Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.C- Community Development ORDINANCE (ID # 1777) DOC ID: 1777 A CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Public Hearing From: Margo Wheeler MICC Meeting Date: 05/21/2012 Prepared by: Shirley Robinson, (909) 384- 5057 Dept: Community Development Ward(s): All Subject: Ordinance of the City of San Bernardino for Development Code Amendment to Amend San Bernardino Municipal Code 15.20, 19.20 and 19.62 to Allow Additions to Existing Buildings Under 2500 Square Feet to be Exempt from Meeting New Development Standards for the Entire Existing Strncture; Allow for Nonconforming Uses to Retain Their Current Status for 36 Months Rather Than 12 Months; Eliminate the Requirement for a New Certificate of Occupancy Beyond International Code Requirements and Automatic Abatement Requirements for Nonconforming Uses (FINAL READING). Financial Imoact: Dependent upon the actions taken there may be some loss of permit or plan review revenue. Mayor to open the hearing The hearing was opened on May 7, 2012. Motion: Close the hearing; approve the Development Code Amendment No. 12-02 based on the findings of fact contained in the staff report; and adopt the Ordinance. Svnoosis of Previous Council Action: The matter was referred to the Legislative Review Committee by the Mayor and Common Council at their January 9, 2012 meeting. The matter was reviewed at the Legislative Review Committee meetings of February 7 and March 16,2012. BACKGROUND: The continuing economic recession has resulted in existing commercial and industrial buildings remaining vacant for extended periods of time. These vacancies are not indicative of abandonment of non-conforming uses. Rather the buildings are being maintained, utilities Updated: 5117/2012 by Sabdi Sanchez A Page 1 1777 remain connected, and owners are actively seeking tenants. The current development code imposes extensive requirements exceeding standards of building and safety codes. These requirements result in buildings remaining vacant and then potentially becoming maintenance issues. This can then result in negative impacts to entire neighborhoods. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the subject amendments at their public hearing of March 28, 2012. ANALYSIS There are a number of impediments to the reuse of existing buildings that make it difficult for building owners and potential new businesses to reuse existing buildings in the City of San Bernardino. Some of these impediments, such as the application of the California Building Standards Codes, are mandatory laws imposed on every city and county by the State (ref. CA H&S Code 18938(b)). These codes may require improvements such as disabled access, structural, or life safety modifications upon the reuse of a building. In general, existing buildings are permitted to conform to the code in effect when they were originally constructed. However, the aforementioned required improvements can be triggered by a change of occupancy or alterations to a building. The City does not have much discretion in regards to the enforcement of these codes since they are mandatory throughout the State. In addition to the mandatory State Codes, there are a number of local requirements that have been adopted into the San Bernardino Municipal Code, that create impediments to the reuse of existing buildings. These are summarized below: I. Certificate of Occupancy - SBMC 15.20.040.4 A new Certificate of Occupancy is required for any building which is vacant for more than 180 days. An applicant is required to pay a fee of $475 for the Certificate of Occupancy, which covers the costs of review and inspection by the Building Division, Planning Division, and the Fire Department. The applicant is also required to correct any code deficiencies discovered during the inspections and prior to the issuance of the Updated: 5/17/2012 by Sabdi Sanchez A Page 2 1777 certificate of occupancy. The following table provides a comparison to other cities. City Cer!. of ace. Required if Vacant 6 mo. San Bernardino Yes Corona No Riverside No Rancho Cucamonga No Ontario No Victorville Yes, and all new businesses Glendale No Pasadena Yes, for each unit Fontana Yes, and all new businesses Highland No The recommendation of the Legislative Review Committee is to only require Certificate of Occupancy or (C of 0) for those actions requiring a C of 0 pursuant to the California Building Code. 2. Public Street Improvements - SBMC 19.20.030.18 This section of the Development Code requires the dedication and improvement of the public right-of-way when a remodel or addition valued at 25% or more of the assessed value of the structure occurs. As a result an applicant may be required to replace any or all portions of the street pavement, curb and gutters, sidewalks, signalization, et cetera, as a condition of approval for the reuse of the building. Because this section uses "assessed value" instead of estimated value, two properties similarly situated may be treated entirely differently. For example, a long-term property owner who purchased their property 30 years ago when values were much lower would have a much lower threshold than a property owner who purchased more recently. In addition, there is proportionality based on the scope of the project and no upper limit on the amount of improvements that Updated: 5117/2012 by Sabdi Sanchez A Page 3 1777 can be exacted by the City. As a result, the cost of the street improvements could far exceed the cost of the planned alterations, thus making a project financially infeasible. The following table provides a comparison to other cities. City Construction of Public Improvements Triggers San Bernardino Remodel construction valued at 25% or more of the assessed valuation of the primary structure. Corona Building addition of 650 square feet. Riverside Building addition 650 square feet Rancho Cucamonga Any CommerciaVlndustrial building addition or alteration including parking lot. Exception: I. Maintenance/reconstruction does not exceed 50% of the fair market value. 2. Commercial/Office addition totaling more than 2500 sq.ft or less. Cannot exceed 50% of the gross floor 3. Industrial building more than 10,000 square feet. Ontario Accessory buildings that exceed 1,000 square feet of floor area; Alterations, enlargements or additions that exceed 50% of the area of the existing building, dwelling, or 2,000 square feet of area. Victorville Alteration perfonned with an aggregate value of $25,000 commercial and industrial Glendale Any Improvement, alteration. addition, and construction of 50% or more of the gross floor area of the original building Pasadena Any issuances of a Building permit, or work in excess of$5,000. Fontana Commercial/Industrial improvement or addition to existing structure equal in value to more than 25% of the assessed valuation. The recommendation from the Legislative Review Committee and Planning Commission is a trigger of 2500 sf additions to trigger improvements including dedication. 3. Non-Conforming Structures and Uses - SBMC 19.62.020 (7) and 19.62.030 (2) In general, a nonconforming use may only continue if a use has not been discontinued for a period of 12 or more consecutive calendar months. However, in the case where a nonconforming use that has been discontinued for a period of 12 or more consecutive calendar months, Development Code Section 19.62, Non-conforming Structures and Uses can impose extensive requirements. Updated: 5/17/2012 by Sabdi Sanchez A Page 4 1777 SBMC 19.62.020 (7) states: If the use ofa nonconforming structure is discontinued for a period of 12 or more consecutive calendar months, the structure shall lose its legal nonconforming status, and shall be removed or altered to conform to the provisions of this Development Code. A use of a legal nonconforming structure shall be considered discontinued when any of the following apply: A. The intent of the owner to discontinue use of the nonconforming structure IS apparent, as determined by the Director. B. Where characteristic furnishings and equipment associated with the use have been removed and not replaced with equivalent furnishings and equipment during this time, and where normal occupancy and/or use has been discontinued for a period of 12 or more consecutive calendar months. C. Where there are no business receipts available for the 12 month period. Moreover, SBMC 19.62.030 (2) states: If a nonconforming use is discontinued for a period of 12 or more consecutive calendar months, it shall lose its legal nonconforming status, and the continued use of the property shall be required to conform with the provisions of this Development Code. Consequently, an applicant is required to file for a Development Permit Type I Application for use and occupancy permit in accordance with Section 19.31.010 in attempting to re-establish/re-tenant a use in an existing non- conforming building/structure: * Development Permit Type I (DPI) Application submittal requirements: I. Completed and signed application form. 2. Completed and notarized property owner's authorization. 