Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout30-Planning - CITY OF SAN BERr \RDINa4EQUEST ~R COUNCIL ACTION ~ept: Larry E. Reed, Director Su~ect: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-5-- Adams Advertising. Planning and Building Services Department Mayor and Council Meeting of January 22, 1990, 2:00 p.m. From: Date: Synopsis of Previous Council action: No previous Council action. On December 12, 1989, the Planning Commission by a 6 to 2 vote, recommended to the Mayor and Common Council deny Conditional Use Permit No. 89-5. .:/j r~" ~""';J .' -. .~;':,. ,. r:-, ..' Recommended motion: That Mayor and Council close the public he~iR~, and deny Conditional Use Permit No. 89-5. ~ ~rk/ Larry, . Reed Signature Director Contact person: Larry E. Reed Phone: (714) 384-5057 Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: 3 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. Description) Finance: 'ouncil Notes: "7l::;_n?~? Agenda Item No. 30 . CIYY OF SAN BERNJ'RDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-5 REOUEST The applicant, Adams Advertising, under authority of San Bernardino Municipal Code 19.60.250 (B) 2 requests approval of a written agreement to permit the removal of a billboard located at 237 East 5th Street and to replace it with a billboard adjacent to the Interstate 10 freeway at 464 East Redlands Boulevard. It is further requested to permit a height of 42 feet which exceeds the maximum height allowed by San Bernardino Municipal Code 19.60.250 (I) 3. BACKGROUND Application for Conditional Use Permit No. 89-5 was submitted to the Planning Department February 1, 1989. The application was deemed incomplete by staff and a letter was prepared indicating the items necessary to complete the application. Those items included, but were not limited to, proof of ownership of the sign to be removed, and the state mandated findings required to grant a variance. On March 27, 1989 in response to the incomplete letter, the applicant submitted a letter stating in part, "We inspected the determined that Therefore, the necessary." property the sign variance more thoroughly height will be application and have 32 feet. is not In April, 1989 the applicant submitted proof of ownership as requested, however, the proof submitted was for a billboard located on West 5th street, and not the billboard referred to in the application. The applicant was telephoned by staff and a message was left. There was no response from the applicant to this call. On June 2, 1989, the Mayor and Common Council adopted the General Plan and the implementing Urgency Ordinance. The General Plan includes a policy (1.45.1) which prohibits new billboards in the city, excepting as on-site replacements of existing units. The Urgency Ordinances (MC 660 and MC 664) adopted June 2, 1989 and July 6, 1989: (1) requires a finding 7!j.0264 - city of San Bern~_~ino Appeal of Conditional Use Permit NO. 89-5 Mayor and Council Meeting January 22, 1990 Page 2 of consistency be made prior to issuance of any permit for a development project (specifically including a sign permit) and (2) amends Title 19 of San Bernardino Municipal Code to the extent necessary where inconsistencies with the General Plan and/or Urgency Ordinance exist. In July, 1989, informed that construction of responded that application and request. He was necessary. the applicant met with city Staff and was the General Plan would prohibit the the proposed billboard. The applicant he wished to continue processing the further wished to reinstate the Variance informed that the variance findings would be On August 2, 1989, staff sent a applicant regarding the need for enable the case to proceed. reminder letter to the variance findings the to The requested findings were subsequently submitted, and staff prepared an Initial Study and scheduled the project for review by the Environmental Review Committee on September 14, 1989. Following the public review period of September 21 to October 4, the item was scheduled for Planning Commission on October 17, 1989. On October 17,the Planning Commission, at the request of the applicant, continued the item to the meeting of November 21, 1989. At the November 21, 1989 meeting, the applicant requested a second continuance to the meeting of December 12, 1989. At the December 12th meeting, the Planning commission recommended to the Mayor and Council to deny Conditional Use Permit No. 89-5. The vote was 6 to 2. At that Planning Commission meeting the applicant proposed a compromise in which two (2) existing billboards would be removed in exchange for the privilege to establish the requested billboard on Interstate 10. The Planning commission, on advise of the City Attorney, determined that there was no authority