Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-Planning Workshop . w:r ~ city of San Bernardino INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 9003-902 TO: Mayor, Common Council and Planning commission FROM: Sandra Paulsen, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Development Code Scheduling DATE: March 20, 1990 ----------------------------------------------------------~, Following is a schedule of remaining workshops and the topics; of those sessions. We have scheduled the library meeting room on Wednesdays through April 11, 1990. March 28 1. Article IV - Administration 2. Thresholds of Review 3. Main Street April 4 1. Signs 2. Central City South 3. Parking April 11 1. Subdivisions 2. Other Topics as Requested The library is reserved for April 25 should we need an additional workshop. Once. the workshops have concluded, Jacobson and Wack, Inc. will revise the first preliminary draft as directed and prepare the public hearing draft which will be the subject of Public Hearings. The revisions will require approximately six weeks to complete. When the public hearing draft is received by the city, staff will duplicate and circulate it. If the workshops conclude on April 11, the public hearing draft should be available the first week in June. The first Public Hearing before the Planning commission is tentatively scheduled for June 26, 1990. Sandra Paulsen Senior Planner sh -. .CITY OF SAN BERt' 'RDINO - REQUEST "."R COUNCIL ACTION From: Larry E. Reed, Di rector Subject: Deve 1 opment Code Imp 1 ementat ion Dept: Planning & Building Services Meeting Date: March 21, 1990 Workshop Date: March 21, 1990 Synopsis of Previous Council action: No previous council action. Recommended motion: That the Mayor and Common Council direct staff to include as a proposed ordinance in the Development Code a section regarding implementation that requires all projects which have not received final Planning approval prior to the date of implementation of the Development Code shall be subject to the regulations and standards contained in the Development Code. (Staff recommendation) OR That the Mayor and Common Council direct staff to include ~ a proposed ordiAaAce in the ~evelopment Code a section regarding implementation that requires all projects which have en accepted as complete pursuant to California Government Code Section 65943 by the , Department of Planning and Building Services prior to implementation of the Development Code, , ,be processed in accordance with the standards and regulations in effect at the time the application was accepted as complete. La rry E. Reed Signature Contact person: Larry E. Reed Supporting data attached: Staff Report Phone: 384-5357 Ward: N/A FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/ A Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. Description) Finance: Council Notes: 75-0262 Agenda Item No ~-"'~"'''- k~ c{ CITY, OF SAN BERt.. ~RDINO - REQUEST .. .lR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT Subject - Implementation of the Development Code. Request It is requested that the Mayor and Common Council establish a policy relative to the implementation of the Development Code and its affect on Planning applications which have not received final approval on the date of implementation of the Development Code. Backqround On June 2, 1989, the Mayor and Common Council adopted the General Plan for the city and work commenced on the Development Code to implement the Plan. Also adopted that date was an urgency implementation ordinance for the General Plan. Based on the urgency ordinance, the Department of Planning and Building Services has continued to receive, accept, and process planning applications. Upon adoption and implementation of the Development Code, it is anticipated there will be approximately 100 applications at various stages in the planning process. Those projects mayor may not be in compliance with the newly adopted Development Code. It is necessary to establish policy by which to process those cases which have been formally accepted as complete by the Department but which have not received final approvals. There are several stages in the planning process, which include the following: 1. Submittal - when the application is received over the planning counter; 2. Acceptance - when the application is accepted by the department as complete pursuant to California Government Code section 65943; 3. Approval - the applicant's project is reviewed by the approval authority and receives the entitlements necessary to proceed with construction permits; 75-0264 CITY.OF SAN BERN.. RDINO - REQUEST r )R COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT Implementation of the Development Code Page 2 4. Building permits when all the detailed construction plans (architectural, structural, mechanical, plumbing and electrical) are reviewed prior to initiation of the approved project, and building permits are issued. As has been previously indicated by case law, generally, the courts have held that expenditures of funds in reliance on a validly issued building permit constitutes a vested right to complete a project. A local jurisdiction may be more lenient if it so desires. The recommendation to allow projects with final Planning approvals to proceed is more lenient. Projects that have received final Planning approval could be impacted by new landscaping and/or parking requirements to the extent that an entire new set of plans could be necessitated or that a proposed project becomes economically infeasible. It is important to establish this policy as soon as possible to enable staff to inform developers of possible changes that may affect a proposed project. If it is felt a project may not receive final Planning approval prior to implementation of the Development Code, a Developer may anticipate necessary changes and revise plans or withdraw the application. Should withdrawal of the application become necessary due to changes in the Development Code, a proportional amount of the submittal fee could be refunded, the proportion to be deter- mined based on the amount of time spent on the project by the city. options Available to the Mavor and Common Council The Mayor and Common Council may establish the policy that all projects which have not received final Planning approval prior to the date of implementation of the Development Code will be subject to the regulations and standards contained in the Code; or The Mayor and Common Council may establish the policy that applications received and accepted as complete pursuant to California Government Code Section 65943 by the Department of Planning and Building services, prior to the implemen- tation of the Development Code, be processed in accordance with the standards and regulations in effect at the time the application was deemed complete. 