HomeMy WebLinkAbout40- Planning & Building Services CITY OF SAN BERT 1RDINO - REQUEST 3R COUNCIL ACTION
F+om: Al Boughey, Director Subject: Appeal of the Planning Commission denial
of Variance No. 93-02 Multi-tenant sign
Dept: Planning & Building Services at Highland and Del Rosa, Southwest
Date: July 8, 1993 MCC meeting of 07/19/93
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
None
Rkcoriimended-motion:
That the hearing be closed, the appeal be denied and Variance No. 93-02 be denied based on
the Findings of Fact (Attachment B of Exhibit 3) .
OR
That the hearing be closed, the appeal be upheld, Variance No. 93-02 be approved in concept
and the item be continued to August 2, 1993 for staff to prepare posi ive findings.
1 Boughe Ig re
Contact person: Al Boughey Phone: 5357
Supporting data attached: Yes Ward: 7
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. Description)
Finance:
Council Notes:
17ZO
CITY OF SAN BERi„ARDINO - REQUEST FvR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
Subject: Appeal of the Planning Commission denial of Variance No. 93-02
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of July 19, 1993
REQUEST AND LOCATION
The applicant, Quiel Brothers Electric Sign Service Co., Inc., is appealing the Planning
Commission's denial of Variance No. 93-02, a request to construct a center identification pylon
sign with 120 square feet of sign area per face and the identity of up to 11 tenants.
The subject property is irregular in shape and consists of approximately 4 acres located at the
southwest corner of Highland Avenue and Del Rosa Avenue, in the CG-1, Commercial General,
land use district (see Location Map, Exhibit 1).
BACKGROUND
On May 18, 1993, the Planning Commission denied Variance No. 93-02 by a 5-1 vote of the
Commissioners and alternate present (ayes by Gaffney, Lopez, Ortega, Traver and Stone; nay
by Romero; absent were Clemenson, Cole and Jordan). Findings of Fact are contained in
Attachment B of the staff report to the Planning Commission (Exhibit 3).
On May 25, 1993, the applicant submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of
Variance No. 93-02 (Exhibit 2).
KEY POINTS
• Presently, there is no multi-tenant signage on the subject property, although the site is
permitted one 20-foot tall monument sign per street frontage with 75 square feet of sign
area per face and the identity of up to three major tenants.
• The applicant cites the numerous nonconforming signs in the Highland/Del Rosa/Sterling
area with identification of up to 18 tenants as justification for this variance request.
However, staff maintains that the effectiveness of a sign to communicate information
diminishes as the amount of text increases; hence, the purpose of the applicant's request
may be self-defeating.
• The shopping center and outparcels in question were constructed in 1980, and the owners
had the opportunity for several years thereafter to install a center identification sign with
an unrestricted number of tenant panels based on the previous, less restrictive sign code.
Since the property was subject to essentially the same physical constraints as it is now,
the more likely cause of the current vacancy problems cited by the applicant is the
overall economic decline that is presently affecting the commercial sector as a whole--a
trend that is not likely to be reversed by an oversized sign.
Variance No. 93-02
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
July 19, 1993
Page 2
OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
The Mayor and Common Council May deny the appeal and deny Variance No. 93-02;
OR
The Mayor and Common Council may continue the item, uphold the appeal, approve Variance
No. 93-02 in concept and direct staff to prepare positive findings.
RECOMMENDATION
It is the recommendation of staff that the Mayor and Common Council deny the appeal and deny
Variance No. 93-02 based on the Findings of Fact contained in Exhibit 3.