3. Site plan - six sets I Site plan must show property lines and dimensions, building and structure footprints, driveways, parking layout, frontage street names, center lines, location of refuse enclosure, setback distances, building occupancy, and more. 4. Floor plan - six sets. 5. Elevations (four sides of building exterior) - six sets. 6. Photographs (all four sides of building exterior and property). Updated: 5/17/2012 by Sabdi Sanchez A Page 5 1777 7. Processing fee of$I,100.65. 8. DPI processing time frame: four weeks. The proposed amendment would allow the structure to be repaired and altered up to the property's value and make URM improvements. It would be 36 months rather than 12 months in order to find a tenant. It eliminates "clock" on nonconforming building abatement. The following table provides a comparison to other cities: City DPI Required for Vacancy> DPI Required for Vacancy> 12 months & No Change in 12 months & Change in Occupancymse Occupancymse San Bernardino Yes Yes Chino No No Moreno Valley No Yes Rancho Cucamonga No No Corona No No Riverside No No The Legislative Review Committee and Planning Commission recommend allowing repairs and alterations up to twice the value allowing re-tenanting up to 36 months, and to eliminate automatic abatement. RECOMMENDATIONS Close the hearing; approve the Development Code Amendment No. 12-02 based on the findings of fact contained in the staff report; and layover for final adoption. City Attorney Review: SUllllortinl! Documents: Staff Report -PC - Reuse of Existing Buildings- Mar 6 (PDF) 03 28 12 Minutes (PDF) (PDF) Ordinance 1777 Ex A to DCA 12-02 Ord (PDF) Updated: 5/]7/2012 by Sabdi Sanchez A Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION CASE: AGENDA ITEM: HEARING DATE: WARD: Development Code Amendment No. 12-02 6 March 28, 2012 ALL APPLICANT/REPRESENT A TIVE: City of San Bernardino 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 REQUEST/LOCATION: Development Code Amendment to amend San Bernardino Municipal Code 19.20 and 19.62 to allow additions to existing buildings under 2500 square feet to be exempt from meeting new development standards for the entire existing structure; allow for nonconforming uses to retain their current status for 72 months rather than 12 months; and eliminate automatic abatement requirements for nonconforming uses. CONSTRAINTS/OVERLAYS: None ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: D Not Applicable D Exempt from CEQA Section 00 No Significant Effects D Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Plan STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 00 Approval D Conditions D Denial D Continuance to: 5.C.a 0" N "' ~ " ~ .. N "'! en ~ ei "! en ~ o - ~ o ., .. u ~ " o :;; < () Cl .... .... .... - '" ~ .. :;; , <II 01 ~ 3l :J III 01 ~ ., .~ x w - o " <II :J " '" () '" ~ o a. " '" 'l: .. - Ul ... ~ " E .J:: U .. li Development Code Amendment No. I2-0] 03.28.12 Page I 2 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY ACT (CEOA) The proposed Development Code Amendment is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061 (b )(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, because the effect of the amendment would not result in a significant direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. RECOMMENDED MOTION Recommend approval of DCA No. 12-02 to the Mayor and Common Council based on findings of fact contained in the staff report. ANALYSIS The continuing economic recession has resulted in existing commercial and industrial buildings remaining vacant for extended periods of time. These vacancies are not indicative of abandomnent of nonconforming uses. Rather the buildings are being maintained, utilities remain connected, and owners are actively seeking tenants. The current Development Code imposes extensive requirements exceeding standards of building and safety codes. These requirements result in buildings remaining vacant and then potentially becoming maintenance issues. This can then result in negative impacts to entire neighborhoods. There are a number of impediments to the reuse of existing buildings that make it difficult for building owners and potential new businesses to reuse existing buildings in the City of San Bernardino. Some of these impediments, such as the application of the California Building Standards Codes, are mandatory laws imposed on every city and county by the State (ref. CA H&S Code 18938(b)). These codes may require improvements such as disabled access, structural, or life safety modifications upon the reuse of a building. In general, existing buildings are permitted to conform to the code in effect when they were originally constructed. However, the aforementioned required improvements can be triggered by a change of occupancy or alterations to a building. The City does not have much discretion in regards to the enforcement of these codes since they are mandatory throughout the State. In addition to the mandatory State Codes, there are a number of local requirements that have been adopted into the San Bernardino Municipal Code, that create impediments to the reuse of existing buildings. These are summarized below: 5.C.a 0- N on ~ "0 C .. N "! '" ~ o N '" ~ o - c o .. .. u ~ "0 o :;; <0: u c t- t- t- ~ '" ~ .. :;; , VI Cl c :!1 " m Cl c .. .!I! x w - o m VI " m II: U Q. . t: o 0. m II: II: .. - 1Il - c m E .<: u .. t:: <0: Development Code Amendment /','0. 12-02 03.28.12 Page 13 i. Certificate of"Occupancy - SBMC 15.20.040.4 A new Certificate of Occupancy is required for any building which is vacant for more than 180 days. An applicant is required to pay a fee of $475 for the Certificate of Occupancy, which covers the costs of review and inspection by the Building Division, Planning Division, and the Fire Department. The applicant is also required to correct any code deficiencies discovered during the inspections and prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. The following table provides a comparison to other cities. City Cert. of Occ. Reouired if Vacant 6 mo. San Bernardino Yes Corona No Riverside No Rancho Cucamonga No Ontario No Victorville Yes, and all new businesses Glendale No Pasadena Yes, for each unit Fontana Yes, and all new businesses Highland No This matter is not within the Development Code Title 19 so the amendment to the code is not before the Planning Commission. This section is provided for information only. 2. Public Street improvements - SBMC 19.20.030.i8 This section of the Development Code requires the dedication and improvement of the public right-of-way when a remodel or addition valued at 25% or more of the assessed value of the structure occurs. As a result an applicant may be required to replace any or all portions of the street pavement, curb and gutters, sidewalks, signalization, et cetera, as a condition of approval for the reuse of the building. Because this section uses "'assessed value" instead of estimated value, two properties similarly situated may be treated entirely differently. For example, a long-term property owner who purchased their property thirty years ago when values were much lower would have a much lower threshold than a property owner who purchased more recently. In addition, there is proportionality based on the scope of the project and no upper limit on the amount of improvements that can be exacted by the City. As a result, the cost of the street improvements could far exceed the cost of the planned alterations, thus making a project financially infeasible. The following table provides a comparison to other cities. 5.C.a S N .,.; ~ 'C C .. N "' '" ~ co N '" ~ o - c o "' .. u ~ 'C o :;; < u " .... .... .... ~ - "' ~ .. :;; , '" Ol C 'C ~ In Ol c "' '" )( w - o <l> '" ~ <l> '" U '" 1:: o C. <l> '" ll: .. - '" - C <l> E .c: u .. - < Development Code Amendment No. 12-02 03.28.12 Page 14 City Construction of Public Improvements Triggers San Bernardino Remodel construction valued at 25% or more of the assessed valuation oftbe primary structure. Corona Building addition of 650 square feet. Riverside Building addition of 650 square feet. Rancho Cucamonga Any Commercial/Industrial building addition or alteration including parking lot. Exception: 1. Maintenance/reconstruction does not exceed 50% of the fair market value. 2. Commercial/Office addition totaling more than 2500 sq.ft. or less. Cannot exceed 50% of the gross floor. 