HomeMy WebLinkAbout67-Planning & Building
cf.y O~ SAN BERNARiAlO/ lrREQUAT FOR COUNCIL AC~N
J1om:
~ept:
Larry Reed
Director
Planing/Building and Safety
Subject:
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S
DENIAL OF REVIEW OF PLANS NO. 89-10
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
November 10, 1989, 2:00 p.m.
Date:
Synopsis of Previous Council action: No previous Council action.
On October 3, 1989, the Planning Commission by a 6 to 1 vote,
denied the applicant's appeal of Review of Plans No. 89-10.
Recommended motion:
That the Public Hearing .be closed and the appeal be denied.
.
-OR-
That the Public Hearing be closed, the appeal be denied and
the applicant be advised that he has the option of filing
for a General Plan Amendment (GPA) after December 2, 1989 --
as set forth in the Staff Report.
..,.
/4-'1,0.1
LARRY REEJi
,,;- k.'/
Ct..;"!
Signature
Contact person: Larry Reed
Phone: (714) 384-~O~7
Supporting data attached: Staff Report
Ward:
3
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. DescriPtion)
Finance:
Council Notes:
.
75-0262
Agenda Item NO.-6 7
C~ OF SAN BERNARIAO - REQU"T FOR COUNCIL AC.N
.
.
.
75-0264
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT:
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF REVIEW OF
PLANS NO. 89-10
MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEETIUG - NOVEMBER 20, 1989, 2:00 P.M.
REOUEST
The applicant, Heywood company, is appealing the denial of
Review of Plans (ROP) No. 89-10 by the Development Review
Committee and the Planning Commission. The applicant requests
that the Mayor and Council reconsider the denial and approve
Review of Plans No. 89-10 for the construction of a billboard.
BACKGROUND
Review of Plans No. 89-10 is a request under San Bernardino
Municipal Code 19.60.250 (B) to construct a 300 square foot,
32 foot high replacement billboard on a 0.6 acre site located
on the west side of Waterman Avenue, 644 feet north of
Hospitality Lane and adjacent to San Timoteo Creek.
Application for Review of Plans No. 89-10 was submitted to the
Planning Department on February 23, 1989. This application
was a request to establish a new billboard by removing a
billboard from another location. However, the billboard
proposed for removal had already been demolished in 1986.
Therefore, the Planning Department requested a legal interpre-
tation of the Code section to determine if any off-premise
sign that had already been removed or demolished could count
as credit toward a replacement sign, and to determine if
billboards or signs are considered "structures" and are,
therefore, required to comply with the setback provisions of
the Code. The legal interpretation from the city Attorneys'
office (Attachment "C") was received by the Department on
March 23, 1989. The interpretation required that a "presently
existing sign" be a condition for a proposed replacement sign;
and, that a billboard was a structure that had to comply with
the setback requirements. On March 23, 1989, an "incomplete
letter" was sent informing the applicant of these
requirements.
".
On June 12, 1989, staff wrote a letter to the applicant
indicating that the General Plan adopted June 2, 1989 included
a policy (1.45.1) which prohibits the construction of any new
billboard in San Bernardino. Policy 1.45.1 states, "Prohibit
the development of new billboards in the city except as on-
site replacement of existing units."
.
Appeal of
No. 89-10
Mayor and
2
l. . .
P ann~ng Comm~ss~on
.
Denial of Review of Plans
.
.
council Meeting of 11/20/89
On August 17, 1989, the Development Review Committee denied
Review of Plans No. 89-10 based on an inconsistency finding
with the General Plan. The applicant submitted an appeal
request on August 17, 1989.
On October 3, 1989, the Planning commission, by a 6
denied the applicant's appeal of Review of Plans
based on an inconsistency finding with the General
october 13, 1989, the applicant submitted an appeal
the Mayor and Council.
to 1 vote,
No. 89-10
Plan. On
request to
BASIS OF APPEAL
The applicant contends that it was not the intent of the Mayor
and Council to repeal the provisions of the existing sign
ordinance without a public hearing specifically addressing
those issues. Secondly, the applicant contends that the
application meets the qualifying requirements for a replace-
ment sign.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
.
The intent of the Mayor and Council in the adoption of the
Urgency Ordinance and the General Plan is clear. The policies
of the General Plan were reviewed at many public hearings
prior to its adoption. Those policies were adopted by the
Council on June 2, 1989. Also, on that day an Urgency
Ordinance was adopted (MC-660). The provisions of that
ordinance were extended by Ordinance No. MC-664 on July 6,
1989. Section 19.83.110 of that ordinance requires
consistency of all development projects, including "sign
permits" with the General Plan.
Section 19.83.030 addresses the issue of possible inconsistent
provisions of the "old" zoning code.
"19.83.030 INCONSISTENT PROVISIONS
.
Any section of the Municipal Code or amendments
thereto inconsistent with -the provisions of this
ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies
and no further, is hereby, superseded or modified
by this ordinance to that extent necessary to
effectuate the provisions of this ordinance."
Therefore, anv provisions of Chapter 19.60 concerning signs
are superseded by the provisions of the Urgency Ordinance. The
applicant does not meet the qualifying requirements for a
replacement sign, in that the City Attorney's legal
interpretation does not support the contention or concept of
e
Appeal of
No. 89-10
Mayor and
3
Planning
C.. 'lef. 1
omm~ss~on Den~a 0 Rev~ew of Pans
e
council Meeting of 11/20/89
.
"banking" credits for the removal of billboards. A proposed
replacement sign must be in existence at the time of approval
of the replacement sign. In addition, the Code section for
replacement billboards is not now in effect due to the
Urgency Ordinance inconsistent provision (Section 19.83.030).
Only on-site replacement billboards are allowed within the
city. The bases for the appeal are, therefore, not valid.
o
ND CO
The Mayor and Council cannot approve this project without
being inconsistent with the General Plan. Therefore, the
Mayor and council may deny the appeal and deny Review of Plans
No. 89-10, OR uphold the appeal in conceot onlY , deny Review
of Plans 89-10 and request that the applicant do the
following:
1. File a General Plan Amendment (GPA) after December
2, 1989, to amend the policy regarding the con-
struction of billboar4s within the city;
.
2.
Refile a
of the
existina
Review of Plans application, after approval
General Plan Amendment, and propose an
billboard for replacement; and,
3.
comply with
structures,
Avenue.
the required setback requirements for
including billboards, along Waterman
PREPARED BY:
John Montgomery, AICP
principal Planner
For Brad L. Kilger, Director of Planning
ATTACHMENTS:
A- Letter of Appeal to Mayor and Common Council
B- Statement of Official Planning commission
Action "_
C- city Attorneys' Office Legal Intrepretation
D- Public Hearing Notice
E- Letter of Protest- Against Approval of
Billboard (Rancon Financial corporation)
F- October 3, 1989 Planning Commission Staff
Report
.
PCAGENDA:RP8910APPEAL
10/20/89
.
. ATI'ACHMENT A .
.
. Lightbum
&Associ.ates
Mayor and Common Council
City of San Bernardino
300 North D Street
San Bernardino, Ca. 92401
October 10, 1989
PoSt Office Box 1622
San Bernardino. C.difornia 9~402
(714) 381-16;6
Sub ject Appeal of Planning Commission Denial
Review of Plans, 89-) 0, Heywood Co.
Mayor and Common Counc II,
On October 3, 1989 the Planning Commission sustained the Development
Review Committee's denial of Review of Plans 89-10 for a replacement
sign to be constructed on a6 acre site located on the West side of
Waterman Avenue, 644 ft North of Hospitality Lane, adjacent to San
Tlmoteo Creek, on the grounds that proposal is inconsistent with General
Plan Policy 1.45. i and Section 19.60.250 B1. of the San Bernardino
Municipal Code.
.
By way Of this letter, we are appealing to the Mayor and Common Council
the Planning CommIssion's ruling based on the grouncs stated in our letter
to the Planning Commission, dated October 3, 1989 (::xhibit It 1).
Essentially, we contend that it was not the intent of the Mayor and
Common Councll to repeal the provisions of the existmg sign ordinance, or
abrogate any rights and ent it lements of parties of interest, without a
publlC hearmg soeclfically addressmg these issues. We believe that there
is a conflict between the provisions Of the sign ordinance and the General
Plan Polley statements that need to be resolved by the council Secondly,
we contend that t!'e HeYWOOd application meets the Qualifying
requirements for a repalcement sign as outlined in Section 19.60.250 B1.
of the San Bernardino Municipal Code
Based on the foregoing, we request the. Common Councll to grant our appeal
and approve ReVIew of Plans 89-10. '.
.
ReSpeCtf.UI1~Ubm1tted By,
~.~
J~ Lightburn
Attachments: Exhibi t It 1
Sign Ordinance 19.60
General Plan Policy 1.45.1
.
.
.
.
. Lightburn
&A:ssociates
Members, Planning Commission
C!ty of San Bernardino
300 North D Street
San Bernardino, Ca. 92401
October 3, 1989
Pon Office Bu\ Itl;:'
San Bern.1rdu1l1. C.lhrnrnL.J 9~..1l1:'
,:14 381.165"
Subject: Review of Plans 89-10
Heywood Company
ThiS letter 15 presented for the record in support of our client's appeal of
the Development Review Committee's denial of Review of Plans 89-10, an
application to construct an off-premise replacement sign on the West side
of Waterman Avenue, North of Hospitality L~ne
Relative to our cl1e:-!t's appiiotlon, there are three issues to be resolved
by the Planning CommiSSion
. 1. Does General Plan pOlIcy statements 1.45.1, 1.45.2, 1.45.3 and 1.45.6
effectively preclude an off-premise replacement sign from being
constructed on Waterman Avenue?