75-0264 CITY -OF SAN BERt.. 4RDINO - REQUEST .. .lR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT Impementation of the Development Code Page 3 Recommendation It is recommended that the Mayor and Common council adopt the policy that all projects which have not received final Planning approval prior to the date of implementation of the Development Code will be subject to the standards and regula- tions contained in the Development Code. Sandra Paulsen Senior Planner M&CCAGENDA:DevcodeImp 3/12/90 sh 75-0264 " ,CITY OF SAN BERN- _RDINO - REQUEST t .)R COUNCIL ACTION From: Larry E. Reed, Director Subject: Deve lopmen t Code Implemen ta tion Dept: Planning & Building Services Meeting Date: March 21, 1990 Workshop Date: March 12, 1990 Synopsis of Previous Council action: No previous council action. Recommended motion: That the Mayor and Common Council establish the policy that all projects which have not received final Planning approval prior to the date of implementation of the Development Code will be subject to the regu- lations and standards contained in the Development Code. (Staff recommendation) OR That the Mayor and Common Council establish the policy that all applications received and accepted as complete pursuant to California Government Code Section 65943 by the Department of Planning and Building Services prior to implementation of the Development Code, be processed in accordance with the standards and regulations in effect at the t' .e the applicat' n was accepted as complete. Contact person: Larry E. Reed Phone: 384-5357 Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: N/A FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N /11. . Source: (Acct, No.) (Acct, Description) Finance: Council Notes: 75.0262 Agenda Item No. ~ CITY OF SAN BERtbaRDINO - REQUEST "4R COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT Subject - Implementation of the Development Code. Request It is requested that the Mayor and Common Council establish a policy relative to the implementation of the Development Code and its affect on Planning applications which have not received final approval on the date of implementation of the Development Code. Backqround On June 2, 1989, the Mayor and Common Council adopted the General Plan for the City and work commenced on the Development Code to implement the Plan. Also adopted that date was an urgency implementation ordinance for the General Plan. Based on the urgency ordinance, the Department of Planning and Building Services has continued to receive, accept, and process planning applications. Upon adoption and implementation of the Development Code, it is anticipated there will be approximately 100 applications at various stages in the planning process. Those projects mayor may not be in compliance with the newly adopted Development Code. It is necessary to establish policy by which to process those cases which have been formally accepted as complete by the Department but which have not received final approvals. There are several stages in the planning process, which include the following: 1. Submittal - when the application is received over the planning counter; 2. Acceptance - when the application is accepted by the department as complete pursuant to California Government Code section 65943; 3. Approval - the applicant's project is reviewed by the approval authority and receives the entitlements necessary to proceed with construction permits; 75-0264 CITY OF SAN BERN.dlDINO - REQUEST .....,R COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT Implementation of the Development Code Page 2 4. Building permits when all the detailed construction plans (architectural, structural, mechanical, plumbing and electrical) are reviewed prior to initiation of the approved project, and building permits are issued. As has been previously indicated by case law, generally, the courts have held that expenditures of funds in reliance on a validly issued building permit constitutes a vested right to complete a project. A local jurisdiction may be more lenient if it so desires. The recommendation to allow projects with final Planning approvals to proceed is more lenient. Projects that have received final Planning approval could be impacted by new landscaping and/or parking requirements to the extent that an entire new set of plans could be necessitated or that a proposed project becomes economically infeasible. It is important to establish this policy as soon as possible to enable staff to inform developers of possible changes that may affect a proposed project. If it is felt a project may not receive final Planning approval prior to implementation of the Development Code, a Developer may anticipate necessary changes and revise plans or withdraw the application. Should withdrawal of the application become necessary due to changes in the Development Code, a proportional amount of the submittal fee could be refunded, the proportion to be deter- mined based on the amount of time spent on the project by the city. options Available to the Mavor and Common Council The Mayor and Common Council may establish the policy that all projects which have not received final Planning approval prior to the date of implementation of the Development Code will be subject to the regulations and standards contained in the Code; or The Mayor and Common Council may establish the policy that applications received and accepted as complete pursuant to California Government Code Section 65943 by the Department of Planning and Building Services, prior to the implemen- tation of the Development Code, be processed in accordance with the standards and regulations in effect at the time the application was deemed complete. 