3. Industrial building more than 10,000 square feet. Ontario Accessory buildings that exceed 1,000 square feet offioor area; alterations, enlargements or additions that exceed 50% of the area of the existing building, dwelling, or 2,000 square feet of area. Victorville Alteration performed with an aggregate value of $25,000 commercial and industrial. Glendale Any improvement, alteration, addition, and construction of 50% or more of the gross floor area of the original building. Pasadena Any issuances ofa Building permit, or work in excess of$5,000. Fontana Commercial/Industrial improvement or addition to existing structure equal in value to more than 25% ofthe assessed valuation. Staff is recommending a 25,000 sq. ft. addition threshold to trigger improvements, including dedication. 3. Non-Conforming Structures and Uses - SBMC 19.62.020 (7) and 19.62.030 (2) In general, a nonconforming use may only continue if a use has not been discontinued for a period of 12 or more consecutive calendar months. However, in the case where a nonconforming use that has been discontinued for a period of 12 or more consecutive calendar months, Development Code Section 19.62, Non-conforming Structures and Uses can impose extensive requirements. SBMC 19.62.020 (7) states: If the use of a nonconforming structure is discontinued for a period of 12 or more consecutive calendar months, the structure shall lose its legal 5.C.a C N '" ~ 'C ~ '" N "' '" ~ co N '" ~ o - ~ o :;:; '" u s: 'C o :;; -0: u c .... .... .... ~ - "' ~ '" :;; , Ul Cl ~ l2 ::> I1l Cl ~ :;:; Ul 'x w - o ~ Ul ::> ~ 0: U '" t:: o c. ~ 0: '" '" - I/l - ~ ~ E J:: U '" - <i 1'~ltlM!LI ;!+~<1'~i'..~.'l'ilifu42' "t'~#i;Hl Development Code Amendment No. 12-02 03.28.12 Page 15 nonconforming status, and shall be removed or altered to conform to the provisions of this Development Code. A use of a legal nonconforming structure shall be considered discontinued when any ofthe following apply: A. The intent of the owner to discontinue use of the nonconforming structure IS apparent, as determined by the Director. B. Where characteristic furnishings and equipment associated with the use have been removed and not replaced with equivalent furnishings and equipment during this time, and where normal occupancy and/or use has been discontinued for a period of 12 or more consecutive calendar months. C. Where there are no business receipts available for the 12 month period. Moreover, SBMC 19.62.030 (2) states: If a nonconforming use is discontinued for a period of 12 or more consecutive calendar months, it shall lose its legal nonconforming status, and the continued use of the property shall be required to conform with the provisions of this Development Code. Consequently, an applicant is required to file for a Development Permit Type I Application for use and occupancy permit in accordance with Section 19.31.010 in attempting to re-establish/re-tenant a use in an existing non- conforming building/structure: * Development Permit Type I (DP!) Application submittal requirements: 1. Completed and signed application form. 2. Completed and notarized property owner's authorization. 3. Site plan - 6 sets / Site plan must show property lines and dimensions, building and structure footprints, driveways, parking layout, frontage street names, center lines, location of refuse enclosure, setback distances, building occupancy, and more. 4. Floor plan - 6 sets. 5. Elevations (4 sides of building exterior) - 6 sets. 6. Photographs (all 4 sides of building exterior and property). 7. Processing fee of$I,100.65. 8. DP! processing time frame: 4 weeks. The proposed amendment would allow the structure to be repaired and altered up to the property's value and make URM improvements. It would be 72 months rather than 12 5.C.a 0' N ui ~ 'C " " N "' '" ~ o N '" ~ o ~ " o :;:: " u ~ 'C o :;; , <l: u c .... .... .... ~ - "' - " :;; , ~ '" " :!2 " '" '" " :;:: ~ ~ w - o " ~ " " 0:: U D- , 1:: o c. " 0:: 01:: " - '" - " " E .t: U " :t: <l: 1"~~:%23:::1 l';1~-!FJE'5iq"",:+;;, Development Code Amendment No. 12-02 03.28.12 Page I 6 months in order to find a tenant. The automatic abatement of nonconforming uses is proposed to be eliminated. (See Attachment B.) The following table provides a comparison to other cities: City DPI Reqnired for Vacancy> DPI Reqnired for Vacancy> 12 months & No Change in 12 months & Change in Occnnancv/Use Occupancv!U se San Bernardino Yes Yes Chino No No Moreno Valley No Yes Rancho Cucamonga No No Corona No No Riverside No No FINDINGS OF FACT I. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed amendment seeks to implement General Plan Policy 4.1.1 to proactively seek out and retain businesses that create jobs and generate sales tax revenue. 2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or we({are of the City. The proposed amendment will allow existing vacant buildings to be more easily re- tenanted, eliminating blighting conditions resulting from neglect. Vacant buildings also are targets for crime and vagrancy. Removing unnecessary barriers to building occupancy leads to greater opportunity for economic revitalization, provision of local services and enhanced safety. FINANCIAL IMPACT Dependent upon the actions taken there may be some loss of permit or plan review revenue. s.c.. 0- N '" ~ " " " N "' '" ~ o N '" ~ o - " o :;: " " ~ " o :;; <( u c r- r- r- ~ "' ~ " :;; . '" Cl " " ~ III Cl " :;: '" 'x w - o '" '" ~ " '" U '" ~ o c. " '" :t: " - VI - " " E .c; " " =' <( T"I!-~"'''' tY0t Ail ., rt21:h v.,,,,,'W'WH ...,Jr;,. ..w ..,,;.~JtH'T Development Code Amendment No. 12-02 03.28.12 Page 17 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Public Street Improvements - SBDC 19.20.030.18 Amend SBDC 19.20.030.18 to allow the reuse and remodel of existing structures without requiring the dedication or improvement of the public right-of-way, and to set the threshold for dedication of street improvements for additions to existing structures at 2500 square feet or more (see Attachment A). 2. Non-Conforming Structures and Uses - SBMC 19.62.020 (7) and 19.62.030 (2) Amend SBMC 19.62 to allow repairs and alterations of nonconforming structures up to twice the value, allow re-tenanting up to 72 months, and eliminate the abatement schedule. (See Attachment B.) Respectfully Submitted, M. Margo Wheeler, AICP Community Development Director 5.C.a 0- N .,; ~ " c: ro N ~ 0> ~ o "! 0> ~ o - c: o .. ro u !E " o :;; <( u c .... .... .... ~ <D ~ ro :;; . <II Cl c: :!2 " OJ Cl c: .. .!!! ~ w - o .. <II " .. l:t: U D- o 1:: o 0. .. l:t: >l: ro - (/) +.: c: .. E .c: u ro - 4: ,,,y"'iI~''''"''~' .~.. PH";,: "J.ttB K8t1. ~... ,. t~~H<.... ................;......,...;C, IS.C.b I JOIII/Coule, Chair Larry Heasley, Vice-Choir ./imMlI/vihill CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California 92418 Phon,. (909) 384-5057/5071 . Fax: (909) 384-5080 Andrew Machen AmelioSLopez Jame.<Eble George Rowls Da"C.!imellez Bob Brown, All PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES *DRAFT REGULAR MEETING MARCH 28, 2012 o N .,; ~ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 11-04, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP No. 19330 (SUBDIVISION No. 11-02) & DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2 NO. 11-04 'tl r:: ~ N "' '" ~ DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 12-01 o N '" ~ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 12-02, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 19369 (SUBDIVISION NO. 12-01), & DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2 NO. 12-02 o - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 12-03 r:: o .. ~ u !E 'tl o ::;; DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 12-02 , < U o ... ... ... ~ - '" " - " r:: ::;; N ~ '" N M o "' r:: " E .r:: u ~ li! Page I ofll 03/28/2012 1,;-~'\\i'':/1 ."0~'~ .. '," ~.. ",' .. .'..."",..,.,,.., .. Chair Coute called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Vice-Chair Heasley led the flag salute. Present: Commissioners Coute, Durr, Heasley, Jimenez, Lopez, Machen, Mulvihill and Rawls. Excused: Absent: Brown. Staff present: M. Margo Wheeler, Community Development Director; Henry Empeiio, Jr., Senior Deputy City Attorney; Tony Stewart, City Planner; Aron Liang; Senior Planner and Daren Maynard, Planning Aide. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH Aron Liang administered the oath. CONSENT AGENDA: M. Margo Wheeler, Community Development Director, recommended the meeting minutes of February 22, 2012 for approval. ChaIr Coute made a motion to approve the meeting minutes of February 22,2012. