HomeMy WebLinkAbout41-Planning
ciO 'OF SAN BERNAROOo - REQUOr FOR COUNCIL ACQoN
From:
R. Ann Siracusa Appeal of Conditional Use Permit
Director of PlanninitEC'O.-ADHIIt. '~ject: No. 87-32
Dept:
Planning
1"u~7. '"'' '19 'I,' n "I.
,~ " I',' i ..i - oJ "t
Mayor and Council Meeting of
July 6, 1987, 2:00 p.m~~
Date:
June 18, 1987
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
Previous Planning Commission action:
At the meeting of the Planning Commission on June 16, 1987, the
following action was taken:
The Planning Commission adopted findings of fact for approval of
Conditional Use Permit No. 87-32.
The Negative Declaration for environmental impact was also approved.
Vote: Unanimous.
Recommended motion:
That the hearing on the appeal be closed and the decision
of the Planning Commission be affirmed, modified or rejected.
Si nature R. Ann Siracusa
Contact person:
R. Ann Siracusa
Phone:
384-5:157
Supporting lIata attached: Staff Report
Ward:
3
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Sou rce:
Finance:
Council Notes:
AQenda Item No,
Lj!
.' ,: cClTY OF SAN B~NARDIN(,:) - MEMORAND'j\t1
., To
)/' "
,', /
. \ /" Subject
Shauna Clark. City Clerk
Appeal/CUP 87-32
From Council Office
Date
June 9. 1987
Approved
Date
x.
0::
.....
-'
u
>-
.-
u
,
C>
..,
:>
W
u
....
e:
I herewith appeal the decision
Commission on Conditional Use Permit
seriously impairs the aesthetics of
eyesore. It obstructs an otherwise
area.
of the Planning
87-32. This sign
the area and is an
decent view in that
a..." ~--
t7 . JE~ FLORES
Councilman, Third Ward
JF:sr
0\
~
C)
c
If
~
\D
oo~~~~w~
JUN 10 1987
ril1
I ~: I
i.. I
.-
GITY PlAfiiiii'ili LS; r,., r;.~EiJT
SA" Bt:RNARllINO. CA
'e'
o
o
~
ERN ARDIN 0 300 NORTH "0" STREET, SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 9241B
EVLYN WILCOX
Mayor
Members of the Common Council
Esther Estrada. . . . . . . . . . . . . First Ward
Jack Reilly. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Second Ward
Ralph Hernandez. . . . . . . . . . . Third Ward
Steve Marks. . . . . . . . . . . . . Fourth Ward
GOrdon Qul.1 . .. . . .. . ,". . . . Fifth Ward
Oan Frazier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sixth Ward
Jack Strickler . . . . . . . . . . . .Seventh Ward
June 18, 1987
Adams Advertising, Incorporated
19081 Rocky Road
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Dear Sir or Madame:
At the meeting of the Planning Commission on June 16" 1987,
the following action was taken:
The findings of fact for approval of Conditional Use Permit
No. 87-32, to permit replacement of an off-premise sign in
the C-3 General Commercial zone on an irregularly~shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximately.B acre having a
frontage of approximately 400 feet on the north side of
Redlands Boulevard and being located approximately 1,315 feet
east of the centerline of Waterman Avenue and further
described as 512 East Redlands Boulevard, were adopted.
According to the San Bernardino Municipal Code, Sections
2.64.030 and 2.64.040, the following would apply in regard to
appeals to the Mayor and Council of Planning Commission
actions:
"Except as provided in Section 2.64.020., any person
aggrieved by, dissatisfied with, or excepting to any action,
denial, order, requirement, permit, decision or determination
made or issued by an administrative official or by an admini-
strative board, commission, body or other agency of the City
pursuant to the provisions of any ordinance, code, rule or
regulation of the City, may appeal therefrom by filing a
written notice of appeal with the City Clerk, directed to the
Common Council."
