HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 2 VARIANCE 89-1 05-15-89 l]'m'm ))lk ]] ' · PUBLIC HEARING
~ · ' ~ NO., 2 ,
DA
DATE: HAY 15, 1989 ~ '
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
WILLIAH A. HUSTON, CITY HANAGER
CO#INUNITY DEVELOP#ENT DEPARTMENT
.'
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMiNISSION DENIAL OF VARIANCE 89-1
APPLICANT/
OWNER:
LocATION:
REQUEST:
EUGENE F. TU1T
P.O. BOX 461
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92681
1501 NISSUN ROAD AT THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE I-5 FREEWAY
APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT TWO DOUBLE FACED BILLBOARDS AT A lVlAXIHUM
HEIGHT OF 65 FEET, REPLACING THREE EXISTING, SINGLE FACED
BILLBOARDS AS A RESULT OF THE I-5 FREEWAY WIDENING.
RECi3i~4ENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 89-60 denying the
·
sub ject appeal.
BACKGROUND
ii i
At their regular meeting on April 10, 1989, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 2578 {attached) denying Variance 89-1 a request to construct two
new double faced billboards at heights of 60 and 65 feet, to replace three
existing, single faced billboards that will be removed as a result of the 1-5
freeway widening at 1501 Nisson Road.
The subject property is surrounded by: the I-5 freeway to the north, a service
station and offices to the .west, and residential apartments to the south and
east across Nisson Road. The improvements presently existing on the site
consist of a single family home, a small nursery facility, and the existing
bi llboards.
The proposed construction of new billboards on the remaining property requires
approval of a variance for the following reasons:
1. Outdoor advertising is not a permitted commercial use in the C-1
zone. (Secti on 9232)
City Council Report
Variance' 89-1
May 15, 1989
Page two
2. The City's Sign Code prohibits off-premises signs (billboards). (Section
9444)
.
The proposed 60 and 65 foot heights of the billboard exceed the 35 foot
maximum height permitted in the C-1 zone. (Section 9272)
4. The City's non-conforming structures and uses ordinance requires a
structure to comply with the present code should its reconstruction exceed
fifty percent of its value. (Section 9273)
e
The non-c.onforming ordinance prohibits non-conforming uses, such as
outdoor advertising, from being expanded to occupy a greater area than is
existing, in this case a fourth sign face.
.
.
The sign code requires that all. non-conforming billboards be removed by
May 1, 1978. (Section 9462)
The sign code states that a change in sign identity (billboard sign face)
requires conformance with present requirements. (Section 9463)
DISCUSSION
Submitted plans propose the construction of two double-faced, mono-pole
billboards at heights of 60 and 65 feet. Each sign face would measure 672
square feet in area. The signs are proposed to be located adjacent to the
proposed I-5 freeway right-of-way at opposite ends of the subject property,
generally oriented perpendicular to the freeway. Each sign would have a
landscaped planter at its base.
In order to approve the requested variance to the code requirements listed
above, the City Council must make four required findings. The Planning
Commission, at .their April lOth meeting, was not able to make these findings. '
The Planning Commission felt that these findings could not be met as discussed
be low:
A. There are no unusual or exceptional circumstances applicable to the shape,
size, topography, location or intended use of the subject property which do
not necessarily' apply to other properties in the same zoning district in
that the subject property could be developed wi th other- commercial
improvements permitted throughout the C-1 zoning district. The same types
of improvements are available to the subject property owner as are
available to all other property owners in the C-1 district.
B. Granting the requested 'variance would convey a special privilege to the.
property owner which is not enjoyed by other property owners in the same
Corn munity Development Depaqment
City Councll Report
Variance 89-1
May 15, 1989
Page three
property owner which is not enjoyed by other property owners in the same
zoning district, in that all other property owners, including those
affected by the freeway widening, must comply with the requirements of the
Zoning and Sign Codes when altering their sites or improvements and would~
not be permitted to install billboards.
C. The granting of this variance may be materially detrimental to adjacent and
surrounding property's, in that the continued and increased presence of
billboard signs on the subject property may result in a visual and
aesthetic nuisance to heavy traffic and neighboring properties, including
residential properties to the south of the subject property that would be
brought into closer proximity to the billboards as a result of the subject
variance.
