HomeMy WebLinkAbout40-Community Development
C"-"y Of SAN BERNARr 'MO,... BEQl ,ST FOR COUNCIL A'" rlON
From:
R. Ann Siracusa
Director of Planning
.EC't>~ AOM1';;~ifect:
1988 MAR 24 r.~ 3; 24
Appeal of Variance No. 88-1
Dept:
Planning
Mayor and Council Meeting of
April 4, 1988, 2:00 p.m.
Date:
March 22, 1988
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
rw~
Previous Planning Commission actiorr:
On February 16, 1988 the Planning Commission denied the applicant's
request to vary the San Bernardino Municipal Code, Section 19.60.220.
(F), to raise a 300 square foot freeway sign to 60 feet.
Recommended motion:
That the Mayor and Council deny the appeal and deny Variance No. 88-1.
(
, \
~/
Contact person:
R. Ann Siracusa
Phone:
384-5057
Supporting data attached: Staff Report
'_ Ward:
3
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Source: (ACCT. NO.)
(ACCT. DESCRIPTION)
Finance:
Council Notes:
Anon"" "om Mn .4LV '
75,0262
CII Y OF SAN BERNARD. dO - REQU~ST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
Subject: Appeal of Variance No. 88-1
Mayor and Council Meeting of April 4, 1988
REOUES~
The applicants request a variance of the San Bernardino
Municipal Code, Section 19.60.220. (F) to increase the height
of a freeway sign to 60 feet which exceeds the maximum
allowed by Code.
BACKGROUND
On February 16, 1988, the Planning Commission, after con-
ducting a properly noticed public hearing, denied Variance
No. 88-1, to allow a freeway sign to be raised to 60 feet
which exceeds the 40 foot maximum allowed by Code. The
applicant, Carl Karcher Enterprises, contend that trees
growing in the freeway right-of-way to the west of the
existing sign block the view of the sign from the freeway.
The sign is located on property bordered by Redlands Boule-
vard on the south, Interstate 10 on the north, and the South
Waterman Avenue off-ramp on the west. The site is occupied
by two fast food restaurants, Carl's Jr. and Popeye's.
The applicants received a variance in June of 1987 to
increase'the size of the sign to 300 square feet in order to
advertise both Popeye's and Carl's Jr. restaurants on one
large freeway sign, rather than have two 40 foot high 150
square foot signs so close together. This application
requested authority to raise the 300 square foot sign to 60
feet.
During the discussion of the variance, the Planning Commis-
sioners questioned the applicants about the previous variance
for the freeway sign and asked why the height question was
not addressed at that time. The applicants responded that
their lessor, Mr. Simchowitz, had suggested that it should be
a two step process: to get the sign up first and worry about
getting it raised later.
When asked about their marketing plan and what percentage of
their business was from people using the freeway, the appli-
cants said that about 40 percent of their business carne from
freeway traffic. It was indicated that pole signs have
proven to increase sales by 17 percent.
Several Commissioners asked about the location of trees,
which applicants claim were blocking the public's view of the
sign. Mr. Lopez stated he often drove by and that the trees
were not located in front of the sign, but rather to the west
Appeal of Variance N0. 88-1
Mayor and Council M~ ing of 4/4/88 Page 2
of it. Mr. Murry, from Carl Karcher Enterprises, stated that
his photographs in Attachment C of the staff report incor-
rectly depicted the trees in front of the sign.
The applicants stressed that the signs were intended to
attract potential customers traveling from the Los Angeles,
area toward the desert. The trees are between the sign and
eastbound travelers.
Commissioner Stone questioned Cal-Trans' purpose in planting
the trees along the freeway initially. He suggested that the
placement was to prevent "visual pollution." Cal-Trans
stated that the trees in this area have been there for about
20 years. The trees were planted to block the lights of
oncoming traffic on service roads and for aesthetics.
Commissioner Brown asked how fast palm trees grow. Cal-Trans
reports the trees grow two to three feet per year. Since the
trees will continue to grow, they will eventually grow over
the 60 foot sign. The applicants stated they have received
permits from Cal-Trans to trim the dead branches from the
trees. The applicants further intend to request that Cal
Trans remove the trees and replace them with a species that
will not grow so tall.