,"'. t:
," 'j <"'4'E IN PRO "E"S
.... I' r\lv ;Jr,_v
," -,
. " '\ ...;-:.:
-" \""-",~
~,', 'I'f-
;;,:,"..,.,,/",,"
'0'
, ,
o
o
~
Adams Advertising, Incorporated
June 18, 1987
Page 2
"Any such notice of appeal shall not be valid and shall not
be acted upon unless filed within fifteen days after the date
of the action or decision appealed from. If notice of such
action has not been provided in writing, and the appellant
had no notice of the hearing at which the action was to be
considered, the appellant may, within five days after first
becoming aware of such action, demand written notice thereof,
and shall have ten days following such notice in which to
file the notice of appeal. A prospective appellant who was
present at the time the action or decision relating thereto
was made shall be presumed to have constructive notice
thereof and shall file a notice of appeal within fifteen days
after the date of the action or decision."
The Planning Commission action has
man Jess Flores, Third Ward, and is
the City Council on July 6, 1987 at
Respectfully,
been appealed
scheduled to
2:00 p.m.
by Counc il-
be heard by
t.~~~,
R. ANN SIRACUSA
Director of Planning
mkf
cc: Building and Safety Dept.
Mr. Bill Haynes
512 Redlands Boulevard
San Bernardino, CA 92408
"0' ~""_ ,0 0 ~
..A' ytJJ,.rl.~,j;'
. ~\. - - ." " '.
CI~?~ '~~~~ERNARDINO ~_rn ..~ ~""~""~.""'"OUU~".. ~"
\. .,'.'r',' ;\ ,_ .'.('/
"J.......l.._., -" \',"
'.'.!\.Ef~~."\,' '
EVLYN WILCOX
~lI8vo'
Member. of the Common Council
Est"'", Estrada. . . . . . . . . . . . . Fin. Ward
J.ck Reilly. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Second Ward
RaiD" Hernande,. . . . . . . . . . . . Third Ward
Ste"e Marks. . . . . . . . . . . . . Fourth Ward
Gordon Quia' . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fifth Ward
Dan Frazier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sheth Ward
JackSt,tckle, . . . . . . . . . . . .Se"enth Ward
June 9, 1987
Adams Advertising, Incorporated
19081 Rocky Road
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Dear Sir or Madame:
At the meeting of the Planning Commission on June 2, 1987,
the following action was taken:
The application for Conditional Use Permit No. 87-32, to
permit replacement of an off-premise sign in the C-3 General
Commercial zone on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately.8 acre having a frontage of
approximately 400 feet on the north side of Redlands Boule-
vard and being located appr.oximately 1,315 feet east of the
centerline of Waterman Avenue and further described as 512
East Redlands Boulevard, was reviewed. The Planning Commis-
sion approved Conditional Use Permit No. 87-32, with the
direction that the Planning Department staff prepare findings
of fact for adoption at their June 16, 1987 meeting.
According to the San Bernardino
19.78.070., the following applies
tional use permit:
Municipal Code, Section
to the filing of a condi-
"The decision of the Commission shall be final unless appeal-
ed in writing to the Mayor and Common Council. The written
appeal shall be submitted to the office of the City Clerk
within ten days from the date of the Commission's decision.
The Common Council, after receipt of the appeal, shall
conduct a public hearing and may either approve, modify or
reject the decision of the Planning Commission."
'~;. t'I""'- "",.nl..\m ""
.,,"~, -4
--..:J"'''Il'$'T7 '
.,...;,...(:: (
'0
o
Adams Advertising, Incorporated
June 9, 1987
Page 2
o
o
If no appeal is filed pursuant to the previously mentioned
provisions of the San Bernardino Municipal Code, the action
of the Commission shall be final.
Respectfully,
<:.//~~
-
VINCENT A. BAUTISTA
Principal Planner
mkf
cc: Building and Safety Dept.