D. The granting of this variance would be contrary to the General Plan in that
the Scenic Highways element of the General Plan requires that signs
oriented toward the freeway system shall be in compliance with the City of
Tustin Sign Ordinance.
In addition to the Planning Commission's belief that the required findings for a
variance from site~ development standards could not be made, staff in
consultation with the City Attorney's office believes that the applicant's
request would be considered a use variance. State planning law prohibits the
granting of a variance from the designated, permitted uses wit-hin an. established
zoning district. The applicant's request is contrary to the permitted uses of
the C-1 district (as they do not include outdoor advertising) and is a
specifically prohibited use in the Sign Code.
The applicant's request for a variance is based, on the loss of revenue that
would result from the permanent removal of the structures; however, economic
hardship is not grounds for granting a variance. Caltrans is required to
purchase the property and any structures taken for the freeway .widening by
negotiation or at fair market value.
An additional concern with the replacement of the billboards is that they have
not yet acquired preliminary approval by Caltrans. The outdoor advertising
division of Caltrans must approie any billboards placed adjacent to the freeway;
this division had not yet~received an application for such a project when last
contacted by staff. Preliminary information from that division indicates that a
maximum of one sign 'may be permitted by Section 5412 of the ~ Outdoor Advertising
Act and that potentially, no billboards may be permitted on the property if the
freeway is designated as a "landscaped freeway". Staff wished to resolve this
issue prior taking this variance to the Planning Commission. for action; however,.
the applicant insi.sted that the public hearing be scheduled as quickly as
possible.
Should any replacement of the billboards to be removed were to be approved,
Corn munity DeveloPrnen~ Departmem
City Council Report
Variance 89-1
May 1'5, 19.89
Page four
· .
staff' would recommend that the project be brought into a greater degree of
conformity with the. City codes then has been proposed by the applicant. As
discussed above, the applicant proposes to increase the number of sign faces
from 3 to 4 and increase the maximum height of the signs to 65 feet; thereby,
increasing the property's degree of non-conformity. A proposal that would
increase the conformity of the property and not further violate any code
requirements might include relation of one of the existing billboards at the ·
same maximum height. As noted above, Caltrans's information indicates that a
maximum of one sign can be approved by that agency in any case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the above analysis and the conclusion that the required findings to
grant a standards variance cannot be made, and that State law prohibits granting
a use variance, staff recommends that the City Council deny Variance 89-1 by
adopting Resolution No. 89-60, as submitted or revised.
Eric Haaland - 'I
Assistant Planner
EH:CAS'ts
Attachments: Resolution No. 2578
Plans
Negative Declaration
Resolution No. 89-60
Christine A. Shingl%b~
Director of Communit~j) Development
Commun;ty Development Department ~
1
2
.3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
2(~
21
22
23
24
25
:26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2578
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA DENYING VARIANCE 89-1 REQUEST TO
CONSTRUCT TWO NEW DOUBLE FACED BILLBOARDS AT HEIGHTS OF 60
AND -65 FEET, TO REPLACE. THREE EXISTING SINGLE FACED
BILLBOARDS THAT WILL BE REMOVED AS A RESULT OF THE I-5
FREEWAY WIDENING AT 1501 NISSON' ROAD.
The Planning Commission oF the City of Tus%in does hereby resolYe as
follows'
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follo,~s'
A·
That a proper application, (Variance No. 89-1), has been filed
on behalf of Eugene F. Tutt requesting permission t.g cons~ruc~
two new double faced billboards at heights of 60 and 65 ?ee~,
tha: will replace three existing single Faced billboards :h.q~
will be removed as a resul~ of the I-5 freeway widening a~ 1501
Nisson Road. .
B ·
That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held for said
application on April 10, 1989.
C. .That the request does not meet zoning and sign code requirements
for ~he' following reasons'
1. Outdoor advertising is not a permitted commercial use in :he
C-1 zone. (Section 9232)
2. The- City's Sign Code prohibits off-premises sig.~s
(billboards). (Section 9444)
3. The proposed 60 and 65 foot heights oF the billboards exceed
the 35 foot maximum height permitted in the C-1 zone.
