~
ALl"" LA..
.. .
I.
&\l.&ACl:.lrm:=
P1.ANoI.l1 PAGE10Fl (4-10)
..
.J ."
o
EXHIBIT C
o
OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE'THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
APPEAL OF Variance No. 90-0B
""-
r
THIS IS TO INFORM YOU THAT THE FOLLOWING ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL BY The Aool;cant
[ SUBJECT: J WARD #
Variance No. 90-0B 1
-
PROPERTY
LOCATION: BB5 East Harriman Plance, next to the Pace . .
Center in the Tri-City area.
.
PROPOSAL: To vary code requirement 19.60.220(8) arid (E) to
allow the installation of wall signs on four sides
of the newly constructed "Yoshinoya Beef Bowl"
restaurant.
PUBLIC HEARING LOCATION: SAN BERNARDINO CITY HALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
300 NORTH ''0" 51 ICCoI
SAN BERNARDINO, CA. 92418
C HEARING DATE AND TIME: November 5, 1990, 2:00 p.m. )
A DETAILED IlISCRIP110N rw THE PIlOPOSAL IS ON ~LE IN THE PLANNING DEPAInIIIENT K1 CITY
HALL. I' 'IOU WOULD LIIlE I'UImD 1.000MATION &lOUT Till PItOPOSAL MOlt 11) THE PUILIC
MEAltlNG. PLEASE CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPAltTMENT IN PEltION 011 BY PHONING
(714) 384-5057.
THANK YOU.
~
..., .- ...