HomeMy WebLinkAbout22- Planning and Building Services GRESHAM, VARNER, SAVAGE, NOLAN & TI)?
LAW OFFICES x�l_ --''
ALLEN B.GRESHAM CRAIG O.DOBLER (300 NORTH ARROWHEAD AVENUE, SUITE 300 WILLIA�1�2&4RIE(1888-1947)
BRUCE D VARNER DARYL H.CARLSON DONALD W.JORDAN(1907-1989)
PHILIP M.SAVAGE,III RICHARD D.MARCA SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92401
JOHN C.NOLAN PATRICK G.MITCHELL JOHN B.LONERGAN(RETIRED 1978)
M.WILLIAM TILDEN MICHAEL 0-WOLF (714)884-2171 (714) 824-966 /fit
JAMES E.GOOD JAY C.EGENES -7/.�IDE OFFICE
MARK A.OSTOICH PENELOPE ALEXANDER TELECOPIER (714) 888-2120 3737 TREET,SUITE 800
THOMAS N.JACOBSON TARA REILLY WIRTZ RIVERSIDE,CAT OHNIA 92801
STEPHAN G.SALESON JAMES R.BAXTER January 7, 1993 TELEPHONE (714)274.7777
ROBERT W.RITTER,JR. MICHAEL G.RAMSEY
ROBIN BRAMLETT COCHRAN BRENDAN W.BRANDT
FRANK J.DELANY RONALD D.GETCHEY VICTORVILLE OFFICE
DUKE D'ROUSE SAUL JAFFE 14011 PARR AVENUE,SUITE 140
JOHN B.MCCAULEY DAVID P.RUTH VICTORVILLE,CALIFORNIA 92392
ERNEST E.RIFFENBURGH
MICHAEL DUANE DAVIS TELEPHONE(618)243-2889
BART W.BRIZZEE
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Rachel Clark
City Clerk
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, California 92418
Re: Inland Center Mall Development Agreement
Dear Ms. Clark:
On behalf of Mano Management Company, Inc., I hereby request that the Mayor and
Common Council's consideration of Development Agreement No. 91-01 (Inland Center
Expansion Development Agreement) be continued until the April 19, 1993 meeting of the
Mayor and Common Council. I have enclosed our check in the amount of $75.00. Please
contact my office to confirm that the continuance has been arranged.
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. If I can be of any assistance to
you, please let me know.
Very truly yours,
Mark A. Ostoich
of GRESHAM, VARNER, SAVAGE,
NOLAN & TILDEN
cc: Lorraine Velarde
Valerie Ross
mao/pb
c. � . /7"-
it n r�wl.,,�,.lrloann
- � O
I n C7 crag twMK=W-1 I
o i a m -n m _^� m -s
Cis ��0 S ®N-Oi n I
s 1 m C7
r� a I s—1 '0 r7 a aO.+.p n I O+
rD Z i b CM y = ?GJ w< ; Act I O W....
I c m c1
x I m C7 ct rLr O m LA~• I m 13�
O CD 1 � O y M t70CIW0 I 6l-O3 ZO
r 1
C I � C'h c7• `•ah b .. 1
c F Z -n ID
_ Lnn i W a a 0,
w Cr W 1 "i -1 w O N 0 m W 1 A O
m C3 I O G ID -! eT \ T 1 t o �t0
- i-1 �
1 a a C7 cm Q'' 1 �C7[n 7
I I,••I 6.n y '� I Gn'M s+.1L
O a I -<V 01� W 1 ID d
< 1 -<20 I X ro �+•
As I A 1 ru cf•y
C, i A O
m I u 1 n l
®� r-
� Kw
t II 1 19 r 1
u I
t II V I V II V I V y,
I M II C-n I UI II CJl 1 Cfl W I
11 I 11 1 m
m II m 1 ® 11 m i ® 3 m
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
MISCELLANEOUS CASH RECEIPT V 657094
Date 19 ACCOUNT NO. AMOUNT
Received From
i
The Sum of Z5 Dollars Cents
For
Transaction: 25336
91/69/93 18:89: 7 Al
Batch: 453
Department
Operator: BJD Station: 864
Trans. Code: SF unt: 75.88
By ��� Stub TOTAL 7
CITY OF SAN BERN^RDINO — REQUEST OR COUNCIL ACTIOa
prom: Al Boughey, Director Subject: Development Agreement No. 91-01 ,
Inland Center Mall Expansion
✓ept: Planning & Building Services
Mayor and Common. Council Meeting
Date: October 1 , 1992 October 19 , 1992
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
None
Recommended motion:
That the hearing be closed and the resolution be adopted.