The Commissioners agreed that there were no
circumstances associated with the proposal,
businesses in the vicinity are also affected
circumstance.
extraordinary
since other
by the same
Before making the motion to deny the variance, Commissioner
Lindseth commented that he did not like to see negative
economic impacts on business; however, he felt that
aesthetics and visual impacts in the community are not being
considered or enhanced and that approval of this variance
would set a precedent. After a motion for denial, five of
the six members present voted for the denial and one voted
against it. There were three members absent. (See Attach-
ment A - Statement of Official Planning Commission Action.)
On March 2, 1988, the
that the applicants
Commission's denial.
Planning Commission received notice
had filed an appeal of the Planning
(See Attachment B - Letter of Appeal.)
~Bb~YSIS
In order to grant a variance, the Planning Commission must
formulate Findings of Fact which support the request. In
this case, that could not be done. State law requires that
by granting a variance the City will "not constitute a grant
of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon
other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such
property is situated." (Sats. 95906)
The applicants want the sign to be more visible from the
freeway and claim this is a property right. It is the
applicant's opinion that the fact that other properties in
Appeal of Variance N 88-1
Mayor and Council Me~~ing of 4/4/88 - Page 3
the vicinity have the same physical constraints is not
sufficient reason for denial. However, the location of the
sign and the restaurants was the choice of the applicants,
not the City. The trees were in place prior to construction
of the restaurants.
The applicants claim that by the City allowing a freeway
sign, it must also insure that the sign is visible from the
freeway. This freeway sign is allowed by Code in that the
property is within 400 feet of the freeway. The City does
not consider the location of freeway foliage in granting a
permit for a freeway sign. The sign may be placed anywhere
on the property as long as it does not project over the
property line.
The applicants infer that the General Plan objective of
improving the visual quality of highway frontage does not
apply to signage. The Plan states "Setbacks, sign controls,
underground utilities and landscaping, where practical, can
improve the appearance of commercial streets and thus the
community as a whole." That objective does not prohibit
signage but suggests control. If the City allows this sign
to be raised to 60 feet, then there will be no grounds to
deny future sign variance requests in the vicinity of the I-
10 Freeway.
~9N~yYSION
There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances to
approve this application. Granting the variance will encour-
age other businesses along the freeway to apply for sign
variances and could lead to even greater urban clutter along
what is a main thoroughfare to our City.
COUN~ly_Q~T1QNS
The Council may deny the appeal and uphold the Planning
Commission denial of Variance No. 88-1; or may uphold the
appeal and approve Variance No. 88-1. If the Council chooses
to uphold the appeal, they may apply conditions of approval.
Further, if the Council chooses to uphold the appeal and
approve the Variance, positive Findings of Fact must be
articulated to support the approval.
REcor~ENP~T1PN
Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and
deny Variance No. 88-1.
Prepared by:
Vivian Stevens, Planner I
for R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Planning
Attachments:
A -
Statement of Official Planning Commission
Action
Letter of Appeal
Planning Commission Staff Report
B -
C -
mkf/3/22/88
M&CCAGENDA:
APPEALVAR881
c:KE W
'ACHMENT B
CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES
Properry Development. 1200 North Harbor Boulevard. PO Box 4999 . AnaheIm California 92803 . (7141 774.5796
March 2, 1988
City of San Bernardino
City Clerk's Office
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
~
~
,..,.,
(J
.n
-=';
':=:J
Attention: Ms. Shauna Clark, City Clerk
(714) 384-5002
I
N
""D
Appeal Request of Variance No. 88-1 for Increasittg
the Height of a Freeway Sign to 60 feet. ~
Dear Ms. Clark:
Regarding:
,"
I am requesting an appeal to the City Council of action of the
Planning Commission, in denying our variance request, for the
following reasons:
1. The reasoning that others may have the same restrictions
as to visibility of signage is not a sufficient reason for
denial.
2. The present need for sustaining a property right cannot be
conditioned on something that may occur in the future.
3. Previous City approval of freeway oriented signage which
is now denied a variance to permit it to be visible to
freeway travelers is contradictory to the original intent.
4. The implication that an objective of the master plan use
for dense landscaping screening is to obscure or hide
freeway oriented signage; signage which assists freeway
travelers to such services as food, lodgings and gas is
erroneous.
