HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.B- Community Development 6.B
ORDINANCE (ID # 3646) DOC ID: 3646 B
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO — REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Public Hearing
wr
From: Mark Persico M/CC Meeting Date: 01/20/2015
Prepared by: Aron Liang, (909) 384-5057
Dept: Community Development Ward(s): All
Subject:
Ordinance of the City of San Bernardino Adopting Development Code Amendment 14-
19, Amending Development Code Sections 19.62.020 (7) and 19.62.030 (2), Relating to
Termination of Non-Conforming Structures and Uses. (#3646) (FIRST READING)
Current Business Registration Certificate: Not Applicable
Financial Impact:
There will be no direct impact to the General Fund.
Motion: Close the hearing; and lay over Ordinance for final adoption.
Synopsis of Previous Council Action:
May 21, 2012 - the Mayor and Common Council adopted Ordinance No. MC-1373 to
allow for non-conforming uses and structures to retain their current status for 36 months
rather than 12 months.
Background:
May 21, 2012 - the Mayor and Common Council approved Ordinance No. MC-1373 to
modify Chapter 19.62, Non-Conforming Uses and Structures, relating to termination of
non-conforming status from 12 months to 36 months.
December 1, 2014 - A 1/8-page legal ad was submitted to the Sun Newspaper for
publishing on December 3, 2014, advertising the December 17, 2014 Planning
Commission hearing on DCA 14-19.
December 16, 2014 - the Legislative Review Committee (LRC) reviewed the request for
DCA 14-19.
ANALYSIS
In general, nonconforming regulations presume that a nonconformity is detrimental to
the public interest (health, safety, morals or welfare), and that the nonconformity needs
to be brought into conformance with the current code at some point in time.
The proposed amendment changes the Code back to the standard that existed prior to
May 2102. Staff has determined that the extended nonconformity period has created
unintended consequences. Staff believes it is in the best interest of the City to revert to
the previous standard. Furthermore, the 12 month period for non-conforming uses is the
_ pni-kof Pn RAO
_: ..
6.B
3646
standard practice of the overwhelming majority of cities.
The proposed amendment anticipates that nonconforming uses and structures will be
eliminated over time and replaced with conforming uses and structures and particularly
clarifies Sections 19.62.020 (7) and 19.62.030 (2) that had unintended impact on
existing non-conforming uses and structures City-wide.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan.
The proposed code amendment will not prolong and promote non-conforming
uses and structures but rather clarify, and provide consistency with prior
practices relating to termination of non-conforming status consistent with General
Plan Policy 2.10.1 : "Adoption of ordinances and standards for implementing
General Plan land use designations, especially through the Development Code."
2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health,
safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.
The proposed amendment will clarify Chapter 19.62, Non-Conforming Uses and
Structures relating to the termination of non-conforming status that had
unintended impact on existing non-conforming uses and structures City-wide.
The proposed clarification will not physically expand existing non-conforming
uses and structures and will have no adverse impact to the public health, or
welfare as it will not create, promote and or prolong any non-conforming uses
and structures. The proposed amendment anticipates that nonconforming uses
and structures will be eliminated over time and replaced with conforming uses
and structures.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
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.
CONCLUSION
The Planning Commission has determined that the proposed amendment satisfies all
Findings of Fact for approval of Development Code 14-19.
RECOMMENDATION
Close the hearing; and lay over the Ordinance for final adoption.
City Attorney Review:
i I..,.i..4-A. 414 A Inn 4C �..�______._._ 1. _. i I i-- --- Pne-kaf Pro 1;7n
ate....
6.B
3646
Supporting Documents:
Ordinance (DOC)
Exhibit A (DOC)
Attachment 1 - PC report (PDF)
Attachment 2 PC Minutes 12.17.14 (DOC)
Attachment 3 Display DCA(DOC)
Undated- 1/14/2015 by Genmeann "Gini" Hanna B Packet Pg. 571
1 ORDINANCE NO.
2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 14-19, AMENDING DEVELOPMENT
3 CODE SECTIONS 19.62.020 (7) AND 19.62.030 (2), RELATING TO TERMINATION
4 OF NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES AND USES.
5 WHEREAS, the current Development Code was initially implemented in 1991; and
6 WHEREAS, the current General Plan was initially implemented in 2005; and
7 WHEREAS, on December 17, 2014, the Planning Commission of the City of San
8 Bernardino held a noticed public hearing to consider public testimony and the staff report
9 recommending approval of Development Code Amendment 14-19 and recommended N
approval of the proposed Development Code Amendment to the Mayor and Common
10
Council; and c
11 WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing for the Mayor and Common Council's c
12 consideration of the proposed Ordinance was published in The Sun newspaper on January 8, v
13 2015. o
z
14 NOW THEREFORE, THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
15 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
U
16 °
17 SECTION 1. The Mayor and Common Council find that the above-stated Recitals
M
18 are true and hereby adopt and incorporate them herein.