Our client contends that General Policy Statement 1.45.1 does not aDrogate
or repeal the provisions of San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.60.
Specifically, SectIOn 19.60.280 Conflicting Provisons states, "If any
.provisons of thIS chapter conflict with the provisions of any other section
of the San Bernardion Municipal Code or of any ordinancE'S of the [it't-cl
San Rf>rnardino the nrovisions of this chanter shall orevail." (emphasis
added)
Nowhere in the record do we find that it was the intent of the Mayor and
Common Council to amend, change or otherwise el iminate Section 19.60 of
the Municipal Code, or adversely affect any rights that parties of interest
may have pursuant to those sections of the code.
.
We further contend that the policy statements in question are declarations
of intent by the Mayor and Common Council to change the municipal code to
conform with their policy direction. Any change in the code, that
substantially affects or significantly limits the rights of parties of
interest, can not be done by inference in a general plan policy statement.
Page Two - ROP 89- ! 0
.
.
.
.
.
If it is the policy of the City of San Bernardino to make changes In the sign
ordinance. then the City should 00 so~t a puolic hearing specificallv
addressing the City's policy concerns and allowing for public Input and
comment.
Regarding General Plan policy statements 1.45.2. 1.45.3 and 1.45.6. we
contend that these are goals of the General Plan to be pursued by the City
in the future, or, in the case of 1.45.6, stand in conflict with Section
19.60.280 of the muniCipal code. More appropriately, these design
standards. requirements and conditons should be incorporated in the
evolving Development Code.
Therfore. we conclude that Review of Plans 89-10 is an appropriate
matter to be considered by the Planning Commission.
2. Does the applicant'S proposal Qualify for consideration within the
provisions of San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.60.250(6){ 1)7
.
Our client currently has a sign pe:mlt~5ee Attachment I) from the City of
San Bernardino for the location of 723 West Mill Street. We contend that
this sIgn permit constitutes an ownerShIp right to place a sign at that
location The Heywood Company has preserved this rIght by contmuing to
keep enforce theIr annual sIgn permIt for that location. Whether or not a
sign pn/slcal1y eXist cn the property has no oearlOg on our client's right to
do so if they so deSired. As a practical matter, and to voluntarily comply
witn the ~lore A,ttractive Community Carr.p:J:~n. the sign was removed
In-so-mucn-as Section 19.60.250 (8)( I) states, 'The replacea sign or signs
shall be removed or demolished prior to the use of the replacement sign.".
it seemed reasonable and prudent to cooperate with the City by
temporarily removing the sign from the premise. According to the City
Attorney in a March 23.1989 memorandum to the Planning Director, an
improperly maintained sign "may Qualify as a credit for a replacement
sign....
.
In the above referenced legal memorandum dated March 23, 1989, the City
Attorney incorrectly concludes that the sign ordinance, ". . . clearly
requires that the old sign, which is to be replaced, be presently "owned"
and therefore, presently existing and in use: We disagree. This artfull
extrapolation by the City Attorney is om. supported by any such language in
Section 19.60.250 (6) (1). We contend that the correct term "owning", as
stated in Section 19.60.250 (6) (1), clearly means having a permitted right
to establish a sign at that location.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:> zge Three - ROP 59- 10
Therefore. we conclude tnat our client IS entlt1ed to a replacement sign
:,ursuant to SectIOn j 9 6G.2S0 (8) ( I) of the mtJnlC Ipal coce.
3. Will the .:lpplicant's proposal meet the "set-back" requirements
pursuant to the City'S General Plan?
The applicant will amend the site paIn to reflect an appropriate front
set-back reqUIrement of 20 feet.
Based on the foregoing. we request that the Planning Commission grant the
.:lppeal of the Development Review Committee's denial and approve Review
of Plans 89-10.
Respectful1y Submitted By,
Jo n lightburn
f , the Heywood Company
.
.
. .
_.-..._-_....--_._.~ ..-. .
.--- fj.,:.~~r~::.;..~.}~~,..,
..,. , , .... "'. \
-, ....." ,.
. cn~!~~~~~~~W)3ERNARnl NO
\..... 1\ "..7
" . ''':':_;';;';; y
'~.!J.,..'.....
JIll) f'JOIHIl "(r ",I flU: r. ;j^N Ul;m'AAOIW). CALlf.OR....^ l')2t'l1U
Dl!cembllr I, 190B
TO ALL OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COHIWIIE'j ArlO IIIDIVIDIJALS:
On January 2. 19U9 Annual Sign I'cnllits. as rcqui"l!d In the City of Son ~I!rnilrllino,
will be due.
ACCO:lpunying this notice is u 1 ist of ::.i~fls and thl! tot.al umount due for the
Anflua 1 S i 911 Pennits. ~Ih ir.h d"l! '! i I.Ilflr rMnr!d by you or IIi reo. 1.1 y concerned 1.1i tll your
business. Please remit the fel! sP,'cificd on the eflclosed 1 ist and return to the
Department of Iluildin<] alld S.lfcty. 31)0 IIrll.th 'u' ~I.rrlct. Soln Ilernardino. eA 92418.
Please make your check puyable to thl! City of San llerno1rdino.
This list may be in error. but bear in mind that all signs adyertising other than
the materials or uses pertainin,! to the land or building on the same premises ~Iithin
. thl! City of San llernclrdino must hay/"! thl! AnolJal Sign Pl!rmit fees paid by January 31..
1989.
.
PLEASE NOTE: Per City of Siln Il/"!rn,lnlino Onlin,lnce rlo. r-lC-2115 .ldoptl!d by the 11ayor
and COlJlnom COlJllcil July 5. 1911J and approvt!d July 7. 1983. Section 7 of said O..dinilllce
states:
"An Annual Sign Permit fer! shall be ten dollars ($10.00) per sign. dUll and
payuble on the secood day of January in uOY year. WilCl1 FEE SliALL BE DOUIlLED IF
THE PERMIT IS NOT OBTAltlED IlY rilE 31st UAY OF JlltlUIIRY; Ito~lever. wherl! the sign
is first erected ufter Januury 31 of that yr.ur. only the ten dollur ($10.00) fee
shall apply."
If you have any questioo. please call this offiCI! at (714) 334-5071 betwl!en the
hours of 7:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. "lond,IY thru Frid,lY.
attention to this mat
Mt~~
~.~
& Sufet.y
Attachment/s
.
,
....1 .
...,' J' ...... - _, ......1" 'r--.-'
..... '; : ~ - '" -:. . .4.: . ~
., .
. ' .,/
':llo.,' \....,.::
- ~..:,:.....;:".I'_' .
.
.
..
.
.
1\1i.\lI.11 ~ I ~lll P.:11I1 i l
I~ .: 'J I..' -:!.
Iti:Y\/IiIJII l:UHI'!:,IIY
i'. u. J~".-; ! J I. J
:...11 IJ,.'"II..II.diIIU, C,\ ')~:.llJlj
Ih.. ill' ~i'.Il1.. .___:!~I....___
.1........l!!.!!.__.
..I:.'!_':"~.~ !.~~I!_?L.~.1 ~1.!.t::.L
Tut,.1 1J1Il:
~t):! ~1. lllll ~~[Z:~I;l
,:', u \J. 11. Ii ~; &: J. I.: ~ I.:
J "J.... E. 'J I.:t. ~1. f'.,;..:l
:1.1:,
"
.11....
., 1" ~~t:CI,,;~:l:
1?'J.1
"I';"
~ l L..:...: l
.'
..."J.
l~ JU ~:'J . "1';" ~; t ,L't,; L.: l
:! .:. "J ~ j " \I.t Co.: nn.~t1 :''.It':
~., J .
:~"',:: u l:, II;.:;...: L Uti:
:!uu2 E. JL'd $1.:,('\:1,;1:
b~u Iul.Jlh,t C..:utL,;J."' Dr.
~':'~lJ (.'u"rll.dJ. Ill".!,
:i~a l-I.u',.II..>11 U1vJ.
1.1 0 i:' Uu. 11.11:..: ['lUoall
ILi..,:j ~';"J. ~/.Jtl':J.-I:I.UI
1.; '11. ":. 11...JI.1,,,...1 1,'1".
l~Ul \-I. jfj,.hl...lud :\'1"';.
2S~ H. Ntll. ~cc...:~(
!~:.-~ E. lIi.iJhl':lIhJ I\V~.
19.IU I/o. ..". ~t.
7~O H. Ht. V~cn~lI Av~.
.
'.
.
.1 ~'/~ 1/. :; Ll,; I.: t'..! ~I"y
'/U I. ,. U.. t L.: i:IlI..ln A'll: .
.J.
'JU~I ,. Ul.,l:I.:rlU..afl /\1/..; .
~ .
~~~ 1-1. 5rh ~t.
'IUU 1'1. "U" St.
l~~U 1-1. "1::- ~t.
1~./6 1'1. "1::- :..:( .
J I.:!~ 1'1. 111::- ~; t .
J.2JU N. Mil" St.
Lau 1'1. /\L.co>iI......L1 Avu.
'J.IJ 1-1. U....ul i.n..
11-1', t-J. lJu:..i.:linu
t:...,.i 1;01r..)/I l\vl; .