75-0264 } CITY OF SAN BERN~aRDINO - REQUEST ~JR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT Impementation of the Development Code Page 3 Recommendation It is recommended that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the policy that all projects which have not received final Planning approval prior to the date of implementation of the Development Code will be subject to the standards and regula- tions contained in the Development Code. Sandra Paulsen Senior Planner M&CCAGENDA:DevcodeImp 3/12/90 sh 75-0264 ,:ltN:.~f_"t'::~;.'otI1t:~~ u[}={]~ SUNSET @J~@M[P March 21, 1990 Ms. Sandy Paulsen PLDHDIG DBPARTJIBHT City of San Bernardino 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, California 92418 RE: Proposed Developll8l1t COde Dear Sandy: In my initial review of the proposed development code, I found the following areas of concern: TABLE 06.01 Commercial and Industrial Districts - List of Permitted Uses #54/Food Stores is a use not permitted in the CR designations. This eliminates many regional warehouse type food stores from locating in San Bernardino. These are food stores like Food-4-Less, Von's pavillion, Fiesta, Sam's Club, Cub's Food, Mega Foods, and others that would require approximately 100,000 square feet of space and would look to regional areas, not neighborhood centers, to locate within. Areas such as the Club (CR-3) or the area between the two (2) malls would be ideal for one (1) or two (2) of these warehouse type food stores. TABLE 06.02 Commercial Zones - Development Standards The CR-3 designation which covers the Hospitality Lane area has been limited to four (4) stores. The Sunset Group and Rancon assisted the City financially over two (2) years ago to have a height study completed for this area - to the best of our knowledge we have never seen the results nor did the General Plan reference such a study. I strongly urge the Commission and Council to obtain the results of the height study before limiting the number of stores through the development code. The Sunset Group 225 West Hospitality Lane, Suite 100 San Bernardino, California 92408 714 lR1 41R1 IFAX 714 RRR 1Q40 r - Iil!l1I. --.....-lt~-.a Page 2 Ms. Sandy Paulsen PLAHBDfG DBPARTJIBHT TABLE 16.01 Sign Regulations by Land Use Category Under the section entitled "Signs Permitted in CN, CG, CR, CH, "Commercial Districts" the signage for mUlti-story office buildings have not been addressed. An overlay district or special district covering Hospitality Lane needs to be created as recently discussed with the Planning Department and City Council. This district could eliminate pole signs along Hospitality Lane frontage and increase the number or size of center identification signs, monument signs, and facia signage. Continuing in reference to the section entitled "Signs Permitted in CN, CG, CR, CH, Commercial Districts" under Class "e Center Identification" my concern lies with those centers of 100,000 square feet on up to 800,000 square feet (malls) within our CR designation. As an example, a center of 300,000 square feet is built within the CR area between the two (2) malls as drafted in the development code this center may be limited to one (1) free-standing stand of 75 square feet and a height of 20 feet and can only identify three (3) of its tenants. A center of 300,000 square feet can have more than three (3) anchor tenants. Centers within the CR areas not abutting freeways will need the free-standing sign to be at least 25 feet in height as the tenants are regional draws needing the visibility of the signage from the elevated freeways. As proposed presently within the development code, a center within the CR designation having frontage greater than 200 feet on four (4) sides would be allowed a free-standing sign on each street frontage. I propose the following: 1. A separate signage criteria for these CR designation areas. 2. An allowable size and number of free-standing signs based upon a formula of the center's total square footage. 3. A bonus of size if more than (1) free-standing sign is condensed into one (I) sign. In order for these designated CR areas to be successful it will depend upon attracting these large regional retailers to our City and one (1) of their major conditions to locating will be signage. I believe a program can be found to please both the tenant and the City while insuring the quality and design of the future signage for our City. I would be happy to draft and outline this proposed signage program for the CR designation if it would be helpful. , The Sunset Crouu .. Page 3 Ms. Sandy Paulsen PIAHHDrG DEPAR'l'JIBRT .2ll! Designation This designation as defined under Table 06.01 is of great concern as it applies to Waterman Avenue. I voiced a lot of concern over this designation during the CAC workshops during the drafting of the general plan as written it will prohibit the revitalization of Waterman Avenue. The dream of regional users for Waterman Avenue is not a reality - regional users want adjacent freeway access and supporting services (i.e. sit-down restaurants, drive thru restaurants, cleaners, travel agents, stationary, books, sandwich shops, service stations). What we should be focusing on is what will compliment the proposed development for Norton, as many key intersections along Waterman are major entrances to Norton. The direction the CAC was taking was along the lines of a high tech park (buildings with office and warehouse space) inset along Waterman with the major intersections (entrances to Norton) to locate restaurants, service stations and supporting retail services for the high tech park and the employees of Norton. These types of parks can be found in other Southern California areas like Orange County, especially the Irvine and Newport Beach areas near the John Wayne Airport. A more mixed use designation incorporating research and development uses, light industrial, commercial office, and supporting retail services would insure the City seeing a revitalization of Waterman Avenue before the next twenty (20) years. Sandy, I have tried to summarize my concerns as best as I can in writing - if you desire I will present these concerns to the Commission or Council orally. ~relY, . (~~ /~ Patricia Green vice President THE SUBSET GROUP PG:rg Th~ '1In.:pt r:rnl In