c
19 SECTION 2. Findings of Fact. E
L
20 °•
1. The proposed amendment is a clarification of Chapter 19.62, Non-Conforming
21 Structures and Uses, Sections 19.62.020 (7) and 19.62.030 (2), relating to termination of non-
22 conforming status from 36 months to 12 months. Additionally, the proposed code amendment Q
23 will not prolong and promote non-conforming structures and uses but rather clarify, and
24 provide consistency with prior practices relating to termination of non-conforming status,
25 consistent with General Plan Policy 2.10.1: "Adoption of ordinances and standards for
26 implementing General Plan land use designations, especially through the Development Code."
27
28
Packet Pg. 572
6.B.a
1 2. The proposed amendment will clarify Chapter 19.62, Non-Conforming Structures and
2 Uses relating to the termination of non-conforming status that had unintended impact on
existing non-conforming uses and structures City-wide. The proposed clarification will not
3 physically expand existing non-conforming structures and uses and will have no adverse
4 impact to the public health, or welfare as it will not create, promote and or prolong any non-
5 conforming uses and structures. The proposed amendment anticipates that nonconforming
6 uses and structures will be eliminated over time and replaced with conforming structures and
7 uses.
8 SECTION 3. Development Code Amendment 14-19, attached hereto as Exhibit A
and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby approved. vi
9
10
SECTION 4. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality c
11 E
12 The Mayor and Common Council finds that Development Code Amendment 14-19 is v
13 exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section z
14 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines,because the effect of the amendment would not result in
15 a significant direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
16
0
17 SECTION 5. Severability: If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, or It
M
clause or phrase in this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be a
18
unconstitutional, invalid or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision c
19
shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any o
20 part thereof. The Mayor and Common Council hereby declares that it would have adopted c
21 each section irrespective of the fact that any one or more subsections, subdivisions, sentences,
22 clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective. Q
23
24 ///
25
26
27
,-mow 28
Packet Pg. 573
1 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 14-19, AMENDING DEVELOPMENT
2 CODE SECTIONS 19.62.020 (7) AND 19.62.030 (2), RELATING TO TERMINATION
OF NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES AND USES.
3
4
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was duly adopted by the Mayor
5 and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a meeting thereof,
6 held on the day of , 2015, by the following vote to wit:
7
L
8 Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT 3
MARQUEZ rn
9 BARRIOS N
10 VALDIVIA
11 SHORETT E
12 NICKEL c
JOHNSON
13 MULVIHILL z
14 T_
4
15 a
16
0
Georgeann Hanna, City Clerk
17 M
18 The foregoing Ordinance is hereby approved this day of
c
2015.
19
L
20
d
21 R. CAREY DAVIS, Mayor s
22 Approved as to form: City of San Bernardino a
.�
Gary D. Saenz, City Attorney a
23
24
25 By:
26
27
28
FPacket Pg.574
Exhibit A
Development Code Chapter 19.62, Non-Conforming Structures and Uses, Sections
19.62.020 (7) and 19.62.030 (2) shall be modified to read:
Section 19.62.020 (7): If the use of a nonconforming structure is discontinued for a period
of 36 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 n
discontinued when any of the following apply:
U
3
A. Where characteristic furnishings and equipment associated with the use have
Cn
been removed and not replaced and where normal occupancy and/or use has
been discontinued for a period of 36 12 or more consecutive calendar D
months.