(Section 9232)
4. Provisions of the City's code on non-conforming structures
and uses require a structure ~o comply with the presen: code
should its reconstruction exceed fifty percent of its
, value· (Section 9272)
5. The Tustin's City Code prohibits non-conforming uses
(outdoor advertising) from being expanded (fourth sign face).
beyond wha~ i~ existing. (Section 9273)
6. The sign code requires that non-conforming billboards be
removed by May 1, 1978. (Section 9462)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
17
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 2B78
Page t~vo
II.
7. The sign code states tiler a change in sign identity
(billboard sign face) requires conformance with present
requirements.
D. That the findings required to gran't a standards variance canno't
be made for the following reasons:
1. There are no unusua,1 or 'exceptional circumstances applicable
to the shape, size, topography, location or intended use of
subject property which do not necessarily apply to other
properties in the same zoning district; in Chat the subjecC
property could be developed witl~ o~her commercial
improveme, nts permitted throughout the C-1 zoning district.
The same types of improvements are available to the subject
property ortner as are available to all other prop.~rty o',,tners
in the C-1 district.
2. Granting the requested variance would convey a special
privilege to the property owner which is not enjoyed by
other property owners in the same zoning district; in tha't
all other property owners, including those affected by the
freeway widening, must comply with the requirements of the
Zoning and Sign Codes when altering their sites or
improvements.
3. The granting of this variance may be materially detrimental
to adjacent and surrounding properties, i,q that
continued and increased presence of billDoard signs on
subject property may result in a visual and aesthetic
nuisance to heavy traffic and neighboring properties,
including residential properties to the south of the subject-
property that would be brought into closer proximity to. the
billboards as a result of this variance.
4. The granting of this ~ariance would be contrary to the
General Plan in .that .the Scenic Highways Element of tile
General Plan requires that signs oriented toward the freeway
system shall be in compliance with the City of Tustin Sign
Ordinance.
E. That the request includes a use variance which is not permitted
by State Planning Law.
The Planning Commission hereby denies Variance 89-1 for two, doubl~
faced, 60 & 65 foot tall, monopole billboards on the property located
at 1501 Nisso~ Road.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution
Page three
PASSED A~ID ADOPTED at a regular._meetlng_of ~he Tustln Planntng Commission,
he]el on the ~/~;~, day of.~o 1989. . .
..~nce Application
· 501 Nisson Road
JUSTIFICATI,ON OF HARDSHIP
·
..
I have f~und it necessary to ask the City of Tustin
for a variance in order to partially mitigate the tremendous
financial loss, the seizure and loss of much of my property,
and the personal trauma inflicted upon my family by the
Caltrans freeway project in the City of Tustin.
More specifically, I am requesting the right to replace
three (3) existing older billboard signs on my property wi%h
two (2) new monopole signs. This will partially mitigate
the financial loss to myself and my tenant Martin Communications.'
I wish to note ~hat this drastic taking of my property
would not have been necessary without the requirement by the
City of Tustin, to build the new Tustin Ranch Road Interchange.
In fact, the draft Enviromental Impact Report published in
early 1987 showed no taking of my property at all.
I feel very strongly that the City of Tustin should
approve this variance because these signs existed long before
our property annexed to Tustin. In addition, these signs
exist legally today and without this freeway project, could'
have remained in existence for an indeterminate number of
years, all the. while providing much needed income for my
family.
ThiS hardship is not a self-imposed one and does not
constitute the granting of any special privelege to my prop°-
erty. In fact, the full .measure of our hardship may not be
known until the freeway project is completed. If the impacts
of noise and air pollution at that time are overwhelming,
my family will be forced to find another home. We hav~
already done sqme research in this regard and have learned
that to find another home similar to our existing one would
be most difficult and most ex.pensive.
In order to satisfy the long-range objectives of the
Tustin sign code, I am willing to accept a 20 year life for
these new signs as part.of conditions of approval for this
·
variance. 0
· I trust that you will not only agree that this variance
is fully justified on the basis of hardship but also that i't
will result in,less signage than now exists and will be done
in a modern and pleasing fashion.