Z�t- -hlwil "
ignature
AMoug:he
Contact person: Al Boughey Phone: 384-5357
Supporting data attached: Staff Report, Development Ward: 3
Agreement, Resolution
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount:_ N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. Description)
Finance:
icil Notes:
— —9�
��� , 12-7-1'2 5'
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: Development Agreement No. 91-01, Inland Center Mall
Mayor and Common Council meeting of October 19, 1992
REQUEST AND LOCATION
The applicant/developer requests approval of a Development
Agreement (DA 91-01) to govern the development of a phased
expansion project at Inland Center Mall. The mall is located east
of the I-215 Freeway, south of Inland Center Drive and west of "E"
Street.
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OPTIONS
1. The Mayor and Common Council may approve Development Agreement
No. 91-01.
2. The Mayor and Common Council may continue Development
areement No. 91-01 to a date certain and
prepare additional information.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the
resolution which adopts the Negative Declaration, adopts the
Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program and approves Development
Agreement No. 91-01.
SPECIFIC PROPOSAL AND BACKGROUND
The applicant/developer proposes to add an additional 776, 465 gross
square feet consisting of 540, 000 square feet in up to three new
department stores and 236,465 square feet in a second level to the
mall. Up to four parking structures are included to accommodate
required parking. Inland Center Mall was built in 1965 and
consists of approximately 985,883 square feet. It includes three
department stores that are connected by a one level mall. The site
consists of 62 .5 acres with 4400 parking spaces. The total gross
square feet upon project completion will be 1, 762, 348 with a total
of 7420 parking spaces.
The Inland Center Mall consists of 4 parcels. Parcel 1 contains
Sears, Sears Auto Center and parking areas; Parcel 2 contains
Broadway and parking areas; Parcel 3 contains the mall portion
itself and parking areas; and Parcel 4 contains May Co. , the
theater complex and parking areas. There is a reciprocal easement
over all of the parcels. The applicant/developer owns Parcel 3 and
intends to upgrade and expand the mall portion and to add two new
OWN
DA 91-01
MCC 10-19-92
Page 2
major department stores. The applicant/developer also intends to
use their best efforts to induce the other parcels to upgrade and
remodel and to construct a third major department store on Parcel
2 .
The applicant is seeking a commitment from the City in terms of
approval of the expansion project. This is required in order for
them to solicit commitment from the prospective new department
stores and in-line tenants. However, they are not to the point of
having all of the specifics required to obtain approval of a
Development Permit. Some of these specifics would change based on
future tenant needs, especially the major department stores, and
will be defined with each phase. Staff was unable to approve a
project without having the specifics. Therefore, a Development
Agreement was determined to be an appropriate tool to give the
applicant the commitment they needed from the City, while giving
the City the comfort level that the project will comply with
development requirements.
The De v.Cionment: 7 gr=Ment incorporates, by reference, th=
requirements of the Development Code. The main issues are
summarized in this report.
ANALYSIS
The mall is designated CR-1, Commercial Regional. This designation
was established specifically to address the two malls in the City.
General Plan Land Use Element goals, objectives and policies
address Inland Center Mall (and Central City Mall) as principal
region-serving retail centers and the need to encourage
intensification and upgrading. The economic analysis for the
General Plan projected the need for an additional 2+ million square
feet of regional and subregional space by 2010. This project would
provide almost 800, 000 square feet of regional retail space. The
Economic Development Element goals, objectives and policies address
the provision of regional retail space as necessary to help the
City retain its role as a region-serving center.
The General Plan establishes an F.A.R. of 1. 5 with a height of 4
stories or 52 feet for development in the CR-1. The ultimate
project has an F.A.R. of . 65 with a height not exceeding 52 feet.
The Development Code permits lot coverage of 75% and the ultimate
project is approximately 65% lot coverage.