Prepared by: Gregory S. Gubman, Associate Planner
for Al Boughey, AICP, Director
Department of Planning and Building Services
Exhibits: 1 - Location Map
2 - Letter of Appeal
3 - Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated
May 18, 1993
EXHIBIT 3 A
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM #7
SUMMARY HEARING DATE May 18 , 1993
WARD 7
APPLICANT: Quiet Bros . Signs
272 So . "I" Street
W San Bernardino , CA 92410
N
Q Variance No . 93-02 OWNER: H . Frank Dominguez
0 c/o Alan D . Smith , Truste
Perkins & Cole
1999 Avenue of the Stars
00
N
The applicant requests a Variance from Development Code Section
W 19 . 22 . 150 (c) (3) (e) , to construct a multi-tenant shopping center
M sign that identifies 11 tenants with 120 square feet of sign
W area per face .
QSubject property consists of approximately 4 acres , located at
W the southwest corner of Highland Avenue and Del Rosa Avenue .
Q
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
PROPERTY LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION
Subject Multi-tenant Retail CG-1 Commercial Genera
North it if 11 if it if
South Commercial Retail It it if
East Multi-tenant Retail " it of
West Commercial Recreation "
GEOLOGIC/SEISMIC ❑ YES FLOOD HAZARD ❑ YES ❑ ZONE A SEWERS: ® YES
HAZARD ZONE: ] NO ZONE: El NO ❑ ZONE B ❑ NO
HIGH FIRE ❑ YES AIRPORT NOISE/ ❑ YES REDEVELOPMENT ❑ YES
C HAZARD ZONE: NO CRASH ZONE: PROJECT AREA:
® NO ® NO_3
Q ❑ NOT ❑ POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z ❑ APPROVAL
APPLICABLE EFFECTS WITH O
MITIGATING MEASURES F.
`Z � NO E.I.R. Q ❑ CONDITIONS
M Z ® EXEMPT ❑ E.I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO W LL 0
Z DENIAL
Z p SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS Q W
OZ WITH MITIGATING I` M
CC if MEASURES Cl) M ❑ CONTINUANCE TO
Z ❑ NO SIGNIFICANT ❑ SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS V
W EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E.R.C. W
MINUTES
��f"Knwa� PLAN-9.02 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-90)
, ® A ►
0
City of San Bernardino CASE: VARIANCE NO. 93-02
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AGENDA ITEM: #7
AND BUILDING SERVICES HEARING DATE: 5-18-93
OBSERVATIONS PAGE 1
REQUEST
Under the authority of Development Code Section 19.72.030(2), the applicant is requesting a
Variance from Development Code Section 19.22.150(C)(3)(e)to construct a center identification
pylon sign with 120 square feet of sign area per face and the identity of up to 11 tenants.
SITE LOCATION
The subject property is irregular in shape and consists of approximately 4 acres located at the
southwest corner of Highland Avenue and Del Rosa Avenue, in the CG-1, Commercial General,
land use district (see Site Plan, Attachment D and Location Map, Attachment E).
DEVELOPMENT CODE CONSISTENCY
The proposed sign is not consistent with the following Development Code standards:
SPECIFICAnON TYPE AREA #OF TENANTS ON SIGN
AILORM muc immi ec)m(p) Monument 75 square feet per face 3 major tenants
PROPOSED Pylon 120 square feet per face 11 tenants
An expanded table of Development Code and General Plan consistency is presented in
Attachment A.
CEQA STATUS
The proposal has been determined to be exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as stated in the CEQA Guidelines under Article 19
(Categorical Exemptions), Section 15311(a).
BACKGROUND
On March 6, 1979, Review of Plans No. 79-26 was approved for the construction of the
shopping center. Building permits were issued on May 7, 1979.
On April 21, 1980, construction of a bank building (currently Chino Valley Bank) commenced.
City of San Bernardino CASE: VARIANCE NO. 93-02
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AGENDA ITEM: #7
AND BUILDING SERVICES HEARING DATE: 5-18-93
OBSERVATIONS PAGE 2
On April 30, 1980, building permits were issued for the construction of a McDonald's restaurant
at the southwest corner of Highland and Del Rosa.'
On February 1, 1993 the application for Variance No. 93-02 was submitted to the Planning
Division. The application was deemed complete on February 22, 1993.