Mr. Bill Haynes
512 Redlands Boulevard
San Bernardino, CA 92408
. C CITY OF SAt-4 B~NARDIN<9 - MEMORANO.;M
To Planning Commission
From Pl anni ng Department
Subject Cond it i ona 1 Use Permi t No. 87 -32
Date June 16, 1987
Approved
AgpnnA Itpm No. I? WArd No.3
Date
OWNER: ,Bill Haynes
512 Redlands Boulevard
San Bernardino, CA 92408
APPLICANT: Adams Advertising, Inc.
19081 Rocky Road
Santa Ana, CA 92705
BACKGROUND:
The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit to establish an
off-site replacement sign with waivers of the 32 foot maximum height
(Municipal Code Section 19.60.250.A.3l and the prohibition of off-premise
signs within 600 feet of the freeway right-of-way (Municipal Code Section
19.60.250.A.8l.
The 0.8 acre site is located in the C-3A zone on the north side of
Redlands Boulevard aproximately 1,315 feet east of the centerline of
Waterman Avenue and is further described as 512 East Redlands Boulevard.
REQUEST:
Conditional Use Permit No. 87-32 has been continued to the Planning Commission
hearing of June 16, 1987 in order to allow staff to prepare the necessary
positive findings of fact.
Respectfully submitted,
R. ANN SIRACUSA
Director of Planning
~~ ~ ~.,,) )-
~~anning ide
ClrY 0" rH.=M~'V.
'0 0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE Conditional Use
NDINGS f F~AICT Permit No. 87-32
Fl. ' 0 '" ~;~~~ 16~~E 6/i~/87
PAGE 7
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR A WAIVER.
1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions appli-
cable to the property involved, or to the intended uses of the property,
which do not apply generally to other property in the same zoning district
and neighborhood.
Applicant's Response:
Adams Advertising, Inc. is requesting a height variance because there are
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to
the intended use of the property which do not apply, generally, to other
properties in the same zoning district and neighborhood.
In order for Adams to build a sign that can perform its directional func-
tion, a 42' overall height is required so that the sign can be viewed by
those traveling on Interstate 10. The sign cannot be viewed by motorists
if it were built lower than 42' because the freeway grade is much higher
than the ground level, so we need this height to be visible from the
freeway.
This problem does not apply to all neighboring properties, in the same
zone district, because in some of the other areas this same relationship
of freeway grade to ground level does not exist. Further, there exists a
sign approximately 2000' to the east, built to a height of 40'.
Staff's Response:
Variance from the terms of the zoning ordinance as stipulated by State law
and City ordinance can only be granted due to special circumstances appli-
cable to the property including size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings.
,
The level of the freeway is 16 feet above the ground level at the site of
the proposed sign. This circumstance does not apply to other nearby prop-
erties. The requested waiver of the 32 foot maximum height is necessary
inorder to enable drivers on the west bound side of the freeway to see the
sign.
2. That such waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.
'0 0 0 :;)
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE Conditional Use
FIND,INGS of ~A'CT AGEN;:rl~~~ No ~; 12
rH HEARING DATE f,11f,/R7
PAGE ' 1
Applicant's Response:
There was a sign existing of the foof of the owner's building. That sign
was destroyed when a fire destroyed the building. The owner now wants to
replace that sign with a similar type structure. The destroyed sign was a '
double face, v-build structure, the new sign will be the same.
The ordinance provides for a replacement of one sign with another, as is
evident by the placement of the sign 2000' to the east. However, in order
for this replacement to occur and in order that the priviiege be preserved,
the 42' requested height is a necessity.
Staff's Response:
Substantial property right refers to the right to use the property in a
manner which is on a par with the uses allowed to other property owners
which are in the vicinity and have a like zoning. The purpose of the
variance is to restore parity where the strict application of the zoning
law deprives such property owners of privileges enjoyed by other proper-
ties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
The City has permitted another off-premise sign to be established on the
same side of the freeway less than one half mile to the east. In the
interest of parity it is reasonable to grant the applicant's request to
waive the prohibition of off-premise signs within 600 feet of the freeway.