c
E
B. Where there are no business receipts available for the 36 12 month period. 12
0
0
U
IL
0
z
Section 19.62.030 (2): If a nonconforming use is discontinued for a period of-3&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 a
Development Code. U
0
M
Q
M
K
W
E
s
c�
w
Q
Packet Pg. 575
AGENDA ITEM #3
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION
CASE: Development Code Amendment 14-19
HEARING DATE: December 17, 2014
WARDS: City-wide
L
APPLICANT:
City of San Bernardino N
Attn.: Mark Persico,AICP
300 N. "D" Street D
San Bernardino,CA 92418 =
(909 387-5357 E
Persico_ma @sbeity.org J°
c
0
REQUEST AND LOCATION:
0
z
A City initiated request to amend Development Code to amend Development Code Chapter a,
19.62, Non-Conforming Uses and Structures, Sections 19.62.020 (7) and 19.62.030 (2), relating 4
to termination of non-conforming status. Q
U
c�
CONSTRAINTS/OVERLAYS:
M
Not applicable. o
a
a:
L
U
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS:
T
it
® Exempt from CEQA—Section 15061(b)(3)
❑ No Significant Effect
❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration with Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program
❑ Environmental Impact Report Q
c
a�
E
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: U
❑ Approval
❑ Conditions
❑ Denial
❑ Continuance to:
® Recommend to Mayor and Common Council
Packet°Pg. 576
6.B.c
DC,4 14-19
December 17,2014
Page 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
On May 21, 2012, the Mayor and Common Council approved Ordinance No. MC-1373 to
modify Chapter 19.62, Non-Conforming Uses and Structures, relating to termination of non-
conforming status from 12 months to 36 months. The modifications to the termination of non-
conforming status from 12 months to 36 months unintentionally prolonged and promoted non-
conforming uses and structures. City policy was never intended to prolong and promote non-
conforming uses and structures. To clarify this unintended change to Chapter 19.62, Non-
Conforming Uses and Structures, staff is proposing an amendment to modify once again
Sections 19.62.020 (7) and 19.62.030 (2), relating to termination of non-conforming status that ;
will clarify, and provide consistency with prior practices. The proposed amendment will be Cn
applicable for non-conforming uses and structures City-wide.
M
Staff recommends that Development Code Sections 19.62.020 (7) and 19.62.030 (2) be modified
as follows: E
L
0
4-
Section 19.62.020(7)states: if the use of a nonconforming structure is discontinued for a period of o
36 12 or more consecutive calendar months,the structure shall lose its legal nonconforming status, c
and shall be removed or altered to conform to the provisions of this Development Code. A use of a z°
legal nonconforming structure shall be considered discontinued when any of the following apply: C�
T
4
A. Where characteristic furnishings and equipment associated with the use have been Q
removed and not replaced and where normal occupancy and/or use has been o
discontinued for a period of 3612 or more consecutive calendar months.
B. Where there are no business receipts available for the 3612 month period.
0
Section 19.62.030 (2) states: If a nonconforming use is discontinued for a period of-4 -12 or W.
more consecutive calendar months, it shall lose its legal nonconforming status, and the continued L)
use of the property shall be required to conform with the provisions of this Development Code. a
T
BACKGROUND
I E
May 21, 2012—the Mayor and Common Council adopted Ordinance No. MC-1373 to allow for 2
non-conforming uses and structures to retain their current status for 36 months rather than 12 a
months. c
a�
E
December 1, 2014—A 1/8-page legal ad was submitted to the Sun Newspaper for publishing on
December 3, 2014, advertising the December 17, 2014 Planning Commission hearing on DCA Q
14-19.
December 16, 2014 — the Legislative Review Committee (LRC) reviewed the request for DCA
14-19.
Packet Pg. 577
DCA 14-19
December 17,2014
Page 3
ANALYSIS
In general, nonconforming regulations presume that a nonconformity is detrimental to the public
interest (health, safety, morals or welfare), and that the nonconformity needs to be brought into
conformance with the current code at some point in time.
The proposed amendment is a clarification of Chapter 19.62, Non-Conforming Uses and
Structures, Sections 19.62.020 (7) and 19.62.030 (2), relating to termination of non-conforming
status from 36 months to 12 months. The proposed clarification will not physically expand 3
existing non-conforming uses and structures. There will be no adverse impact to the public
Cn
health, or welfare as it will not create, promote and or prolong any new non-conforming uses and
structures. The proposed amendment anticipates that nonconforming uses and structures will be
eliminated over time and replaced with conforming uses and structures and particularly clarifies =
Sections 19.62.020 (7) and 19.62.030 (2) that had unintended impact on existing non-conforming E
uses and structures City-wide. ,o
0
FINDINGS OF FACT
0
z
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan.
The proposed code amendment will not prolong and promote non-conforming uses and a
structures but rather clarify, and provide consistency with prior practices relating to 0
termination of non-conforming status consistent with General Plan Policv 2.10.1:
"Adoption of ordinances and standards for implementing General Plan land use
designations,especially through the Development Code." .