ANALYSIS
Variance Request
Presently, the site has no multi-tenant signage whatsoever. According to the applicant, the center
is suffering from a high vacancy level due to limited street visibility and competition from other
centers with greater street visibility and center identification signage. The applicant believes that
the proposed sign will "provide the incentive to help fill much of the occupancies and put some
life back into this shopping center."2
Development Code Standards
Based on the size of the subject property (4 acres), Development Code Section
19.22.150(C)(3)(f) allows one double-face monument sign per street frontage with a maximum
height of 20 feet, a maximum area of 75 square feet and the identity of up to three major
tenants.
If a shopping center is 25 acres in area or more, the maximum allowable sign height and area
are 25 feet and 120 square feet per face, respectively, and the sign may identify up to 4 anchor
tenants.
Proposed Sign
The applicant proposes to install a 20-foot tall pylon sign, consisting of a 12-foot tall, double-
faced sign cabinet atop an 8-foot tall support structure. The proposed sign cabinet is 10 feet
wide, providing an overall signage area of 120 square feet per face. The proposed location of
1 This restaurant is located on a separate parcel,but shares reciprocal access with the subject parcel.The same is true for the World
Savings building,constructed in 1962.
2 The applicant purports the vacancy rate to be at 50%for the center.However,according to City records and on-site inspections,only
two of the center's eight shop spaces are currently unoccupied.
i ® A .►
City of San Bernardino CASE: VARIANCE NO. 93-02
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AGENDA ITEM: #7
AND BUILDING SERVICES HEARING DATE: 5-18-93
OBSERVATIONS PAGE 3
the sign is along the Del Rosa Avenue frontage, approximately 200 feet south of the Highland
Avenue right-of-way.
Each face of the proposed sign contains identification panels for 11 tenants (although the center
has only eight shop spaces), consisting of one anchor tenant (Sears Outlet Center) panel at 20
square feet, and 10 secondary panels at 10 square feet each. The sign text and backgrounds are
proposed to be internally illuminated.
Effectiveness of Proposed Sign
The applicant has identified several shopping centers in the vicinity of the subject property
whose pylon signs identify up to 18 tenants. The applicant argues, in the name of fairness, that
the subject property should be allowed comparable signage in order to compete equally for
customers and tenants.
Staff does not concur with the applicant's belief that the effectiveness of a sign improves as the
number of tenants identified on the sign increases. Rather, staff finds the contrary to be true.
Through field observations, it was observed that a sign's ability to communicate information
diminishes as the amount of text increases: the point of decreasing total effectiveness appears
to occur when the number of tenants on the sign exceeds five. In the worst cases, signs with
numerous rows and columns of small text (such as Del Rosa Center at the northeast corner of
Highland and Del Rosa) require the observer to be stationary at close proximity in order to
assimilate the information on the sign.
City Sign Design Objectives
Staff s observations support the intent behind the Development Code's sign standards. The
Development Code Sign Design Guidelines, which are used to help communicate the City's
design objectives, contain the following passages:
Use a brief message - The fewer the words, the more effective the sign. A sign
with a brief, succinct message is simpler and faster to read, looks cleaner and is
more attractive. [§G19.22.160(A)]
Avoid hard-to-read, overly intricate typefaces - These typefaces are difficult to
read and reduce the sign's ability to communicate. [§G 19.22.160(B)]
l A ►
City of San Bernardino CASE: VARIANCE NO. 93-02
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AGENDA ITEM: #7
AND BUILDING SERVICFS HEARING DATE: 5-18-93
OBSERVATIONS PAGE 4
To maximize the effectiveness of center identification signage, the Development Code allows
only the identity of up to three anchor tenants. An anchor tenant is defined as follows:
A shopping center key tenant, usually the largest or one of the largest tenants
located within the shopping center, which serves to attract customers to the center
through its size, product line, name and reputation. the term anchor tenant is
interchangeable with the term major tenant. [§19.22.030]
Anchor Tenants on Site
The primary anchor tenant of the in-line building is the Sears Outlet Center. Two other in-line
tenants that can be considered anchors, due to size, are a pizza restaurant and a tropical fish
store. The Development Code would allow 25 square feet of signage for each of these tenants
on a center identification sign, or a total area of 75 square feet. Chino Valley Bank, which
occupies a separate lease pad with frontage on Highland Avenue, has its own monument sign.