1-DO t; . II L\j111w1lU AVo.; .
.}~:;,o i:. II i.'Jt,l.J,.,J A'II, .
.!~IJG E. 1I1<:;1I1;.n.l i\'1~ .
.- -....... ...... ..--...
7}~.:.1:_!~ ~_1..~_.~. ~~0
'/')0 \./. Ni.U :Jc.
.J
"""::-.-.
J15 S. Ht. V..cnon AVo.;.
669 1'1. ~l"ccK W"Y
.
..
.
fO'~
( q . \1 B.
.
.
.
.
ZONING
closer than ten feet to the public right-of-way.
S. Spacing: Minimum of four hundred feet in any straight
line between off-premise signs.
6. No off-premise sign shall be located so that its side edge
is less than one hundred ten feet, or its front face or
back face is less than five hundred feet, from any
residential wning district.
7. An off-premise sign shall not be allowed within five
hundred feet of any park, school, cemetery or church,
regardless of zoning.
8. An off-premise sign shall not be permitted within six
hundred feet from the right-of-way line of a freeway,
when the advertising face of an off-premise sign is
visible from any point on said right-of-way line.
9. Off-premise signs shall not be allowed on any building
roof.
Replacement signs.
.1. Any company owning an off-premise sign may replace
such sign with another off-premise sign to be placed in a
C-3, C-3A, C.M. M-I, or M-2 zoning district within the
City subject to conditions and after review and approval
of a plot plan by the Planning Commission. The decision
of the Planning Commission shall be subject to appeal to
the Common Council pursuant to Chapters 19.81 and
2.64 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code. The
replaced sign or signs shall be removed or demolished
prior to the use of the replacement sign. The Planning
Commission may require the removal of more than one
billboard or painted bulletin by the company in
exchange for the right to locate one new replacement
sign. Under no circumstances shall more than one new
sign be erected to replace one sign removed. A condi-
tional use permit shall not be required. Each new
replacement sign shall con.form to all other provisions of
the San Bernardino Municipal Code relating to off-
premise signs, provided that the advertiSing display of
the replacement sign shall not exceed the display area of
the off-premise sign or signs to be replaced, and in no
event shall it be greater than six hundred seventy-two
square fee! per face with a maximum of two faces.
Display area does not include decor or pole covers.
(Sin Bernlrdino 3-87)
1198-8
..
.
.
.
.
ZONING
.
D. All illegal si8lls (without a pennit) shall be abated or made
to conform with this chapter within ninety days from the
date of final adoption of this ordinance.
(Ord. MC.92, 1981.)
19.60.270 Administration.
A. Enforcement: It shall be the duty of the Superintendent of
Building and Safety of the City of San Bernardino to
enforce the provisions of this chapter. The Superintendent
may designate a representative of the department to act in
his place.
B. Interpretation: Questions arising from the application of
this chapter shall be referred to the Planning Commission
for determination, The Commission shall interpret this
chapter in a manner which best fulfills the intent of its
provisions.
C. Variances: Any variance of the height, area or number of
signs which exceeds the stand.rds set forth in this chapter
shall be subject to the variance provisions of Chapter 19.74
and shall require a public hearing and the payment of a
filing fee.
D. Appeal: The applicant for a sign permit may appeal a
decision of the Building and Safety Superintendent or
the Planning Director within fourleen calendar days of such
decision to the Planning Commission. Appeals shall be made
on forms provided by the Planning Department and shall
not necessitate payment of fees. The Planning Commission
shall review such appeal at its next available. regularly
scheduled meeting. The Commission shall either uphold,
reverse, or modify the Superintendent's or Director's
decision. The decision of the Commission shall be final
unless appealed to the Mayor and Common Council within
ten days.
(Ord. MC-92. 198 I.)
'.
19.60.280 Conflicting provisions.
If any of the provisions of this chapter conflict with the
provisions of any other section of the San Bernardino Municipal
Code or of any ordinances of the City of San Bernardino, the
provisions of this chapter shall prevail. lOrd. MC-92, 1981.)
.
(San Bernardino 4.16)
1198-10
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Policies
It shall be the policy of the City of San Bernardino to:
1.43.1
Require that all structures be constructed in accordance with the
requirements of the City's building and other pertinent codes and
regulations; including new, adaptively reused, and renovated buildings
(11.1 and 11.3).
1.43.2
Update the City's building and development codes and regulations to
ensure that they incorporate professionally accepted state-of-the-art
standards (11.3).
Objective
It shall be the objective of the City of San Bernardino to:
1.44 Ensure that development in the City's commercial and industrial districts
and corridors and residehtial neighborhoods is physically and visually
reflective of .their existing or intended characteristics.
Policy
It shall be the policy of the City of San Bernardino to:
1.44.1 Require that new development, adaptive reuse, and renovation provide
for the physical design of buildings, sites, pedestrian areas, and spaces in
accordance with pertinent standards and guidelines for each land use
district as defined by the 0.00.30 subsection of Policies 1.8.00 through
1.40.00 (11.1, 11.2, 11.4, 11.6, n.9, 11.12, and 11.17).
Objective
It shall be the objective of the City of San Bernardino to:
1.45 Ensure that private signage is well integrated into architectural and site
design and minimized with land use districts to reduce visual clutter and
blight.
Policies
It shall be the policy of the City of San Bernardino to:
1.45.1
Prohibit the development of new billboards in the City, except as on-site
replacement of existing units (11.1).
1-109
.
.
.
.
1.45.2
1.45.3
1.45.4
1.45.5
1.45.6
1.45.7
1.45.8
1.-+5.9
1.45.10
.
.
.
Pursue the acquisition and removal of billboards along major viewsheds
and other areas which are visually impacted, as funding is available
(II .23).
Establish design standards for billboards which improve their visual
character and compatibility with adjacent uses and require that all existing
billboards be upgraded to these standards within five years (11.1).
Minimize the number, size, and placement of signs in prh'ate
development (11.1).
Require that private signage be limited to the purposes of building,
business, and/or tenant and address identification (11.1).
Prohibit the development of pole signs at the key entries to the City (as
identified in the Urban Design for Public Spaces Policy 5.1.2) and in key
activity districts, including the downtown, Tri-City /Commercenter,
Mount Vernon Theme Center, Highland Avenue "Core", Santa Fe
Railroad Depot Specialty Center, Waterman Avenue Office Industrial
Park, California State University area, Verdemont commercial "village",
and other pertinent areas (I1.1).
Require that wall, window, directory, projecting and all other building
signs be integrated with its architectural design style and character (11.1).
f
Prohibit the use of oversize, flashing, animated, or garishly colored signs
which dominate the building, architecture, and/or district in which they
are located (11.1).
Allow for consideration of signs of visually distinctive design and I:".~rit
which may differ from prescribed limits of size, materials, and otht'T
characteristics, provided that they are well integrated with the building
and site, do not adversely impact adjacent uses, and are not intended
solely to increase sign size (II.l and 1l.9).
Require the abatement of non-conforming signs over an acceptablt'
amortization period (11.1).
1-110
.
.
.
.
(
. ATrAClMSNT B .
.
City of San Bernardino
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
PROJECT
Number:
Review of Plans No. 89-10
Applicant:
Heywood Company and Lightburn and Associates
for Kurt W. Rietsch
ACTION
Meeting Date: October 3, 1989
x
Denied Project and Appeal Based Upon Findings
of Fact (Attachment Al.
VOTE
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
Clemensen, Cole, Corona, Lindseth, Lopez, Nierman
Sharp
None
Stone
I, hereby, certify that this Statement of Official Action
accurately reflects the final determination of the Planning
Commission of the city of San Bernardino.
~. // .?
../ /.c -<fc-
_____ .. -~___.___- . /c' /5/~~7
( Signature /' ,. / Date
\.. y
--~rad L. Kilger, Director of Planning
Name and Title
cc: Project Applicant
Project Property Owner
Building and Safety Department
Engineering Division
Case File
mkf
PCAGENDA:
PCACTIONA
.
REVI EW r:f PlANS NO.
ATTACHMENT A
e-l0
.
~au 10-3-89
Agendaaem#?
Hearing d~:
10/3/89
Page 8
.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COftQTTEE
MANDATORY FlNOl1IGS
APPROVAl - FINDINGS
YES
SEE SEE
NO PLAN ATTACHED
1. The de'el~Rt plans comoly with all prowi.
sions of San Bernardino Municipal Code.
Uni'o~ Codes included into the Sin Bernardino
Munltlpal Code and Standard Requirements
establlsbed by tne tlty. 0 CXI 0 0
l. Butldlngs, struttures and de.elopoent, and
use tnereof sbal1 be tDnlllattble wltn and not
detriMnUl to elch other, and Shall likewise
be toopatible wltn an not detrimental to ~
Jone within ....'eh Such project shill be
establtsned, so that property .alues may be
preserved and orderly development of land in 0 GZI 0 0
the surrounding IrelS -., be .ssured.
3. If the Development Review Committee cannot
make the required findings in the Iffi~tiYe.
the DeYelop~nt Review Committee may deny the 0 lKl 0 0
application for development.
