Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.E- Community Development 5.E ORDINANCE (ID # 3646) DOC ID: 3646 C CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO — REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Public Hearing From: Mark Persico M/CC Meeting Date: 02/02/2015 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. (FINAL READING) (#3646) Current Business Registration Certificate: Not Applicable Financial Impact: There will be no direct impact to the General Fund. Motion: Adopt the Ordinance. 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 Updated: 1/26/2015 by Linda Sutherland C I Packet Pg. 92 5.E 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. V _ 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: Updated: 1/26/2015 by Linda Sutherland C Packet Pg. 93 5.E 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) Updated: 1/26/2015 by Linda Sutherland C Packet Pg. 94 5.E:a 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 recommending approval of Development Code Amendment 14-19 and recommended Cn 9 N approval of the proposed Development Code Amendment to the Mayor and Common 10 Council; and 11 E WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing for the Mayor and Common Council's 0 12 consideration of the proposed Ordinance was published in The Sun newspaper on January 8, v 0 2015. z° 13 14 NOW THEREFORE, THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE T 15 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: a U 16 17 SECTION 1. The Mayor and Common Council find that the above-stated Recitals M are true and hereby adopt and incorporate them herein. 18 19 SECTION 2. Findings of Fact. L 0 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- �a 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.95' S:E.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. d 8 SECTION 3. Development Code Amendment 14-19, attached hereto as Exhibit A L 9 and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby approved. N d N 10 SECTION 4. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. c 11 � 0 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 o 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. a U 16 ° 17 SECTION 5. Severability: If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, or M clause or phrase in this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be 18 unconstitutional, invalid or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision M 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 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 HI 26 /// 27 28 Packet Pg.96 5. :a 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 y L 8 Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT 9 MARQUEZ N BARRIOS 10 N VALDIVIA as c 11 SHORETT E 12 NICKEL c JOHNSON c 13 MULVIHILL z° 14 4 15 a 0 16 Georgeann Hanna, City Clerk 17 18 The foregoing Ordinance is hereby approved this day of c 2015. _ 19 0 20 Y 21 R. CAREY DAVIS, Mayor E 22 Approved as to form: City of San Bernardino r Gary D. Saenz, City Attorney a 23 24 25 By: 26 27 28 FPaacket7 Pg.97 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 discontinued when any of the following apply: A. Where characteristic furnishings and equipment associated with the use have in 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. E L B. Where there are no business receipts available for the 36 12 month period. _ 0 U 0 Z Section 19.62.030 (2): If a nonconforming use is discontinued for a period of--36-12 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 Q Development Code. o co M Q r S k W _ d E s v Q Packet Pg.98 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: L City of San Bernardino in Attn.: Mark Persico,AICP d 300 N."D" Street San Bernardino,CA 92418 S (909 387-5357 E Persico ma @sbcity.org 0 U REQUEST AND LOCATION: c z A City initiated request to amend Development Code to amend Development Code Chapter 19.62,Non-Conforming Uses and Structures, Sections 19.62.020 (7) and 19.62.030 (2), relating v to termination of non-conforming status. CONSTRAINTS/OVERLAYS: M Not applicable. a d L U a ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: ' T ® Exempt from CEQA—Section 15061(b)(3) E ❑ No Significant Effect ❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration with Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program a ❑ Environmental Impact Report d E STAFF RECOMMENDATION: w t.. a ❑ Approval ❑ Conditions ❑ Denial ❑ Continuance to: ® Recommend to Mayor and Common Council Packet Pg,99 FIEC DCA 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 rn applicable for non-conforming uses and structures City-wide. N Staff recommends that Development Code Sections 19.62.020 (7) and 19.62.030 (2) be modified o' E as follows: E 0 w Section 19.62.020(7)states: If the use of a nonconforming structure is discontinued for a period of 0 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 z0 legal nonconforming structure shall be considered discontinued when any of the following apply: o, r 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 3512 or more consecutive calendar months. v 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�12 or 0- more consecutive calendar months, it