Eugene F. Tutt
' i
I
./
4
',.3
I
NEGA.-"
·
CITY OF TUSTIN
300 CENTENNIAL W~f, TUSTIN, CA. 92680
Project Title: VARIANCE 89-01
File No. VAR 89-01
Project Location: 1501 NISSON ROAD
-'Project Oescrigtion: REQUEST TO REPLACE THREE (3) EXISTING, SINGLE-
FACED BILLBOARDS W/ TWO (2) NEW, DOUBLE FACED BILLBOARDS,
Project Proponent: EUGENE F, TUTT
Contact Person: ER I C HAALAND
Telephone: 544-8890 Ext. 273
The Community Development Department has conducted an initial ~tudy for the
above project in accordance with-the City of Tustin's procedures regarding
implementation of the California Envir'onmental Quality Act, and on the basis of
that study hereby find:
That there, is no substantial evidence that the project may have a
significant effect on the environment.
That potential significant affects were identified, but.revisions have
been included in the project plans and ~greed to by the applicant that
would avoid or mitigate the affects to a point where clearly no
significant effec'ts would occur, Said revisions are attached to and
hereby made a part of this Negative Declaration.
Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Re~ort is not required.
The initial study which provides the basis for this determination is on
fi'le at the Community Development Department, City of Tustin. The public
is invited to comment on the appropriateness of this ?legative Declaration.
during the review period, which begins with the public notice of a
Negative Declaration and extends for seven calendar days. Upon review by
the Community Development Director, this review period may be extended if
deemed necessary.
REVIEW PERIOD ENDS 4:30 p.m. on APRIL 7, 1989
DATED' MARCH ~1 1~89 ~'?-~' .....
Community Development Directo~'i
I1o
C0mmunity Development Department-
·
· ~RONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY FORM
I. Name of Propenent ~L'~ /n .,
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent ~.D, ..~ y~/'
Date of Checklist Submitted
Agency Requiring Checklist
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable
' '
(Explanations of all "yes" and "m~4oe, answers are required on attached sheets.)
I
I.. Earth. Will the proposal result im
Ye,
bo
Unstable earth conditions or in change=
in geologic subztructures?
DisrLgtlam. dL~placement~t compaction
ar ovemovering of the aoll?
Change In topography ar ground surface
relief features?
The de~tructlont covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical features?
Any Increase in wind ar. water erosion of
sous, either on or off the site?
Chcnges In deposition ar erosion of beach
sands, or changes in ~iltation, deposition or
erosion which may modify the channel of a
river or stream ar the bed of the ocean or
my bay~ Inlet ar lake?
1
Expmu, ! people or property to geolo-
gic haza~ ~uch a~ ~arthquake~t I(~1~11~
rnu~llde~, ground failum~ or similar haz~cls?
Air. Will the proposal result Im
a, Substantial .air emissions or deteriorotlon
of ambient air quality? ·
b.' The creation of objectionable odors?
Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or..r~gionally?
Water. Will the proposal result im
al
Changes-in currents, or the course of di-
rectlm of water rnovementa, in either
marine ar fresh water~?
C~, In abmrptlm mtm, drainage pat-
term, 'or the rate and amount of surface
runoff?
·
Alterations to the course or flow of flood
waters? ~ .. ·
d, Chaxje In the amount of surface water In.
any WQter body?
e.. Discharge Into surface waters, ar in any ~
alteration of surface water quality, In-
cluding but not limited te tempemture~ ,
dissol, ved oxygen or turbidity?
®
f. Altemtlon of the direction or rate of flow
of ground waters?.
gl
Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through lntes'ception of on
aquifer by cuts or excavatlam?
h,
Substantial reduction In the amount of
water otherwise available for public water
supplies? .
h Exposure, of people or property to water re-
lated hazards such as flooding ar tidal waves?
f.
Plca~t Life. ,,ill the proposal result In:
a. ~e In the. diversity of species, er
number of. ~ spec!es of plants (including
tree~, shn~s, gmu, crops, ,ami QqUatlc
pl.Qnts)?
b. Redudrlm of the numbers' ~f any Unklue,
rare or endangered spa:les of plants?
c. Introductlan of new species of plants Into
m area, or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing spec:les?
d. Reductlan in acreage of any agrlcultural
crop? .
