HomeMy WebLinkAbout43-Planning
-
-
-
-
-
~aT'; OF SAN BERN~.4bIN~QUEST Fa COUNCIL ACTION
From:
Larry E. Reed, Director SU~Kt: 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.
Dept:
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-"
~"'''.'
"
-.
t':::l
.",'.
':
'.:7.
Recommended motion:
That Mayor and Council close the public heariR9,
and deny Conditional Use Permit No. 89-5.
~
~c~:.::
Director
Contact person:
Larry E. Reed
Phone:
(714) 384-5057
3
Supporting data attached:
Staff Report
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. DescriPtion)
Finance:
Council Notes:
75-0262
Agenda Item NIJ_"l/ .3 -
J1
- ~ -
.
Cn"yaF SAN BERNAMINO - REQUEST FOP"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 (1) 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
75-026.
...
./ ---
City of San Bernard~o
Appeal of Conditional Use Permit NO. 89-5
Mayor and Council Meeting January 22, 1990
Page 2
.
.j
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 l7,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
recommended to the Mayor and council to
Permit No. 89-5. The vote was 6 to 2.
Planning commission
deny Conditional Use
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
-
- -
-
I
~ ~
City of San Bernard~o ~
App~al 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 110 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 110 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.
110 CORRIDOR PLAN
The third issue to address is the 110 Freeway Corridor Plan
recently adopted by San Bernardino County in cooperation with
,
C
city of San Bernard1no
Appsal of Conditional Use
Mayor and council Meeting
Page 4
~
J
Permit NO. 89-5
January 22, 1990
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 110
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
I,
.,.-
city of San Bernar~o
Appeal of conditional Use Permit NO. 89-5
Mayor and council Meeting January 22, 1990
Page 5
"""
J
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
Apr. 10 '90 16:1b
, )
0000 H!;Hi'l:::. hi."../t:.l"'.. I l;;d I...::: .' f_.
,.::..-
"''-' -......-.-
o
o
19081 Rocky Road, Santa Ana, California 92705, (7'4) 838.9026 . FAX (714) 730.5461
adams advertising, inc.
RECEI\."~~" v' .ERr
.90 I\PR 11 A 8 :49
April 10, 1990
City Clerk
City oi San Bernardino
300 North liD" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Dear City Clerk:
Adams Advertising, Inc. respectfully requests a sixty day
continuation from our scheduled hearing date of April 16, 1990.
The court case we are involved in has trailed thereby creating
a schedule conflict with our hearing date.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
}..vL rv
L
Mitzi Adams
MA:cb
)
o . EXHIBIT A
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT""
SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
WARD
1
12-12-89
3
l..
III
5 Q:IlIditicnal Use Pemi.t 89-5
APP~ICANT' 1d!Ims Mvertisin;, Inc.
19081 lb:ky llolId
Santa Ana, CA 92705
OWNER, Vista Paint
2020 E. Qrarlgethotpe
MlertCn, CA 92361
~
III
!
a:
....
c
III
5
'DIe applkant requests approval to renove an existin; double face bill-
board located at 237 E. 5th Street and to erect a replacement double
face bi11-rd at 464 E. RecUands b1levard adjacent to the 1-10 Freeway.
A variance is requested to allow a height of 42 feet, 10 feet higher than
the Illnicipal Q:lde allows.
EXISTING GENERAL. PL.AN
PROPERTY L.AND USE ZONING DESIGNATION
&lbject (l. t..."" icial 0;-1 0;-1
North lX.!lIIIey
East o ....-. cial 0;-1 0;-1
South t....._l~ 0;-1 0;-1
West a.....-.::ial 0;-1 0;-1
r~MIC i)yES ) FLOOD HAZARD Ga YES OZONE A ( SEWERS Kl YES )
HAZAIIO ZONE oNO ZONE DMO IIZ0NE B OMO
HIGH FIRE DYES AIlII'OIlT NOISE I DyES REOEVE~OPMENT {jlyES
HAZARD ZONE GaMO CRAlH ZONE GaNO PROJECT AIIEA oNO
..I o NOT C POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z 0 APPROVAL.