A. Cooplles wtth pro,iSions of the S.B.M.C. 0 0 0 0
B. COBOl'es with uniform codes incorporatld
Into the S.B.M.t. (Building, Fire, ett.l. 0 0 0 0
C. C~lies with San Bernardino standard
r.qui r!llenU. 0 D 0 0
D. Butlding~, structure~, development and
. ust are COIIPHlble with Ind not
detrilWntll to:
1. ElIch oth~r. 0 0 0 0
2. Surround\"g nelgnborhOod. 0 liD 0 0
3. Zone in wnicn e~tlbl'shed. D D 0 0
E. Will pre~erve oroperty values. 0 0 D D
F. Will !SSUre orderly develoo~nt of tbe
hnd. 0 EJ D D
G. Neighboring uses and structure~ will
be protected Iqlin~t noi~e ~'brltion
and other offensive, objectionlble D 0 0 0
cond;tion~.
H. Lt9htlng is arrlnged so thlt light 1~
reflected aWIY from adjoining properties. D 0 0 0
l. Signs .re ;n conforma"ce with the S.B.M.e. D 0 0 0
J. Design wi 11 anure pedestrhn' ~fety. 0 D 0 D
(. Oesiqn .il1 provide safe and efficient
traffic flow. 0 0 D 0
L. The oro;ect described in RP 89-10 am~on.istent with
the General Plan adopted b{ the Mayor and Council on June 2,
19B9, in that the ~li~ .45.1 ~rohibits devel~t of new
hi"~rds PY~nt a on- ite reol cements O! exl. uruts
. K5 RPBU\NKP3&4
.
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT C
. .
.
C I T Y
o F
SAN
B ERN k R 0 I N 0
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
,.--.
i.' ,
': '_U,
I
,..
TO:
BRAD L. KILGER, Director
Planning Department
li.~'
rl~':' .j, ','lag'
.1.'-;.\ /J _
FROM:
HENRY EMPENO, JR.
Deputy City Attorney
~j. .
.. ~.,
.."-' '"
.....,. I
DATE:
March 23, 1989
RE:
Request for Legal Interpretation of the Sign
Ordinance (Billboard Replacement)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
You have requested our response to the following two questions:
(1) a.
Can an off-premise sign that has already been
removed or demolished count as credit toward
a replacement sign pursuant to SBMC Section
19.60.250(B}?
b. Does an improperly maintained sign count as
credit toward a replacement sign?
(2) Are billboards or signs considered to be
"structures" under the City's Zoning Code
and, thus, required to follow the Code's
setback regulations?
* * * * * * * *
I
a. The first question involves a billboard company that
removed a deteriorated and improperly maintained billboard sign
two years ago, after the City demanded that the company either
upgrade or remove it, pursuant to SBMC Section 19.60.070.
This same company now wishes to construct a new
billboard sign at another location and argues that this new sign
should be deemed a "replacement sign" under SBMC Section
19.60.250(B}. In researching your Department's records, your
staff believes that no written or verbal agreement was ever made
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
BRAD L. KILGER, Director
Planning Department
SIGN. ORDINANCE INTERPRETATION
March 23, 1989
Page 2 .
****************************************************************
staff believes that no written or verbal agreement was ever made
by the City to give a future "credit" to this company for a
replacement sign.
Assuming that the City never made such an agreement or
representation, we must conclude that this new off-premise sign
is not a replacement sign, as permitted under SBMC Section
19.60.250(bl. This section states:
"B. Replacement signs.
1. Any company owning an off-premise sign
may replace such sign with another off-
premise sign to be placed in a C-3, C-3A, C-
M, M-l, or M-2 zoning district. . ."
The plain meaning of the words used in this ordinance
clearly requires that the old sign, which is to be replaced, be
presently "owned" and therefore, presently existing and in use.
In the instant case, there is no presently existing
sign.
b. You have also asked, hypothetically, whether an
existing, improperly maintained sign could qualify as credit for
a replacement sign. Because this zoning ordinance does not
appear to differentiate signs as to whether they are properly
maintained, a reasonable interpretation could be that improperl~
maintained signs may qualify as a credit for a replacement sign.
We reserve providing you with a conclusive opinion on this
question until an actual fact situation arises.
,
II
A billboard sign is a "structure" as that term is used
in the City's Zoning Code, Title 19 of the Municipal Code, and
therefore billboard signs are required to follow setback
regulations, unless specifically exempted.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
BRAD L. KILGER, Director
Planning Department
SIGN ORDINANCE INTERPRETATION
March 23, 1989
Page 3
.......................................*.**.***.**.**...........
SBMC Section 19.04.515 defines the word "structure":
"19.04.515 Structure
'structure' means anything constructed or
built, any edifice or building of any kind,
or any piece of work artificially built up or
composed of parts joined together in some
definite manner, which requires location on
the ground or is attached to something
having a location on the ground."
A billboard sign is . thing which is constructed or
built and is attached to something located on the ground, Le.,
support poles.
!!:!ERO~
Deputy City Attorney
ss
March 23, 1989
ee: Dennis Barlow
Sr. Assistant City Attorney
'''".
.
.
.
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT D
Public Hearing Notice
A notice of the appeal hearing was sent to the property
owners within 500 feet of the subject property and the
application at least ten days prior to the hearing, as per
Municipal Code Section 19.81.020. A copy of this notice is
attached.
M&CCAGENDA:
PHNOTICE
.
I
.
.
.
.
OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
APPEAL OF Review of Plans No. 89-10
THIS IS TO INFORM YOU THAT THE FOLLOWING ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE
MAYOR ANO COMMON COUNCIL BY the applicant.
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission denial of WARD #:
Review of Plans No. 89-10 3
PROPERTY
LOCATION : Subject property is located on the west side of Waterman
Avenue, 644 feet north of Hospitality Lane and adjacent
to San Timoteo Creek.
PROPOSAL: To construct a 300 square foot 32 feet high billboard
on a 0.6 site.
PUBLIC HEARING LOCATION: SAN BERNARDINO CITY HALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
300 NORTH "0" STREET
SAN BERNARDINO, CA. 9241B
HEARING DATE AND TIME: Monday, November 20, 1989, 2:00 p.m.
A DETAI~ED DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSA~ IS ON FI~E IN THE P~ANNING DEPARTMENT AT CITY
H~~. IF YOU WOU~D ~IKE FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THIS PROPOSA~ PRIOR TO THE PUB~IC
HEARING, P~EASE CONTACT THE P~ANNING O~PARTMENT IN PERSON OR BY PHONING
(714) 384-5057.
THANK YOU.
.
.
.
;.., 1.1. "Y
~,
.
. ATTACHMENT E.
RANCON FINANCIAL
CORPORA nON
ITEI1 NO. 7
.
-
rn1
RANCON
650 Easr Hospiraliry Lane. Suire 600 / San Bernardino, CA 92408
October 2, 1989
Mr. Roy Nierman, Chairman
PLANNING COMMISSION
SAN BERNARDINO CITY HALL
COUNCIL CHAMBER
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino CA 92418
;....;.......
OCT 0 3 1969
,.,."
....... .
.1
-- .~, ~.,
Re: Review of Plans No 89-10
Dear Mr. Neirman:
It has come to my attention that you are considering allowing a 32 foot high billboard across the street from
our four-story office building (301 Vanderbilt Way).
In addition, Rancon Realty Funds IV and V have spent approximately $50,000 to install the median on
Waterman and beautify this entrance to the City. Why would the City want to detract from an area that is
undergoing development?
We seriously object to this proposed structure as it .will block the westerlv view of our tenants on the 3rd
and 4th floors and diminishes the value of our property.
. We respectfully request that you deny this application.
Sincerely,
RANCON FINANCIAL CORPORATION
As Agent for Tri-C' Corporate Centre
l{zx~M
Asset Manager
JH:maf
CC: Jim Milligan. Rancon
Roy Storaasli, Rancon
Steve Palmer, Rancon
Rod MacDonald, Rancon
Councilwoman Estrada
C.File
J.File
'.
.
_TV OF SAt\. BE.. .~~Dl~B F.. .VlE.."IORANDUM___
ToPlanning Commission
Planning Depar~~ent
From
ebject APPEAL TO DECISION OF THE DEVELOPMENT Date October 3, 19 8 ~
REVIEW COMMITTEE TO DENY REVIEW OF PLANS 89-10
Agenda Item No. 7
Approved
Date
SUBJECT:
APPEAL OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE'S
DECISION TO DENY REVIEW OF PLANS 89-10 TO
CONSTRUCT A 300 SQUARE FOOT, 32 FOOT HIGH
REPLACEMENT BILLBOARD ON A 0.6 ACRE SITE
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF WATERMAN AVENUE
644 FEET NORTH OF HOSPITALITY LANE AND
ADJACENT TO SAN TIMOTEO CREEK
(SEE SITE PLAN, ATTACHMENT H AND LOCATION MAP
ATTACHMENT I)
REOUEST
e
In a letter dated August 17, 1989, the applicant requested
an appeal of the Development Review committee's . (DRC)
decision to deny the project (Attachment C). In a second
letter dated September 14, 1989, the applicant's
representative, John Lightburn and Associates, further
requested that the planning commission interpret the
City's Sign Ordinance (San Bernardino Municipal Code 19.60)
as it relates to the provisions for the relocation of off
premise signs, the adopted General Plan Policy 1.45.1 and
this application (Attachment D).
BACKGROUND
Review of Plans 89-10 was submitted on February 23, 1989. On
February 21, 1989, a request had been made to the City
Attorneys' office by the Planning Department for Legal
Opinion 89-2 for an interpretation of the Sign
ordinance regarding billboard replacement (San Bernardino
Municipal Code 19.60.250 (B)). In addition, the Department
requested clarification of the definition of structures
as it relates to billboards, the zoning code and
required setbacks. On March 23, 1989, the Legal Opinion
was received from the City Attorneys' office (Attachment
F). In accordance with the Legal Opinion, the application
was deemed incomplete on March 23;' 1989 and a letter was sent
to the applicant informing him of this determination.