Sincerely,
CA RCHER ENTERPRISES INC.
JO;;: -::f6/
Site Development Manager
JWM/rkv
~;It.,/- 77,?-7/~ .3
"--, r .~ ~ 1\ ~,n r-::j
.. LS
i ii , :.;! I
, .., . - '-' :
;~ i j
-lLl ~-/
MAR:.: 1988
C:TY Pu:.:;:i!~';G :::~:-::IT:~[H
SMi aER~~ARDlf'W. GA
cc: Horst Schor
Jack Vodrey
ATTACHMENT A
City of San Bernardino
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
PROJECT
Number:
Variance No. 88-1
Applicant:
Carl Karcher Enterprises and Tait & Associates
ACTION
Meeting Date: February 16, 1988
Approved Adoption of
Adoption of Request
Findings of Fact and
(Attachment A) .
Negative Declaration and
Subject to the Following
Conditions of Approval
x
Denied.
Other.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
or conditions applicable to the property involved, or to
the intended use of the property, which do not apply
generally to other property in the same zoning district
and neighborhood in that there are several other
businesses along Redlands Boulevard with the same
restrictions as to visibility of signage.
2. Such variance is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoymnet of substantial property right of the applicant
in that the trees blocking the view of the sign from
Interstate 10, trees will grow to a height that will
exceed the sign height.
3. The granting of the variance will be materially detri-
mental to the public welfare or injurious to property
and improvements in the zoning district and neighborhood
in which the property is located in that the aesthetics
of an entry way into the City will be compromised with
various fast food signs appearing above the natural
vegetation of the area until the trees overgrow the sign
again.
4. The granting of such a variance will be contrary to the
objectives of the master plan in that both the General
Plan and the South Valle Redevelopment Area Plan
City of San Bernardino
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Variance No. 88-1
Page 2
encourage dense' landscaped screening along the major
transportation corridors. The purposes of the updated
General Plan include such factors as urban design and
quality of life with the intent to improve standards.
Those standards may preclude this sign.
VOTE
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
Brown, Gomez, Lindseth, Lopez, Stone
Cole
None
Corona, Nierman, Sharp
I, hereby,
accurately
Commission
certify that this Statement of Official Action
reflects the final determination of the Planning
of th~ City of San Bernardino.
, \ I ;i 1" Y
'. ',' ( ') ""'" v
'" I' \ ,.1,' \, r .~ )/1(-- ./ I '/ 1./ ! )
_ _ ~~-~,..... ..........-__..M-...L-......-____________.-.,.-.___
Signature v- ~ate
R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Planning
Print or Type Name and Title
RAS/mkf
DOCUMENTS:PCAGENDA
PCACTION
ATTACHtlliNT C
, CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~
SUMMARY
\..
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
WARD
2
02/16/88
3
~
LIJ
(,J)
<t
o
t;
LtJ
::)
o
...,
a:
'"
<t
L&J
a:
<t
APPLICANT: KARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES
1200 N. Anaheim
Anaheim, CA 92803
OWNER FAST FOOD DEVELOPERS
225 W. Hospitality Lane
San Bernardino, CA 92408
VARIANCE 88-1
The applicant requests a variance of Code Section 19.60.220(F)
to allow a 40 feet freeway sign to be increased to 60 feet
which exceeds the maximum allowed by code.
Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately 1.2 acres located at the northwest
corner of Redlands Boulevard and Waterman Avenue South Off-
Ramp of the 1-10 Freeway and further described as 290 East
Redlands Boulevard.
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
PROPERTY LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION
Subject Vacant C-3A General Commercial
North Freeway Freeway
South Commercial Bldgs. C-M Light Industrial
East Vacant C-3A General Commercial
West Auto Sales C-3A General Commercial
..J
<t
....
Zen
LtJe.!)