for the Commission to agree to such a compromise. ANALYSIS At the time the application was filed, San Bernardino Municipal Code 19.60.250 (B) 2 was a valid basis on which to request a written agreement with the Mayor and Common Council relative to replacement billboards. However, due to the .... City of San Bern~_aino Appeal of Conditional Use Permit NO. 89-5 Mayor and Council Meeting January 22, 1990 Page 3 adoption of the General Plan and the implementing Urgency Ordinance, new billboards are prohibited and San Bernardino Municipal Code 19.60.250 (B) 2 is invalid due to conflicting provisions of the General Plan. By implementing the General Plan with the strong language in the Urgency Ordinance it is clear the intent of the Council was to ensure that development projects be consistent with that plan. The Urgency Ordinance modifies to the extent necessary the old zoning ordinance to ensure that consistency. It is on the basis of inconsistency that the Planning commission recommends denial of the project. In addition to the issue of inconsistency, there are four (4) other areas which need to be addressed: 1. The requested height of 42 feet; 2. The proposed site for the billboard; 3. The recently adopted II0 Corridor Plan (San Bernardino County); and 4. A compromise offered by the applicant to remove two (2) existing billboards in exchange for approval of this application. HEIGHT VARIANCE The freeway is somewhat elevated at the subject site, the grade difference is approximately 8 to 10 feet. If a 32 foot sign were to be constructed, it would be approximately 22 feet above the grade of II0 and clearly visible. There is no apparent need for the additional 10 feet in height. SUBJECT SITE The next issue is one of the proposed site itself. When the property was developed in 1987 it was done based on the Development Review Committee's approval of Review of Plans No. 87-78. That project required 73 parking spaces for 15,000 square feet of furniture/appliance sales and displays and 13,000 square feet of retail space. The property is now occupied by three (3) businesses; vista Paint, Cal Spas and Billiards and Bar Stools. seventy parking spaces are provided, three less than required. This proposal is to eliminate another parking space on a site which already does not meet code requirements for parking. II0 CORRIDOR PLAN The third issue to address is the II0 Freeway Corridor Plan recently adopted by San Bernardino County in cooperation with - city of San Berna~dino Appeal of Conditional Use Permit NO. 89-5 Mayor and Council Meeting January 22, 1990 Page 4 the cities of Loma Linda and Redlands. The City of San Bernardino was not included in the plan because most of the land within this jurisdiction adjacent to the freeway is developed. That plan prohibits the establishment of billboards in all commercial and residential zones. They are permitted only in the regional-industrial designations. Due to the adoption of this plan, if billboards are permitted adjacent to the freeway in this City, a proliferation of such applications could occur in this small area. COMPROMISE The applicant has proposed to remove two (2) billboards if this Conditional Use Permit is approved. One is on East 5th street, and the other on West 5th street. San Bernardino Municipal Code Replacement Sign sections authorizes the Planning Commission to require this as a Condition of Approval. However, that code section is invalidated due to conflicting provisions of the General Plan. The Planning Commission discussed the proposed compromise and voted to recommend denial of the application to the Mayor and Common Council. CONCLUSION The General Plan prohibits billboards, except as on-site replacement of existing units. The Mayor and Council, with the adoption of the Urgency Ordinance, imposed a consistency requirement with the General Plan for all dvelopment plans, including signs. The Municipal Code was amended to the extent nexessary to implement the General Plan. This process invalidates the replacment billboard provisions of San Bernardino Municipal Code 19.60.250 (B) 2. In addition, a variance is not necessary to allow visibility to the sign, a parking stall would be consumed in a parking lot which is already three (3) stalls short, and the II0 Corridor Plan adopted by the county would prohibit a sign at this location. The applicant has proposed a existing billboards will be approved. compromise in which two (2) removed if this application is OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL The Mayor and Council being inconsistant with Mayor and Council may: cannot approve this project without the General Plan. Therefore, the - City of San Bern~~dino Appeal of Conditional Use Permit NO. 89-5 Mayor and Council Meeting