Animal ~'ife. Will the propoml result Im
a. Change In the dlverJity of q)ecles, or
humbert of any qaeci, of animals (bircLs,
land animals Including reptiles, fish c~d
shellfish, benthic erganlaam- er insects)?
b. Reductlm of' the numbem of any unklue,
rare er~ endangered spe~ie~ of animals?
;
¢. Introductlan of new species of mitosis Into
an area, er result In a bcrrler to the :
mJgratlan .er .mgvement of anlmalz? ..
cL Deterloratim to exlatlng fish ar wllcllife
habitat? '
Will the propolal result lm
a. Increases in existing nol~ levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
Light and Glare. Wlll the proposal produce
new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub-
stantlal alteration of the pre~;,t or planned
land use of an. area?
I~ IReseureea. Will the proposal result ins
Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resourcea? '
Yes
f.
ii
10.
12.
'13.
!4.
b. Substam,.~ depletion of ar~/'nonrenewable
natural resource?
Risk of I.~. Will the prepmal involvm
a. A ri~ of an explo~im or the releme
of _lxzz.~deu: sul~tancm (Including, but not
limited tot oil, p~stlcid~, chmni~lz c~
radlatlan) in the event of an accl~t ar
upz~ canditk~m?
Passible interferem:e with an emergency
req)cmee plcm or cm emm'gm~ evacuatlc~
plan?
Pq~uletlm. Wlll the prepoml alter the Ioc~tim,
distribution, demlty, or growth rate of
humm popul~lm of m area?
Hmming, Will the propmal affect existing hous-
ing, or create a demand foe' c~dditlenal houalng?
.
Traape'h3tion/Clrculatlm. Will the propoaal
reault im
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular.movement? .
·
·
b. Effects on existing parking facili~les~ or : .
demand for new parking?
..
c. Substantial Impact upm existing tranaporo
ration systems?
·
d. Altemtlem to pre/sent patt~m of circula-
tion or movement of people and/or gooda?
e. Alteratlens to waterborne~ raft or air
traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicle, bicyclists or pedeatrlam?
Public Services. Will the propoaal have an
effect uped, or result in a need for new or
altered g.~emmental services .in cmy of the
following areas~
Go .
Fire protectlan?
Police protection?
Schaol~?
ii
o
d. Parks er other recreational facilities?
17.
18.
20.
e. Mainten~e of public f~cilltles, Including
ro~d,?
f.. Other govemmental service,?
I$. Energy. Will the proposal result Im
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. 'Substantial increase in demand upan exist-
lng sources of anergy~ or require the
development of new sources of energy?
Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
far new systems, or substantial alterations to
the following utilltlesz
a. Power or natural gas? ·
b. Communi~tlom Sy~term?
C. Water?
·
cL Sewer or ~ptlc; tanks?
e. '.Starm wate~ drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
Hmtmn Health. Wlll the propmal result im
·
Creation of ar~ health hazc~d or potential
health hazard (exc.ludlng mental health)? ~
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards?
Aerthetles. Will the proposal result In the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal m~ult in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open
to public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal result In an
Impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreatla~al opportunities?
Cultural Reaaurces.
Will the propasal reault In the alteratlan
of ar the deatructlan of a prehiztaric ar
histork: arc:haf~logical site?
·
·
21.
b. Will the ~.upozal result In adverse phy~k~l
or a~th~lc effects to a prehi~taric ar
hL~'lg building. ~tru~-Iure, or
g. Doe~ the prq>aeal have the pote~rtlal to
cau~ a ptr~lcal ctmnge whic~ would offe, ct
unique ethnic cultural value?
d. WIll the prq:m,~al reftrlct exlzting rell~ioum
or mad u~z wlein the pofenflal
ore~lZ? ·
Mandatory Flndings of $1gnlflcelc~
bo
Doe~ the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the enviranment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
ar wildlife specie,, cause a fish ar wild-
life papulatlan to drop below self ~u~-.
raining Immls, threaten to eliminato a
plant or animal community, reduce the
number ar restrict the ronge of a ram ar
endange~ plant ar animal ar eliminate
Important example~ of the major perlada
of California hL~tory or pr~L~tory? .