~ API'Ll CABLE EFFECTS 0
WITH MITIGATING - 0
Z<<I) MEASURES NO E.I.R. tc CONDITIONS
III. o EXEMPT o E.I.II. REQUIRED BUT NO ~O Ga DENIAL.
2Z ~Z
Z- SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS ~I
00 WITH MITIGATING o CONTINUANCE TO
a:Z MEASURES <<1)2
-- 0
>~
Z [I NO o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS fd
1&1 . SIGNIFICANT SEE ATTACHED E.R. C.
EFFECTS MINUTES II:
NOV_ I." UVIIID ....L. ....
"'.
~
1
o
o
,
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE ~nl)RQ-~
OBSERVATIONS
AGENOA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
1
12-12-89
-
1. REOUEST
The applicant r.qu.st. approval to remove an existinq
double fac. billboard located at 237 East 5th street and-
to .rect a replacement double face billboard at 464 East
Redland. Boulevard adjac.nt to the 1-10 Fr.eway. A
variance i. requ..t.d to allow a heiqht of 42 feet, 10
feet hiqher than the Municipal Code allows (see Site
Plan, Attachment E).
The .ite .ncompa.... approximatelY 0.7 acres and is
located at 464 Ea.t R.dland. Boul.vard. The proposed
location of the replacement .iqn i. adjacent to the 1-10
Fr.eway (See Location Map, Attachm.nt F). The freeway
is hiqher than the qrade in which the siqn i. to be
mounted.
3.
r..1l'1nl'1lJ.T. 1>TJ.M CONFORMANCE
The propo.ed proj.ct i. not in conformance with Policy
1.45.1 of the General Plan which prohibits the
d.velopment of n.w billboard. in the City, except as on-
site replacem.nt of exi.tinq units (S.. Attachlllent A).
4 . CEOA. STATUS
At it. r.qularly .ch.duled 1II.etinq of s.ptember 14, 1989
the Environmental R.vi.w cOIIIlitt.. propos.d a N.qative
Declaration for conditional O.e Permit 89-5. The
propo.ed N.qativ. Declaration was advex:tised and was
available for public r.vi.w from september 21, 1989
throuqh october 4, 1989. No cOlllllents were received from
the public durinq that period.
5. BACKGROUND
Conditional O.e p.rmit 89-5 was .ubmitt.d to the
P1anninq Departm.nt on February 1, 1989. On March 3,
1989, 30 day. aft.r submittal of the application, a
l.tt.r was .ent to inform the applicant that the
application was incomplete. The additional items .
r.qu..ted w.r. docum.ntation that the applicant owned
the billboard at 237 East 5th Str.et which would be-
'.
..
o
o
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
~
12-12-8-9
3
r
removed in return for approval of the new billboard,
variance findinqs for the requested heiqht of 42 feet, a
transparency of the site plan, a new SOO 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
SOD foot radius which were not included in the original
SOD 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 be 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 siqn located on West Sth
street. The Planning Department called the applicant
and left a messaqe that the proposed new sign could not
exceed the area of the siqn to be replaced, and that
revised siqn 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
exceptinq only on-site replacement billboards. In July,
subsequent to adoption of the General P.lan the applicant
met with members of the p1anninq Department. At this
meetinq the applicant stated that the actual intent was
to replace the billboard at 237 East Sth street and that
the oriqinal 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 August 2, 1989, the Planninq Department sent a letter
to the applicant as a reminder that the application was'
still incomplete without the required variance findings.
The findinqs were submitted, and the application
proceeded to the Environmental Review committee on'
september 14, 1989.
\.
.
o
o
.....
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE rn~RQ-C;
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
1
, ?_1 ?-R9
4
.
r
6.