January 22, 1990 Page 5 1. Deny Conditional Use Permit 89-5; or 2. Approve Conditional Use Permit 89-5 IN CONCEPT ONLY with or without the proposed removal of two (2) billboards as offered by the applicant, and request that the applicant do the following: a. File a General Plan Amendment to amend the policy regarding the construction of billboards within the city; b. Refile this application if the General Plan Amendment is approved; and c. Comply with all standards relative to billboards. Prepared by: Sandra Paulsen Senior Planner for Larry E. Reed, Director Planning and Building Services Department Exhibit: A. December 12, 1989 Planning commission Staff Report PCAGENDA:CUP895 nmg EXHIBIT A , CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT '"' SUMMARY \.. AGENDA ITEM 1 HEARING DATE 12-12.-89 WARD 3 ~ .., :l (.) APPLICANT: J\dams Advertisi.n;, me . 19081 1a:ky lGld Santa Ana, CA 92705 OWNER: Vista Paint 2020 E. Oran;JE!thorpe Mlerton, CA 92361 Conditional Use Pemit 89-5 L; .., ::> ~ a: " Cf .., 5 'lhe applicant rEGUests approval to rE!lDVe an existin;J double face bill- board located at 237 E. 5th Street and to erect a replacenent daJble face billboard at 464 E. Redlands 8:AJlevard adjacent to the I-I0 Freeway. A variance is requested to allow a height of 42 feet, 10 feet higher than the M.micipal Cede allows. EXISTING PROPERTY LAND USE ZONING SJbject Ckmnericial 00-1 z.brth Freeway East O:mnercial 00-1 ScAlth Camercial 00-1 West O:mnercial 00-1 rltt~~MIC il YES ) FLOOD HAZARD Ga YES oNO ZONE ONO HAZARD ZONE HIGH FIRE DYES AIRPORT NOISE I HAZARD ZONE GaNO CRASH ZONE -' ~ Zen &&Ie!) 2Z Z- OQ a:Z ;iL: z 1&.1 o NOT APPLICABLE o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS WITH MITIGATING MEASURES NO E.I.R. o E.I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS WITH MITIGATING MEASURES o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E.R C. MINUTES o EXEMPT [J NO . SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS NOV .n. IIIVIIID ~ULY .1.. IICY GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION m-l 00-1 00-1 00-1 C SEWERS ~~~S ) REDEVELOPMENT [j YES PROJECT ARE^ 0 NO Z o ij LQ Li5 ~2 (1)2 o CJ 1&.1 a: APPROVAL CONDITIONS DENIAL CONTINUANCE TO CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT . CASE r.tJPRQ-,> OBSERVATIONS 1 12-12-89 AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE , 1. REOUEST The applicant requests approval to remove an existing double face billboard located at 237 East 5th street and to erect a replacement double face billboard at 464 East Redlands Boulevard adjacent to the I-10 Freeway. A variance is requested to allow a height of 42 feet, 10 feet higher than the Municipal Code ~llows (see Site Plan, Attachment E). The site encompasses approximately 0.7 acres and is located at 464 East Redlands Boulevard. The proposed location of the replacement sign is adjacent to the I-10 Freeway (See Location Map, Attachment F). The freeway is higher than the grade in which the sign is to be mounted. 3. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE The proposed project is not in conformance with Policy 1.45.1 of the General Plan which prohibits the development of new billboards in the City, except as on- site replacement of existing units (See Attachment A). 4. CEOA STATUS At its regularly scheduled meeting of September 14, 1989 the Environmental Review Committee proposed a Negative Declaration for Conditional Use Permit 89-5. The proposed Negative Declaration was advertised and was available for public review from september 21, 1989 through October 4, 1989. No comments were received from the public during that period. 5. BACKGROUND Conditional Use Permit 89-5 was submitted to the Planning Department on February 1, 1989. On March 3, 1989, 30 days after submittal of the application, a letter was sent to inform the applicant that the application was incomplete. The additional items requested were documentation that the applicant owned the billboard at 237 East 5th street which would be. ~ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT . CASE CUP89-5 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM _ 1 _ HEARING DATE 1'2=-12-8-9 PAGE 3 removed in return for approval of the new billboard, variance findings for the requested height of 42 feet, a transparency of the site plan, a new 500 foot radius map drawn around the parcel identified on the Letter of Certification as the property in question, and mailing labels addressed to the owners of any parcels in the new 500 foot radius which were not included in the original 500 foot radius. In March, the applicant responded that the parcel number on the Letter of Certification was a typographical error, that the original radius map did reflect the site of the replacement