HomeMy WebLinkAbout40- Plannign Department CIT . OF SAN BERNARDIN J - REOULST FOR COUNCIL AC v ION
From: R. ANN SIRACUSA, Director Subject: Joint MAi r�=
Y� <MAPNkirRaii .Council
and Planning Commission Workshop
Dept: PLANNING DEPARTMENT on Sign Code',,
Date: January 19 , 1988 Council Meeting of January 19 , 1988 ,
2 : 00 p.m.
Synopsis of Previous Council action: /04 0 Y
Set date for this Workshop.
Recommended motion:
No motion is recommended/Discussion only.
/� 11
Y
'� Signature
Contact person:_ R. ANN S I RACUSA Phone: 5357
Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount:
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. Description)
Finance:
Council Notes:
CITv OF SAN BERNARDIh%) - RE U�
Q ST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
Subject: Mayor and Common Council Meeting of January
19, 1988
BACKGROUND
At the various levels in the community, there has been a
growing awareness and concern for signs in the City of San
Bernardino and their impacts on the image of the City.
Several months ago, the Planning Commission requested a joint
meeting with the Mayor and Common Council for the purpose of
discussing the philosophy regarding signage and determining
areas where the current sign code needs revision.
Staff has listed a variety of issues which staff, Planning
Commissioners, Council members, and the Mayor have identified
as concerns or issues to be reviewed.
ISSUES
These are a few of the issues which the Mayor, Council ,
Planning Commission, and staff need to begin discussing to
develop a program for addressing signs in the City of San
Bernardino.
1. Amortization Period for Non-conforming Signs -
Should the code be revised to provide for an
amortization period?
2 . Requirement for Sign Program for New Commercial
Centers - Should the code be revised to require
sign programs for new centers?
3 . Proliferation of Window Signs - Should the code be
revised to prohibit window signs? Limit them more
strictly?
4 . Balloons, Banners and Pennants - What is the philo-
sophy on balloons and banners? Should they be
permitted for the "festive" value?
5. Definition of Change of Copy and Remodeling - How
should we define "Change of Copy" pursuant to the
state law? What constitutes "remodeling?"
6. Requirement for Planning Commission approval of
church as non-profit signs in residential dis-
tricts - Should these be administratively approved?
i
I
r
Staff Report j
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of January 19 , 1988
Page 2
7 . Abandoned Signs - What constitutes "abandonment?"
Should the code be changed to reflect the 90 days
in the state law rather than the current 180 days?
8 . Freeway Signs - How should centers which abut
freeways be treated?
9 . Sign Variances - Can Variance Findings be made for
any sign variation? Should another process (sign
deviation or adjustment) be provided to address
signs more specifically?
10 . Administrative Approvals of Signs - Should the City
adopt guidelines for sign approvals? Who should
approve sign programs?
11 . Pole Signs - Does the City want to control the
proliferation of pole signs?
12 . C4 Zone District - Should there be special sign
standards in this district where much taller
buildings are permitted?
13. Electronic Message Boards - Should they be
permitted? Where and with what kind of restriction?
14 . Other Governmental Agencies - Should other govern-
mental agencies be subject to the sign code?
15 . Revision of Sign Code - Should the necessary
changes to the sign code be made now or should the
review of the code be deferred until adoption of
the General Plan which will address urban design
policies? What kind of process should be used to
update and revise the sign code?
ALTERNATE ACTIONS f
Signs are one of the major components of urban Design and ,
therefore, the sign policy is a significant factor in the
image of the City. It is evident that revisions to the sign F
code are needed .
f
,e
a
I
J
® 0 +�
i I
Staff Report
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of January 19 , 1988
Page 3
The Mayor and Common Council have several alternative direc-
tions they could pursue at this time:
1. Initiate certain revisions to the code addressing
major concerns;
2. Direct staff to begin a comprehensive analysis of
the code;
3 . Direct C.A.0 to pay particular attention to signage
during their future discussions of Urban Design
matters with the intent of including in the General
Plan strong policy direction regarding signs as a
component of Urban Design;
4 . Take no action and see what comes out of the
General Plan Update .
Prepared by: R. ANN SIRACUSA, Director of Planning
RAS:lmc
DOC:STAFFREPORT
01: 08 : 88