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Coute, Durr, Heasley, Jimenez, Lopez, Machen and Mulvihill. Nays: None. Abstain: Rawls. Absent: Brown. PUBLIC COMMENTS - ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA No comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. II-04. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP No. 19330 (SUBDIVISION No. II-02) & DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2 NO. II-04- A request to change the land use designation of approximately 37.18 acres from PCR, Public Commercial Recreation and CH, Commercial Heavy to IL, Industrial Light, and to subdivide the site into 3 parcels for development of four industrial buildings, totaling 727,710 square feet. The project site is an irregular configuration, with the main portion of the site bounded by Arrowhead A venue to the west, Esperanza Street and its extension on the north, a flood control channel on the east, and Central A venue to the south. In addition, portions of the project site are also located south of Central A venue, at the southeast comer of Central A venue and Arrowhead Avenue, and in an area that extends north of the main site between the extension of Esperanza Street and Mill Street. Environmental Determination: Owner: Applicant: APN's: Ward: Environmental Impact Report National Orange Show Lewis Retail Centers c/o Timothy C. Reeves 0136-472-01,02 & 0136-492-01 3 Page 2 of 11 03/28/2012 5.C.b 0- N .n ~ "C C ~ N "' 0"> ~ c "! 0"> ~ o - c o .. ~ " ~ "C o :;; <( t) c .... .... .... ~ - ~ ~ - ~ c :;; N ~ '" N M C - c ~ E .t: " ~ '" <( Aron Liang, Senior Planner, gave a brief presentation on the project. Timothy Reeves, 11156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, CA, Project Applicant, introduced himself to the Planning Commission and welcomed questions from the Commission and the public. Chair Conte asked if citrus trees could be added to the landscaping design on the project. Timothy Reeves said orange trees could be planted along Central A venue. Commissioner Lopez asked if additional parking would be created for events that could attract large crowds. Timothy Reeves said the nearby Arrowhead Stadium had offered to accommodate parking for large events and the Orange Show also has various parking lots throughout the fairground. Commissioner Machen made a motion to recommend that the Mayor and Common Council CertifY the Environmental Impact Report (SCH #201107017), Adopt the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, Adopt the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program and Approve General Plan Amendment No. 11-04, Tentative Parcel Map No. 19330 (Subdivision No. 11-02) and Development Permit 2 No. 11-04 based on the findings of fact in the Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval, as amended to add orange trees along Central Avenue. Commissioner Heasley seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Coute, Durr, Heasley, Lopez, Machen, Mulvihill and Rawls. Nays: None. Abstain: Jimenez. Absent: None. 3. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 12-01 - A request to consider a Development Agreement between the City of San Bernardino and the developer of the University Hills Specific Plan. Environmental Determination: Certified Environmental Impact Report # 2007071155 Inland Communities Corp., Attn: John Snell John Snell 0265-011-06-08, 0265-021-13, 0265-041-12, 0265- 051-09, 12, 13,0265-061-16 5 Owner/Applicant: Representative: APN: Ward: M. Margo Wheeler, Community Development Director, gave a detailed description on the project. Henry Empeiio, Senior Deputy City Attorney, pointed out recommended revisions to the staff report and gave background information on the University Hills Specific Plan. Page3 of II 5.C.b s '" .,; ~ 'C ~ ~ '" '" '" ~ o '" '" ~ o - ~ o .. ~ u ~ 'C o :;: <( l.l Cl .... .... .... ~ - ~ " - " ~ :;: '" ~ '" '" '" o " ~ " E .c u ~ ~ 03/28/2012 l"l~t""OII"1 '~''''''''''''''''''''..i!,,~'... "~"'~" Chair Coute said he had concerns about the project because of the negative current housing market. John Snell, 650 E. Hospitality Laue, Ste. 140, Project Applicant, introduced himself to the Planning Commission and explained why the Development Agreement was proposed. Commissioner Mulvihill asked for clarification on specific areas of the project site that California State University San Bernardino was proposing to develop units on and what areas the project applicant was proposing to develop. Chair Coute asked if the original agreement detailed what land California State University San Bernardino intended to use for development. Henry Empeiio explained that the original agreement presented in 2008 contained information regarding California State University San Bernardino. Commissioner Heasley inquired about the terms of extending of the Development Agreement. Henry Empeiio explained options regarding amending the language of the Development Agreement in regards to extensions and performance requirements. Chair Coute stated that he was not in opposition of the extension process but had concerns about the language in the agreement regarding automatic extensions. Commissioner Mulvihill explained that he would be in favor of changing the language regarding an automatic extension to reflect that an extension of the Development Agreement may be approved subject to Planning Commission or Mayor and Common Council review. John Snell stated his concerns regarding the vagueness of the proposed language change and inquired about the approval process of an extension. Henry Empeiio explained that language could be added to reflect the Mayor and Common Council as the approval authority of an extension to the Development Agreement. Frank Rhodes, 370 Edgerton Drive, CrestIine Soaring Society, introduced himself to the Planning Commission and expressed his concerns regarding recreation equipment interfering with the adjacent hang glider park. He stated that if the developer were interested in donating 2.5 acres, the club would be willing to maintain and irrigate the facility for public use. Commissioner Mulvihill asked Mr. Rhodes if the landing area for the adjacent air park had been relocated and if there would be less interference for the hang gliders at the new landing area. Frank Rhodes explained the landing requirements for the hang glider park and the concerns of associated telephone poles and light standards in the area. Kathy Rhodes, 370 Edgerton Drive, CrestIine Soaring Society, introduced herself to the Page 4 of 11 03/28/2012 5.C.b <> N .,; ~ "0 " " N <D '" ~ <> "! '" ~ o - " o ., " y !E "0 o :; < U Cl ... ... ... ~ - ~ .. - " " :; N ~ 00 N M <> - " .. E .:: y " :t: < Planning Commission and shared information about the international recognition of the hang gliding facility. Kevin Williams, 3165 Ben Canyon, CrestIine Soaring Society, introduced himself to the Planning Commission and invited the Commission to visit the hang gliding facility. He stated that he still had unaddressed concerns regarding the safety of hang glider pilots during landing, due to the development plans. Megret OIewiler, 27522 Cedarwood Drive, Lake Arrowhead, CA, CrestIine Soaring Society, introduced herself as the President of the Crestline Soaring Society and shared her concerns regarding the injury of spectators in the proposed park under the hang glider landing zone flight path and adjacent structures proposed near the landing zone. She stated that the Crestline Soaring Society would like to be involved in the development of the park. Chair Coute inquired with whether the landing zone for hang gliding was owned by the Crestline Soaring Society or if it was leased. Megret OIewiler stated that the land was leased in perpetuity from the Department of Water Resources and clarified that hang gliders have bought neighboring properties in the area. Chair Coute inquired about the size of the landing area. Megret Olewiler stated that the landing area was approximately 4.5 acres and explained the needs for hang glider landing. Commissioner Mulvihill explained that the developer has made accommodations for the hang gliders and inquired about what concerns have not been resolved. Megret Olewiler explained her concerns regarding obstacles near the landing zone and spectator observation areas. Commissioner Mulvihill encouraged Mr. Olewiler to work with Mr. Snell on landscaping preferences for the proposed park. John Snell stated that he appreciated the comments by the hang gliders and discussed his previous experience with working with hang gliders. Commissioner Durr inquired on who was responsible for the park in question and whether there was a way to make modifications to the park's landscaping. John Snell explained that the park was currently planned to be under the responsibility of a home owner's association and that he did not have objections regarding minimizing the improvements and obstacles. Commissioner Lopez brought up concerns about waiving impact fees. Page 5 of 11 5.C.b o N .,; ~ "0 " " N '" .,; ~ o "! '" ~ o ~ " o ., " " !E "0 o ::; <0: U o r-- r-- r-- ~ - <1> " - :J " ::; N ~ '" N M o .;.; " " E J:: " " - < 03/28/2012 I."'d~'~..'l".'