billboard, and that no additional mailing labels would b~ required. Transparencies were provided, and the request for a height variance was deleted. The proof of ownership was still not provided at this point. In April, the applicant mistakenly and unintentionally sent proof of ownership of a sign located on West 5th Street. The Planning Department called the applicant and left a message that the proposed new sign could not exceed the area of the siqn to be replaced, and that revised sign dimensions would have to be submitted. There was no response to this call from the applicant. On June 2, 1989, the city adopted the new General Plan which includes a policy prohibiting new billboards excepting only on-site replacement billboards. In July, subsequent to adoption of the General Plan the applicant met with members of the Planning Department. At this meeting the applicant stated that the actual intent was to replace the billboard at 237 East 5th Street and that the original request for a height variance was being reinstated. Staff responded that variance findings would be required and that the billboard policy in the new General Plan clearly prohibited all new billboards other than on-site replacements. . On Auqust 2, 1989, the Planning Department sent a letter to the applicant as a reminder that the application was. still incomplete without the required variance findings. The findings were submitted, and the application proceeded to the Environmental Review Committee on september 14, 1989. . \. OBSERVATIONS -1 1:>-12-R9 4 .J AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 6. ANALYSIS MuniciDal Code Reauirements .for. ReDlacement sians Code provisions in effect before the adoption of the new General Plan and the Urgency Ordinance regarding implementation of the Plan permitted replacement of one or more existing billboards with one neW billboard at a different location subject to the approval of the Planning Commission (Code Section 19.60.250(B)). The replaced sign(s) were required to be removed before erection of the new sign. The sign face area of the new sign could not exceed the sign face area of the replaced sign. When the replacement sign was to be located within 660 feet of the right-of-way of primary or interstate highways, the Code required the approval of the Mayor and Council and a written agreement permitting the location of a replacement sign within 660 feet of said right-Of-way for a period not to exceed 10 years from the date of issuance of building permits. The Code authorized the Commission and the council to require the removal of more than one billboard in return for the right to erect a neW replacement billboard in a different location. Billboards were permitted only in General Commercial and Industrial zones per Code section 19.60.250(A). General Plan Sian policv policy 1.45.1 of the General Plan prohibits the develop- ment of new billboards in the City, except as on-site replacements of existing units. Ordinance No. 660, the Interim Urgency Ordinance which amends the City'S zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map to. achieve consistency with the neW General Plan, includes. a provision, Section 19.83.030, which states that wherever the Municipal Code is inconsistent with the provisions of the Urgency Ordinance, the Municipal Code is superseded or modified to the extent necessary to effectuate the provisions of the Urgency Ordinance. section 19.83.110 requires a finding of consistency with the General Plan for any land use approval. section. 19.83.130 permits grand fathering only of those development projects which .... ..) "'" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT . CASE CUP89-5 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM .L HEARING DATE 1...f.:;:.l~~9 PAGE -; ~ had valid permits or final approvals prior to the date of adoption of the Urgency Ordinance. A question has arisen whether it was the intent of the Council to prohibit billboards adjacent to the freeways. In this context it is useful to make a distinction between "freeway signs" and "billboard" adjacent to the freeway. The term "freeway sign" refers to the free standing signs within 400 feet of a freeway which may be taller than freestanding signs elsewhere and which advertise a business at the same location as the sign itself. A billboard is an off-premise sign which advertises goods or services available elsewhere. Policy 1.45.1 prohibit~ new billboards, but is not intended to address freeway signs for businesses adjacent to the freeway. I Other Billboards in the Vicinitv The applicant has one other billboard with neon-lit letters 500 feet east of the proposed replacement billboard. There is a billboard owned by another company 1,800 feet east of the