:EZ
Z-
OO
o::Z
>u:
z
UJ
GEOLOGIC / SEISMIC
HAZARD ZONE
HIGH FIRE
HAZARD ZONE
o NOT
APPLICABLE
. 0 EXEMPT
ua NO
SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS
HOV 1981 REVISED JULY 1"2
SKY
DYES
1ZI NO
DYES
!Xl NO
([XI YES
- SEWERS 0 00
FLOOD HAZARD 0 YES OZONE A
ZONE IXI NO OZONE B
AIRPORT NOISE I 0 YES
CRASH ZONE ~NO
o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS
WITH MITIGATING
MEASURES NO E.1. R.
o E.I.R REQUIRED BUT NO
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
WITH MITIGATING
MEASURES
o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
SEE ATTACHED E.R. C.
MINUTES
REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA
~YES
ONO
z
o
~
LL.O
LL.ffi
t!:I
en:l
o
(.)
UJ
0::
o APPROVAL
o CONDITIONS
IX! DEN IAL
o CONTINUANCE TO
.CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE Variance 88-1
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM 2
HEARING DATE 02/16/88
PAGE 2
r
"""
1 . REQUEST
The applicant requests approval of a variance from Code
Section 19.60.220(F) which requires freeway signs be
limited to 40 feet in overall height. The request is to
increase the height of an existing sign to 60 feet. See
Attachment C - Site Plan
2. SITE LOCATION
The subject property consists of approximately 1.2 acres
located on the south side of the Interstate 10, bounded
on the West by the South Waterman Off-ramp and by
Redlands Boulevard on the south, at 290 East Redlands
Boulevard. See Attachment D - Location Map
3. MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The request to vary the height requirement for freeway
signs is inconsistent with the Municipal Code and not in
in conformity with the General Plan. The project is
located within the South Valle Redevelopment Area and
the proposal does not meet the design standards of that
area. See Attachment A - Municipal Code and General
Conformance
4. CEQA STATUS
The proposal is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act under Section 15310, Class 1, Existing
Facilities.
5. BACKGROUND
The sign in question will advertise two fast food
restaurants. The first restaurant, Popeye's, was
approved by the Planning Commission on November 5, 1986
(Conditional Use Permit 86-39), and is in operation.
The second restaurant, Carl's Jr., was approved by the
Planning Commission on April 21, 1987 (Conditional Use
Permit 87-12), and is under construction.
\..
r .CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT .,
CASE Variance 88-1
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM 2
HEARING DATE 02/16/88
PAGE 3
r
..,
Variance 87-4 was approved on June 16, 1987, to allow
the two restaurants to have a single pole sign with
twice the allowable square footage to advertize both
Carl's Jr. and popeye's. The maximum allowable size
for a freeway sign is 150 square feet. The variance
permitted 300 square feet in lieu of having the two
permitted freeway signs of 150 square feet so close
together. (See Attachment D). The popeye's sign is
currently installedi the Carl's Jr. sign is not.
A related decision made by the City for a sign in this
location was the Buyer's Club sign. The Buyer's Club,
located southwest of this property, has a 50-foot high
off-premise sign on the Carl's Jr. parcel. The original
application for the off-premise sign for Buyer's Club
was denied by the Planning Commission. The decision of
the Planning Commission was appealed to the City
Council. The City Council upheld the appeal and
approved Conditional Use Permit 87-23 on August 31,
1987. That application was strongly opposed by the City
of Loma Linda.
6. ANALYSIS
The applicant requests a 20-foot increase in the height
of the sign because a row of palm trees blocks the view
of the sign from the freeway. The applicant contends
that raising the sign would make it more visible, but
the trees, a part of a stand of palms that line the
freeway, will continue to grow. The applicant has made
arrangements to have the trees trimmed and is in the
process of trying to have them removed.
\..
....
.CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE Variance 88-1
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM 2
HEARING DATE 02/16/88
PAGE 4
'"
A survey of the site reveled that there are no trees
between the sign and freeway. However, there are
several trees to the west of the sign that partially
obscure it. The sign can be seen from the Interstate 215
Interchange because of the elevation but the structure
of the Interchange blocks the view from the Interstate
10. The applicant submitted photographs illustrating
that the sign cannot be seen from the east bound
shoulder. The ISO-square foot Popeye's sign, which is
the only one presently installed, can be seen in
glimpses from the west by the two outside lanes of
Interstate 10. The addition of the Carl's Jr. sign
should make it even more visible as it will double the
size. The existing sign cannot be seen from the east
bound lanes of Interstate 10 until an automobile has
passed the exit. Other businesses along the freeways in
Southern California face the same situation. See
Attachment C - Applicant's Photographs.