.'.'l .:;;R, . ."!!!Ill':. ......~"~''').. ..J0Jilh~,~.'" Commissioner Conte discussed development fees. Chas Kelly, 5066 N. Varsity Avenue, introduced himself and stated that he values the role of the Planning Commission. Mr. Kelly described potential benefits of the project will bring to the City of San Bernardino and stressed the importance that the City meet the needs of all residents. Kathy Rhodes, expressed her concerns that may arise if the property were transferred to a new owner. Commissioner Mulvihill made a motion to recommend approval of Development Agreement No. 12-01 with Exhibits H-K, based upon the Findings of Fact contained in the Staff Report, with the modifications made by the Planning Commission, to the Mayor and Common Council. M. Margo Wheeler indicated amendments to pages 9,11, 22 and 23 adding corrected Exhibit D and the two CSUSB agreements. Commissioner Mulvihill agreed to the amendments. Commissioner Rawls seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Coute, Heasley, Jimenez, Lopez, Machen, Mulvihill and Rawls. Nays: Durr. Abstain: None. Absent: Brown. 4. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 12-02, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 19369 (SUBDIVISION NO. 12-01). & DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2 NO. 12-02 - A request to amend the land use district of 14.52 acres from a split Industrial Light (IL) and Office Industrial Park (OIP) land use district to Industrial Light (IL), and merge 14 parcels into one parcel, and construct a 345,802-square foot warehouse building, located on the east side of Waterman Avenue, approximately 300 feet south of Mill Street. Environmental Determination: Owners: Mitigated Negative Declaration YSI XXXXVlI LLC, Buckthorn Trust, Che Leng Tang, Che Phey Tang & Westbay Holdings LLC Hillwood Investments 0136-393-01 & 08, 280-011-05, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 38,39,40,41,42 I Applicant: APN: Ward: Tony Stewart, City Planner, gave a brief description of the project. John Schaefer, 268 W. Hospitality Lane, Suite 105, Hillwood Investment Properties, Project Applicant, introduced himself to the Planning Commission and explained the importance of the project. Commissioner Rawls asked the applicant if Colt Beverage would be relocating the existing Page 6 of 11 03/28/2012 5.C.b 0- "! '" ~ "C ~ m N "' '" ~ C N '" ~ o - ~ o .. m " !E "C o ::; <( <.J o .... .... .... ~ ~ .. - ::I ~ ::; N ~ 00 N M C +.: ~ .. E .<: " m :t: <( facility. John Schaefer explained that the new space would allow the business to expand. Joe Bundura, 673 S. Waterman Avenue, introduced himself to the Planning Commission as a nearby property owner and expressed his support of the proposed project. Commissioner Heasley stated that he appreciated the improvements proposed and the increased positive appearance it will bring to the area. Commissioner Mulvihill made a motion to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment No. 12-02, Tentative Parcel Map No. 19369 (Subdivision No. 12-01) and Development Permit 2 No. 12-02, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program prepared for the project, as amended with the supplemental information provided by staff, and based upon the Findings of Fact contained in the staff report and subject to the Conditions of Approval to the Mayor and Common Council. Vice-ChaIr Heasley seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Coute, Durr, Heasley, Jimenez, Lopez, Machen, Mulvihill and Rawls. Nays: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Brown. M. Margo Wheeler informed the Planning Commission that the three items acted upon by the Planning Commission, so far, would be scheduled for the Mayor and Common Council on April 16,2012. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 12-03 - A request to construct a new wireless telecommunications facility with a 65-foot tall, camouflaged monopalm tower and associated equipment stored within an existing commercial building, located at 1702 N. "0" Street and 420 W. 17th Street in the Commercial Office (CO) and Residential Suburban (RS) land use districts. Environmental Determination: Exempt from CEQA, Section 15303 - New Construction of Small Structures Zecharia & Malca Hovav John G. Beke, MetroPCS 0145-091-01,25 2 Owner: Applicant: APNs: Ward: Tony Stewart, City Planner, gave a brief description of the project. John G. Beke, 2280 Market Street, Suite 320, MetroPCS, Project Applicant, introduced himself to the Planning Commission and explained the importance of the project. Mr. Beke noted his disagreement with Conditional of Approval #16, regarding the requirement to install the coax cable inside the existing structure. Page 7 ofl1 03/28/2012 5.C.b 0- N .,; ~ "0 c: " N co .,; ~ C N '" ~ o - c: o '" " u !E "0 o :;: ..: u Q .... .... .... ~ VI .. - " c: :;: N ~ co N M C .;.; c: .. E ~ u " ;;: 5.C.b John Matley, 380 W. 17'h Street, provided a prepared document to the Planning Commission, discussing objections of neighborhood residents and explained his disagreement with the Findings of Fact listed in the Staff Report. Commissioner Lopez inquired about whether the property owner has been contacted about property maintenance of the existing facility. John Matley explained to the Planning Commission that the neighborhood has not been able to get ahold of the property owner regarding maintenance issues and have not had a chance to meet with the applicant. Commissioner Jimenez inquired about how many residents were represented in the neighborhood. C N .,; ~ John Matley explained that 2 or 3 of the residents have submitted letters of opposition and approximately 6 or 7 neighbors in the immediate area have expressed concern to them. "0 t: '" N <0 en ~ Zecharia Hovav, 1633 Glenwood Avenue, Upland, CA 91784, introduced himself to the Planning Commission as the property owner, and expressed his support of the proposed project. Mr. Hovav also stated an objection to Condition of Approval # 16. C N '" ~ o - t: o "' '" " !E "0 o :0 ..: u c Commissioner Lopez complimented the homes in the neighborhood and stated that she was aware of property maintenance issues on the subject property. Debbi Matley, 380 W. 17th Street, introduced herself as the local neigbborhood association president and spoke about the architectural and historic significance of the area. She expressed concerns regarding decreased property values and quality of life. .... .... .... ~ - Commissioner Lopez inquired with the property owner on whether the property was occupied or vacant. '" " - :J t: :0 N ~ '" N M C '"' t: " E .t: " '" ~ Commissioner Mulvihill, asked Mr. Hovav ifhe's ever met with local residents regarding their concerns. Zecharia Hovav stated that he had never been contacted by residents regarding concerns and that he would support having a working relationship with local neighbors. Mr. Hovav provided information on previous and future improvements to the properties. Zecharia Hovav stated that the property had current tenants operating business but that the buildings were not fully occupied at the current time. Chair Coute inquired on the percentage of occupancy the structures have currently. Zecharia Hovav clarified that approximately 55 to 60 percent of the units were occupied. Daisy Kirkmon, 430 W. 17th Street, introduced herself to the Planning Commission as the Page 8 of II 03/28/2012 5.C.b closest resident to the project site. Ms. Kirkmon stated that she has lived in her home for more than 25 years and expressed her concems regarding health and safety to herself and her great grandchildren. Commissioner Mnlvihill asked Ms. Wheeler about the density of the palm fronds camouflaging the monopole. M. Margo Wheeler stated that Condition of Approval # 13 addressed this matter. Commissioner Jimenez inquired about what the positive economic impact the proposed project will have on the City. C N .,; ~ .., c: .. N '" '" ~ John G. Beke, Project Applicant, explained the positive impacts to MetroPCS customers in San Bernardino. Mr. Beke explained the frequencies used by separate wireless carriers and refuted the claim that the facility will negatively affect the service provided by other carriers. Commissioner Rawls asked staff for comments or concerns regarding the modification of Conditional of Approval #16. C N '" ~ Commissioner Rawls asked staff if any other alternatives were agreed upon with the applicant. o - c: o .. .. Q !E .., o :; <>: u o Tony Stewart explained that the applicant has not provided any reason, beyond inconvenience, that the coax cable cannot be installed inside the existing building. Tony Stewart noted that since evidence indicating the condition was not structurally feasible has not been provided, staff stands by Condition of Approval, as written. .... .... .... ~ Commissioner Lopez inquired about the impacts on the beauty and historical nature of the area. <1l Q) - ~ c: :; N ~ 00 N '" C M. Margo Wheeler discussed the Findings of Fact with the Planning Commission that the Conditional Use Permit is required to meet for approval and that if the Commissioners could not make those findings, then denial of the project is required. Commissioner Jimenez inquired on whether any other similar wireless facilities were located in residential areas. .;.; c: Q) E .c: Q .. - :;( Tony Stewart indicated that similar wireless facilities near residential areas did exist. Henry Empeiio advised the Planning Commission on federal laws prevent the denial of wireless telecommunication facilities solely on health effects. Vice-Chair Heasley made a motion to deny Conditional Use Permit No. 12-03. Commissioner Jimenez seconded the motion. Page 9 of 11 03/2812012 t2~,,~..