proposed sign site. MuniciDal Code Heiaht and SDacina Reauirements Code section 32 feet and billboards. of any park, 19.60.250(A) stipulates a maximum height of a minimum distance of 400 feet between Billboards are not allowed within 500 feet school, cemetery, or church. Existina Sian to Be ReDlaced The existing sign at 237 East 5th.Street has sign face dimensions of 12 feet by 34 feet. The only Building and Safety Department record regarding signs at that address is an appro~ed sign permit application dated April 4, 1974 for repair of an existing wind damaged billboard with face dimensions of 6 feet by 12 feet. There is no record of a permit for a sign with the dimensions of the existing sign. The Planning Department is in the process of a comprehensive zoning code revision. Even for on-site replacement billboards, staff intends to recommend a greater minimum separation between billboards. ..J "" r CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT . CASE CUP89-S . I OBSERVATIONS I AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE , .... There is no indication that payment of annual .billboard fees was ever interrupted. The existing billboard does not meet the current billboard setback requirement of 10 feet from the public right-of-way, but that requirement had not yet been adopted during the 1970's. state outdoor Advertisina Act The outdoor Advertising Branch of the state Department of Transportation has indicated that the proposed. sign is in compliance with the outdoor Advertising Act and issued a state permit for the sign. The state has no maximum overall height. restriction for billboards and leaves that issue to the discretion of. the local juriSdiction. Variance Reauest The applicant requests a variance from the maximum height restriction on the basis of .the difference between the height of the adjacent freeway on-ramp and the lower grade in which the proposed sign would be mounted. The difference in grade elevations is probably around ten feet. CONCLUSION The proposed billboard is not consistent with General Plan Siqn policies, and the required finding of consistency cannot be made. Code Section 19.83.110 requires a Finding of Consistency with the General Plan for all land use approvals. Based on an inspection of Building Permit records, it appears that the existing siqn at 237 East Fifth Street was built without a permit for a siqn of that size, and that the sign may, therefore, be illegal in which case it would not be an appropriate subject for a replacement request. Although, the proposed siqn meets the current Code requirement regarding minimum distance between signs, the Planning Commission may wish to consider that allowing billboards at 500 foot spacings may contribute to visual impactions along freeways and other major viewsheds. I ~ It. AGENDA ITEM 1 HEARING DATE -r2-~1z=8"9 PAGE 7 lo.. RECOMMENDATION staff recommends that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the Mayor and council to deny Conditional Use Permit No. 89-5 subject to the attached Findings of Fact (Attachment B). Attachments - A Municipal Code and General Plan Conformance B Findings of Fact C Applicant's Variance Findings D Negative Declaration E site Plan F Location Map PC: COP89-50 Attachment "A" , ~ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE c.nPRQ-5 OBSERVATIONS ,. AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 1 -12-12-_a9 B MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE CATEGORY PROPOSAL MUNICIPAL CODE Premitted use Off-site New billboards Replacement prohibited Billboard Variance requested Height for 42 ft. 32 ft. . Separation 600 ft. 400 ft. GENERAL PLAN New billboards prohibited Defer to Muni. Code Defer to Muni. Code \.. ~ ATTACHMENT "B" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE rTlPRCl-'i FINDINGS of FACT AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 1 12-12-89 q ~ ~ 1. 2. The proposed use does not conform to the objectives of the city's General Plan in that Policy 1.45.1 prohibits new billboards except as on-site replacement of existing billboards. The proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is to be located in that the proposed location complies with previous code requirements regarding minimum distance between billboards and minimum distance from parks, schools, cemetaries or churches. The size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety and general welfare in that all applicable provisions of the Outdoor Advertising Act are satisfied. 4. The proposed use will not generate any traffic and will not generate a need for new parking spaces. 3. 