No correspondence was received from the applicant in response
to the incomplete letter. On June 12, 1989, staff wrote a
letter to the applicant indicating that the General Plan
adopted June 2, 1989, includes a Policy (1.45.1) which
effectively prohibits the project represented in the Review
e
.
City of San Be:t.....rdL.~ I ·
Memorandum to Planning mmission, octo~r 3, 1989, 7:00 p.m.
Page 2
.
.
of Plans 89-10 application. Staff requested that the
applicant withdraw the application by July 3, 1989, or the
Department would take the project forward to the
Development Review Committee with a recommendation for denial
based on inconsistency with the General Plan.
In a letter dated July 3, 1989, the applicant indicated
that he did not wish to withdraw the application and
requested that he be given until August 3, 1989, to submit
new information and a revised site plan as was
requested when the application was deemed incomplete. Staff
approved their request, but reiterated the conflict with
General Plan Policy 1.45.1.
No further communication was received from the applicant,
therefore, on August 8, 1989, a letter was sent advising the
applicant that the Review of Plans 89-10 was scheduled
for a hearing before the Development Review Committee on
August 17, 1989.
.
On August 17, 1989, the Development Review Committee denied
the application for inconsistency with the. General Plan
and San Bernardino Municipal Code, Section 19.60. 250 A.3
(Attachment B, Findings of Fact). The applicant submitted
an appeal request August 17, 1989, and amended it September
14, 1989.
ANALYSIS
REPLACEMENT SIGN
The applicant requested a billboard located at 723 West Mill
Street as the sign to be replaced. This sign is no longer
standing. It was removed in July of 1986, after not being
used for at least four years, as part of the More Attractive
Community Enforcement effort (see Attachment E, letter dated
June 16, 1986, and xeroxed photo).
Prior to the adoption of the General Plan, San Bernardino
Municipal Code allowed for replacement signs with no require-
ment regarding "on-site". Replac;ement credit was given for a
sign located anywhere in the City' if removed. The intent was
to remove the old and delapitated signs from the City's
commerical corridors and replace those signs with new signs
elsewhere.
.
.
.
.
.
MCity ofdsantBerll.~rd~n_. . .
emoran um 0 P ann~ng Comm~ss~on,
Page 3
.
October 3, 1989, 7:00 p.m.
.
The legal interpretation from the city Attorneys' office
dated March 23, 1989, (Attachment F) indicates that the
ordinance regarding replacement of off-premise signs (Attach-
ment G) "clearly requires that the old sign, which is to be
replaced be presently "owned" and therefore, presently
existing and in use." This is provided that no agreement was
made by the City to give future "credit" for a replacement
sign. The San Bernardino Municipal Code does not authorize
any person, committee or commission to offer such future
credit. In conversation with Mr. Frank schuma, former
planning Director, it was confirmed that no such future
credit was discussed or offered. Staff finds no evidence of
such agreement. Therefore, no qualified replacement sign has
been provided in this case.
Because the legal opinion
of the General Plan,
"on-site" replacement was
was requested prior to the adoption
no opinion regarding the issue of
requested.
SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE REOUIREMENTS
San Bernardino Municipal Code allows off-premise signs in
certain commercial and manufacturing' zones at a maximum
height of 32 feet and maximum area of 300 square feet. The
sign proposed by this 'application is designed to these
standards. The front setback proposed is 10 feet from
property line while 20 feet from curb face is required. The
site plan (Attachment H) does not indicate a curbline and
therefore, a determination can not be made as to whether or
not the proposal is in compliance with that standard.
GENERAL PLAN
The General Plan, adopted by the Mayor and Common council on
June 2, 1989, contains several policies pertinent to this
issue.
These polices include:
1.45.1
prohibit the development of new blllboards in the City except
as on-site replacement of existing units.
.
.
.
.
City of San Ber....rdil._ A I
Memorandum to Planning ~mmission, Octo r 3, 1989, 7:00 p.m.
Page 4
.
1.45.2
Pursue the
viewsheds
funding is
acquisition and
and other areas
available.
removal of billboards along major
which are visually impacted, as
1.45.3
Establish design standards for billboards which improve their
visual character and compatibility with adjacent uses and
require that all existing billboards be upgraded to these
standards within five years.
1.45.6.
Prohibit the development of pole signs at the key entries to
the City (as identified in the Urban Design for Public Spaces
Policy 5.1.2) and in key activity districts, including the
downtown, Tri-City/commercenter, Mount Vernon Theme Center,
Highland Avenue "Core", Santa Fe Railroad Depot speciality
Center, Waterman Avenue office Industrial Park, california
State University area, Verdemont commercial "village", and
other pertinent areas (Il.l).
The proposed project is in conflict with policies 1.45.1 and
1.45.2 in that there is no existing on-site sign to be
replaced (1.45.1) and that Waterman Avenue, proposed to be an
ungraded major entrance to the City would be impacted by the
placement of a billboard along that corridor (1.45.2) Design
Standards required by 1.45.3 are evolving with the Develop-
ment Code. In addition, 1.45.3 requires compatibility with
adjacent uses. The opinion of planning Staff is that a
billboard is not a compatible land use in the TriCity/Commer-
center area. policy 1.45.6 clearly prohibits the placement
of pole signs at key entries of the city. Chapter 1, Section
5, Urban Design, of the General Plan identifies Waterman and
the Hospitality Lane area as a "major entry node" for the
City.
A General Plan amendment relative to these polices would need
to take place prior to approval-~f this sign.
.
city of San BeI..~rdi.._.
Memorandum to Planning~mmission,
Page 5
.
October 3, 1989, 7:00 p.m.
.
.
CONCLUSION
The applicant is appealing the denial by the Development
Review Committee of Review of Plans 89-10 for a replacement
billboard. The project was denied based on inconsistency
with the General Plan adopted by the Mayor and Common Council
on June 2, 1989. To approve the project would require a
General Plan amendment. A legal opinion from the city
Attorneys' office states there is no qualified existing
billboard to be replaced in that the requested replaced
billboard was removed more than three years ago during
the More Attractive Community campaign. The Waterman Avenue
corridor is a major entrance to the City and integrity of
visual aesthetics should be preserved. Mandatory findings
required for approval of a Review of Plans can not be made.
RECOMMENDATION
.
It is recommended that the Planning Commission uphold the
decision of the Development Review committee; deny the appeal
of that decision, and deny Review of Plans 89-10, based on
Findings of Fact (Attachment B).
Respectfully submitted,
.
ATTACHMENT A- San Bernardino Municipal Code and General
Plan Conformance
B- Findings of Fact
C- Appeal Letter
D- Letter amending
appeal
E- Letter dated 6-16-86
F- Legal Interpretation
G- San Bernardino Municipal 19.60.250
Off-premise signs
H- site Plan
1- Location map
.
.
CITY OF SAN
.
BERNARDINO
DEPARTMENT
.
PLANNING
SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
WARD
7
10-3-89
3
1&.1
en
<
(.)
APPLICANT.' Heywood Company
1948 North "E" St.
San Bernardino, CA 92406
OWNER Kurt 1'1. Rietsch
16836 Marina Bay Dr.
Huntinqton Beach, CA 92644
Review of Plans 89-10
t;
1&.1
::>
o
lIoI
a:
"
<
ILl
a:
<
'!he applicant requests to appeal the decision of the Oeve1oprent Review
Ccmnittee (ORe) to deny the Review of Plans application to construct a
300 square foot billlx:lard. '!he applicant also requests the Plannin:J
Ccmnission to interpret the San' Bernardino M.1nicipal Code 19.60 as it
relates to relocation of the off-pranise signs.
'!he 0.6 acre site is located on the west side of Waternan AVenue
approximately 644 feet north of Hospitality lane adjacent to San Tirroteo
Creek Flood Control Qlannel.
. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
PROPERTY LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION
Sub;ect Vacant CR-3, Regional Ccmrercia1 CR-3
North Ccmrercial CR-3, Regional Ccmrercial CR-3
South Ccmrercial CR-3, Regional Cam'ercial CR-3
Fast Ccmrercial CR-3, Regional Ccmrercial CR-3
West Ccmrercia1 CR-3, Regional Cc.mrercial CR-3
GEOLOGIC / SEISMIC DYES FLOOO HAZARD DYES OZONE A !Xl YES
HAZARD ZONE lXI NO ZONE CD NO OZONE B SEWERS oNO
HIGH FIRE DYES AIRPORT NorSE / DYES REOEVELOPMENT KI YES
HAZARD ZONE DlNO CRASH ZONE ~NO PROJECT AREA DNO
..J o NOT o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z 0 APPROVAL
~ APPLICABLE EFFECTS 0
WITH MITIGATING ti 0 CONDITIONS
Zen MEASURES NO E.I.R.
l&IC!) @ EXEMPT o E.I.R. RECUIRED BUT NO 1&.0 rn
:Ez 1&.f5 DENIAL
Z- SIGN IFICANT EFFECTS
00 WITH MITIGATING ;!:E 0 CONTINUANCE TO
a:Z MEASURES en:E
s:Li: 0
. Z ONO o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS (.)
l&I SIGNIFICANT SEE ATTACHED E.R. C. l&I
EFFE CTS MINUTES a:
NOV_ 19t1 R[VISED ..tULY 1..2
'KY
e
eTACHMENT A
e
e
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
. CASE RP 89-10
. OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
7
10-3-89
7
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFOR}UlliCE
Cateqory
Permitted Use
Proposal
Billboard off-site
replacement
Pole Sign
Setbacks:
Front
10 feet
from property
line
Maximum Ht.