shall lose its legal nonconforming status,and the continued a use of the property shall be required to conform with the provisions of this Development Code. T Y BACKGROUND s May 21, 2012—the Mayor and Common Council adopted Ordinance No. MC-1373 to allow for r non-conforming uses and structures to retain their current status for 36 months rather than 12 a months. _ as 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 a 14-19. December 16, 2014 —the Legislative Review Committee (LRC) reviewed the request for DCA 14-19. Packet Pg.100 5Ee 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 3 status from 36 months to 12 months. The proposed clarification will not physically expand existing non-conforming uses and structures. There will be no adverse impact to the public 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. 0 FINDINGS OF FACT c 0 z 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan. v 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 Policy 2.10.1: "Adoption of ordinances and standards for implementing General Plan land use to designations,especially through the Development Code." tf 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 Y 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 w will have no adverse impact to the public health, or welfare as it will not create,promote a and or prolong any non-conforming uses and structures. The proposed amendment d anticipates that nonconforming uses and structures will be eliminated over time and E replaced with conforming uses and structures. Q 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. 101 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. L RECOMMENDATION U) 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 O 4- Respectfully Submitted, O U c O Z r Aron Liang Senior Planner to M Approved for Distribution: t_ O Q. m L V a. Mark Persico,AICP = Interim Director of Community Development E �a r Attachment A Proposed revisions to Sections 19.62.020(7)and 19.62.030 (2) a r c a� E cs c� r Q Packet Pg. 102 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 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 in 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 E been discontinued for a period of 36 12 or more consecutive calendar months. o U B. Where there are no business receipts available for the 3612 month period. z T Section 19.62.030 (2) states: If a nonconforming use is discontinued for a period of-3&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 4) U a c d E r Q G1 E t V RS w Q Packet Pg. 103 5.E.d Jac ��eERNARDr�o Larry Heasley,Chair Vice-Chair—LanceDurr p Andrew Machen CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO Amelia S.Lopez Jim Eble COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GNDFD 1N 9� 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 L PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 2014 N d MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19, 2014 a� E CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-10 E 0 4- DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 14-19 0 U DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 14-20 Z r 4 r Q U M r r N r to d w 3 C U a N C d E s c� Q r c d E is w Q Page 1 of 6 12/17/2014 Packet Pg. 104 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 Empeno, Jr., Senior Deputy City Attorney; Aron Liang, Senior L Planner; Travis Martin, Assistant Planner. U L ADMINISTRATION OF OATH N N d Senior Planner Aron Liang administered the oath. a� c CONSENT AGENDA: E L 4- Aron Liang, Senior Planner gave a brief presentation of the consent agenda. io 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 v wireless telecommunications facility consisting of a 60-foot tall, tower, camouflaged Q as a palm tree, and associated equipment located within an existing commercial o building. 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 a APN: 0153-293-22 c Ward: 7 U a Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Y Conditional Use Permit 13-10 based on the Findings of Fact contained in this Staff d Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval. s a Commissioner Eble made a motion to approve the consent agenda. m Commissioner Paxton seconded the motion. co 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. 105 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 Environmental Determination: Exempt from CEQA— 15061 (b)(3) Applicant: City of San Bernardino N APN: City Wide Ward: City Wide a, _ E Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ° 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. v 0 Z Aron Liang, Senior Planner gave a brief presentation of the project. as 4 Commissioner Lopez asked for clarification on the term `legal non-confirming' status. a U Aron Liang, Senior Planner deferred to Henry Empeno for an explanation. to Henry Em eio Jr. Senior Deputy City Attorney explained that a 'legal non-conforming' is a structure or use which conformed to applicable laws when constructed or established but does not T conform to the provisions of the Development Code. The problem lies with length of time the structure is abandoned or empty, and the use discontinued for some time, that use or entitlement cm ends. y d w 3 