J.NllYS:IS
Munici~al Code R.~i~Amen~. 'for, R.~lacAmen~ sians
code provisions in effect before the adoption of the new
General Plan and the. urqency 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).
GenArAl plan si<<n PoliCY
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 urqency 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 urqency Ordinance. section 19 . 83 . 110 requires a
finding of consistency with the General Plan for any
land use approval. section. 19.83.130 permits
grandfathering only of those development projects which
\.
~
f
o
o
r
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
. CASE CUP89-5
OBSERVATIONS
AGENOA ITEM .L
HEARING OATE (I...!~iliL-",,*,..9
PAGE ~
'"
.
bad 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 sic;ns" and "billboard" adjacent to the
freeway. The term "freeway sic;n" refers to the free
standing sic;ns 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
advertise. goods or services available elsewhere.
policy 1.45.1 prohibit~ new billboards, but is not
intended to address freeway sic;ns for businesses
adjacent to the freeway.
~h.r Billboard. in tha Vicinity
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 sic;n site.
MunicitJlll ~od. H.i~h't. and Snac:ina RAm.tiraments
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.
~xi.'t.ina sinn to Be RADlacad
The existing sic;n 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 approVed sic;n 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 sic;n with the dimensions of the
existing sic;n.
The planning Department is in the process of a
comprehensive zoning code revision. Even for on-site
replac_ent billboards, staff .intends to recommend a
greater minimum .eparation between billboards.
"
'"
-
..
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
. CASE CUP89-S'
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM ~
HEARING DATE -1.Z-12-B].
PAGE j;
r
There is no indication that payment of annual billooard
fees was ever interrupted. The existinqoillooard does
not meet the current oillooard setDack requirement of 10
feet from the public riqht-of-way, out that requirement
had not yet.oeen adopted durinq the 1970's.
stat. out:.door ~dvert.isina Act
The outdoor Advertisinq Branch of the state Department.
of Transportation has indicated that the. proposed' siqn
is in compliance with the outdoor Advertisinq Act and
issued a state permit for the siqn. The state has no
maximum overall heiqht. restriction for oillooards and
leaves that issue to the discretion of. the local
jurisdiction.
Variance RedUest
The applicant requests a variance from .the maximum
beiqbt restriction on the Dasis of .the difference
Detweenthe heiqht of the adjacent freeway on-ramp and
the lower qrade in which the proposed siqn would oe'
mounted. The difference in qrade elevations is prooaoly
around ten feet.
CONCLUSION
The proposed billboard is not consistent with General
Plan siqn Policies, and the required findinqof
consistency cannot De made. Code section 19.83.110
require. a Findinq of consistency with the General Plan
for all land use approvals. Ba.ed on an ~nspection of
Buildinq Permit records, it appears that the existinq
siqn at 237 East Fifth street was built without a permit
for a siqn of that size, and that the siqn may,
therefore, oe illeqal in which case it would not oe an
appropriate subject for a replacement request.
Althouqh, the proposed siqn meets the current Code
requirement reqardinq minimum distance oetweensiqns,
the planninq commission may wish to consider that
. allowinq billboards at 500 foot spacinqsmay contribute
to visual impactions alonq freeways arid other major
viewsbeds.
4Il . . . 1- - .. ~ J II
-
. 0
0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
. CASE CUP89-5 .
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM 1
HEARING DATE ---r2-~1z=lr9
PAGE 7
RFt'!nMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the planninq commission make a
recommendation to the Mayor and council to deny
Conditional Use Permit No. 89-5 subject to the attached'
Findinqs of Fact (Attachment B).