Although not technically part of the shopping center, McDonald's and World Savings occupy
outparcels along Highland Avenue, and share common drives with the subject property. Because
these outparcels are, to a certain extent, integrated with the subject property, they serve virtually
the same function as anchor tenants. Thus, it appears that the subject property now has the
benefit of highly visible major tenants.
Requirements for Granting a Variance
Section 65906 of the California Government Code identifies specific parameters under which a
variance may be granted. Section 19.72.050 of the Development Code incorporates these
provisions into the mandatory findings that the Commission must make prior to granting a
variance.
O To grant a variance, the decision-making body must find that there are special
circumstances applicable to the property that cause the strict application of the Code to
deprive such property of rights and privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity
and under the same land use district classification.
O The granting of the variance must be found to not create a detriment to the public health,
safety or welfare.
City Of Sari Bernardino CASE: VARIANCE NO. 93-02
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AGENDA ITEM: #7
AND BUILDING SERVICES HEARING DATE: 5-18-93
OBSERVATIONS PAGE 5
• The City may not grant a variance if it constitutes a special privilege that is not
consistent with the limitations placed upon other properties in the vicinity and land use
district in which the subject property is located.
• The granting of a variance may only apply to uses that are specifically permitted on the
subject property.
Finally, the granting of a variance cannot be in conflict with the goals, objectives and policies
of the General Plan.
Applicant's Findings
As part of the application process, persons requesting a variance are required to submit their
own written findings to justify the need for a variance. The applicant's findings are presented
in full in Attachment C.
Staffs Findings
1. Special Circumstances
The applicant argues that the obstructed visibility of the shopping center from Highland Avenue,
caused by the outparcels in front of the center (McDonald's, World Savings and Chino Valley
Bank), justifies the need to have every tenant identified on the sign.
Staff conducted a comparative investigation of the subject property to determine if there exist
any special circumstances applicable to the property--including size, shape, topography, location
and surroundings--that would place the subject property at a direct disadvantage with other
properties in the vicinity and identical land use classification if the Development Code sign
standards were strictly applied.
It was found that the limited visibility of the tenants on the subject property was not particularly
unique or unusual. While some centers--such as Elmwood Center at 1689 E. Highland,
Stephenson's Flowers center at the northwest corner of Del Rosa and Pumalo, and Del Rosa
Center (south building) at the northeast corner of Highland and Del Rosa--had unobstructed
street visibility for each tenant, many others did not. Notable examples include the Miller's
Outpost/Krikorian center at the southeast corner of Highland and Del Rosa (across the street
from the subject property), the Vons/Big 5 center at the northeast corner of Highland and
alai
= City of San Bernardino CASE: VARIANCE NO. 93-02
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AGENDA ITEM: #7
AND BUILDING SERVICES HEARING DATE: 5-18-93
OBSERVATIONS PAGE 6
Sterling, and the Grocery Warehouse/Payless Drug center at the southeast corner of Highland
and Sterling--which provide neither unobstructed visibility to all shops, nor signage that
identifies every tenant.
2. Necessity for the Preservation of a Property Right
The applicant feels that, by denying this variance, the subject property will be denied a
substantial property right enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity that are supposedly
benefitting from signs similar to the one proposed. Staff disagrees.
There is nothing to prevent the applicant from installing a sign that conforms to the standards
of the Development Code; thus, the current sign standards do nothing to endanger the
preservation of the property owners' right to have a center identification sign. The fact that other
shopping centers have nonconforming signs identifying numerous tenants does not create a
situation of inequity or place the subject property in a position of competitive disadvantage. The
current sign standards were written with a clear understanding that the configuration of buildings
in a shopping center will often result in many tenants not being visible from the adjacent streets.