Does the pmjec~f have the potential to
achieve ~mrt-term, to the dL~advantage of
long-term, environmental goals? ~A ~ort?
t.erm Impact an the environment is one
which Occurs In a .relatively brlef, definitive
period of time while lang-term Impacts
will endure well into the future.)
·
Does the project have Impacts which are
Individually limited, but cumulatively .can-
siderable? (A project may Impact on two
or more separate resources where the Impact
on each resource is relatively small, but
where the effect of the total of thom
impact~ an the environment [s significant.)
Does the project have L'nvirenmental effects'
which will cause substantial adverse effects
an human beings, either directly ar Indirectly?
III. Dlscusslan of Envl~tal E~aluation
IV, Determinatlm
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On th~ b~i~ of thL~ Inil'ml ~vcduatlom
·
I find that tl~ prop~ mJ~-t COULD NOT have a slgnl ~t effect
· n the ~nvlmnn~nt, ar~ a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will b. prq~ared.
I find fi'mt although the praposed project could hav~ a. slgniflcant effect
on the environment, th~m will not be a significant effect in this case
bec~ the mitigation measures ck~cribed an art attached sheet hove
I--I
been odd~l to the project, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL. BE PREPARED,
·
I find th~ pmpo~ecl project' MAY ~ a significant effect an the envlron-
ment~, md ~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT i~ requlmd, J--J
I~te
EXHIBIT A
II.IITIAL STUDY FOR T'JO PRD?O%ED BILLBOARDS
VARIA~ICE 89-O1
V.~riance 89-01 is a request to erect two (2), double faced, 60 to 65 + foot
Tall, monopole billboards on a site presently developed .,~ith an existing single
family residence, green houses and three (2). single faced billboards, locate~
adjacent to tile south bound I-5 freeway. The widening of the I-5 freeway, will
require the removal/relocation of the existing billboards.
1. Earth
L I
The subject property is a developed site with no unique geologic or
topographic features. Installation of the proposed billboards will
require excavation ~or foundations, and will not resul: in significant
overcovering or co~paction o~ soil, or alteration to existing
topography. I,lind and water erosion is not an:icipaCed due to the
limited excavation required. T~e site is not located near aOy
streams, rivers or other bodies of ;~ater. (Source' Field
observations and submitted plans).
2. Air
This project would not result in any degradation to the existing air
quality based on review of AQND standards for preparing E.I.R
documents. (Source' Community_~ Development Department).
3. Water
The proposed project would not result in any change to existing
;urface bodies oF water or flo.~ of streams, etc., as none exist near
the site. Additionally, the proposed ~llboards would not ~.lCar
absorption races or runoff as they would not add any imperious surface
area to tile site. (Source: Field observations).
4. Plant Life
Tl~e subject property is a developed si're, containing a variety of
plant species common to this area. There are no known rare or
endangered plant species on-site. Installation of the proposed
billboards mab~ require removal of some existing plants. (Source'
Field observation).
Mitigation Monitoring - Landscaping equivalent to the area of the
proposed sign faces (600+ sq. ft.) shall be installed at the base
of each billboard. Any mature trees that are removed shall be
replaced in equal number by minimum 24" box trees.
$. Animal Life
Tile project is. a developed property in an urban area and free of any
Exhibit A
Variance 89-01
Page 1:~;o
·
..
significant population of animals, fish, or widelife, iSource' Field
observations).
·
6. ~oise
o~ud billboards
No severe noise levels are associa'ted wit;q the prop ~
aside from bamporary construction noise. (Source' Community
Development and Field observations).
Mitigation Monitoring - Construction activity shall be limited to
the hours of 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, pursuant to
Section 4615(a) of the Tustin City Code.
Light and Glare
The three existing single Faced billboards are il lumi~)ated. The
proposed project would add one additional iluminated sign face for a
total of four, increasing light and glare in the area. (Source:
Submitted plans).
Mitigation Monitoring - Expansion of the sign faces is prohibited
by the City's non-conForming ordinance and is a reason that
denial of ti~e project is'recommended. However, if installed, all
lighting shall be designed to minimize glare to restrict fugitive
light rays from shining onto adjacent properties.