3. That the granting of the waiver 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.
Applicant's Response:
The granting of such a variance will be materially beneficial to the public
health, convenience and welfare. It will permit the public to enjoy direc-
tional and/or promotional advertisements of establishments and developments
in and around their community. Also, the sign is being built consistent
with the replacement policy addressed in the City Ordinance. An old-style,
old structure, within the city, will be demolished and replaced by this new,
modern, technically advanced, monopole sign sturcture.
Staff's Response:
In determining the application for a variance, the best interest of the
entire community is the controlling factor rather than the suitability or
adaptability of the property in question for a particular use.
'C' 0 00
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FINDINGS of FACT
CASE Conditional Use
Permit No. 87-32
AGENDA ITEM 12
HEARING DATE 6/16/87
PAGE 4
The City will benefit by having an old, wooden structure demolished and
replaced by a modern sign which will provide directional and informational
benefits to the motoring public.
4. That the granting of such a variance will not be contrary to the objec-
tives of the Master Plan.
Applicant's Response:
Granting of such a variance will be consistent with the objectives of the
Master Plan, which calls for this property to be zoned C-3A, (Commercial-
Industrial>.
Staff's Response:
The General Plan designation of the site is General Commercial and the
zone is C-3A, Limited General Commercial. Off-premise signs are permitted
in the C-3A zone. Therefore the granting of the waiver is not contrary to
the objectives of the General Plan.
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
1. Conformity with the General Plan: See number four of Findings for a Waiver.
2. The proposed use will not adversely affect adjoining land uses or the
development of the area.
3. The size and shape of the site are adequate for the proposed use.
4. The proposed sign would have no impact on traffic generation or the demand
for for parking space.
'0'
o
o
:)
,. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT '"
SUMMARY
\..
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
WARD
12
6/1./15/
j
.J
lU
~ Conditional Use Pe:rnri.t 110. J7-32
()
APPLICANT,: Adams Advertising, Inc,
19031 Rocky Road
Santa Ana, Ca. 92705
OWNER: Bill Haynes
512 Redlands Blvd.
San Bernardino, Ca. 9 2408
tn
IU
::>
(3
11.I
a:
.......
c:r
lU
a:
4
The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Pe:rnri.t to establish an
off-site rep1ac~t sign, with waivers of tile 32 foot maxim.m i1eigilt.
(amicipal Code Section 19.60.250 (A) 3 and the proiubition of off-pranise
signs within 600 feet of the freeway rig):1t of way (lmicipal Code Section
19.60.250~A) 8,
The IJ,S acre site is located in the C-3A zone on tilE! north side of Redlands
Blvd" approximately 1,315 feet east of the center line of Waterman Avenue
and is jurther described as 512 E. Redlands Blvd.
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
PROPERTY LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION
Subject Vacant C-3A General C'DImercial
~brt:h Freeway rie;ht-of-way
?ast Vacant C-M General CoiIIrercia:i.
South Ccm:lercial C-I1. 11-1 Ge..'1eral Ccmnercial
~'Jest Creek ''011 General Comnercial
GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC DYES FI..OOD HAZARD DYES OZONE A C SEWERS Kl YES )
HAZARD ZONE ~NO ZONE \Xl NO OZONE B ONO
HIGH FIRE DYES AIRPORT NOISE I DYES REDEVEI..OPMENT rn YES
HAZARD ZONE ~NO CRASH ZONE fXINO PROJECT ARE^ oNO
..J o NOT o POTENTIAl.. SIGNIFICANT Z 0 APPROVAL
~ APP\.ICABI..E EFFECTS 0
WITH MITIGATING - 0
Zfn MEASURES NO E.I.R, t( CONDITIONS
lUC!) o EXEMPT o E,I.R, REQUIRED BUT NO 1&.0 rn
2Z I&.Z DENIAL
Z- SIGN IFICANT EFFECTS lU
00 WITH MITIGATING ~::lE 0 CONTINUANCE TO
a:Z MEASURES cn::lE
:;ii: IiU NO o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS 0
Z ()
1&.1 SIGNIFICANT SEE ATTACHED E. R C, 1&.1
EFFECTS MINUTES a::
NOV. 1911 "IVIICD "UL't ,.aa
s..