Scott wriqht
Planner II
Attachments - A Municipal Code and General Plan Conformance
B Findinqs of Fact
C Applicant's variance Findinqs
D Neqative Declaration
E site Plan
F LoCation Map
pc:
CUP89-50
-
- - -
-
-
-
o
Attachment "A"
o
( CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
. CASE C"IlPAq-"i
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
-12-..l2-JI.9
tl
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
-
-
-
o
o
ATTACHMENT "B"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE rT1~RQ-C;
FINDINGS of FACT
1
12-12-89
Q
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
1. 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 existinq
billboards.
2. The proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoininq
land uses and theqrowth and development of the area in
which it is to be located in that the proposed location
complies with previous code requirements reqardinq
minimum distance between billboards and minimum distance
from parks, schools, cemetaries or churches.
3. 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 qeneral welfare in
that all applicable provisions of the Outdoor
Advertisinq Act are satisfied.
4. The proposed use will not qenerate any traffic and will
not qenerate a need for new parkinq spaces.
5. The qrantinq of the Conditional Use permit under the
conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the peace,
health and safety and qeneral 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-cominq 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
qenerally to other property in the same zoninq district
and neiqhborhood in that there is a substantial
difference in elevation between the freeway and the
lower qrade in which the siqn would be mounted.
$
-
o
o
ATTACHMENT"B"
CITY OF. SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE rnnQQ_c;
FINDINGS of FACT
. .
AGENDA ITEM 1 . -
HEARING OATE "'l...;r'i-FiQ
PAGE 1 .
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 siqn would make strict
adherence to the maximum height requireDent Dore
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 qranting 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
o
o
Applicant's Response to Findings:
". __..'. ATTACHMENT "c"
CITY 01' SAR BBBRARDIMO PLAMlIIMG DBPARTIlEMT
APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE.
A. There are exceptioaa! or extraordiaa1'1 circWl8taDces or cODditiODS
applicable to tbe property inyolyed, or to tbe intended use of tbe
property, wbicb do not apply generally to otber property in tbe
same zoning di8trict and neigbborbood.
Adams Advertising, IDC. is requesting a heigbt variance because the.
grade of tbe freeway adjacent. to tbe subject property was artifi-
cially created at a heigbt considerably above normal grade; Conse-
quently, in order for this property owner to enjoy the same
opportuni ty as otber property owners in the same vicinity, Adams
Advertising needs a variance to allow a heigbt of 42 feet for the
proposed sign to be visible from freeway grade.
Tbis problem does not apply to all neigbboring propertiea in the
same zone district, because in some of tbe otber areas this same
relationsbipof freeway grade to ground level does not exist. Less
than ODe half mile ea8t of thi8 property tbere is a Patrick bill-
board wbere freeway grade is the same as normal grade. Even this
SigD bas been erected oyer tbe required beigbt of 32 feet. It is
42 feet overall.
B. That sucb ...ariance is nece8sary for tbe preseTYation and enjoyment
ofa sub8tantial property rigbt of tbe applicant.
The ordinance provides ior a removal of a surface street sign to
be replaced by a sign located along Interstate 10, as is evidenced
by tbe placement of the sigD permitted 500 feet east (Permit No.
70648) and 2,500 feet east (Permit Mo. 61008) of this proposed
site. Botb of tbese 8igns were granted a variance and constructed
ata beigbt of 42 feet. Such a variance is necessary. for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of tbe
applicant. In order for Adams Advertising to erect a sign to
perform its directional function, tbis sign would not be visible
to the motorist if bull t at the 32 foot requirement due to the
beigbt of tbe freeway grade adjacent to tbe property. In addition,
even at tbe 42 foot overall beigbt, we are only requesting the sign
to .be approximately 25 feet over freeway grade wbich is less than
yOur 32 feet above normal grade. In order for this sign location
to be effective, tbe 42 foot beigbt is a nec~ssity.
Page 1
....... advertlslng,lnc.
CUP89-5
o
o
......~.-
C. That the p'aDtiDII of tbe variaDce will not be materially detrimen-
tal to tbe public welfare or iDjurious to property and improvements'
iD the ZODiDI district aDd Deighborhood iD wbicb the property is
located.