It is also understood that major tenants serve to attract customers to a shopping center (eg.
Best/Marshall's Plaza, Sears Outlet Center, Inland Center Mall), which is why the Development
Code allows multi-tenant signs to identify up to three major tenants.
The other existing signs that the applicant is referring to are classified by the City as
nonconforming signs. These signs were once permitted by the Municipal Code, but are now
deemed inappropriate uses within the City of San Bernardino, primarily due to the visual
pollution created by numerous and oversized signs, and shall be removed pursuant to an
amortization schedule.
It should also be noted that the shopping center and outparcels in question were constructed in
1980 (as stated, the World Savings building was constructed in 1962), and the owners had the
opportunity for several years thereafter to install a center identification sign with an unrestricted
number of tenant panels. Since the property was subject to essentially the same physical
constraints as it is now, the more likely cause of the current vacancy problems cited by the
applicant is the overall economic decline that is presently affecting the commercial sector as a
whole--a trend that is not likely to be reversed by an oversized sign.
� S G .
City of San Bernardino CASE: VARIANCE NO. 93-02
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AGENDA ITEM: #7
AND BUILDING SERVICES HEARING DATE: 5-18-93
OBSERVATIONS PAGE 7
3. Health, Safety and General Welfare
The applicant states that, rather than creating a detriment to public health and safety, the
granting of the variance may enhance safety and reduce crime because the illuminated sign will
increase lighting levels along Del Rosa Avenue. Also, the applicant believes the increased
"consumer activity" that will supposedly result from the variance "will thereby aid in reducing
crime in the area."
Staff does not argue that the proposed sign would not be detrimental to the public health and
safety. Staff does not agree that the proposed sign will help improve business in the center
because the amount of information proposed on the sign will decrease its effectiveness.
4. Special Privilege
While many other shopping centers in the general area have signs that do not conform to
Development Code standards, and while the applicant requests on-site identity commensurate
with the neighborhood, staff s interpretation of a special privilege precludes the making of a
favorable finding. Those properties with nonconforming signs are enjoying a special privilege
under the City's provisions for allowing nonconforming uses to remain for a specified period
of time. Hence, the applicant is requesting the same special privilege.
All new signs are subject to the same standards found in the Development Code. Since no unique
or extraordinary physical constraints encumber the subject property, the granting of this variance
will constitute a special privilege
S. Permissiveness of Use
As previously discussed, a freestanding shopping center identification sign is a use expressly
authorized by the City. The specifications to which the application proposes to construct the sign
are not expressly authorized, unless special circumstances warrant deviations from the
regulations of Development Code. Since no such circumstances exist on the subject property,
it follows that the granting of this variance would constitute approval of a use without valid legal
authority.
City of San Bernardino CASE: VARIANCE NO. 93-02
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AGENDA ITEM: #7
AND BUILDING SERVICES HEARING DATE: 5-18-93
OBSERVATIONS PAGE 8
6. General Plan Consistency
The applicant finds that the granting of the variance will not be inconsistent with the General
Plan. But rather than presenting facts to support this finding, the applicant recommends several
policy measures that "should" be incorporated into the General Plan.
While the General Plan does not specifically prohibit the type of sign proposed, it does require
signage to be minimized in private development (Policy 1.45.4). The premise of the applicant's
argument for General Plan consistency is that businesses should be allowed to compete equally.
Section 4.0 (Economic Development) of the General Plan certainly does contain policies to help
maintain and upgrade the economic viability of the City's community-serving commercial
corridors (see Objectives 4.16 and 4.17). However, staff does not concur with the opinion that
a sign having numerous text panels is more effective than one whose information is easily
assimilated.