\l!1 ~{'t:>.. .w~,,,...\,~12t The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Coute, Heasley, Jimenez, Lopez, Machen, Mulvihill and Rawls. Nays: DUff. Abstain: None. Absent: Brown. M, Margo Wheeler explained that the action was final in absence of an appeal submitted within the next 15 days. 6. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 12-02 - A proposal to amend Chapters 19.20 and 19.62 of the Development Code to allow additions to existing buildings under 2,500 square feet to be exempt from meeting new development standards for the entire existing structure and allow for nonconforming uses to retain their current status for 72 months rather than 12 months, and eliminate automatic abatement requirements for nonconforming uses. Proposed by: Environmental Recommendation: City of San Bernardino Exempt from CEQA - Section 15061(b)(3) M. Margo Wheeler, Community Development Director, gave a detailed presentation of the proposed Development Code Amendment. Vice-Chair Heasley made a motion to recommend that the Mayor and Common Council approve Development Code Amendment No. 12-02 based on the Findings of Fact contained in the Staff Report. Commissioner Machen seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Coute, DUff, Heasley, Jimenez, Lopez, Machen, Mulvihill and Rawls. Nays: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Brown. M. Margo Wheeler informed the Planning Commission that the item will be scheduled for the Mayor and Common Council on May 7,2012. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS None. DIRECTOR'S REPORT M. Margo Wheeler informed the Planning Commission of an upcoming webinar on May 16, 2012 in conjunction with the Historic Preservation Commission. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Coute made a motion which was unanimously carried, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 9:15 p.m. The next regular meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, Page 10 of II 5.C.b '" N ..; - '0 c: " N '" .,; - '" N '" - o - c: o :;:: " " !E '0 o ::;; <( u c ... ... ... - ~ w - ~ c: ::;; '" - "" N '" '" - c: w E '" " " - ::t 03/28/2012 l'f~~""'!>~i:1 ;f01!ift~ . . . ~W)T' 5.C.b April 25, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, First Floor, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. Minutes Adopted by Planning Commissioners: Date Approved: Minutes Prepared by: Melissa Thnrman Executive Assistant 0- ~ '" ~ ." C .. N '" '" ~ '" ~ '" ~ o - c o .. .. " ~ ." o ::;; ..: () Cl .... .... .... S "' G> - " c ::;; N ~ '" N '" C> - C G> E .<: " .. - < Page 11 of 11 03/28/2012 ~~t~,t~t, 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO TO AMEND SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE 15.20, 19.20 AND 19.62 TO ALLOW ADDITIONS TO EXISTING BUILDINGS UNDER 2500 SQUARE FEET TO BE EXEMPT FROM MEETING NEW DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE ENTIRE EXISTING STRUCTURE; ALLOW FOR NONCONFORMING USES TO RETAIN THEIR CURRENT STATUS FOR 36 MONTHS RATHER THAN 12 MONTHS; ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT FOR A NEW CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY BEYOND INTERNATIONAL CODE REQUIREMENTS AND AUTOMATIC ABATEMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR NONCONFORMING USES. 3 4 5 6 7 8 WHEREAS, the continuing economic recesSIOn has resulted in existing commercial and industrial buildings remaining vacant of extended periods of time although their owners actively maintain the structures and seek new tenants; and WHEREAS, the current Development Code imposes extensive requirements exceeding standards of building and safety codes, which make it difficult for building owners and pote,;tial new businesses to reuse existing buildings in the City of San Bernardino; and WHEREAS, these requirements can result in buildings remaining vacant and then potentially becoming maintenance issues, thus, resulting in negative impacts to entire neighborhoods; and 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 WHEREAS, amendments to San Bernardino Municipal Code 15.20,19.20 and 19.62 will allow existing vacant buildings to be more easily re-tenanted, thus eliminating blighting conditions resulting from neglect and also lead to greater opportunities for economic revitalization, provision of local services and enhanced safety; and WHEREAS, on May 28, 2012, the Planning Commission of the City of San Bernardino held a noticed public hearing to consider public testimony and the staff report recommending proposed amendments to the City Municipal Code to remove impediments to allow the re-tenanting of certain vacant commercial and industrial buildings; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing for the Mayor and Common Council's consideration of the proposed Ordinance was published in The Sun newspaper on April 26, 2012 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 NOW THEREFORE, THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 3 SECTION I. The Mayor and Common Council finds that the above-stated Recitals are true and hereby adopts and incorporates them herein. 4 5 SECTION 2. Findings of Fact. 6 7 A. The Ordinance amending the Development Code is consistent with the General Plan of the City of San Bernardino. The proposed amendment seeks to implement General Plan Policy 4.1.1 to proactively seek out and retain businesses that create jobs and generate sales tax revenue. B. The proposed Ordinance amending the Development Code will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City. The proposed amendment will allow existing vacant buildings to be more easily re-tenanted, eliminating blighting conditions resulting from neglect. Vacant buildings also are targets for crime and vagrancy. Removing unnecessary barriers to building occupancy leads to greater opportunity for economic revitalization, provision of local services and enhanced safety. 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 SECTION 3. San Bernardino Municipal Code (Development Code) Section 19.06.025 "Prohibited Uses" is hereby amended to read as shown on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 16 17 18 SECTION 4. Compliance with the California Environmental Oualitv Act: The Mayor and Common Council finds that the proposed Ordinance amending Section 19.06.025 of the Municipal Code (Development Code) is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, as an action that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. 19 20 21 22 23 SECTION 5. Severability: If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, or clause or phrase in this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, invalid or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The Mayor and Common Council hereby declares that it would have adopted each section irrespective of the fact that anyone or more subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective. 24 25 26 27 28 III 2 2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO TO AMEND SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE 15.20, 19.20 AND 19.62 TO ALLOW ADDITIONS TO EXISTING BUILDINGS UNDER 2500 SQUARE FEET TO BE EXEMPT FROM MEETING NEW DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE ENTIRE EXISTING STRUCTURE; ALLOW FOR NONCONFORMING USES TO RETAIN THEIR CURRENT STATUS FOR 36 MONTHS RATHER THAN 12 MONTHS; ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT FOR A NEW CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY BEYOND INTERNATIONAL CODE REQUIREMENTS AND AUTOMATIC ABATEMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR NONCONFORMING USES. J 4 5 6 7 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was duly adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a meeting thereof, held on the ~ day of ,2012, by the fol1owing vote to wit: 8 9 10 Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT 11 MARQUEZ JENKINS VALDIVIA SHORETT KELLEY JOHNSON MC CAMMACK 12 IJ 14 15 16 17 18 Georgearm Harma, City Clerk 19 20 The foregoing Ordinance is hereby approved this day of ,2012. 