5. The granting of the Conditional Use Permit under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the peace, health and safety and general welfare of the citizens of the city of San Bernardino in that the proposed bill- board will not block any drivers view of an intersection or of on-coming traffic. VARIANCE FINDINGS 1. There are 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 and neighborhood in that there is a substantial difference in elevation between the freeway and the lower grade in which the sign would be mounted. \.. .. ATTACHMENT II BII , . CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE rTlPR Q- C; FINDINGS of FACT , AGENDA ITEM 1 _ HEARING DATE ",...''!-;i-R'Q PAGE 1 U 2. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant for the same reason as citied in variance Finding No.1. The difference in elevation between the freeway and the location of the sign would make strict adherence to the maximum height requirement more restrictive at the location in question than at other locations where the freeway is at the same elevation as the adjacent private property. 3. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the zoning district and neighborhood in which the property is located in that the billboard will not block motorists' view of inter- sections or merging traffic and in that the sign location is more than 500 feet from any church, school, park, or cemetary. 4. The granting of a variance would be contrary to the objectives of General Plan in that Policy 1.45.1 prohibits new billboards except as on-site replacements. PCAGENDA:CUP895F ... CUP89-5 Applicant's Response to Findings: _ _." ATTACHMENT "C" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE. A. There are 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 and neighborhood. Adams Advertising, Inc. is requesting a height variance because the. grade of the freeway adjacent to the subject property was artifi- cially created at a height considerably above normal grade; Conse~ quently, in order for this property owner to enjoy the same opportuni ty as other property owners in the same vicinity, Adams Advertising needs a variance to allow a height of 42 feet for the proposed sign to be visible from freeway grade. This problem does not apply to all neighboring properties in the same zone district, because in some of the other areas this same relationship of freeway grade to ground level does not exist. Less than one half mile east of this property there is a Patrick bill- board where freeway grade is the same as normal grade. Even this sign has been erected over the required height of 32 feet. It is 42 feet overall. B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment ofa substantial property right of the applicant. The ordinance provides for a removal of a surface street sign to be replaced by a sign located along Interstate 10, as is evidenced by the placement of the sign permitted 500 feet east (Permit No. 70648) and 2,500 feet east (Permit No. 61008) of this proposed site. Both of these signs were granted a variance and constructed at a height of 42 feet. Such a variance is necessary. for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. In order for Adams Advertising to erect a sign to perform its directional function, this sign would not be visible to the motorist if built at the 32 foot requirement due to the height of the freeway grade adjacent to the property. In addition, even at the 42 foot overall height, we are only requesting the sign to .be approximately 25 feet over freeway grade which is less than your 32 feet above normal grade. In order for this sign location to be effective, the 42 foot height is a nec~ssity. Page 1 adams advertising, inc. CUP89-5 C. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimen- tal to the public welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the zoning district and neighborhood in which the property is located. To our knowledge there have been no objections by property owners in the area that indicate the existing structures are detrimental. In fact, these modern signs attract the attention of the motorist not only to the billboard message but to other businesses located on the property. The east facing of our sign approximately 500 feet east of this property is sold to the Sizzler Restaurant on Waterman. According to Bob Wilson, the district manager for this property, that sign has. been extremely beneficial to the increase in the profitability of the Sizzler Restaurant providing not only a service to a successful city business but also a service to the public in general. D. That the granting of such a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Master Plan. It promotes and furthers tbe objectives of tbe Master Plan by elim- inating an unsightly, old billboard bordered by a residential area and located across tbe street from Seccombe Lake Urban Recreation Area. The