CONCLUSION
There are no special circumstances uniquely applicable to the subject property to warrant the
increase in the permissible sign area or to allow the identification of more than three major
tenants on the proposed sign. Staff finds that the proposal to identify 11 tenants would result in
a sign that is less effective than one that displays a clear, legible message to passing motorists.
Compliance with the current Development Code standards will not place the subject property at
a competitive disadvantage with other shopping centers in the City.
RECOAEWENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny Variance No. 93-02, based upon the
attached Findings of Fact (Attachment B.
Respectfully sub itted:
AL B ,
Director of Panning and Building Services
City of San Bernardino CASE: VARIANCE NO. 93-02
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AGENDA ITEM: #7
AND BUILDING SERVICES HEARING DATE: 5-18-93
OBSERVATIONS PAGE 9
Prepared by:
JoAg(
GREGORY S. GUBMAN
Associate Planner
Attachments:
A - Development Code and General Plan Conformance Table
B - Findings of Fact
C - Applicant's Findings
D - Site Plan and Proposed Sign Elevations
E - Location Map
City of San Bernardino CASE: VARIANCE NO. 93-02
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AGENDA ITEM: #7
AND BUILDING SERVICES HEARING DATE: 5-18-93
OBSERVATIONS PAGE 10
DEVELOPMENT CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
CATEGORY PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT GENERAL
CODE PLAN
Use Center identification sign permitted N/A
for 4-acre multi-tenant
shopping center
Type Double-face pylon Double-face monument with N/A
planter base or landscape
area equal to 4 times the
area of one sign face.
Number of One One per street frontage N/A
Signs
Height 20 feet 20 feet (max.) N/A
Area 120 square feet per face 75 square feet per face N/A
(max.)
# of Tenants 11 Up to 3 major tenants N/A
on Sign
Attachment A
City of Sari Bernardino CASE: VARIANCE NO. 93-02
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AGENDA ITEM: #7
AND BUILDING SERVICES HEARING DATE: 5/ 18/9 3
FINDINGS OF FACT PAGE 11
1. There are no special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape
topography, location or surroundings, such that the strict application of the Development
Code deprives the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity and under the identical land use district classification. Based on field
observations, it was found that the limited visibility of the tenants on the subject property
was not particularly unique or unusual. While some centers--such as Elmwood Center
at 1689 E. Highland, Stephenson's Flowers center at the northwest corner of Del Rosa
and Pumalo, and Del Rosa Center (south building) at the northeast corner of Highland
and Del Rosa--had unobstructed street visibility for each tenant, many others did not.
Notable examples include the Miller's Outpost/Krikorian center at the southeast corner
of Highland and Del Rosa (across the street from the subject property), the Vons/Big 5
center at the northeast corner of Highland and Sterling, and the Grocery
Warehouse/Payless Drug center at the southeast corner of Highland and Sterling--which
provide neither unobstructed visibility to all shops, nor signage that identifies every
tenant.
2. The granting of this variance request is not necessary for the preservation or enjoyment
of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the vicinity or denied to
the property for which the variance is sought. There is nothing to prevent the installation
of a sign that conforms to the standards of the Development Code; thus, the current sign
standards do not endanger the preservation of the property owners' right to have a center
identification sign. The fact that other shopping centers have nonconforming signs
identifying numerous tenants does not create a situation of inequity or place the subject
property in a position of competitive disadvantage. The current sign standards were
written with a clear understanding that the configuration of buildings in a shopping center
will often result in many tenants not being visible from the adjacent streets. It is also
understood that major tenants serve to attract customers to a shopping center (eg.
Best/Marshall's Plaza, Sears Outlet Center, Inland Center Mall), which is why the
Development Code allows multi-tenant signs to identify up to three major tenants.
Properties in the vicinity that are utilizing signs similar in scale to that which the
applicant requests are granted unique exceptions pursuant to the Development Code's
provisions for nonconforming signs. All other properties not in possession of this
nonconforming status are, and shall be, subject to the same Development Code sign
standards as the subject property.