The City of Lorna Linda and the City of San Bernardino
Advance Planning staff expressed concern for the aesthe-
tic of Interstate 10 in commenting on the Conditional
Use Permit for the Buyer's Club sign. The 50-foot high
sign is on the same parcel as the restaurant only 232
feet to the west of this proposal. Advance Planning
pointed out that the General Plan cited "excessive signs
and billboards and utility poles create a seeming
endless corridor of visual conflict." The proposal will
do nothing to improve the "visual image of the City" as
required by the South Valle Area Plan. That plan sets a
goal of reinforcing existing assets by expanding the
potentials of the area. This proposal will add to the
proliferation of signage and urban clutter already
existing along the Interstate 10 corridor.
7. COMMENTS RECEIVED
No comments were received on this application.
\..
~
.CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE Variance 88-1
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM 2
HEARING DATE 02/16/88
PAGE 5
...,
8. CONCLUSION
There are no trees in front of the sign, the sign can be
seen from a portion of the east bound lanes of the
Interstate. The palm trees to the west of the sign will
continue to grow. Granting this variance will continue
the degradation of the aesthetics the south side of the
freeway by contributing to a cluttered urban environ-
ment.
9. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny
Variance 88-1 subject to the attached Findings of Fact.
See Attachment B - Findings of Fact.
Respectfully submitted:
R. ANN SIRACUSA
Di~~tor of Planning
1/MU~ ~~
VIVIAN STEVENS
Planner I
VS:lmc
Attachment A - Municipal Code and General Plan Conformance
B - Findings of Fact
B-1 - Applicant's Response to Findings
C - Applicant's Photgraphs
D - Site Plan
E - Location Map
PCAGENDA
VAR881-0
02:09:88
\..
~
ATTACHMENT A
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Category Proposal Municipal Code General Plan
Use Freeway Sign Permitted if a Defer to SBMC
business is within
400 ft. of a Free-
Way Right-Of-Way
Height 60 feet 40 feet Defer to SBMC
Set Backs
Front N/A N/A N/A
Side N/A N/A N/A
Rear 5 feet 5 feet Defer to SBMC
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE Variance 88-1
""""l
FINDINGS of FACT
AGENDA ITEM l
HEARING DATE 02/ 16 /88
PAGE 7
ATTACHMENT B
A. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
or conditions applicable to the property involved, or
to the intended use of the property, which do not
apply generally to other property in the same zoning
district and neighborhood in that there are several
other businesses along Redlands Boulevard with the same
restrictions as to visibility of signage.
B. Such variance is not nec~ssary for the preservation
and enjoymnet of substantial property right of the
applicant in that the trees blocking the view of the
sign from Interstate 10, trees will grow to a height
that will exceed the sign height.
C. The granting of the variance will be materially detri-
mental to the public welfare or injurious to property
and improvements in the zoning district and neighbor-
hood in which the property is located in that the
aesthetics of an entry way into the City will be
compromised with various fast food signs appearing
above the natural vegetation of the area until the
trees overgrow the sign again.
D.The granting of such a variance will be contrary to the
objectives of the master plan in that both the General
Plan and the South Valle Redevelopment Area Plan
encourage dense landscaped screening along the major
transportation corridors. The purposes of the updated
General Plan include such factors as urban design and
quality of life with the intent to improve standards.
Those standards may preclude this sign.
VS:lmc
PCAGENDA
VAR881-ATTACH
02:09:88
\...
ATTACHMENT B-1
A. licant's Res onse to Findin s
ALL APPLICATIONS FOR A VARIANCE MUST INCLUDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO EACH OF THE
FOLLOWING ITEMS IN ORDER TO CLEARLY ESTABLISH THE NEED FOR THE VARIANCE. PLEASE
ANSWER ALL ITEMS DIRECTLY ON THIS SHEET.
A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions appli-
cable to the property involved, or to the intended use of the property,
which do not apply generally to other property in the same zoning district
and neighborhood.
The exceptional circumstances and conditions associated with the subject
site as it applies to the request to increase the height of the sign lie in
its location relative to similar commercial establishments within the city.