replacement sign would be located in a highly developed commer- cial area of tbe freeway and would be a bigb tech, modern structure as indicated by tbe enclosed pbotographs. The application for this removal and replacement billboard was originally filed witb the City on February 1, 1989, CUP No. 89-5. There was considerable confusion and delay in the processing of this application, as the ordinance in effect did not require the filing of a Conditional Use Permit. At a much later date, we were able to ascertain tbat tbe CUP was unnecessary, however, a variance for height is required. Page 2 adams advertising, inc. ATTACHMENT "0" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY "'I Planning Department City of San Bernardino INITIAL STUDY Conditional Use Permit 89-5 To remove an existing double face billboard located at 237 E. 5th Street and to erect a a replacement double face bil1bord at 464 E. Redlands Blvd. adjacent to the 1-10 Freeway. September 14. 1989 Prepared by: Scott Wright Planning Department 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino. CA 92418 Prepared for: Adams Advertising. Inc. "" .J ,. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY "" The applicant requests approval to remove an existing double face billboard located at 237 E. 5th street and to erect a replacement double face billboard at 464 E. Redlands Boulevard adjacent to the I-10 Freeway. A variance is requested to allow a height of 42 feet, 10 feet higher than the maximum height stipulated in the Municipal Code. The site encompasses approximately 0.7 commercial structure. The freeway is in which the sign is to be mounted. acres and contains a higher than the grade lro.. r CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT "" ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST ~ "" BACKGROY~ Application Number: Conditional Use Pel:rni.t 89-5 Project Description:'IO rSlOVe an exis~ double face billboard at 237 E. 5th Street and to erect a reolacertent double face bi 1 Hn;:lrC~ Location: 464 E. Redlands Blvd. adiacent to the 1-10 Freeway Environmental Constraints Areas: F1cxxi Zone B. Liquefaction Area General Plan Designation: CG-1 zoning Designation: CG-1 B. ~FVIBONM~NTAL IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a separate attached sheet. 1. EaJ.th Resources Will the proposal result in: Yes No Maybe a. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more? x b. Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 15\ natural grade? x c. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone? x d. Modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? x "'-. ~ REVISED 12/87 PAGE 1 OF 8 Yes No Maybe e. Soil erosion on or off the project site? x f. Modification of a channel, creek or river? x g. Development subject mudslides, other similar within an area to landslides, liquefaction or hazards? x h. Other? x 2. ~IR_RESOURCES: Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial an effect quality? air upon emissions or ambient air x b. The creation of objectionable odors? x c. Development within a high wind hazard area? x 3. WbTEB_ RESOURCES:' proposal result in: Will the a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff due to impermeable surfaces? b. Changes in the course or flow of flood waters? x x c. Discharge into surface waters or any alteration of surface water quality? d. Change in the quantity or quality of ground waters? e. Exposure of people or property to flood hazards? f. Other? x x x X PAGE 2 OF 6 REVISED 12/67 ,. Yes Maybe '" 4 . BIOLOGICbL R~~9URC~$: proposal result in: Could the a. Change unique, species habitat trees? in the number of any rare or endangered of plants or their including stands of b. Change unique, species habitat? in the number of any rare or endangered of animals or their c. Other? 5. NOISE: Could the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to exterior noise levels over 65 dB or interior noise levels over 45 dB? c. Other? 6. LAND_ USE: result in: Will the proposal a. A change in the land use as designated on the General Plan? b. Development within an Airport District? c. Development within wGreenbeltW Zone A,B, or C? d. Development within a high fire hazard zone? e. Other? No x x x x x x x x x x x .) REVISED 10/87 PAGE 3 OF 8 \.. ,. "'" 7 . MAN-MADE HP.~b~~: project: Will the a. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazardous or toxic materials (including but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b. Involve the release hazardous substances? of c. Expose people to the potential health/safety hazards? d. Other? 8. HOUSING: Will the proposal: a. Remove existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? b. Other? 9. 