To our knowledge tbere bave been no objections by property owners
in tbe area tbat indicate the existing structures are detrimental.
In fact, these modern signs attract the attention of the motorist
not only to tbe 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 Wllson, 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 tbe p'aDting of such a variaDce will Dot be contrary to the
objectives of the Master PlaD.
It promotes and furthers tbe objectives of the Master Plan by elim-
inating an unsightly, old billboard bordered by a residential area
and located across the street from Seccombe Lake Urban Recreation
Area.
The replacement sien would be located in a highly developed commer-
cial area of the freeway and would be a high tech, modern structure
as indicated by the enclosed photographs.
The application for this removal and replacement blllboard was
originally filed with 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 that the CUP was unnecessary, however, a variance
for height is required.
Page 2
........ .cIvertIsInI.lnc.
"
o 0
ATTACHMENT "D"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
Planning Department
City of San Bernardino
1N1TlAL 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 billbord
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.
o
o
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 1-10 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 acres and contains a
commercial structure. The freeway is higher than the grade
in which the sign is to be mounted.
Ll _
- -
-...:L
o
o
r CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ""
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT CHECKLIST
\. ~
, ""'"
A. BACKGROY~
Application Number: OXlditional Use PeDlli.t 89-5
Project Description: 'lb rE!\DVe an existi.n:l double face billboard at 237
E. 5th Street and to erect a reola=,.e.\t dnub1e fa"" hil1hn:ol'rl
Location: 464 E. Redlands Blvd. adiacent to the 1-10 FreE!Wl\Y
Environmental Constraints Areas: Flood Zone B. Liauefaction Area
General Plan Designation: 00-1
Zoning Designation: 00-1
B. ~FYlBONM~~~PACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a
separate attached sheet.
1- EaJ.~h 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
geologie or physical feature? x
\. ~
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 1 OF 8
JJ _
-
o
o
,.
e. Soil erosion on or off the
project site?
f. Modification of a channel,
creek or river?
g.
Development
subject
mudslides,
other. similar
within an area
to landslides,
liquefact ion or
hazards?
h. Other?
2. ~IR ~QY~: Will the proposal
result in:
a.
air
upon
emissions or
ambient air
Substantial
an effect
quality?
b. The creation of objectionable
odors?
c. Development within a high wind
hazard area?
3.
Will
the
lfWl_ RESOURCES:.
proposal result in:
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?
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?
110.
REVISED 12/87
Yes
x
No
x
x
x
Maybe
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
"'"
PAGE 2 OF 8
~
-
o
o
r
Yes
No
Maybe
'"
4.
BIOLOGICbL R~~pURC~~:
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
x
b.
Change
unique,
species
habitat?
in the number of any
rare or endangered
of animals or their
x
c.
Other?
x
5. NOISE: Could the proposal result
in:
a. Increases in existing noise
levels?
x
b.
Exposure of people to
noise levels over 65
interior noise levels
dB?
exterior
dB or
over 45
x
c. Other?
x
6.
~_-1!H:
result in:
will the
proposal
a. A change in the land use as
designated on the General
Plan?
x
b. Development within an Airport
District?
x
c. Development within "Greenbelt"
Zone A,B, or C?
x
d. Development within a high fire
hazard zone?
x
e. Other?
x
.J
...
PAGE 3 OF 8
REVISEO 10/87
o
o
~
Yes
Maybe
"'"
7.
MAN-MADE HAj~Nl~:
project:
Will
the
a. Ose, 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. BQY~: Will the proposal:
a. Remove existing housing or
create a demand for additional
housing?
b. Other?
9. TMl!~l'ORTATIO~~ATION: 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,
new, parking
structures?
or demand for
facilitiesl
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
No
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
~
PAGE 4 OF 8
o
----
o
,
Maybe
""'Iil
g.
A disjointed pattern
roadway improvements?
h.
Other?