Attachment B
City of San Bernardino CASE: VARIANCE NO. 93-02
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AGENDA ITEM: #7
AND BUILDING SERVICES HEARING DATE: 5/18/93
FINDINGS OF FACT (continued) PAGE u
3. The granting of this variance would not be materially detrimental to the public health,
safety, or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and land
use district in which the property is located in that the construction of the sign would be
subject to all adopted, applicable uniform safety codes.
4. The granting of this variance request constitutes a special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity in which the subject property is located
in that all other such properties, except those afforded the special privilege of legal
nonconforming status, are subject to limitations that are no less stringent than those
placed upon the subject property.
5. The granting of this variance request would not allow a use that is not otherwise
expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject parcel in that the on-site
identity of commercial uses is permitted by the Development Code.
6. The granting of this variance request is inconsistent with the General Plan, in that Policy
1.45.4 requires the number and size of signs in private development to be minimized.
Attachment B
ATTACHMENT "C" A&
A. There are special circumstances applicable to the property,
including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the
strict application of this Code deprives such property of
privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under
identical land use district classification;
YES - When the complex was developed it was the intention that
by having all store fronts facing north to Highland Ave. , the
tenants would have the best exposure to the public for the purpose
of identifying their business. Even though this complex did not
have direct frontage on Highland Ave. and there were other
businesses that partially block the exposure of this complex, it
was assumed that the brief line of sight between the buildings
along Highland Ave. would be sufficient to attract and draw
business from Highland Ave. . However, . the complex is now only 50%
occupied and having a difficult time keeping the existing tenants.
It is difficult to attract new tenants when competing with other
complexes that offer a clear unobstructed line of site from a major
street and a multi tenant identification sign. The sign we are
requesting has been designed with regards to size so that the
tenant freestanding identification panels may be readable from
Highland Ave. . We feel if you allow us this sign it will provide
the incentive to help fill much of the occupancies and put some
life back into this shopping center.
B. That granting the variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other
property in the same vicinity and land use district and denied to
the property for which the Variance is sought;
YES - Many existing commercial retail centers located in the
same general area have either adequate visability from a major
street whereby the individual tenant wall signage is large enough
to be seen and a multi-tenant identification sign. Please note
Flowerland Plaza, Elmwood Center, Target Center, Del Rosa Center,
Plaza Del Rosa, Stephenson's Flowers, Potomic Plaza, etc.
C. That granting the Variance will not be materially detrimental
to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to the
property or improvements in such vicinity and land use district in
which the property is located;
YES - We feel that the proposed sign will not only promote and
identify the businesses displayed on it. It will also provide
additional lighting on Del Rosa Ave. whereby it is now quite dark
along Del Rosa south of Highland Ave. . There has been a large
increase of crime in this area within the last year. It is our
belief that the additional lighting and the vacancies we hope to
fill with your approval of the proposed sign will increase consumer
activity and will thereby aid in reducing crime in the area.
AC .
D. That granting the Variance does not constitute a special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties
in the vicinity and land use district in which such property is
located;
NO - We would strongly urge anyone involved with the review of
this variance to take a minute and go to the proposed sign
location. Look at the size, height, and design of existing
freestanding I.D. signs within a three block area that identify a
shopping center and provide each tenant the ability to be displayed
on the highly visible freestanding sign in addition to the
individual wall signs. Here are some existing signs to reference
and there are many more in the same area.
1. DEL ROSA CENTER
Located at the north east corner of Highland & Del Rosa.
One 150 square foot freestanding double face center I.D.
sign, 20 foot overall height with 18 individual tenant
panels.
2 . ELMWOOD CENTER
Located at 1689 East Highland Ave.
One 75 square foot freestanding double face center I.D.
sign, 15 foot overall height with 12 individual tenant
panels.
3 . PLAZA DEL ROSA
Located two blocks north of Highland Ave. On Del Rosa.
One 150 square foot freestanding double face center I.D.
sign, 25 foot overall height with 17 individual tenant
panels.