'0 0 0 0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE Conditional Use
OBSER~~~IONS Permit No. 87-32
AGENDA ITEM ' 2
HEARING DATE 6-02-87
PAGE 2
1. Proposal:
The applicant requests approval to establish an off-premise replacement
sign exceeding the maximum allowed height of 32 feet and within the 600
foot prohibited area next to a freeway.
The proposed location of the new sign is East Redlands Boulevard. The
proposed sign would replace two billboard signs. One sign is presently
located at the corner of Mill and Lena Streets. The other was a sign
which was mounted on the roof of a building at the subject property which
was destroyed by fire.
The proposed sign would be set back 10 feet from the north property line
abutting Interstate Highway 10. The proposed sign would be a double face,
V-shaped structure. Each face would be 10 feet 6 inches tall and 36 feet
in width (378 square feet). Both faces would be mounted on a singel pole
31 feet 6 inches in height establishing an overall height of 40 feet. The
sign faces would be illuminated by exterior lighting fixtures. The
existing sign located at Mill and Lena Streets is similar to the proposed
sign in its V-shaped structure and the size of its faces. However, the
said sign is mounted only four feet from the ground level.
2. Maximum Height for Off-Premise Signs:
San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.60.250.A.3 sets a maximum height
standard of 32 feet for off-premise signs.
3. Topographical Features of the Site:
The proposed location of the sign is set back 10 feet from the northern
property line which abuts the 1-10 Freeway right-of-way. The freeway is
at the top of an embankment just to the north of said property line. The
level of the freeway is approximately 10 feet higher than the ground level
at the proposed location of the sign.
4. Off-Premise Signs Prohibited Adjacent to Freeway:
San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.60.250.A.8 states that:
"An off-premise sign shall not be permitted within 600 feet
from the right-of-way line of a freeway, when the adver-
tising face of an off-premise sign is visible from'any point
on said right-of-way line."
,
\.
'0' 0 0 :;)
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE Conditional Use
OBSER~rp;.J"IONS Permit No. 87-32
AGENDA ITEM 12
HEARING DATE 6-02 87
PAGE 1
Although the applicant has obtained an Outdoor Advertising Permit from the
State Department of Transportation, said permit states in bold type, "This
permit does not authorize violation of any zoning ordinance."
5. Comments from the City of Loma Linda:
The proposed location of the sign is approximately 1,200 feet to the west
of the boundary between the cities of Loma Linda and San Bernardino. An
agency comment sheet from the City of Loma Linda strongly urges denial of
the proposed sign at a location which serves as a significant gateway to
Loma Linda and furthermore states that the proposed sign is detrimental to
the aesthetics of the 1-10 corridor.
6. General Plan and South Valle Redevelopment Project Area:
The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of General
Commercial. However the Plan has various policies relating to encompassing
development that provides an improved visual commercial character.
Likewise the South Valle Redevelopment Projects second goal is,
"To improve the visual image of the City and, specifically,
the Project Area by reinforcing existing assets and by
expanding the potential of the Project Area."
Staff does not feel that the subject proposal furthers this goal.
7. 1-10 Corridor Area:
The Cities of Loma Linda, Redlands, and the County of San Bernardino on '
their 1-10 corridor study have consistently stressed the need for an
improved image and development along the corridor. Given the prominent
location of the subject property in this southern entryway to the city the
placement of an off-premise advertisement sign in this area does not seem
appropriate.
8. Environmental Review:
At their regularly scheduled meeting of May 2, 1987, the City's
Environmental Review Committee recommended a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact.