Phasing
The Development Agreement is proposed for a 30 year term. The
intent is that the mall will continue as legal, conforming
structures for that period of time. The actual expansion is
DA 91-01
MCC 10-19-92
Page 3
proposed as four phases, ranging from 1994 to 2000. Each project,
by phase, will be processed through a Development Permit,
consistent with established processing procedures. At that time,
the specific Development Code requirements will be addressed. Each
phase will include the necessary improvements such as parking,
landscaping, etc. Other applications such as parcel maps or lot
line adjustments may also be processed concurrently.
Although the Development Agreement addresses the proposed timeframe
for development, by phase, (approximately an 8 year buildout) ,
additional language has been included that commits the applicant to
show substantial progress toward actual development within that
timeframe. The Development Agreement provides for completion of
Phase I within 10 years of approval of the agreement and pulling
building permits for Phase II within 15 years of approval of the
agreement.
This should ensure that the actual development occurs in a
(relatively) timely manner and that the environmental analysis
remains valid.
I-215 Improvement Project
CalTrans is in the process of preparing a Draft Environmental
Impact Report for the proposed widening of I-215 from the
interchange with I-10 up to where I-215 splits from the Cross-Town
Freeway. Several alternatives have been identified, but the
analysis of impacts has not been completed. This presents an
awkward situation for projects such as the Inland Center Mall
expansion which are proposed to occur over several years. All of
the alternatives will have some impact on the mall, but the extent
is not known at this time.
The Development Agreement contains language that commits the City
to supporting an alternative that provides directs access to Inland
Center Drive and/or from any collector distributor road. Staff
concurs that the I-215 Improvement Project should not adversely
impact access to and the ultimate functioning of the mall and
supports the language in the agreement. An example of an
alternative preferred by the applicant is also included. Staff
recommends that a commitment to the applicant's preferred
alternative not be made at this time.
Parking
The applicant will provide parking, by phase, in conjunction with
proposed development. The proposed parking added to the existing
parking, will exceed the Code requirement at buildout. The
DA 91-01
MCC 10-19-92
Page 4
Development Agreement contains language that addresses the loss of
widening and provides for replacement,
parking due to the freeway widening will
if necessary• It is not anticipated that the freeway irements.
remove parking to the extent that it falls below Code requ
ation measures requires the establishment of a 100
One of the mitig arking lot. With approximately
park and ride facility in the mall p parking.
extra parking spaces at buildout, this will not impact p g•
371 ex P
Landscaping
the provisions of the
The Development Agreement incorporates andscaping requirements. The
Development Code pertaining possible and as much as
existing landscaping will be maintained trees that have to be
coordinated with the new landscaping.
removed to accommodate the development will be relocated on-site as
much as possible.
The mall maintains landscaping along the eastern perimeter
f the
parking lot that is located on
des for continDued maintenance of the Flood Control
The Development Agreement pro the overall landscaping
landscaping and partial credit for meeting
requirements.
Freewa Corridor overlay
Chapter 19. 14 of the Development that are adjacent to the freeway
requirements for those properties was to ensure that
The intent of the Freeway Corridor resented a pleasing view to
projects adjacent to the freeway ements are signage (addressed
freeway travelers• The key landscaping.
later in this report)
Development Agreement addresses the provision of a 25 foot
The the freeway, consistent with the
landscaped setback along
Development Code, and acknowledg ro d and/or parking,
could on
could impact the mall perimeter
the ultimate freeway widening project. It is proposed that the
withhold approval of placing the buffer
City will not unreasonably public/private property.
on public property or a combination of
wi th this proposal because we want to ensure that the
Staff concurs
buffer is completed while not impacting project circulation. We
feel that the proposal is consistent with the intent of the
Development Code.
Traffic and Circulation
The Initial Study prepared for the project identified potential
Q
DA 91-01
MCC 10-19-92
Page 5
impacts to traffic and circulation. Several substantial mitigation
measures were identified to reduce impacts to a level of
insignificance. These mitigation measures are required at each
phase of development and some continue after buildout.
The Development Agreement contains language pertaining to a
possible westerly extension of Central Avenue. While staff would
prefer that all reference to Central Avenue be deleted from the
agreement, the Development Agreement does not require commitment on
the part of the City.
The perimeter road around the mall is proposed to remain upon
ultimate development which staff concurs with. The road provides
access to all areas of the mall and parking lot. It may be
impacted by the freeway widening, however, but the extent is not
known at this time. As addressed in the I-215 Improvement Project
section of this report, staff concurs that the City should support
an alternative which has the least overall impacts. We feel that
the perimeter road is an important consideration.
