Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-01-1991 Minutes City of San Bernardino, California February 1, 1991 This is the time and place set for an Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at the meeting held at 9:00 a.m., on Thursday, January 31, 1991, in the Management Information Center (MIC), Sixth Floor, City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. The City Clerk has caused to be posted the Order of Adjournment of said meeting held on January 31, 1991, and has on file in the office of the City Clerk an affidavit of said posting together with a copy of said Order which was posted at 9:15 a.m., on Thursday, January 31, 1991, on the door of the place at which said meeting was held. The Adjourned Regular Meeting Council was called to order at 1: 10 1991, by Mayor Pro Tempore Reilly in Center (MIC), Sixth Floor, City Hall, Bernardino, California. of the Mayor p.m., Friday, the Management 300 North "D" and Common February 1, Information Street, San ROLL CALL Roll call was taken by Deputy City Clerk Reese with the following being present: Mayor Pro Tempore Reilly; Council Members Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Minor, Miller; Sr. Assistant City Attorney Barlow; Deputy City Clerk Reese. Absent: Mayor Holcomb; Council Members Estrada, Pope-Ludlam; City Administrator Edwins. FINAL DRAFT - DEVELOPMENT CODE - CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 28, 1991 Swap meets - definition and locations - paoes 1-23 and 11-74 It was pointed out that a swap meet business is being considered for the empty building located at the southwest corner of Del Rosa and Lynwood. Concern was expressed whether or not this location is appropriate for a swap meet. COUNCIL MEMBER ESTRADA ARRIVED At 1:12 p.m., Council Member Estrada arrived at the Council meeting and assumed the duties of Mayor Pro Tempore. John Montgomery, Principal Planner, Planning/Building Services Department, answered questions, stating that "swap meet" is not defined in Title 19 at the present time. The Planning Commission determined an interpretation of swap meet, as staff was operating under an in-house definition. 1 2/1/91 Mr. Montgomery explained that a swap meet is operating on Mt. Vernon which was approved by a Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.). Subsequently, another request was received for a swap meet at a Mill Street location, and was appealed to the Planning Commission and the Mayor and Common Council. Council amended staff's version of "swap meet" to not include indoor areas as a swap meet, so that project was approved with a building permit approval. A C.U.P. was not required. Since then, Planning staff has been following the policy set by Council and reviewing and approving those types of uses as retail. John Montgomery answered questions, stating that either new or used goods can be sold at a swap meet. The Development Code now has a definition that is based on the Council decision and deletes all references to indoor, but includes outdoor. He explained the definition on page 11-74, Table of Permitted Uses. He explained that swap meets are allowed in CG-4, CH, IL, and IH districts with conditional use permits. CITY ADMINISTRATOR EDWINS ARRIVED City Administrator Edwins arrived at the Council Meeting. Sandra Department, property at Paulsen, Senior Planner, Planning/Building Services answered questions regarding the possible use of Del Rosa and Lynwood for a swap meet. Mr. Montgomery explained that the property at Del Rosa and Lynwood has been vacant for more than six months. An existing ordinance requires approval of landscaping and a review of plans, which allows denial of projects if they are incompatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. The present zoning is CN Neighborhood Commercial. A discussion ensued regarding appropriate zoning for the Del Rosa and Lynwood property. It was pointed out that the zoning on Del Rosa Avenue is primarily residential and commercial. The zoning on Lynwood, west of the location, is primarily residential, with many condos and apartments. It was suggested that a General Plan Amendment changing the zoning could be prepared and presented to the Mayor and Council for their consideration. Dennis Barlow, Sr. Assistant City Attorney, questions regarding the definition of swap meets. answered A discussion ensued regarding the difference between swap meets and thrift shops. John Montgomery referred to the definition of swap meets on Page 1-14. He explained that there are a number of points to consider: multitude of vendors; a fee mayor may not be charged 2 2/1/91 for buyers, for admission, or for the privilege of displaying or selling merchandise. There is also the question of whether to include the word "indoor" in the definition and limit it to those four zones (CG-4, CH, IL and IH) with a C.U.P. A question was raised regarding whether or not department stores or supermarkets would fall under the definition of swap meets, since many of them have booths or businesses owned separately, such as pharmacies, or check cashing booths. John Montgomery stated that he was concerned that swap meets were not collecting sales tax, which in turn precludes the City from receiving its share of that income. A discussion ensued regarding the differences between a large market or store operation and a swap meet, such as the frequency of turn-over of the vendors and the permanence of the merchandise. Sr. regarding swap meet. Assistant City Attorney Barlow answered questions the differences between a large market operation