10. rQBL1~ SERVICES Will the proposal
impact the following beyond the
capability to provide adequate
levels of service?
a.
Fire protection?
b.
Police protection?
Schools (i.e. attendance,
boundaries, overload, etc.)?
c.
d.
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
e.
.Medical aid?
f.
Solid waste?
g.
Other?
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?
2. Electricity?
3. Water?
4. Sewer?
5. Other?
Resul t in a
pattern of
extensions?
disjointed
utility
Require the construction of
new facilities?
.
af
Yes
No.
x
X
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
X
X
X
~
PAGE 5 OF 8
o
o
,.
Maybe
""
12. AESTBETI~:
a. Could the proposal result in
the obstruction of any scenic
view?
b. Will the visual impact of the
project be detrimental to the
surrounding area?
c. Other?
13.
Could the
CP~T~~--F~9URCES:
proposal result in:
a. The alteration or destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Adverse
impacts
historic
object?
c. Other?
physical or aesthetic
to a prehistoric or
site, structure or
b.
14. Mandatory Findings of Significance
(Section 15065)
li..
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 tbe
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
Yes
No
x
x
x
x
x
x
~
PAGE 6 OF 8
.
o
o
r-
Yes
No
Maybe
"""Ill
important examples of the
major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have 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
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.)
d. Does the project have
environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATJON MEASURES
(Attach sheets as necessary.)
I
x
x
~ ~
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 7 OF 8
-
.. ,
0 0
r- ~
D. DE'1'ERMIIA:rl~
On the basis o! this initial study,
~The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
~ environment 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 l1"A/-rt:{)rlERr h;#l"~"'~ ;4!.,NNER.
f
Name and Title
F t~Iiv.}
nature U
Date: /,,- 5"-31
~ ~
REVISED 12/87 PAGE 8 OF 8
.,
c
o
ENVIRONMENTAL EV ALUA TlON AND MITIGATION MEASlflES
1.9- Po~ential Imnact
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
insiqnificance.
3.e. pot.ntial ImDact
The site is located in Flood Zone B, an area
susceptible to 500 year frequency flooding.
Flooding would not constitute a significant impact
on the proposed billboard.
12.b.
Potential Imnact
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 siqnificant environmental
impact.
CUP89-5IS
-.
.
'"
. O. ATTACHMENT "E"
. j to I
Ii ~ ,!
I.
t-
.jl} I
'11 -
;~ . I
!il _!.--;-
'I. = .
nO
1a
nt
Ul
...-0110"''' Q.""'" .0&
. ,1191'
.-
.......- i;
. :
u
j,
!:1
,In
i,JII
;1' .
nl'-
!J:.I~
. . r
J. =:-1
_.-_'!.=....
~.
- ,
ii' It
.' Ii
~.. Sa
, . ~..
~'i :". ~
" . '"
...... .
c
I
~i
oJ
CUP89-5
Agenda Item # 1
Hearing. Date: 12-12-89
It
.
~
.
.
i
.
" Z
~. ~
ill'S:'
,ll'lf
I .1/)
:
S
~
.
.
~
.
>
. .
o
o
ATTACHMENT "F"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LOCATION
CASE CUP 89-5
HEARING DATE 12-12-89
---
AGENDA
ITEM_
1
aL'"'' L"_' T
~
\
c
~
-4.. _
-
o
o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADOPTING
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-2 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Recitals
(a) The General Plan for the City of San Bernardino
was adopted by the Mayor and Common Council by Resolution
No. 89-159 on June 2, 1989.
(b) General Plan Amendment No. 90-2 to the General
Plan of the City of San Bernardino was considered by the
Planning commission on August 7, 1990 and October 9, 1990
noticed
public
hearings, and
after
the
Planning
commission's recommendation of approval of Alternative 4
has been considered by the Mayor and Common Council.