21 22 2J 24 PATRICK 1. MORRIS, Mayor City of San Bernardino 25 Approved as to form: 26 27 JAMES F. PENMAN City Attorney 28 J Sections: 15.20.010 15.20.020 15.20.030 15.20.040 15.20.050 15.20.070 15.20.080 15.20.090 15.20.100 15.20.110 15.20.010 Purpose. EXHIBIT A Chapter 15.20 CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY Purpose. Definitions. Certificate of Occupancy Required. Conditions Requiring Application. Application Process. Temporary Certificate of Occnpancy. Revocation of Certificate of Occupancy. Hearings. ConnectionlDiscoDnection of Utilities. Violation. The purpose of this Chapter is to protect the public from unsafe and substandard buildings, to prevent the deterioration of buildings, and to prevent future blight and decline of property values through a program of required inspection and certification. (Ord. MC-671, 7-24- 89; Ord. MC-670, 7-17-89.) 15.20.020 Definitions. Except as otherwise defined in this Chapter, all terms used in this Chapter which are defined by applicable State law, the State Codes, or this Code, are used in this Chapter as so defined, unless from the context it clearly appears that a different meaning is intended: 1. Occupant means any person who occupies a unit, building, structure, or property whether as an owner, or tenant or permittee of the owner. 2. Occupancy means the purpose for which a building, structure, or property is used or intended to be used. 3. Owner means any person having a legal or equitable interest in the property. 4. Person means an individual, partnership, corporation, association or organization, or the agent of any of the foregoing. (Ord. MC-I027, 9-8-98; Ord. MC-671, 7-24-89; Ord. MC-670, 7-17-89.) 15.20.030 Certificate of Occupancy Required. A. Buildings and Structures. No relocated or hereafter erected structure shall be occupied, or no change in occupancy shall be inaugurated until a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued by the Department of Community Development. B. Valid Certificate. A Certificate of Occupancy or temporary Certificate of Occupancy shall not be deemed to be valid if it has expired, been denied, withheld, revoked, failed to pass a fire inspection, or a new Certificate of Occupancy was required but had not been obtained. C. Posting Certificate. The owner of the business, building or structure shall display this certificate in a conspicuous place. In addition, the owner of a building or structure shall provide a copy of the certificate to all lessees, renters and purchasers of the property. (Ord. MC-I027, 9-8-98; Ord. MC-782, 5-3-91; Ord. MC-781, 4-22-91; Ord. MC-671, 7-24-89; Ord. MC-670, 7-17-89.) 15.20.040 Conditions Requiring Application. A new Certificate of Occupancy shall be required whenever: 1. A new building is constructed. 2. A change in the nature of use ofa building which would place it in a different occupancy classification, or division thereof. 3. Whenever a building is ordered to be vacated by the Building Official or the Fire Marshal due to substandard or dangerous conditions. (Ord. MC-880, 6-21-93; Ord. MC-782, 5-3-91; Ord. MC-781, 4-22-91; Ord. MC-671, 7-24-89; Ord. MC-670, 7-17-89.) 15.20.050 Application Process. A. The owner shall file a written application accompanied by payment of a fee with the Community Development Department prior to use or occupancy of the premises or thirty (30) days prior to expiration of an existing Certificate of Occupancy or temporary Certificate of Occupancy. The Building Official shall cause an inspection to be made of the premises within ten (10) working days for compliance with City codes. If the premises are in compliance with said codes, the Building Official shall issue a Certificate of Occupancy. B. When an inspection discloses that the premises are not in compliance with the codes, the Building Official shall give written notice of each deficiency to the owner. No Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued to the owner until all deficiencies are corrected. If the owner fails to correct all said deficiencies within sixty (60) days after the original application was filed, the application shall expire and a new application, plus fees, will be required. C. The owner shall be responsible for making the premises available for inspection by the City. (Ord. MC-IOn, 9-8-98; Ord. MC-741, 9-17-90; Ord. MC-671, 7-24-89; Ord. MC- 670,7-17-89.) 15.20.070 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. If the Building Official finds that no substantial hazard will result from use or occupancy of any building or portion thereof, any structure or any vacant property, and upon a showing of good cause by the owner, the Building Official may issue a temporary certificate of occupancy for up to 180 days. When a temporary certificate of occupancy is issued for more than thirty (30) days, the Building Official may require a cash bond payable to the City in an amount equal to the cost of doing the required work as determined by the Building Official. (Ord. MC-671, 7-24-89; Ord. MC-670, 7-17-89.) 15.20.080 Revocatiou of Certificate of Occupancy. The Building Official, in writing, may deny or revoke a certificate of occupancy when it is determined that the building, structure, or property is in violation of the codes, or when the certificate was issued in error or on false information supplied by the applicant. The certificate of occupancy is automatically revoked when there is a change of occupancy classification, or when a building is ordered vacated by the Building Official or Fire Marshal due to substandard or dangerous conditions. (Ord. MC-880, 6-21-93; Ord. MC-671, 7-24-89; Ord. MC-670, 7-17-89.) 15.20.100 Hearings. Any person aggrieved by the denial, withholding or revoking of a certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy by the Building Official may request a hearing in writing before the Hearing Officer. All decisions of the Hearing Officer may be appealed to the Board of Building Commissioners in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 2.64 ofthis Code. (Ord. MC-671,7- 24-89; Ord. MC-670, 7-17-89.) 15.20.120 ConnectionlDisconnection of Utilities. Buildings, structures or property shall be issued a certificate of occupancy or a temporary certificate of occupancy prior to connection of public utilities. The Building Official may approve the connection of utilities prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy when requested in writing by the applicant for good cause shown, and when he finds that no unsafe conditions exist or will be created by such connection. The Building Official may disconnect or order discontinuance of any utility service to any buildings, structures, or premises lacking a valid certificate of occupancy or a valid temporary certificate of occupancy pursuant to the State Codes. (Ord. MC-880, 6-21-93; Ord. MC-671,7-24-89; Ord. MC-670,7- 17-89.) 15.20.140 Violation. Any person who violates or causes the violation of any provision of this Chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, which upon conviction thereof is punishable in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.12.010 of this Code. (Ord. MC-671, 7-24-89; Ord MC-670, 7- 17-89.) 19.20.020 APPLICABILITY Any permit which authorizes new construction or additions to an existing structure in excess of 2,500 square feet of the structure floor area shall be subject to the standards set forth in this Chapter. 