Design Con6iderations
The Development Agreement incorporates the General Plan policies
and Development Code requirements pertaining to design. The
applicant has prepared a concept plan, included as an exhibit,
which meets the intent of the Development Code. Specific design
issues will be addressed through the Development Permit process for
each phase.
S ignage
The applicant proposes to process an amendment to the Development
Code pertaining to signage in CR-1, Commercial Regional land use
districts as addressed in Exhibit "H" of the Development Agreement.
The Development Code does not differentiate between uses within the
freeway corridor overlay, not does it differentiate between CR-1
and other commercial land use districts.
Staff concurs that Inland Center Mall can be looked at differently
from other freeway adjacent uses because of its region serving
function and its size. Staff also concurs that sign opportunities
for the CR-1 designation should be different from other commercial
designations. The changes being considered have not been fully
identified at this time, however, staff would support an amendment
to Code requirements, within reason.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT STATUS
Tom Dodson and Associates prepareA Op initial Study for this
Q 4
DA 91-01
MCC 10-19-92
Page 6
project. The Environmental Review Committee recommended a
Mitigated Negative Declaration at their meeting of March 19, 1992.
The Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration were available
for public review from March 24, 1992 through April 23, 1992 .
The key areas of concern were traffic and circulation (previously
addressed in this report) and air quality. Potential impacts to
air quality were identified in the Initial Study due to the overall
poor air quality in the area. The Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting
Program contains substantial measures that address construction
related impacts and project impacts.
The proposed Negative Declaration was submitted to the State
Clearinghouse for review since it met CEQA criteria for potential
regional significance.
Comments were received from the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board and the San Bernardino County Transportation/Flood
Control Department pertaining to the requirement for an NPDES
permit. The Flood al.Go commented on drainage.
Comments were also received from Caltrans, District 8, questioning
the adequacy of the traffic study and its conclusions.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District submitted comments
questioning the air quality impact analysis.
The comments received and the responses are included as Attachment
"E" to this report. Additional analysis and/or mitigation measures
were included where deemed appropriate. Copies of the responses
were distributed to the commenting agencies and no further comments
have been received.
A Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program was prepared and is
addressed in the text of the Development Agreement and is included
as Exhibit "G" in the agreement.
CITY REVIEW
The Development Agreement has been revised throughout the review
process to include recommendation of the various departments. The
Development Review Committee recommended approval.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments were received other than those addressed in the CEQA
Status section of this report.
Q O
DA 91-01
MCC 10-19-92
Page 7
CONCLUSION
The proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the goals,
objectives and policies of the General Plan in that it provides
regional shopping opportunities and will help the City to maintain
its lead role in the Inland Empire. It is also consistent with the
density/intensity policies and design policies in the General Plan.
The proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the standards
and design guidelines in the Development Code. Compliance with the
mitigation measures will ensure that all potential adverse impacts
will be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 8, 1992,
took public input, approved the project, in concept, and continued
to enable the applicant to revise the Development Agreement to
incorporate staff's recommendations.
On September 22, 1992 the Planning Commission recommended adoption
of the Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting
Program and approval of the Development Agreement.
Attachments: A - Owner/Applicant List
B - Resolution
C - Development Agreement
D - Initial Study
E - Environmental Comments and Responses
Prepared by:
Valerie C. Ross
Acting Principal Planner
for:
Al Boughey, AICP
Director
Note: The applicant will submit 5 originals of the Development
Agreement to the City Attorney's Office, for signature, after
Council action. The originals will have the typographical errors
corrected. One original will be filed with the City Clerk after
all signatures have been obtained.
w
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 91-01
APPLICANT: Mano Management Company, Inc.
c/o General Growth Development, Inc.
15821 Ventura Blvd. , Suite 525
Encino CA 91436
OWNERS: Mano Management Company, Inc.
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036
Sears, Roebuck and Company
900 South Fremont Avenue
Alhambra, CA 91803
Carter Hawley Hale Stores, Inc.
550 South Flower Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
May Stores Shopping Centers, Inc.