and Definitions Chapter - paoe 1-24 - Swap Meet John Montgomery, Principal Planner, suggested the following as a new definition for swap meet: "The term 'Swap Meet' is interchangeable with and applicable to: flea markets, auctions, open air markets, farmers markets, or other similarly named or labeled activities." (This language would be added to the first sentence as clarification.) Sr. Assistant City Attorney Barlow suggested that staff be directed to take into consideration today's discussion on swap meets and prepare a new definition. It was the consensus of the Council that the Planning staff be directed to bring back a revised definition of swap meet and a possible General Plan Amendment. CHAPTER 19.17 - HILLSIDE MANAGEMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT Paoe 11-196 John Montgomery explained that provisions on page 11-196 reiterate policies that are in the General Plan. Mr. Montgomery gave the history of the General Plan requirement for a C. U. P. in the Hillside Management Area. He suggested removal of the C.U.P. requirement might be appropriate as it is not practical to require a C.U.P. when a tract map or parcel map is in place. Mr. Montgomery explained that a 3 2/1/91 tentative tract application goes before the Planning Commission, has a public hearing and all concerns of grading and density are reviewed. Also, he explained, conditions can be added to tentative tracts. If the General Plan were amended by removing the requirement for a C. U. P., the Development Code would be amended similarly. Sr. Assistant City Attorney Barlow stated that the Mayor had requested that all suggested changes in the Final Draft of the Development Code be presented to the Council at one time. A public hearing would be required. paoe 11-198 - Densitv John Montgomery explained that the density provisions come directly from the General Plan. John Montgomery answered questions regarding density transfers. He stated he would like to propose an amendment that would provide that, with a specific plan, there could be a proposal to allow density transfer, if approved, within the specific plan area. John Montgomery answered questions transfers and specific plans. regarding density Joe Bonadiman, 250 W. Lena Rd., San Bernardino, commented on density transfers and felt that the City would get a better response to development in the hillside areas if the average slopes were changed sightly. COUNCIL MEMBER FLORES EXCUSED At 2:00 p.m., Council Member Flores left the Council meeting. A discussion ensued regarding the concept that with a specific plan inside a specific plan area, densities can be transferred, if approved by Council. Mr. Montgomery explained that the issue of whether units are attached or detached is separate from density transfers. John Montgomery explained that the specific plan would have all the details of the specific proposal, whether the units were clustered, or attached, and the impact to the receiving area would be known. He stated that it is the department's position that density transfer cannot be made outside of the Hillside Management Area, because there is no understanding of the impacts relating to the receiving area, which could be anywhere within the City. It can occur only within a specific plan area with a specific project proposal. 4 2/1/91 COUNCIL MEMBER At 2:12 p.m., Council Meeting. POPE-LUDLAM ARRIVED Council Member Pope-Ludlam arrived at the John Montgomery answered questions regarding lateral density transfers and explained the guidelines. 5. Building Heiohts - Paoe 11-199 John Montgomery suggested the first sentence under 5. Building Heiohts be changed to read as follows: "Applicable only to infill single family residential construction of more than one story on existing lots of record, if there is a grade separation of more than 8 feet and less than 20 feet between the average ground level of the lot proposed for construction and the immediately uphill lot." Mr. Montgomery answered questions and explained what constitutes an infill lot. It was agreed that Mr. Montgomery's suggestion regarding building heights be incorporated into the Development Code. 6. Inoress and Eoress - Paoe 11-199 John Montgomery stressed the importance of the Ingress and Egress Section. He explained that the present policy, which is proposed for continuation, now requires two different standard routes for ingress and egress. Standard ingress/egress is a route which is dedicated to the City and has a minimum paved width of 24 feet. This policy is included in the Foothill Fire Zone Section, as well. Larry Reed, Director of Planning/Building Services, explained the purpose of the two means of ingress/egress. In case of fire or other emergency, if one road were blocked, another would be available for emergency vehicles and a route for residents to leave the area. Dan Dickerson, Fire Marshal, explained that during the Panorama Fire, as fire units were trying to go north in the City to fight the fire, residents were leaving the area, thus creating traffic congestion. He emphasized the need for the two means of ingress/egress in case of a wildfire or other emergency. Joe Bonadiman suggested that because of improved safety features in homes and development projects in the hillside areas, the danger of a wildfire has been decreased and suggested that each case be studied individually with some guidelines. He felt there should be some latitude in requiring a secondary access, as that might limit development. 5 2/1/91 --------------------..---.----.--.----....-..