Commissioner Lopez asked about the attachment that was handed out at the start of the E meeting that states "...and shall be removed or altered to conform to the provisions of this a Development Code." She wanted clarification on who would be doing the removing or altering. N _ a> Mark Persico, Interim Community Development Director explained that it applies to a s 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, a 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 r Commissioner Lopez asked about where the burden would lie for compliance. Q 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 Packet Pg. 106 i 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 N 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. L Cn''w^+ Commissioner Durr asked if this would include any Building Code updates. d y 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 o we believe that the benefits don't out way the costs. io Commissioner Durr asked about the surrounding cities and what their time frame on non- Z conforming was. C� v Mark Persico, Interim Community Development Director said that 6 to 12 months was a 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. to v 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 7 ti for non-conforming statuses. r N T_ Cn Henry Empeiio, Jr., Senior Deputy City Attorney stated that it wasn't so much of a health and safety issue, or ADA issue, but more of a planning tool so that older buildings and structures can E 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 r Amendment 14-19 to the Mayor and Common Council, based upon the Findings of Fact contained in the staff report. r Commissioner Eble seconded the motion. a r c d The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Heasley, Durr, Machen, Lopez, Eble, Paxton Ec and Wyatt. Nays: None. Abstain: None. Excused: Thomas. Absent: Barnhardt and Dailey. r r 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;107 Address: City Wide Zone: City Wide Environmental Determination: Exempt from CEQA Applicant: City of San Bernardino APN: City Wide Ward: City Wide N Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that Development Code Amendment 14- Y 20 be continued to February 18, 2015. L r in Aron Liang, Senior Planner, gave a brief presentation of the project. N 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 L they knew what to do moving forward with events. 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. c, r v Commissioner Paxton stated that it was a great idea. v 0 Aron Liang, Senior Planner stated that after certain things had come up in the processes it to 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 7 needed to be planned out ahead of time is the goal for this process, but rallies and picketing would be different due to lst Amendment issues and how fast those come together. as Commissioner Paxton asked about the fiscal impacts of this process on the hosts if they c 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 Y Aron Liang, Senior Planner explained that there would still be fees that would fall onto the applicant for event, like emergency or security staff. m Chair Heasley asked about alcohol consumption in parks. a c a� Mark Persico, Interim Community Development Director said that they would revisit all = the concerns when the item was brought back to the Planning Commission. r a 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 Pa.108 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 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS inL i+ Commissioner Eble announced the Ho Ho Parade. Commissioner Lopez requested to have a Year End Review of projects that had been approved throughout the year. E DIRECTOR'S REPORT 0 U None. c Z ADJOURNMENT a� Commissioner Paxton made a motion which was unanimously carried, to adjourn the Planning a 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 d' T Minutes Adopted by Planning Commissioners: cm Date Approved: 3 Minutes Prepared by: Stephanie Sanchez S U a N _ E S Stephanie Sanchez Executive Assistant a d E co r Q Page 6 of 6 12/17/2014 Packet Pg. 109 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 AMENDMENTI4-19—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 of Non-Conforming Uses and Structures. Proposed by: City of San Bernardino Environmental Recommendation: Exempt from CEQA—Section 15061(b)(3) L .r The City of San Bernardino welcomes your participation in evaluating this item.The Mayor and Common Council will L 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 d contact the Community Development Department at City Hall,or by phone at(909)384-5057. If you challenge the resultant action of the Mayor and Common Council in court,you may be limited to raising only those 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. c O U c O Submitted: January 5,2015 Z Publish: January 8,2015(minimum 1/8 Page Ad) a, T 4 Please send first proof for verification or changes by e-mail to Stephanie Sanchez: Sanchez stephanie(asbcity.org. Q Please reference"PC Display Ad"on the billing and send to the City of San Bernardino,Planning Division,300 North 0 "D"Street,San Bernardino,CA 92418 cc ca M Q U O c� Q. _N M r C d E S V R Q C d s ca a Packet Pg. 110;