611 Olive Street, Suite 1701
St. Louis, MO 63101
ATTACHMENT "A"
GRESHAM, VARNER, SAVAGE, NOLAN & TILDEN
LAW OFFICES
ALLEN B.GRESHAM CRAIG O.DOBLER 900 NORTH ARROWHEAD AVENUE.SUITE 300 WILLIAM OUTHRIS(1889-1847)
BRUCE D.VARNER DARYL H.CARLSON DONALD W.JORDAN(1807-1989)
PHILIP M.SAVAGE,III RICHARD D.MARCA SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 92401 JOHN B.LONEROAN(RETIRED 1979)
JOHN C.NOLAN PATRICK 0.MITCHELL
M.WILLIAM TILDEN MICHAEL 0.WOLF (714) 8842171 (714) 824-9911
JAMES E.GOOD JAY C.EGENES RIVERSIDE OFFICE
MARK A.OSTOICH PENELOPE A*FZ.NDER TELECOPIER (714) 888-2120 3737 MAIN STREET.SUITE 800
THOMAS N.JACOBSON TARA REILLY WIRTZ RIVERSIDE.CALIFORNIA 92501
STEPHAN G.SALESON JAMES R.BAKTEH
ROBERT W.RITTER.JR. MICHAEL G.RAMSEY December 3 1992 TELEPHONE(714)274-7777
ROBIN BRAMLETT COCHRAN BRENDAN W-BRANDT
FRANK J.DELANY RONALD D.GETCHEY VICTORVILLE OFFICE
DUKE D-ROUSE SAUL JAFFE 14011 PARK AVENUE,SUITE 140
JOHN B.MCCAULEY DAVID P.RUTH VICTORVILLE.CALIFORNIA 92392
ERNEST E.RIFFENBURGH TELEPHONE(819)243'2889
MICHAEL DUANE DAVIS
BART W.BRIZZEE
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Rachel Clark
City Clerk
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, California 92418
)
Re: Inland Center Mall Development Agreement
Dear Ms. Clark:
On behalf of Mano Management, Incorporated, I hereby request that the Mayor and
Common Council's consideration of Development Agreement No. 91-01 (Inland Center
Expansion Development Agreement) be continued until the December 21, 1992 meeting of the
Mayor and Common Council. Please contact my office to confirm that the continuance has
been arranged.
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. If I can be of any assistance to
you, please let me know.
Very truly yours,
Mark A. Ostoich
of GRESHAM, VARNER, SAVAGE,
NOLAN & TILDEN
cc: Valerie Ross
mao/pb
evt�..�cls3mz 124'
2 4
Q
t
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
MISCELLANEOUS CASH RECEIPT No 654695 s:
��C �%�/ � 19 ACCOUNT NO. AMOUNT
Date
Received From ��j9��'' J 7 - too
e� /—eve r
� m�f 75 Dollars t5g�---" Cents
m^7 C b n N
i 9+ In T
For'
L"7 rU N
O •• V
0.
.o s
s
TI
�r
y
n
C
.A
N
9 T
f3 Cf7
� ril
fi �•
Depaiiment
:M G�-� TOTAL
l�Y ' O
7 ^l
DISTRIBUTION: White—Customer;Canary—Cashier;Pink—Department;Goldenrod—Dept.Numeric Control
C7 1 C7 C7 G7= r r+9 O w-•i 1
TI m N- _= d ->t 1
-1 1 CM 7C m C7 C7 n "10 N N I N
xr�•x I m x ro o x \crcr..w 1
N 0 a 1 3-4 •C n a .0.+•O r7 I O m fi
►-•10 x 1 O r•.<n w C u7:o rU t -i Me" I
x I m C7 s+1G O m •+C I `V..�y x 0
0
.-+•'f C I fix �•1 N ✓ I -! cF[n
a 1 wawa
1••+N ro 1 A y• O
�~ 1 N Q r cm In ru
r O 1 -1 •--1 m 1 .D Cl)1n O
1 Ln. -0 su su
IOn s I r r H C, .O I ID I
d.I.P.� 1 "'1•e• rU
O 9 I '1T 1 a�0
NAm � 1 m
ruwx I a 1 n I m to i
A m_•1 1 11 1 11 I ;V •'+' 1
usv I u I u I 1
rw s
I I 11 M I M 11 M I M •• O I
\ 1 II V I V 11-V 1 V W
W I M 11 rl1 1 C!1 11 G!1
\ 11 1 11 1 m
�p m 11 OD
It m m
w m 11 ID I tD 11 II m m I l m 3 rU