'e'
o
o
o
, CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
FINDINGS of
DEPARTMENT "l
CASE Conditional Use
~~ICT' Permit No. 87-32
rH AGENDA ITEM 12
HEARING DATE 6-02-87
PAGE 4
II.
~
~
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR A WAIVER.
1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances' or conditions appli-
cable to the property involved, or to the intended uses of the property,
which do not apply generally to other property in the same zoning district
and neighborhood.
Applicant's Response:
Adams Advertising, Inc. is requesting a height variance because there are
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to
the intended use of the property which do not apply, generally, to other
properties in the same zoning district and neighborhood.
In order for Adams to build a sign that can perform its directional func-
tion, a 42' overall height is required so that the sign can be viewed by
those traveling on Interstate 10. The sign cannot be viewed by motorists
if it were built lower than 42' because the freeway grade is much higher
than the ground level, so we need this height to be visible from the
freeway.
This problem does not apply to all neighboring properties, in the same
zone district, because in some of the other areas this same relationship
of freeway grade to ground level does not exist. Further, there exists a
sign approximately 2000' to the east, built to a height of 40'.
Staff's Response:
Variance from the terms of the zoning ordinance as stipulated by State law
and City ordinance can only be granted due to special circumstances appli-
cable to the property including size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings.
The circumstance which the applicant cites, being lower than the level of
the freeway is not unique to the property which is proposed as the loca-
tion of the new sign. A number of other nearby properties are similarly
situated. Furthermore, the freeway is only about 10 feet higher than the
proposed location of the sign. A sign conforming to the 32 foot maximum
height for an off premise sign would be clearly visible from the freeway
at the proposed location.
\...
NOV_ 1.10
'C. 0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE Conditional Use
GS f ~A'CT Permit No. 87 32
FINDIN 0 rH ~~~~~~16i~E6-~L87
PAGE ';
2. That such waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.
Applicant's Response:
There was a sign existing of the foof of the owner's building. That sign
was destroyed when a fire destroyed the building. The owner now wants to
replace that sign with a similar type structure. The destroyed sign was a
double face, v-build structure, the new sign will be the same.
The ordinance provides for a replacement of one sign with another, as is
evident by the placement of the sign 2000' to the east. However, in order
for this replacement to occur and in order that the privilege be preserved,
the 42' requested height is a necessity.
Staff's Response:
Substantial property right refers to the right to use the property in a
manner which is on a par with the uses allowed to other property owners
which are in the vicinity and have a like zoning. The purpose of the
variance is to restore parity where the strict application of the zoning
law deprives such property owners of privileges enjoyed by other proper-
ties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
Since 1981, San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.60.130.J prohibits
roof signs. Non-conforming uses which are destroyed may not be
reestablished. Therefore, to have a sign equal in height to the roof
mounted sign is not a substantial property right of the applicant. Any
existing off-premise signs along the 1-10 Freeway to the east of the loca-
tion of the proposed sign are outside of the San Bernardino city limits.
They,tryerefore have no bearing on signs proposed within the city limits of
San Bernardino.
,
3. That the granting of the waiver 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.
Applicant's Response:
The granting of such a variance will be materially beneficial to the public
health, convenience and welfare. It will permit the public to enjoy direc-
tional and/or promotional advertisements of establishments and developments
in and around their community. Also, the sign is being built consistent
with the replacement policy addressed in the City Ordinance. An old-style,
old structure, within the city, will be demolished and replaced by this new,
modern, technically advanced, monopole sign sturcture.
'C . 0 0 ,:)
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE Conditional Use
GS f F'AiCT Permit No. 87-32
FINDIN 0 11 ~~~~~ 16~~E /~2-87
PAGE 6
Staff's Response:
In determining the application for a variance, the best interest of the
entire community is the controlling factor rather than the suitability or
adaptability of the property in question for a particular use.
The General Plan calls for sign controls, setbacks, and landscaping in
order to improve the appearance of commercial streets and highway fron-
tage. An increase in the number of signs exceeding Municipal Code size
limitations would contribute to visual clutter in the area and thereby
adversely affect adjoining land uses and the development of the area.