8. Land Use
The proposed project~ site is located within the C-~I (Retail
Commercial) District. The General Plan. Land Use Designation for the
property is C (Commercial). The proposed use is not a permitted use
within the C-1 zoning district. Approval of the requested variance to
install the proposed billboards would change the planned land use of
the subject property and would violate State planning law. (Source:
City General Plan Land Use Hap, City Zoning ~,lap and City Zoning Code).
'Mitigat,ion Honitoring - The fact that the use is not permitted on
the property is a reason that the denial of the project is
recommended. In order to approve this project, the City's Zoning
Code would have to be amended to include billboards as a
permi.tted use in the C-1 zoning district.
9. )latural Resources
The proposed project would not result in any significant increase in
the use of natural resources giv._:n its relatively small scale.
{Source' Community Dew.~lopme.q~ and Public ,,~orY, s Depart~.~e~t).
Exhibit A
variance 89-Ol
Page three
10. Risk of Upset
The proposed project does not include the use of known hazardous or
flammable chemicals or agents. The. project would not impact tile
City's e~ergency response plan. (Source: Community Developme~at and
Public Works Department).
11. Population
·
The project would employ a lil~ited number of people to install the
proposed billboards and would not, by the nature of the use, be a
factor in attactiag additional po. pulation to tile area. (Source:
Community Development Department).
12. Housin9
As discussed in item 11 above, the project would not generate
permanent employment or attract additional pop'ulation and therefore
generate a need for additional housing. (Source: Community
Development Depart~nent).
13. Transportation/Circulation
a-e. The project would not generate any additional veilicular movement or
parking requirements. (Source: Community Development Department).
f. The proposed billboards might cause a traffic hazard as they may be a
visual ~istraction to ~rivers on the I-5 Freeway. (Source'
Advertising Act).
Mitigation ~,leasures - The sign code prohibits these types of
signs in general (reasoning that they might be hazardous to
traffic) and therefore is another reason tllat denial of the
project is recommended'.
14. Public Services
· ~
·
Tile proposed Project would not result in any change to existing public
services or create a need for new public services. All services are
in place to serve the site. (Source: Fire and Police Departments,
Community Development Department, and Public Works Department).
The proposed project would not resu.lt in any sionifican't increase in
Exhibit -A
V~riance. 89-01
Page four
the use of energy given the scale and type of development. (Source'
Public Works Department).
.1.6. Utilt:ies
The proposed project could not result in any increase~d need for
utilities. The site is in an urban area ~.~ith all utilities available
to the site and are adequate to accom~.odate the proposed project.
(Source' Public ',.lorks Department).
17. Human Heal th
Tile project does not i:~clude the use of any kno,,~n hazardO~lS substance
that could substantially degrade l~uman health. (Source' Police, Fire
and Community Development Departments).
18. Aestheti cs
_
The proposed project could have a significant impact to aesthetics-in
the area. Signs have a great .visual impac~ and the height, area, and
location of the proposed billboards would .compromise the aesthetic
quality of the area. (Source: Tustin Sign Code, Tustin General Plan,
Outdoor Advertising Act).
Mitigation ~.leasure - This is a significant impact that is
difficult to mitigate, as billboards are by nature unattractiv.~
structures, This is another reason why it is recommended that
:he project be denied.
19. Recreation
The proposed project would not result in any increased need for
recreational opportuni:es, as it would not generate additional
population. (Source' Community Services Department).
20. Cultural Resources
m
The proposed,project will not have any effect on cultural resouces in
that the General Plan and the Historical Resources Survey do not
identify any culturally significant resources on this property.
(Source: CitY General Plan and Historical Resources Survey).
21. Mandatory Findinos of Significance
.
a. As discussed in the sections contained in this Exhibit, there are no
known significant impacts to human health, animal or plant life, or
historical resources.
Exhi~)i t A
V~.-iance 89-01
Page fi ye
b~
.C.
de
The project's impact would be long term, as the proposed billboards
would be in place for many years.