Having the San Bernardino Fwy runninq adjacent alonq the subject site has
an advantaoe in ~o far as reachinq potential customers. However, this
advantaoe is seve~ly impaired due to the larqe number of palm trees blocking
visability of the buildinq as well as the sign.
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.
The success or failure rate of any .~tail establishment is directly
proportional to the number of potential customers that can be qenerated.
If thp~p customers can not see applicant's sign the preservation and
enjoyment of operating in a free market will be hindered.
C. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the zoning dis-
trict and neighborhood in which the property is located.
Granting said variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare but rather benificial to the public by providing proper and safer
access to information with clearer visability without having to overlook
their shoulder at 60 m.p.h.
D. That the granting of such a variance will not be contrary to the objectives
of the Master Plan.
The master plans objectives are not contrary to applicants request. Part
of the overall objectives is to stimulate the local economy with policies
that assist in bolstering commerce. An additional twenty feet in. the
height of the sign will not diminish the objectives.
MAY '81
VAR. FORM C
I ~'l
l' ; "c,-
, ,'~;...,~
. ,,-,.,
, ...
, : \ l.'
~::- .'j"'\.Wi-'8
t ... ~..,.~~
r~'" ~,~~.!+ ru~!~"'~~
~~ ~.!~"':' i 11 -~!:
I' _, p.' ",,': ;;Ji"" -'i'
f ~ '~~ ; . ~ ~' .~. ~-. ,
~,~'.," .'. --
..,....,~ ,. ~. . . +
rol:f:'-:: i~~ ' f r l'
~?~{::;; It'
~';~/~" ,
. !.tJi~*~,':~:~ ,,'
>>~"Jo'. '
''',Jf~';' -t',
". ~,J,'
. . ..' :~
.-'
--t:o
ATTACHMENT C
t
.~." ",.
~t
qf
': it
I
C;~).; !
O~ - I
f:$.~ ~ I i5
~~.q I I
~ 115 - 8i~----l
I ,. ~
t ., I ;-; ----:1
p. r--
I ,:r-;'~
-~2. ..-lEP
~ ! ~ I . j~.
_ Ijr ~~rtq
i I ~ ...;-"
!I r- t;-'
I:r- j~
:!r-- "
!I;-
I I i
I r-
!
PROPOSED OVERALL HEIGHT 60'
EXISTING OVERALL
HEIGHT 40' 10'-0
.'--1
rI I
II "
I
. , v,v,""i II I
~(;)~ lJ I
-' (J)
~ ~ ~~ti; I I
~_J
, ~
, ~r"'T
II ~Oa
...... ~ ~ .. G"\~
.' C/) CI) ~Vi
0 n., ~~~ V1;j
.. ~ ~
..
~~"l :;r
~ :'i~~
~ ~"
f1~
.. ~ t · \'
1 :, . ~:1 .., ~
r
~ ~ - . t ' r
II 't ('. l'~ . !
.. ~ .
COo. . . I · J
-. ~ t . ..
H . .
..
1 .
I ..
Ii . ~
...
I
l. .
~
I
/
I~
,~
~
'"
~I
I
~~
~
· Ili'f
- l ! ";'
'-::;;-1:
. .
~
~ 1'\
~~~
~.~~
~~
~~
~~
~~
GlI:IUCo_ . """"",,n.
-......,...,.
.... ... ... -r. ,...
c......... .....~. -r:c~ ~~
I
~lf5 P\...fohI
F.-.c;:r =0c:J0 ONe LO~""""
u.- w. -""" -.-
..... -.'-. - ..~...
.......
.
A TT ACHME}}T D
,.
....
r
~
,
ATTACHMENT E
~ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT ""'" ~ AGENDA .,
ITEM #:
LOCATION
"'"
CASE \r~riance 88-1
2
HEARING DATE 02 / ~6 /88
~ ...
~
C-M
C.M
C-3A C-3A C-3A
tot ...l.H. T
C-3A C'3A
C-3A
C'3A fl T E INTERSTATE
...... C-3A
-.- --
. Lc-3A\ TL
CfO~ ~ C.M C-M C-M C.M [
,
...
.
a-
CO\. ) a-
~
M-I
g
:J
M-I
C-M
L
~.
"0"
"0"
CfO~
GO")
M-' ~[