0
2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, d
convenience, or welfare of the City. a
The proposed amendment will clarify Chapter 19.62, Non-Conforming Uses and
Structures relating to the termination of non-conforming status that had unintended E
impact on existing non-conforming uses and structures City-wide. The proposed
clarification will not physically expand existing non-conforming uses and structures and r
will have no adverse impact to the public health, or welfare as it will not create,promote
and or prolong any non-conforming uses and structures. The proposed amendment
anticipates that nonconforming uses and structures will be eliminated over time and E
replaced with conforming uses and structures.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT(CEQA)
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.
Packet Pg.578
DCA 14-19
December 17,2014
Page 4
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There will be no direct impact to the General Fund.
CONCLUSION
The proposed project satisfies all Findings of Fact for approval of Development Code
Amendment 14-19.
RECOMMENDATION
N
d
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Development Code
Amendment 14-19 to the Mayor and Common Council,-based upon the Findings of Fact =
contained in the staff report. E
L
0
4�
Respectfully Submitted,
0
z
Aron Liang
Senior Planner Q
U
0
o
Approved for Distribution:
0
CL
m
L
- U
a
Mark Persico,AICP
Interim Director of Community Development
E
U
t4
Attachment A Proposed revisions to Sections 19.62.020(7)and 19.62.030 (2) a
c
E
r
a
Packet Pg. 579
ATTACHMENT A
Staff recommends that Development Code Chapter 19.62, Non-Conforming Uses and
Structures, Sections 19.62.020 (7)and 19.62.030 (2)be modified as follows:
Section 19.62.020 (7) states: If the use of a nonconforming structure is discontinued for a
period of -36 12 or more consecutive calendar months, the structure shall lose its legal L_
nonconforming status, and shall be removed or altered to conform to the provisions of this 3
Development Code. A use of a legal nonconforming structure shall be considered
discontinued when any of the following apply: a
A. Where characteristic furnishings and equipment associated with the use have
been removed and not replaced and where normal occupancy and/or use has E
been discontinued for a period of 36 12 or more consecutive calendar ,0
months, o
U
B. Where there are no business receipts available for the 3612 month period. z°
4
Q
Section 19.62.030 (2) states: If a nonconforming use is discontinued for a period of-36-12
0
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.
0
CL
m
U
a.
c
d
E
s
U
a
u
_
m
E
r
a
Packet Pg. 580
RNnkD��oo Larry Heasley,Chair
_
Vice-Chair M_Lance Darr CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
� Andrew Machen
a: Amelia S.Lopez
Jim Eble COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Dustin Barnhardt 300 North "D"Street, San Bernardino, California 92418
Kent Paxton Phone: (909)384-505715071 • Fax: (909)384-5080
Casey Dailey
Michael Thomas
Alt.Scott Wyatt
N
N
L
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
DECEMBER 17, 2014
N
Q3
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19, 2014
as
c
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-10
L
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 14-19 0
U
IL
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 14-20 Z
rn
4
T
a
U
O
m
co
M
P
ti
r
N
T_
N
d
w
7
C
U
a
N
C
d
L
U
r+
Y
Q
U
w
Q
Page 1 of 6 12/17/2014
Packet Pg.581
EMIL-
Chair Heasley called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Commissioner Machen led the flag salute.
Present: Commissioners: Heasley, Durr, Machen, Lopez, Eble, Paxton, and Wyatt.
Excused: Thomas. Absent: Dailey and Barnhardt Staff present: Mark Persico, Community
Development Director; Henry Empeiio, Jr., Senior Deputy City Attorney; Aron Liang, Senior L
Planner; Travis Martin, Assistant Planner.
I L
ADMINISTRATION OF OATH c�}n
a�
Senior Planner Aron Liang administered the oath.
CONSENT AGENDA:
L
0
Aron Liang, Senior Planner gave a brief presentation of the consent agenda. o
U
1. Minutes of November 19, 2014. Staff recommends approval of these minutes. Z
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-10 - A request to construct and operate a new
wireless telecommunications facility consisting of a 60-foot tall, tower, camouflaged Q
as a palm tree, and associated equipment located within an existing commercial U
0
building.
(0
c�
a
Address: 1173 E. Lynwood Drive
Zone: Commercial General (CG-1)
Environmental Determination: Exempt from CEQA— 15303 —New Construction
of Small Structures
Applicant: James Rogers, Smartlink, LLC
APN: 0153-293-22
c
Ward: 7
U
a
Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
Conditional Use Permit 13-10 based on the Findings of Fact contained in this Staff d
Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval. E
U
t6
r
r.+
Q
Commissioner Eble made a motion to approve the consent agenda.
m
Commissioner Paxton seconded the motion. E
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Heasley, Durr, Machen, Lopez, Eble, Paxton Q
and Wyatt. Nays: None. Abstain: None. Excused: Thomas. Absent: Barnhardt and Dailey.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA
No comments.