4. That the granting of such a variance will not be contrary to the objec-
tives of the Master Plan.
Applicant's Response:
Granting of such a variance will be consistent with the objectives of the
Master Plan, which calls for this property to be zoned C-3A, (Commercial-
Industrial).
Staff's Response:
The General Plan states that "The visual quality of most highway frontage
development is often not inviting; medroice streets, excessive signs and
billboards and utility poles create a seemingly endleSs corridor of visual
conflict. Setbacks, sign controls, underground utilities, and landscaping,
where practical, can improve the appearance of commercial streets and thus
the community as a whole." The Municipal Code section cited above in
observation number four prohibits off-premise signs within 600 feet of the
freeway right-of-way when the advertising face would be visible from the
freeway.
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
1. Conformity with the General Plan: See number four of Findings for a Waiver.
2. An increase in the number of signs in the area which do not conform to the
Municipal Code will increase visual clutter along the 1-10 corridor, thereby
adversely affecting adjoining land uses and the development of the area.
3. The size and shape of the site are adequate for the proposed use.
4. The proposed sign would have no impact on traffic generation or the demand
for for parking space.
'\..
'C'
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE Conditional Use
INDINGS f F'ACIT Permit No. 87-32
F. 0 H :~~~~ 16~~E 6-6i-87
PAGE 7
5. General Welfare of the Citizens of San Bernardino: See number three of
Findings of Fact for a Waiver.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the observations contained herein and due to the fact that all the '
required findings cannot be made, staff recommends denial of Conditional Use
Permit No. 87-32.
Respectfully submitted,
VINCENT A. BAUTISTA
Acting Planning Director
-
Sc~ w ~Ir
SCOT W IGHT
Planner I
,.
'0 .
,.
CITY OF
o 00
SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
IMPACT CHECKLIST ~
\. ENVIRONMENTAL
,
A. BACKGROUND
1. Case Number (s) : Conditional Use Pennit No. .87-32 Date: 5/27/87
2. Project Description: The applicant requests approval of a Conditional
Use Pennit to establish an off-premise replacenent sign exceeding the
32 foot maxiIIun height for off-premise si!?;rlS.
3. General Location: The 0.8 acre site is located on the north side of
\.. Redlands Blvd, approximatelY~lS feet east of Waterman Ave. and is
........."er described as 512 E. ands Blvd.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
YES MAYBE ~O
-
1. Could project change proposed uses of land, as indi-
cated on the General Plan, either on project site or
within general area? - ~
2. Would significant increases in either noise levels,
dust odors, fumes, vibration or radiation be gener-
ated from project area, either during construction
or from completed project other than those result-
ing from normal construction activity? X
- -
3. Will project involve application, use or disposal
of hazardous or toxic materials? .x.
-
4. Will any deviation from any established environ-
mental standards (air, water, noise, light, etc.)
and/or adopted plans be requested in connection
with project? - .x.
5. Will the project require the use of significant
amounts of energy which could be reduced by the
use of appropriate mitigation measures? - ..x
6. Could the project create a traffic hazard or
congestion? X
-
7. Could project result in any substantial change in
quality, quantity, or accessibilitv of any portion
of region's air or surface and gro~nd water re-
sources? X
\.. ~
,
MAY 8'
EAt. II'ORM A
PAGE I OF 3
0
...
~ MAYBE NO
in
X
'C'
CUP NO. 87-32
o
o
8. Will project involve construction of facilities
an area which could be flooded during an inter-
mediate regional or localized flood?
9. Will project involve construction of facilities or
services beyond those presently available or pro-
posed in near future?
10. Could the project result in the displacement of
community residents?
11. Are there any natural or man-made features in pro-
ject area unique or rare (i.e. not normally
found in other parts of country or regions)?
12. Are there any known historical or archaelogical
sites in vicinity of project area which could be
affected by project?