E. That granting the Variance does not allow a use or activity
which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations
governing the subject parcel.
NO - From the information provided by our client we have not
seen or heard of any restrictions other than the City of San
Bernardino sign ordinance that would prohibit the installation of
the sign we are requesting.
F. That granting the Variance will not be inconsistent with the
General Plan.
NO - It should be the intent of the General Plan not to
restrict new businesses from competing equally with existing
businesses. When the new more restrictive General Plan was adopted
it reclassified many conforming uses to now legal non conforming
uses. Although the legal non-conforming uses are allowed to
continue, all new uses applied for must comply to the new more
restrictive General Plan. One of the most noticeable changes when
this occurs is with the on site signage. Most people are not aware
that many franchise type businesses will not open stores where
certain situations will restrict them from what they feel are their
minimum signage requirements. Through their experience a store
that is allowed to properly identify themselves with bold bright
well designed signs has a much greater change in succeeding when
compared to the same business that is restricted from proper
identification. It is no secret that the bigger and brighter the
sign is the more attention it will attract. When attention is
drawn to an object such as a sign, the name or services displayed
on that sign will be more easily recognized at a later date when
the need for that product or service is needed. For this reason
when new guidelines are created the intent of the city should be to
allow all businesses to compete equally. The Development Code
states that all legal non conforming signs must be made to comply
to the new ordinance within 15 years after its adoption. It should
also allow a business applying for a sign permit to work within the
perimeters of the former General Plan or sign ordinance with a
condition that the signage will be brought into compliance on or
before the same date that all other signs must comply. I believe
you would see most businesses wishing to comply to the new
ordinance as opposed to spending the money for new signage at a
later date. However, by allowing the option, I feel the city would
see a large decrease in variance requests and an increase in new
business growth. Also, the city would be providing a way that
businesses may compete equally and allow them to make a decision
that will play a big part in the success of their own business.
ATTACHMENT "D"
--------.---- ------------
-- -
do
f
6"'
-r GaQ. V
1A 10
z i
I I H A
�r
•
�!�;
lil{i�O;iiilillii j<<j
�
L 1
IT
/// ✓/ N
I I �
3 ,
V _ j
3 g
9
� s g
» I N
- -- z J =IW
I I i.i_I UL
s�
® I
1
AGENDA
CITY OF A'D • PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE Variance No , 93-02 7
LOCATION HEARINGDATE 5 / 18/93
FA
1 _
1 �
f,1
wa �i
b�:a�• y
i / r
3.
tXHIBIT 2
SIGNS BY (%;' 77
272 SOUTH I STREET, SAN BERNARDINO, CALIF. 92410
PH. 909-885-4476 FAX 909-888a239t
May 25, 1993
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
300 N. "D" St.
San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001
RE: Appeal of Variance # 93-02 Multi-
Tenant Shopping Center Signage.
Dear Honorable Mayor and Common Council:
On behalf of our client, we hereby appeal the denial to construct a multi-tenant shopping
center freestanding identification sign.
On May 18th 1993,we presented our case to the Planning Commission, our variance included
a request to identify 11 tenants with an additional 45 sq. ft. of sign area (total sign area 120
sq. ft.) for the proposed freestanding sign. The Planning Commission denied our request due
to the fact that they felt that the findings were not strong enough.
Current economics play a large roll of this request. The property management had made a
large investment to apply for this variance, because they know there is a visibility problem for
the tenants. If the variance is not approved the vacancy rate will rise from 50% to 75% due
to the other centers in the area, being able to provide what this center cannot, such as
exposure to the public.
We believe that our reasons are strong enough to support the proposed signage and would
feel more comfortable if the council were to hear the arguments and make the final decision.
Please schedule this as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
QUIEL BROS. ELECTRIC
X RVICE CO C.
Gary iel
Vice-President
N K/er
SALES • SERVICE • LEASING - MAINTENANCE • CRANE SERVICE • NEON
Calif.Contractors License No.217345