Page 2 of 6 12/17/2014
Packet Pg.582
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 14-19 - A City initiated request to
amend Development Chapter 19.62, Non-Conforming Uses and Structures, Sections
19.62.020 (7) and 19.62.030 (2), relating to termination of non-conforming status.
Address: City Wide
Zone: City Wide
Y
Environmental Determination: Exempt from CEQA— 15061 (b)(3)
Applicant: City of San Bernardino y
APN: City Wide N
Ward: City Wide a,
S
Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission o
recommend approval of Development Code Amendment 14-19 to the Mayor and o
Common Council, based upon the Findings of Fact contained in the staff report. �?
c
0
Aron Liang, Senior Planner gave a brief presentation of the project.
Z
rn
Commissioner Lopez asked for clarification on the term `legal non-confirming' status. r
a
Aron Liang, Senior Planner deferred to Henry Empeno for an explanation.
0
Henry Empeno, Jr., Senior Deputy City Attorney explained that a `legal non-conforming' is a M
structure or use which conformed to applicable laws when constructed or established but does not
conform to the provisions of the Development Code. The problem lies with length of time the ti
structure is abandoned or empty, and the use discontinued for some time, that use or entitlement N
ends. N
as
Y
Commissioner Lopez asked about the attachment that was handed out at the start of the
meeting that states "...and shall be removed or altered to conform to the provisions of this t�
Development Code." She wanted clarification on who would be doing the removing or altering. N
Y
c
Mark Persico, Interim Community Development Director explained that it applies to a E
property owner that had left a building vacant for two years then had a new business owner
wanting to open there, they would have to meet the new requirements. The idea behind this, Q
is that you want business owners to get the economic use out of the property, but once that
property becomes vacant, or no longer has any economic value, the goal is to get those
structures removed and replaced with conforming uses.
ca
Y
Commissioner Lopez asked about where the burden would lie for compliance. a
Mark Persico, Interim Community Development Director stated that the burden falls onto
the property owner and not the city.
Henry Empeno, Jr., Senior Deputy City Attorney added that the city doesn't go looking for
Page 3 of 6 12/17/2014
non-conforming uses. They become noticed when new businesses come in for their Zone
Verifications and we become aware of the status of the building.
Commissioner Lopez asked about businesses that seem to be out of place for where they are
located. She used examples like a 99cent store that used to be bank.
Mark Persico, Interim Community Development Director explained that the
Development Code has a wide variety of permitted uses, so a bank being turned into a store
would fall under the permitted uses for that zone. 3
L
w
Commissioner Durr asked if this would include any Building Code updates.
U)
D
Mark Persico, Interim Community Development Director said yes it would. He also
explained that the time frame was initially done as an Economic Development initiative to E
extend the useful life of buildings. From that, there were some unintended consequences and w
we believe that the benefits don't out way the costs. c
U
Commissioner Durr asked about the surrounding cities and what their time frame on non- z
conforming was.
T
4
Mark Persico, Interim Community Development Director said that 6 to 12 months was Q
the industry standard. He stated that 36 months in an anomaly for our city and it's the longest o
time period he had ever seen for this.
Chair Heasley asked if there was a safety issue to look into with non-conforming uses with
them not being up to code. He noted that 12 months was an exceptionally long period of time
for non-conforming statuses.
N
T
Henry Empeiio, Jr., Senior Deputy City Attorney stated that it wasn't so much of a health and w
safety issue, or ADA issue, but more of a planning tool so that older buildings and structures can c'
change to be part of a new plan or new zone.
U
a
Commissioner Paxton made a motion to recommend the approval of Development Code
Amendment 14-19 to the Mayor and Common Council, based upon the Findings of Fact
contained in the staff report. E
�a
Commissioner Eble seconded the motion. Q
C
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Heasley, Durr, Machen, Lopez, Eble, Paxton c
and Wyatt. Nays: None. Abstain: None. Excused: Thomas. Absent: Barnhardt and Dailey.
w
a
4. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 14-20 — A City initiated request to
amend Titles 5, 12, and 19 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code to make minor changes
among Code sections, relating to permitting requirements for temporary use and special
event permits.