Approval of this project could set a precedence 'for other 'properties
on which someone might ~vish to place a billboard{s). The City's Sign
Code requires eventual removal of all billboards; app,'oval oF t~lis
project would be contradictory to t~lis requir_~m,.,)lt.
The potential environmental effects of the project discussed above may
have substantial adverse effects on human beings caused primarily by
the visual impact of the project upon latvia quanti:ies
{Source: Field obs~_rvations, Tustin Sign Code and .~utdoor Adver~:ising
Act).
~4itigation ~',leasures - The visual impact of tl]e i)illboards is of
prime concern in the City Sign Code and is a reason ti~at d.~:nial
of the project is recommended.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 89-60
A RESOLU?ION OF THE C~TY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OV TUSTIN,
CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF VARIANCE 89-1 REQDESTING
APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT TWO NEW DOUBLE FACED BILLBOARDS AT
HEIGHTS OF 60 AND 65 FEET, TO REPLACE THREE EXISTING SINGLE
FACED BILLBOARDS THAT WILL BE REMOVED AS A RESULT OV THE
I-5 FREEWAY WIDENING AT 1501 NISSON ROAD.
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows:
I. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
A. That a proper application, for appeal of Variance 89-1 has been
filed on behalf of Eugene F. Tutt requesting permission to
construct two new double faced billboards at heights of 60 and
65 feet, that will replace three existing single faced
billboards that will be removed as a result of the I-5 freeway
widening at 1501 Nisson Road.
B. That a public hearing was duly called, no%iced and held for said
appeal on May 15, 1.989.
C. That the request does not meet zoning and sign code requirements
for the following reasons:
1. Outdoor advertising is not a permitted commercial, use in the
C-1 zone. (Section 9232)
2. The City' s Sign Code prohibits off-premises signs
(billboards). (Section 9444)
3. The proposed 60 and 65 foot heights of the billboards exceed
the 35 foot maxi mum height permitted in the C-1 zone.
(Section 9232)
4. Provisions of the City's code on non-conforming structures
and uses require a structure.to comply with the present code
should its reconstruction exceed f{fty percent of its
value. (Section 9272)
5. The Tustin's City Code prohibits non-conforming uses
(outdoor advertising) from being expanded (fourth sign face)
beyond what is existing. (Section 9273)
6. The sign code requires that non-conforming billboards be
removed by May 1, 1978. {Section 9462)
1
2
3
4'
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 89-60(d)
Page two
7. The sign code states that a change -In sign identity
(billboard sign face) requires conformance with present
requirements.
D. That the findings required to grant a standards variance cannot
be made for the following reasons:
1. There are no unusual or exceptional circumstances applicable
to the shape, size, topography, location or intended use of
the subject property.which do not necessarily apply to other
properties in the same zoning district; in that the subject
property could be developed with other commercial
improvements permitted throughout the C-1 zoning district.
The same types of improvements are available to the subject
property owner as are available to all other property owners
in the C-1 district.
2. Granting the requested variance would convey a special
privilege to the property owner which is not enjoyed by
other property, owners in the same zoning district; in that
all other property owners, including those affected .by the
freeway widening, must comply with' the requirements of the
Zoning and Sign Codes when altering, their sites or
imp ro veme htS.
3. The granting of this variance may be materially detrimental
to adjacent and surrounding properties, in that the
continued and increased presence of billboard signs on the
subject property may result in a visual and aesthetic
nuisance to heavy traffic and neighboring properties,
including residential properties to the south of the subject
property that would be brought into closer proximity to the
billboards as'a result of this variance.
4. The granting of this variance would be contrary to the
General Plan in that the Scenic Highways Element of the
General Plan requires that signs oriented toward the freeway
system shall be in compliance with the City of Tustin Sign
Ordinance.
E,
That the .request includes a use variance which is not permitted
by State Planning Law. ·
II. The City Council hereby dqnies the appeal of Variance 89-1 for two,
double faced, 60 & 65 foot tall, monopole billboards on the property
located at 1501 Nisson Road.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 89-60 (d)
Page thpee
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tusttn,. at a regular
meeting on the day of , 1989.
Ursula E ....ken6~dy,
Mayor
Mary Wynn,
City Clerk