32 feet
SBMC General Plan
Planning Comm. On-site
Approval replacement
only (1.45.1)
N/A
20 feet
from curb
face
(Urqency Ord)
32 feet
Prohibited in
Tri-City/
Commercenter
(1.45.6)
20 feet from
C"1Jrb face
(Urgency
Ordinance)
.
ATTACHMENT B
.
.
.
000
DO
t. Signs are in confor"'."ce with the S.I.III.C. 0 D
DO
ODD 0
The oroiect described in RP 89-10 ammtonststent with
the General Plan adopted bI the Mayor and Council on June 2.
1989. in that the ~li~ .45.1 Qrohibits devel~t of new
hi 1 1 l-n;:trds p.xCP-Dt as on-site reolacements ot ex~stmq UIU ts
REVIEW ~ PlANS NO.
'9-10
.
Olt. 10-3-89
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ~TTEE
""NDATORY Fl NDII&S
APPROVAL - FINDINGS
YES
SEE SEE
PLAN ATTACHED
NO
1. T~e de'elo~nt plans comply with all prowi-
siO"' of San Bernardino Municipal Code.
Unifor8 Codes included into the Sin Bernardino
Munlclpll Cod. Ind Stl.dlrd Requlr....ts
.StAbllsh.d by the City. 0 [Xl 0 0
2. Buildings, ~tructures and development, lid
us. th.reof 5.111 b. c_Itlbl. with Ind IDt
d.trl..tll to .IC. ot..r, Ind Shill likewise
b. c....tlbl. wit. I. not d.trl...tll to the
zone within ..Ic. such Droj.ct 5.111 b.
.st.bllsh.d. so thlt Drop.rty 'Ilues may"
preserved Ind orderly development of land in
the surroundl.g Ireas may be ISsur.d. 0 liJ 0 0
3. If the Development Revie. Committee cannot
make the reQulred findings 1n the .'fir..t1..,
the OeYelo~nt Review Committee may deny the
IDpllcltlo. for d...loD...t. 0 lKl D 0
A. C_lI.s with Dro.lsio.s of the S.B.M.t. 0 0 0 0
B. COMOI'IS with uniform codes tncorpor.ted
i.to the S.B.M.C. (Buildl.g, Fire. .tc.l. 0 0 0 0
C. CQftGlies with San Bernardtno standard
r.Qui r.....ts. 0 0 0 0
D. Butldings, structures. development aftd
use art con1Juible with and not
detr; !llenta I to:
1. hCh OUI,!r.
ODD 0
o IKl 0 0
ODD 0
ODD 0
2. Surround,ng neighborhood.
3. Zone in Which establtshed.
E. Will prese~ve oroperty values.
F. Will !ssur, orderly oeveloomtnt of t~
lI.d.
o ~ 0 0
G. Neighboring useS and
be protected against
and other offensive.
condition~.
1itructures w'l1
not se vi bration
obJ.ctlo.lbl.
o
o
o
o
H. lighting h arranged SO tt'l.t light 15
reflected aWIY from adjoining properties.
o
o
o
J. Design wi 11 assure pedestrian ~J.fet1.
(. Design will provide safe and effictlftt
traffic flow.
L.
K5 RPBlANKP3&4
Agend&emn
Hearing date:
10/3/89
Page 8
""
A'ITACHMENT C - .
.H~aring, DAt~Onl
..VWOOI: _U,=-ANV. oe 1 Advertising or \"a..rnlC
1948 North "e" Street, San Bernardino, California Phone (714) 888.5244 .
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2713, San Bernardino, California 92~CE1VEO-CnY CLERI<
.
'89 NJj 17 P 1 :29
August 17, 1989
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
ATTN: PLANNING COMMISSION
RE: APPEAL OF D.R.C. DENIAL OF REVIEW OF PLANS 89-10
.
Gentlemen:
Heywood Company wishes to appeal to the City Planning
Commission the decision of the D.R.C. Committee of
August 17, 1989.
Enclosed is our check for $75.00, the fee for filing
this appeal. .
Please advise us when this appeal will be heard before
the Planning Commission.
enc
fi!) ;-:: r:: ;: - ... .- 7.'
O ." '.. -
;.: . ~.: J
, \1;
..J'..a
AUG 18 1989
.
elTl rL;-,i.l~IAlG ;;.. . . "..7
~N'''''''''' I'~
SAN BEn. ....:\:.....u, '"~
K.t'O':J-..1.V
.
.TrACHr1rnTD .
.,
. Lightburn
. . &i\ssociates
Brad Kilger
Director of Planning
City of San Bernardino
300 North D Street
San Bernardino, Ca.
92418
Pos< Offic. Box 1622
San Bernardino. C.alifornla 92402
(714) 381.2656
September 14, 1989
Reference: Review of Plans 89-10
Dear Mr. Ki 1ger,
On behalf of our client, Heywood Company, we are amending the appeal
request letter of August 17, 1989 to include a Planning Commission
interpretation of the City'S sign ordinance (Municipal Code 19.60) as it
relates to the provisions for the relocation of off-premise signs, the
General Plan policy statement 1.45.1 and our client's application.
..
Specifically, we contend that our client's application for the replacement
of an off-premise sign Qualifies underthe appropriate sections of the sign
ordinance and should be considered in light of those provisions. We are in
receipt of a copy of the Deputy City Attorney's legal opinion dated March
23, 1989, regarding the interpretation of the sign ordinance and take
exception to the conclusions arrived at by legal council.
We wish to have the entire matter heard by the Planning Commission at
the earliest opportunity. To this end, we are providng you a property
owners map and two sets of mailing labels as requested in staff's letter
to this office dated September 7, 1989.
Please advise us as to the time and date of the Planning Commission
hearing on this matter
Thank you for your co-operation
.
SEP 14 1989
fD) ~ (@ ~ n "il is
Ln1~~-' .._C::I
CITY PLAN:: .:', <i'''RTMENT
SAN BWlARLllNO. CA
.
[ill
.t\.I;"O":j-l.U
,
CITY
.TI'ACHMEm E .
.
c ~: ~'.\.N BERNARDINO 300 NORTH "0" STReET. SAN S:RNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 92418
.
EVLYN WILCOX
.
MJyor
MelT,Dllrs cf tn. Comm!,)n Council
E~l".~, E\!"Z.:!ol. . . . . . . . . . . . . I"'wst W.I,1
Jack Rel:ly. . . . . . . . .". . . . . Second W,uCl
H.J"" H-rt'1.lndez . . . . . . . . . . . TI'lI,C1 \"Jol,d
5teve Mar.:, . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fourth ~"'.1rd
CO,C1on Q(ller . . . . . . . . . . . . . FlU" W,1,d
r.an Fr.:::io)r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shetn W.,d
J.CK Strl,:L.oler . . . . . . ... . . . .Seventh "':.1rO
..
June 1(;, 1986
Nr. Hal HeY"lDod
lIey,,'ood Co., Outcoor Advertising of CA
1916 North "En Street
S~n Oernardino, CA 92405
De~r Mr. Heywood:
.
~n abandoned billboard structure exists at 723 West Mill
Street in San Bernardino. Records indicate that this
str.ucture \"as erected in 1973 by your company and that the
Hey.lood Cor.lpany is the owner as well. T!&e billboard frame
l,~:: not. been used for at least four years, and it has been
cct~~~in~d.to be in a state of deterioration and poses a
p,/,zi.blo sa[ety hazard.
A~ p:-nt of the l!ore Attractive Cor.l!icl!l1,;,ty campaisn nOll
ur.d",.II;).:! thLOllgr.cut the City, abanc:oned ,md d~teriorating
signD have been targeted for removal. You ar~ hereby
rcqu~3t~d to renove the above me~tioned billboard utructure.
Fl~a~e lesFon~ within ten days of receipt of this letter by
rE:..'lo.'in':i th~ r.tructure or informing this departm~nt of yot.:.:
inLsut to do so lIithin an acceptEble time frame.
Thc.:lk you for your prompt attention to this mi-.tte::.
Sincerely,
&.;e~~A~__
S1\):!:C?;\ PAUr,SEN,
AEBOclBte rlanner
SP /mtL
.
.
.
.