Page 4 of 6 12/17/2014
Packet Pg. 584
Ci Address: City Wide
Zone: City Wide
Environmental Determination: Exempt from CEQA
Applicant: City of San Bernardino
APN: City Wide
Ward: City Wide
r
Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that Development Code Amendment 14-
20 be continued to February 18, 2015. 3
L
Aron Liang, Senior Planner, gave a brief presentation of the project.
Commissioner Paxton stated that there needed to be clarification on who the lead agency
was on items like these. He also asked how we could get the public informed about this so E
they knew what to do moving forward with events. ,o
c
0
Aron Liang, Senior Planner referenced the Staff Report and how the responsibility would
fall onto the Community Development Department, and that they were working in a Z
collaborative effort to streamline the process. o�
V-
4
Commissioner Paxton stated that it was a great idea. q
U
Aron Liang, Senior Planner stated that after certain things had come up in the processes it
became apparent that the process needed to be updated.
M
Henry Empeno, Jr., Senior Deputy City Attorney said that events like a parade where it v7
needed to be planned out ahead of time is the goal for this process, but rallies and picketing
would be different due to 1St Amendment issues and how fast those come together. r
d
Commissioner Paxton asked about the fiscal impacts of this process on the hosts if they
request police presence, like the Route 66 event every year. The city can no longer afford to
have police out at the event, so would the event host be willing to pick up the costs of that. a
N
Aron Liang, Senior Planner explained that there would still be fees that would fall onto the a
applicant for event, like emergency or security staff.
U
r
Chair Heasley asked about alcohol consumption in parks. Q
c
Mark Persico, Interim Community Development Director said that they would revisit all E
the concerns when the item was brought back to the Planning Commission.
w
Q
Commissioner Lopez made a motion to continue Development Code Amendment 14-20 to
February 18, 2015.
Commissioner Durr seconded the motion.
Page 5 of 6 12/17/2014
Packet Pg. 585
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Heasley, Durr, Machen, Lopez, Eble, Paxton
and Wyatt. Nays: None. Abstain: None. Excused: Thomas. Absent: Barnhardt and Dailey.
NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
None
a�
L
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS
L
Y
Commissioner Eble announced the Ho Ho Parade.
N
Commissioner Lopez requested to have a Year End Review of projects that had been approved
throughout the year. a,
c
E
L
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
0
U
None. _
0
ADJOURNMENT ?
Commissioner Paxton made a motion which was unanimously carried, to adjourn the Planning Q
Commission meeting at 6:46 p.m. The next regular meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, v
January 7, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, First Floor, 300 North "D" Street, San °.
Bernardino, California.
M
ti
Minutes Adopted by Planning Commissioners: N
N
Date Approved:
Minutes Prepared by: Stephanie Sanchez
U
a.
N
w
C
d
E
Stephanie Sanchez
Executive Assistant Q
c
as
E
c�
a
Page 6 of 6 12/17/2014
Packet Pg. 586
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the Mayor and Common council of the City of San Bernardino will hold a public hearing on
Tuesday,January 20,2015,at 4:00 p.m.or thereafter in the Council Chambers,City Hall,300 North"D"Street,San
Bernardino,California 92418,on the following item:
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT14-19—A proposal to amend Development Code Chapter 19.62,Non-
conforming Uses and Structures,Sections 19.62.020(7)and 19.62.030(2)relating to Loss ofNon-Conforming Uses and
Structures.
Proposed by: City of San Bernardino
Environmental Recommendation: Exempt from CEQA—Section 15061(b)(3) L
The City of San Bernardino welcomes your participation in evaluating this item.The Mayor and Common Council will 3
review the proposal and will consider the proposed environmental determination in making a decision. The public is N
welcome to speak at the public hearing or to submit written comments prior to the hearing.For more information,please 0
contact the Community Development Department at City Hall,or by phone at(909)384-5057.
0)
If you challenge the resultant action of the Mayor and Common Council in court,you may be limited to raising only those r-
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to E
°
the City Planning Division at,or prior to,the public hearing. �
0
U
c
Submitted: January 5,2015 Z
Publish: January 8,2015(minimum 1/8 Page Ad)
r
4
Please send first proof for verification or changes by e-mail to Stephanie Sanchez: Sanchez stephanie(a),sbcity.org. B
Please reference"PC Display Ad"on the billing and send to the City of San Bernardino,Planning Division,300 North V
"D"Street, San Bernardino,CA 92418
cfl
M
Q
U
D
a
c�
CL
N
O
M
C
E
V
t6
r
a
r
E
a
Packet Pg. 587