13. Could the project affect the use of a recrea-
tional area or area of important aesthetic value
or reduce or restrict access to public lands or
parks?
14. Are there any known rare or endangered plant
species in the project area?
15. Does project area serve as habitat, food source,
nesting place, source of water, migratory path,
etc., for any rare or endangered wildlife or fish
species?
16. Will project be located in immediate area of any
adverse geologic nature such as slide prone areas,
highly erosible soils, earthquake faults, etc.?
17. Could project substantially affect potential use
or conservation of a non-renewable natural
resource?
18. Will any grading or excavation be required in
connection with project which could alter any
existing prominent surface land form, i.e., hill-
side"canyons, drainage courses, etc?
19. Will any effects of the subject project together
or in conjunction with effects of other projects
cause a cumulative significant adverse impact on
the environment?
...
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-X.
-X.
~
EAC. FO"" A
PAGE Z OF :5
'0 .
CUP NO. 87-32
o
o
:J
C. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
If any of the findings of fact have been answered YES or MAYBE, then a brief
clarification of potential impact shall be included as well as a discussion
of any cumulative effects (attach additional sheets if needed).
D. MITIGATION MEASURES
Describe type and anticipated effect of any measures proposed to mitigate or
eliminate potentially significant adverse environmental impacts:
,
E. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation,
[i] We find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 We find that although the proposed project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in
this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPA-~D.
o We find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ-
ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
, fiiL,:.'~ (,J(HV
(Secretary)
DATE: Mav 7, 1987
.. ~
WAY '81
ER.C. FORIII A
PAGE 3 0' S
'0 '
,
4. .....:::;
is
~. l~
.:. ~ /1/
~ " ;l i
i"- ~ 't:
'" .. Q
~
~ '
~
~ c ~
. ~ ..
, - <r'
J ! J ~
I,l .
~ <\ i ?
Ii ill ~ I"
.'
!
d
~ ~
~ i ~ ~
!~~~!~
Jil:'~~
J Ie olo -! ~
i i 'i-t
"'11 r-
, '.
~
.
I l
h
~ .
'.
~~ 1
i,
!~
d iji ~
i ~?i. I
I' -. II
~ '~
! VI ....
I ;.;
!
/
/;/
/ ;/
o
!
i
~ 1
~
t
ii
....
..
-:., --.;.
.
~.
.
<l
-
t
l
~
~
~
o
,
I
I
fi
.~
...
J~
. oJ!
U
Ii!
'"
~
...
~
"
I.
i,
~
..
~
~
-
~
,
~
l;
!
~
Ii ~
II 1
i
~
~
,
i I
~r :~ ~r-\
II i "r>! ..
I. i'<i ~
't..J.t;.;L~~ r \
D:jl
:1 ...
:I,
"
, I
r
"
~
,
,
,
'f
i
~
.
,;
"
"
~I
,I
I,
':
i""7W
:)
~... ~
i
I'"
~
~ 1
~ f
i"~l
~ '.
U~
I, ~ ~
l' ..
J ~ (l
JU i
~c .
o
AGENDA
ITEM #
o
~
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LOCATION
CASE Conditional Use Permit
No. 87-32
HEARING DATE 6-02-87
12
INTERSTATE @
'-- C'3A \ IT
II ,.&ITE-;. I
..," ,., :~
C,M
~I
:
.
.
"0"
C'M
"0"
"0"
C'M C.M
A CoM
C-3A C-3A C-3A
J C'3A
C-3A
C'M
1,1-1
1,1'1
VVj
a.
5,
"
.-
~.~
C-
COM
~ 0 R I A.
COM
COM
C'M
110S"'T I Y \..N
C- 1,1 C-'"
-,
/C-M
ai-VO
COM
1,1,1
i
I
I
I
1,1., I
I'
:.1
1,1'19.
I
~
~
M-I
1,1-1
~~_ 1,1-,
..0 rR-~
M,I ~ IAL_~ ___ M-I
,.... ,---.., - --