.
en
Z
;,;;
u;
~~_~ ~ ~~.~ __~ ~~~~==~~~~~S~~~~~~-~
:.c _ .:::" ~ c':: ;; :: - C'::"..I C ':J J -= __"..I -" '- - ~
~ "..I"..I~ -~ .~~ ~._ ~'--O'~~~~':: 0 -=~ =c~ -
i.: .,'J _ _ c:.l ~ ?-~ c ::: -::; ~ - . ~ =- -- ~- ::: :.: :-: -. =.-
_ ~ E - ., ;.I ':..1'- -. o.or.; C - ~ ., -= -
/. .:-;: C i: "!j -= ~ ~ ... :.J -= =- -3.... ~ -::: -= ~ 'J 5 ;' OJ :~ -;: ... ~ ~ ~
,. .,. _ ... ... 'i - 'U >. :":,I .- ~ ;- 0' ';: := - - =.;.: - ~ ~ ::.r. ~ ~;; - -- ~
~ "' g "- "i 0 ~ ._;/1_ ~ ~ ;:: c. :J E ~ :: - G..; ~ ~ ~ ~ _; -.; ~. _ .... t .:: ~
>. ..... >. -:::; "- c :) _ _!- _ In ~ ... ~.... _ :to 7"'0 J'l'_ '.;
"_ ~ '- ~ = ~ _ _ .J;;.:'" . _ ~ _ : -;:. ::. -= ;... -::; :- ~ :::.: ~J -:: :;_"
_, .__ .., '"_" ':,... ~ .... ~ _ J _ - ~ ;:_-_"' . -
_ ::. :.: r;:~ _ _ ._ ....:; a :: - .~ .i .~. Q..~-::; .~ ~ 1: :t ~ ; E J r. ... ::! "..I
!_ E.~~~~ '~-'~>~_~J"..I'___--~-- E~~i
7- :] "..I ~ - :: ~ "..I ~ .~ ~ ~ 'f ~ D"E : ., -= =:: :r ..: ~ 1 - ... ::
-" . ~ ':.J c.. ~ = ! ~ == ~.: ~ == ;t c';;:: ~ ~: = ;c ... :; ,-, ;; i) ':..I':: .;; >-
~-;= l-g 1.13:":,1'::= :"';/IC:_=-_.c.:,..~;:- "::;;::_~ - :;-=...:
-=. _=_ ".., ,"_' ~_ _..c, ~ :":,I :::: '-e 0 ~ :: = ... _:: ~ -= r': -- -~.... * ...)
_ J .::. ,-, .- -. """... ~ J :-, - e . :oJ:oJ C or. -::;: ':oJ
_ _ _ _ ,.. _ ... ~ _ _ s:: :J.... '__ ~ :~. :'_'" _ .. - ':,.I - --'
..=. = .;.:::. _ _ ~ '0 'i' = _ .D '- 1,) -e:.tl - ~ c ~ = J I, - :::..
E..:~;!~,~ =~ c.f:J'; :~~;,=~a=E=-E.~~.=~:::g2:g~=~-=~~
= ~ ":;: = .... '- ~ ~ ~ :;; ,~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ... ~ ;.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :.: .= .:. ;:; ~ - - - - ':;; - -= :::-
:~~~~c -=1,) 0_ ~...O.2~.~_t~~.~_= ~~~
;:i;J~'ii.i;ll! 11~ljll~I~~i!I!~:,..';.,,~.~~~_~-~;_=:.~~~.~;c;.~:~~._~];
~.;:=__","-;::~.J".to):.i:: ,::C ...t__c c;; .~;....;",;UV:~:..~~:.. _ - ;-:_:..
_ :J ::: - ,- ~ .... 0 ~ '- > c'~ fJ'i '::E o.rJ :.c - f - -= ,.. "":; ~ ::
. c .~O~~.~_N.-_~~~ c~~0-c.5c~ ......~~:::..or....~~.=_-"":;
.:: ._ _;: '-:::i = to) '- E ~ ~ _ OJ :.0:,,: '; .,-: _':'; ;: 0 -= .=-_~ _= .... - .... ....J ':: '1.> ::: ;: := .-
~ :,; :- _ u ,:,.I :> '1.> ~ C III .::;; c.. ~ - ~ e .... ~ ~ :.. ~. - = .:!- .'J -... = .... ...
=.e-. :,; ~ =" U "':: _ _ ... ... c..;. to) ,.. ._ < u Q. - or. - .... - .... .. .... - '-
:> _ '...1 ~,.. ... c.. .... - -;: c .~ =" E ':;: - ~ "= :J ~ .... .~. -
~..~~-= .~_~~ -e;"'C ~~~~~~ '-e"":;""J".=~c =:~=. ..:.~_....=~~.2._
-=~_~-~~~u~~~-'-u to)~.~u, =~-c ~='=~:::~1,) _.~~r I.:..~
~.~.E.:;::.;Jt~=~"Eo~:::2~t...;E ;. v.c..~t.."v;_=;:z: .~-::~:r.'::-"'"" -~
~~~_~~'~__~~c5~.~~C~~~~~~=:J~~.~~E~~.~_i~i..-=:..~_~-",_-_:..~~~
_ .... ~ _ .... c <c = I ~- '"= '"= -= . :". ~ ,- ';: #:. .~ - ~ ;> -
-:::.jj:=Z,~.c ~<-= ~<-= 3';';:O"'i r.r.u'-'.... ...._t"J - -__ ~ or. J"._ -- ---:,; /.~
'"
"'...:
ATTACHMENT
.
~ ~
- ,.
~ ~~=
."
o
""
CO?
,..,
..:.
,..,
'"
.~
'~~
::::;;:
"
~-o
~
o
~
--g-~
"
C.c
~ ~
;fi
~ -
~ :-
::..:::
!;.:;
'" -
~~
.;: .....
~, ~
-, < - -
U
~ .-
:= t;
~~
'-'
Z
Z
~
.::::l
.r,
-=
r-
ex;
='
:=
G
.
RP89-10
.
'"
.c
00
'"
:.fl~ ~
.= ~ u =_'~ :-,_"
-= ~ "
o~ .5 ~'E'
--; ~ o~
~~. ~ ~ E:;
- .... .~ ~
2~ -= ::.fl~-r.
~=:Jc C :::~2~
~;::~~ :,.J - "--
~~g; :i .~~~~
--e_:::: .:'.~.' ;:>:::':oL.I
:J". 1,)- - ':';-
~~~~ "'';~=
~c-S;~ -". ..=~:::-=
~c-':: :.r. ~""_,,_~..~ -=.1,
::: ~ ~ ~ ::; c'- ~ or.
.~ :': .:;;..... .- :..I ::; - ~ ~ ;.:
_" _~ ~=C:>-::;:L=
:ci ~ ~= f :: ~ ~ .
~::: ::: - -_ .. ~ 3 = - -.g ~...' ?~ ~_._.
'V;:.G~~or. ::J"J ':::; __-
~.:;:~:"":; ~=~J".~;::""~=..;
.~~~a~ -~-~~ =~C~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :! ~ = ,~ ~ :: "~ .~ 7 .~
'-_ :,.J-:J--~~-~~-
c~o~__~.-.;_,i-.;_~. ~_"-_....~~:::';"'::
e;!IoO~_"'O_""_"...J_-~~"=~~
c~~=~~~E~~~~ ~~~~
....__~~_ -':""C
i ~ ~ ~ ::: ~ .:=; Ul - == ~. ~ :: '- .-
= ~ ~ = a T ~ ~ ~-:: ;_t :: :: -
o;::~==Y:.J=':,t,->........ ;:-
..e ~c.'=v:uJ::X:~O::::;"=~ .:;:;:: ...::;",::
N - ~ c .::- ::: ~ -
$<6e~,..i~~. ~~~~:~
~< c: ~
~
~ ;_ 0
.5 .-
o
=
~ ~-=:
- ~~
---;
c:;-:;:
-:..0":: c:
;;.. VI '-
'"
0.
~ '"
- -
c':
'" -
... c =
:L~
.:;: ~
N
'"
u
::;;:
-
.~
~ :
/ .
~.
'"
:!
>....;,
e
eTTACHMENT G
.
RP89-10
.
.
'" '" ~ - .:. ] .= ..: ~ E &! , ~i :.> ' ~ --
Z OJ, :::: :.> .- ~ .!:! - .t: :l ~ -
.- S c:. .. .;;; .t: :: .; c :>. S" - =
::2 .~ " ~ (, ;:
" " '" - ~'" ~ '- >>
;) :.> ~ ..:: >> :.> '" '" ~-= 1 ~ :.>
'" v. " c:. .g ~ ~ E Q ... :.> ::;:: ~ -
.t: ... ..c ::::~ ...::
~ ..Q E 0 .. c .~ ~"'i -
" :.> E :.>
" " ~ ~ .!:! 0 c ., ~ ~ 0 >>
:::: > ::l '" :; :: '" - ~ ~ ::;:: ;:c
g ~ " ::; u .! ~ 'E ~ c r' - ~
~ ~ - c :r .t: ." 0 ~ :::
... "
" ~ '" = ~ ~ c -
E '" '" .~ Co ,. 0 Z ~
" C :.> >> C ';j '" ~ ci "'- -
~ ,; .. ~ >>':: " .. u .s i:i ., '-' / ,
" ~ .g -;;; .!l ..c ..: ~ 2 "" ~ OE ~ - " "'7. ..
c:. ~ .. - C N - J:: ~
" .~ .. - .!:! -
c:.: " " .~ ci "/'. :J ::;::
""Q .:! ..c ~ "" c:: .!:! '" >> ~ - fo~ ~
" ~ '" ~ - = 0 .t: ~ ~ "'- '"
~ c v; ~ .2 .!!!l .la :0 ..c .~ '-' =' .- ~ ~ ~ '-
... 0 :.> .i: " c " - .;: - c ./ -
'j > Oil ..c ..c " ;; 'j c to - ::
- :.> ... c - " c:.""' ::
.::. '" :.> .. ] ~ - > ~ " ~
c - ~ ~ c 0:; ..2 0 v: '"
c 0 ..c = c " :.> :.> .- :.> =- ~ '" <
~ ~ >>- "" ~ " " ~
~ ~ ~ .. c ::;:: .. - C .t:OC ~ '";, >> ..