19.20.030 GENERAL STANDARDS 18. PUBLIC STREET IMPROVEMENTS A. Any new construction or construction of 2,500 square feet or more of the structure floor area of the primary structure shall require the dedication of public right-of- way for public street purposes. In addition, the property owner shall be required to irrevocably agree to participate in any future assessment district that may be formed to construct public street improvements in accordance with the policies, procedures and standards of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. B. Whenever street improvements are required along a parcel as a condition of approval of new construction and the off-site drainage pattern requires it, the entire street section may be required to be improved in accordance with the policies, procedures and standards of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. C. Special Fee areas may be designated by the Mayor and Common Council to provide funding for required improvements or to refund monies advanced by the City for designated improvements. Whenever such fee areas are established by Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council, all new construction or construction of 2,500 square feet or more of structure floor area of the primary structures shall pay such fees. MC 816 2/6/92 19.62.020 NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES A structure which lawfully existed prior to the effective date of this Development Code is a legal nonconforming structure, and may continue even though the structure fails to conform to the present requirements of the land use district in which it is located. A legal nonconforming structure may be maintained as follows: I. A legal nonconforming structure which is damaged to an extent of 1/2 or more of its replacement cost immediately prior to such damage may be restored only if made to conform to all provisions of this Development Code. However, any residential structure(s), including multi-family, in a residential land use district destroyed by a catastrophe, including fire, may be reconstructed up to the original size, placement, and density. However, reconstruction shall commence within 2 years after the catastrophe. 2. Necessary repairs and desired alterations may be made to a legal nonconforming residential structure(s), including multi-family. 3. Reasonable repairs and alterations may be made to legal nonconforming commercial, institutional, or industrial structures, provided that where the cost does not exceed the replacement cost of the legal nonconforming structure. However, improvements required to reinforce nonreinforced masonry structures shall be permitted without replacement cost limitations. 4. Changes to interior partitions or other nonstructural improvements and repairs may be made to a legal nonconforming commercial, institutional, or industrial structure, provided that the cost of the desired improvement or repair shall not exceed 1/2 of the replacement cost of the nonconforming structure over any consecutive 5 year period. 5. The replacement cost shall be determined by the Director. 6. Any additional development of a parcel with a legal nonconforming structure will require that all new structures be in conformance with this Development Code. 7. If the use of a nonconforming structure is discontinued for a period of 36 or more consecutive calendar months, the structure shall lose its legal nonconforming status, and shall be removed or altered to conform to the provisions of this Development Code. A use of a legal nonconforming structure shall be considered discontinued when any of the following apply: A. Where characteristic furnishings and equipment associated with the use have been removed and not replaced and where normal occupancy and/or use has been discontinued for a period of 36 or more consecutive calendar months. B. Where there are no business receipts available for the 36 month period. 8. The following provisions shall apply to the reuse of existing nonconforming commercial/industrial structures and/or sites. A. Landscaping shall be upgraded and maintained in a viable growth condition and irrigated in compliance with Section 19.28.030(10). B. The parking lot landscaping shall be a minimum of 15% of the required parking lot area. However, if it is physically impossible to meet the minimum requirement, the Director may approve a reduction in the amount of landscaping required. No landscape improvements are required in areas not visible and/or accessible to the public. C. Existing, required parking spaces shall not be removed to provide additional landscaping. D. New uses in existing structures may be entitled to a reduction of up to 25% in the number of required parking spaces as determined by the Director. E. Existing wheel stops may remain. If repaving of the parking lot is necessary, existing wheel stops may be removed and reinstalled following the repaving, provided stall dimensional requirements are met. However, no installation of new or additional wheel stops shall occur. F. Installation of new concrete curbing may be required 3 feet from any walls, fences, property lines, walkways or structures adjacent to parking areas and drive aisles. G. Screening compatible with the existing structure shall be required for mechanical equipment pursuant to Section 19.20.030(21). H. A refuse enclosure shall be provided in compliance with adopted Public Works standards. I. Chain link fencing not in conformance with Code requirements shall be removed by the owner/applicant prior to the establishment of the commercial use pursuant to Section 19.20.030(8). J. A nonconforming structure may be reoccupied without complying with the building dimensional requirements pertaining to height, setbacks and/or lot coverage. All other requirements in the Municipal Code, including but not limited to the provisions of this Chapter, shall apply to the reoccupancy of the structure. MC 810 10/3/91 (amended). K. A nonconforming structure that has historic significance may be reused for its original intended use regardless of the zoning designation if a Historic Resource Evaluation Report has been prepared that confirms the historic significance subject to the Director's determination that is compatible with surrounding land uses. MC 957 2/7/96 19.62.030 NONCONFORMING USES A nonconforming use is one which lawful1y existed prior to the effective date of this Development Code, but which is no longer permitted in the land use district in which it is located. The continuance of a legal nonconforming use is subject to the fol1owing: I. Change of ownership, tenancy, or management of a nonconforming use shal1 not affect its legal nonconforming status, provided that the use and intensity of use does not change. 2. If a nonconforming use is discontinued for a period of 36 or more consecutive calendar months, it shal1lose its legal nonconforming status, and the continued use of the property shal1 be required to conform with the provisions of this Development Code. 3. Additional development of any property on which a legal nonconforming use exists shal1 require that all new uses conform to the provisions of this Development Code. 4. If a nonconforming use is converted to a conforming use, no nonconforming use may be resumed. 5. No nonconforming use may be established or replaced by another nonconforming use, nor may any nonconforming use be expanded or changed, except as provided in 19.62.030(6) and 19.62.030(7). 6. A nonconforming use of a portion of a nonconforming commercial or industrial center or complex may be established or replaced by another similar nonconforming use pursuant to Section 19.02.070(3), ifal1 of the fol1owing findings are made: a. That the nonconforming use is similar to the uses original1y al10wed in the center or complex; b. That the nonconforming use wil1 not adversely affect or be material1y detrimental to adjoining properties; and c. That the use of the entire center or complex has not been vacant or discontinued for a period of 36 or more calendar months. MC 957 2/7/96 7. An existing legal nonconforming use or legal nonconforming building may be minimal1y expanded or changed subject to the granting of a Development Permit if all of the fol1owing findings are made: a. That such expansion or change is minimal; b. That such expansion or change wil1 not adversely affect or be material1y detrimental to adjoining properties; c. That there is a need for relief of overcrowded conditions or for modernization in order to properly operate the use; and d. That the use is existing and has not been discontinued for a period of 36 or more calendar months. MC 888 1/6/94, MC 957 2/5/96 19.62.050 STRUCTURE PERMITS OR CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY PROHIBITED When any nonconforming structure or use is no longer permitted pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter, no permit for a structure shall thereafter be issued for further continuance, alteration, or expansion. Any permit issued in error shall not be construed as allowing the continuation of the nonconforming structure or use. 19.62.060 REMOVAL OF ILLEGAL NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AND USES Nothing contained in this Chapter shall be construed or implied so as to allow for the continuation of illegal nonconforming structures and uses. Said structures and uses shall be removed immediately subject to the provisions of Chapter 19.46 (Enforcement of Provisions) and State law.