(c) An Initial Study was prepared on March 29, 1990
and reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee and the
Planning Commission who both determined that General Plan
Amendment No. 90-2 would not have a significant effect on
the environment and therefore, recommended that a Negative
Declaration be adopted.
(d) The proposed Negative Declaration received a 21
day public review period from May 31, 1990 through June
20, 1990 and from August 30, 1990 to September 19, 1990
for the addendum and all comments relative thereto have
been reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Mayor and
IIII
IIII
1
-
~
-
o
o
1 Common Council in compliance with the California
2 Environmental Quality Act and local regulations.
3 (el The Mayor and Common Council held a noticed
4 public hearing and fully reviewed and considered proposed
5 General Plan Amendment No. 90-2 and the Planning
6 Department staff Report on November 5, 1990.
7 (fl The adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 90-2
8 is deemed in the interest of the orderly development of
9 the City and is consistent with the goals, objectives and
10 policies of the existing General Plan.
11 SECTION 2. Neqative Declaration.
12 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED
13 by the Mayor and Common Council that the proposed
14 amendment to the General Plan of the City of San
15 Bernardino will have no significant effect on the
16 environment, and the Negative Declaration heretofore
17 prepared by the Environmental Review Committee as to the
18 effect of this proposed amendment is hereby ratified,
19 affirmed and adopted.
20 SECTION 3. Findinqs
21 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common
22 Council of the City of San Bernardino that:
23 A. The change of designation from RL, Residential Low to
24 CO-I, Commercial Office for the proposed amendment will
25 change the land use map only and is not in conflict with
26 the Objectives and Policies of the General Plan.
27 IIII
28 IIII
2
-
o
o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~
21
~
~
24
~
26
27
~
B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the
public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare
of the city.
C. All public services are available to the study area. Any
development permissible under the CO-l designation
proposed by this amendment would not impact on such
services.
D. The proposed amendment is to redesignate 1.65 acres of
land and the balance of land uses within the City will
be minimally affected. No housing stock will be
affected.
E. The amendment site is physically suitable for the
requested land use designation. Anticipated future land
use has been analyzed in the Initial study and it has
been determined that project specific mitigation
measures will be sufficient to eliminate any
environmental impacts.
SECTION 4. Amendment
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council
that:
(A) The Land Use Plan of the General Plan of the City
of San Bernardino is amended by changing approximately 1.65
acres from RL, Residential Low to CO-l, Commercial Office
(APN 261-191-06).
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
3
-
-
o
o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
General Plan Amendment No. 90-2 and its location is
outlined on the map entitled Exhibit A, and is more
specifically described in the legal description entitled
Exhibit B, copies of which are attached and incorporated
herein by reference.
(B) General Plan Amendment No. 90-2 shall become
effective immediately upon adoption of this resolution.
SECTION 5. MaD Notation. This resolution and the
amendment affected by it shall be noted on such appropriate
General Plan maps as have been previously adopted and
approved by the Mayor and Common Council and which are on
file in the office of the City Clerk.
SECTION 6. Notice of Determination.
Department is hereby directed to file
Determination with the County Clerk of the
Bernardino certifying the City's compliance
preparing the Negative Declaration.
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
4
The Planning
a Notice of
County of San
with CEQA in
-
RESOLUTION AAING
IMPACT AND ADOPTING
GENERAL PLAN OF THE
THE NEGATIVE DECLARA.QN OF ENVIRONMENTAL
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-2 TO THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly
adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the city of San
Bernardino at a
meeting thereof, held on the
day of
,
1990 by the following
vote, to wit:
Council Members
ESTRADA
REILLY
FLORES
MAUDSLEY
MINOR
POPE-LUDLAM
MILLER
~
NAYES
ABSTAIN
city Clerk
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this
day of
, 1990.
Approved as to
form and legal content:
JAMES F. PENMAN,
city Attorney
By:L 7: Ieu;,-..
o
W.R. Holcomb, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
5