~ .;;; ~ ~ :.> ... ~ ~ "" 'j .- c -
u .,,; C .!l .!l =' - c ~ ~ ~ - '.."
- ..= ~ ;; :.> ." :.> ~ ::; ""'
Co " ;; 0 - v: "
" ;; .S "'- E " c:l .."
'" i:i ; ~ :.> :.> '" :.> c "5 jq .= c ..:. ~,....: - - :-
:.> ~ ~ ~ .t: .= ~ ., oc '-
'" " o!: ::: ~ - '
'" :.> .::,..:: ~ ;; > - C' i: .- C .; ;,,; -
" ~ " - " g .~ ~ "tl ~ ~ :.> c.r. - -
c .J:} ':! OJ, b ~ 'w; ~ " c:.' .!2 = 0 N DO": ::~ -
C '" ~ ~""' ~ ';;' :::
. ~ ;;; ;;; ';;; Co ;:; c ~ ;;::;:: - .. ./ '": 2 .~
c - v '" " .~ .- -
~ ~ " >> " ~ c ~ .~ :: " '" -
;,. "tl ~..:: '" ..c .= '" 'C "'-
:.> -= " c:. :.> ~ ;: ~..: ~ .,; i?: ./
" E - ~ - .: " ~ ':;; '" ~ ~ .a ::;:: .-
~ - ~ c ... " ~ .,., ';; = c " .~c ~ 15 - ,..
'" "" .::: " - '" ;; Co [w '" E z
~ ~ " :.> '" :.> <- :; ~ ~ .. ~ :: . ..
OJ, ~ E ~ c oc ~ ~ .. ~ '" -g :.> ::;::
'j '" ~ C'o - ... 'E !:!::;:: c.!:! - c:. :.> Co.:
;r ~ ~ <- c :.> '" U c c ..:. " c
~ - ... ~ c '" v; ,;:; :.> ~ - .,..
:: ~ ~ "" ~ :r. ~ OIl C '" .. DO"" .;: :.> ... .~ - -=
~ ~ "" to .. <i5 ;: ~ <i5 :C~ Vi .5 .t: 0 C '" '" l: ~
-= -= '" " " - ~ :.> -
:.> '" ~ ~ N [ C. '"
~ :.> ~ ;: ~ ,,- .- 'j - -
v ~ ~ ~ " :.> :.> -= ]
c; .t: E >> c , :.> .: " on c:.""' 0 ~ 0 ~ 'j ,.::; ..
:.> :.> 1 . E c. > '" ,""' ::; - :/:
to Z. '" > ""' ...., .., 'ji; "" '" .;: '" - :r. -
" ..:: .. " ::;:: N " .... c g .... ~ ? N ..:. - :.>
" ~ :.> .;: :.> ell ... '" ~
::;:: :."j E t; " ~ Q ~ ... z '" ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ci C ~ ;:
- '" " "" ~ " -D .;;; -D ::; - -:> v: - " ""
.t: ~ ~ ;:
~ ~ ~ .~ ,,; ~
- Q, '" :; .~ ~ ~ <(
- ~ ~ :::: - !:...:
.
I\.r '-';.; -.....v
~ P 1.., C A NT' ATTACHMENT H
I-ft::'!'WOOD C~MttANV. Ou.oor Advertising of Calienia
.
1948 North "E" Street, San Bernardino. California Phone (714)886-5244
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2713. San Bernardino, California 92406
.Lot~T ION- WA"e RMAN w/'- '14f."!' N/o HOSPfTAt..ITr '-W,
PRO P. R'T''' OWN~~- t< U~T' W, ~ I Ei5C. U, It-a,,, ~A ftf 114 ~
SA V OR,..t HUNT'N "TO'" seAc:. H,CA, q~C.4 ,.{1'aUS.qO-710
LEG-AL.. D~.s., PA R~eL. NO.2, PA~c..e.&.. MAPB73llfo
A.~N. 141'-'4". 9S"
ZON .N& OI5TR.l"T, C-3A
r
c..E J!. AN.... f r-- ~ i ~-..
\ir,.... W 8 .!-Ci3 ; ~,~ f'~ .:r~~ ~ .
l..s~prT"-ac.,"Oo ~ i j1.;-- \ \ :~.__..;~1./
t.'~ FT of' Sl~. JOO '-- e~~'~~ Pt~s~rl-/O t ,
"', fAt CO'l~"-A.'" . bO"/o j
8. ;tON 'N"" DtST'~Cf" ~-3~
11. N'" 'TUA.e. 0 J:' eu'S fNc..U.. OUT ObOR, AOV'&iR."'5' NG-
I!. A.AN ,..,-.,11"8;/ &.G. C5-At.. DES. PAAC:cl..N03 PAtalll'EL
MAP S73.q. ~ I '"
''4. :u..t\I PRE PAREA.. JOHN M. fo4,.VN '1"8 N .'EM St. SAM
QI!~NA1il1)I~O'C:"Jq2.~O'" ,
A~PL'C"NT, HE\"'WOO1) co, .s~Mf: "DO-'~S.5
(tt1t E R. f W 1='0.
RT SAC.", AND E',,!t EM&:NTS
10' FROt1 'Ftllf)WT P"'Ca~. 1lT\" L.I NE
'00" F"&'cOt) CL.oN TROL-
--- .......,
......~-....,...:-;,r-..,.~
SIr
PL.AN
+
,- c:rIC,.UCJ ~D
110"
I \l.I
';)
((
"Z:
<t
I~ ~
,q: SCJ\Li.
~ .": -w'
! LOCA~.rON MAP
'" .$I~ t.OCAT10rl
~ BLow UP
~ .~ ... ~ ~fl.,I tcr
.~ 11 aPE......... .
\11 ~l'l'.......rn I
~ "~, ~". ~
:I:-/o ~ ~Q 1-"", \ 1 i(
~ ~~ ~~ 1\ ~
3 f S~~!'t~~~~'L. ~Q' r ~
. I, "300. ': <:' I-
.~ v8U, ^C( SING-L1:. POlL, 1: ~
~ lo'I4...'3a' Ol/T DIOQ~ "'D~~A.TlS"JG-- ~
!.t'':'..J, ~OO"J 0"" ~"'L..L. Ht:1~lofr'3~
"'" ~\lG.. O""-OUIolO.
.
(
. ATTACHMENT I. I
.
LOCATION
CASE RP 89-10
AGENDA
ITEM #
7
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
HEARING DATE 10-3-R'l
.
".....", 1..&.. T
,
I C_T
~
I~
.
.
~
.
.
~..."
.'"\
~ . \; c,,",w<oe....
- - ."~"-; .
I ~,.".. 'r': "I
~i \ \j,1
~ - ._~ -.-~ '
! ~- . . ~ ~ :i-
"I /" ...._~:~
. . ~ - ...;1
t -".,,~ . ~ .. ;;1'-
: '"'$, 'I
I \~
i.a."
1~"L-'
I, .:;; /
:/~
I
\., -",'-'-'--~ _.-
'''OysTIIt,~l.
....
..,
N
1"~loool
~,
.//-.
~ 0 . , 0 . . T I 'f ~ I _ f
.
.
.
TRI.crfY
HAND DELIVERED
December 15, 1989
-. \'i \~~~
The Honorable W.R. Holcomb
and Members of the Common Council
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
300 North "0" Street
San Bemardino, California 92418
.
REFERENCE:
Review of Plans No. 89-10
Applicant: Heywood & Co.
City Council Hearing Date: 12/18/89
Dear Mayor Holcomb and Members of the Common Council:
This letter is sent to urge the Council to uphold the Planning Commission's recent
denial of Heywood & Co. 's application for approval to erect a billboard along the
west side of Waterman Avenue.
As an important part of Rancon's development of and commitment to the
Waterman Avenue gateway area, Rancon spent nearly $220,000 for installation of
the center median and for general beautification of the area. Great care was also
taken in the design of the existing special monument sign, further enhancing and
distinguishing the gateway area.
Recognition of Waterman Avenue as the primary gateway to the City of San
Bernardino is further reflected in the recently adopted General Plan, which
eliminated billboards from the thoroughfare. Allowing Heywood & Co., or any
entity, to erect a billboard along Waterman Avenue, particularly along its now highly
developed lower portion, would be a major step backward and would negate the
significant, recent accomplishments of the City, Rancon, and others in beautifying
the area. Additionally, substantial tenants presently occupy Rancon's buildings
along Waterman Avenue. Their westward views would be blighted by the presence
of a billboard. Consistent improvement efforts along bQ1!:l sides of Waterman
Avenue are essential to achieving a proper gateway and continued attraction of
high quality developments. .
650 E. Hospitolity In!. SUite 1000
Son Ilonwdino. C/I mOll
17141381-5301
. FAX 17141 885-7127
^ llMtopmont 01 Rancon R<.1ty
Ftnls IV ancI V
@
~
'e
.
.
.
,
The Honorable W.R. Holcomb
and Members of the Common Council
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Page 2
December 15, 1989
The City Planning Staff strongly urged the Planning Commission, and now urges
the Council, to deny the application and the appeal. We also strongly urge that the
Council follow Staff's advice and deny the Heywood & Co. appeal.
Sincerely, ~
/l...:,-; ~ /' Ih
I./~..r) I cA//t{
Steven J. Parmer
Vice President,
Director of Marketing
SJP/pt
cc: Bruce D. Varner, Esq.