1'RAtl~!'9RTATIOllLCIRCULATION: Could the proposal result .in: a. An increase in traffic that is greater than the land use designated on the General Plan? b. Use of existing, or demand for new, parking facilities/ structures? c. Impact upon existing public transportation systems? d. Alteration of present patterns of circulation? e. Impact to rail or air traffic? f. Increased safety hazards to vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? \.. REVISED 10/87 Yes No x x Maybe x X X X x x x X x X PAGE 4 OF 8 ~ r Maybe Yes " No g. A disjointed pattern roadway improvements? Other? x of x h. 10. fUBLI~ SERVICES Will the proposal impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service? a. Fire protection? x b. x Police protection? c. Schools (i.e. attendance, boundaries, overload, etc.)? x d. Parks or other recreational facilities? x e. .Medical aid? x f. Solid waste? x g. Other? x 11. UTILITIES: Will the proposal: a. Impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service or require the construction of new facilities? b. c. .... REVISED 10/87 1. Natural gas? x 2. Electricity? x x 3. Water? 4. Sewer? x 5. Other? x Result in a pattern of extensions? disjointed utility x Require the construction of new facilities? x ..J PAGE 5 OF 8 ,. Yes No Maybe "'" 12. AESTHETICS: a. Could the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic view? x b. Will the visual impact of the project be detrimental to the surrounding area? x c. Other? x 13. ~p~rURA~~ES9URCES: proposal result in: a. The alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? Could the x b. Adverse impacts historic object? physical or aesthetic to a prehistoric or site, structure or x c. Other? x 14. Mandatory Findings of Significance (Section 15065) \... The California Environmental Quality Act states that if any of the following can be answered yes or maybe, the project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate . ~ REVISED 10/87 PAGE 6 OF B , Yes No Maybe "'" important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? x ---.- -- b. Does the project haye the potential to achieve short term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future. ) x c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) x d. Does the proiect have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Attach sheets as necessary.) x ~ ~ REVISED 10/87 PAGE 7 OF 8 " DETERMI~b1'J~ On the basis o! this initial study, ~The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the ~ ~nvironment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. The proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, although there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described above have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. o o The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA ,-;;"..;,.; 11()A!t('JorlERr h/ll/('/I,J-9L #J1NNE.R. . I Name and Tltle F t~""'J nature (; Date: /f}- S"-S1 ~ ~ REVISED 12/87 PAGE 8 OF 8 ,. ENVIRONMENT AL EV ALUA TlON AND MITIGATION MEAS~ES 1.g. Potential Imoact The site is located in an area potentially susceptible to liquefaction. A soils report will be required before issuance of building permits. Compliance with the recommendation of the soils report is a Standard Requirement and will reduce the potential for liquefaction impact to a level of insignificance. 3.e. potential Imoact The site is located in Flood Zone 8, an area susceptible to 500 year frequency flooding. Flooding would not constitute a significant impact on the proposed billboard. 12.b. Potential Imoact The visual impact of the proposed billboard might be considered by some to constitute a detrimental impact on the surrounding area. Due to the commercial nature of the land uses in the vicinity and the proximity of the site to the freeway, the proposed billboard is a subjective issue and is not expected to constitute a significant environmental impact. CUP89-5IS ~ " ATTACHMENT "E" If ,I~ j~ I J J~ ij ,II =:iJ i~~ 'II _il--~- ; = : :a t; 'U Ih ~'o !U I i 1 ---: - H ~h n" e..! . o~~ . : ..a~~ . . ... ~ . . ~.~. .' .. hR ,;. ;il. ..)~, . I:. iOlI i i=i .- :j: .hl .:.;.. !":dll ., . ';I'l n. j~ iJ~.! 1:.::1 II ~I If r i!~! vI !- UI ;A.-_~ :-.!: t ~ I .... -.- =. '.' 'I..: ~, ... -.. . ~ .. . . :i:: ~ o.~ i = >- ~ ;:.J'''~ ~ . '. oJ!. ! .. ~ I.. · I" lr & - . ." . -.I . ... ' J .., ... "J IA . ' . J. r. le')...- ::. /.1.; ~ u t! : rl~~ ~ ........~- :; . I I)":... oaon,~"""''''cu'~.1 ,,,, I .:~; ..,.,., ...~a4 a.L" ; szo,,. t ill! 1"Ol~"'fGWC .....- ,P. . :-:: - tl::oo. CUP89-5 Agenda I tern # 1 Hearin~ Date: 12-12-89 . 9 I It . ~ .. .. j ;:. :I .. Z ~. S .11 . A. ( lil..~~. j ~- .. .. S ~ .. .. j ;:. :I ATTACHMENT "F" '"l r CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT LOCATION CASE CUP 89-5 HEARING DATE 12-12-89 --- ~ ~ AGENDA ITEM # 1 \. c ~