- Larry Reed set forth several questions to consider: (1) should the City allow tentative tracts, subdivisions, or other projects to be built with only one means of ingress and egress?; (2) if two different means of ingress and egress are required, do they both have to be built to City standards?, and (3) if there are two different means of ingress and egress, do they have to be separate routes? How much separation would be required? Charlyn M. Archuleta, Monnig Development, suggested having a review on smaller projects in terms of requiring two means of ingress/egress. John Montgomery pointed out that smaller developments are occurring in Verdemont, but felt the ingress/egress requirement is one of the few policies that force infrastructure to be built appropriately. Street standards - Paoe 11-200 - Sidewalks Joe Bonadiman questioned the sidewalk requirements as listed on Page 11-200. He felt the standards were an extra cost to development and detract from the esthetics of the property and landscaping. He also stated the sidewalks are not used if the slopes are steep. City Administrator Edwins suggested that a sidewalk could be required on just one side of the street. A discussion ensued regarding the requirement for sidewalks in the Hillside Management District. It was mentioned that senior citizens do use the sidewalks for walking. It was also suggested that to enhance the natural look, that a more narrow path be provided, rather than a full sized sidewalk. It was pointed out that when there are mail boxes, children on skateboards, and garbage cans are out, such a narrow pathway would not provide sufficient room for pedestrian access. John Montgomery explained that this issue has been debated extensively and the Planning Commission was adamant about requiring sidewalks. The minimum requirement is one sidewalk. Sr. Assistant City Attorney Barlow explained possible liability to the City if there were no sidewalks and a child gets hit by a car in the street. It was agreed to retain the minimum requirement of one sidewalk. CITY ATTORNEY PENMAN ARRIVED At 2:45 p.m., City Attorney Penman arrived at the Council Meeting. 6 2/1/91 John Montgomery explained the Street Standards which are contained in items A through H on page 11-200. It was suggested that in Item F, the last sentence, the figure "40 feet" be changed to "36 feet". Larry Reed, Director, that the Fire Department space. Planning/Building Services, recommended the larger turn stated around COUNCIL MEMBER POPE-LUDLAM EXCUSED At 2:45 p.m., Council Member Pope-Ludlam left the Council Meeting. Mr. Montgomery answered questions about the parking requirements in Item F. He stated he had met with the Fire Department and Engineering several times to work out specific standards, but would check with the Engineering Department again to determine an appropriate distance for the turn-around area of not less than 40 feet in radius to curb face, which is presently being recommended. COUNCIL MEMBER MILLER EXCUSED At 2:50 p.m., Council Member Miller left the Council Meeting. Development Performance Standards - Paoe 11-201 John Montgomery answered questions, stating that grading standards are flexible, as grading is an art and hard to regulate. He explained the two graphics on Page 11-202 which demonstrate unacceptable and preferred types of grading. A discussion ensued regarding grading requirements. Fire Safetv - Paoe 11-203 John Montgomery recommended that B. 3. be amended to read as follows: "No emergency facilities, community facilities, or places of general public assembly, (not including open space areas) shall be permitted within the Alquist-Priolo Zone." Fire Safetv - paoe 11-204 John Montgomery answered questions regarding brow ditches. A discussion ensued regarding proper irrigation methods to prevent erosion. It was suggested that "whenever possible" be deleted from the end of Paragraph 4. A. 7 2/1/91 John Montgomery explained that many mitigation measures have been taken to preserve the wildlife. A study was done to determine whether the habitat is significant or not and what projects can be affected. He stated that other agencies are involved, such as Fish and Game and Forest Service. He explained that if the words "whenever possible" are deleted, the developer would have to identify the biologically significant areas, and basically set them aside as open space. If the words remain, it indicates that there can be development over the riparian areas if there is mitigation by reestablishing the riparian habitats at a 2 to 1 ratio someplace else. A discussion ensued regarding preservation of the wildlands. Page 11-204, 4.A. was amended to read: "Areas of a site which are identified in the environmental study as having biological significance shall be presented, unless specifically exempted by the Council." Fire Safetv - Paoe 11-205 - 4. F. A discussion ensued regarding vegetation. fire resistant native Fire resistant purposes, purposes. great deal Chief Wright answered questions, stating that fire native vegetation is not just for fire prevention it also provides for slope maintenance for erosion He explained that if there are plants that require a of water, much of the slope will be lost. Sr. Assistant City Attorney Barlow emphasized that this section refers to native vegetation, rather than just fire resistant vegetation. If these plants are removed by grading, they would have to be saved and replanted. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF FINAL DRAFT - DEVELOPMENT CODE The Council agreed to continue further discussion on the Final Draft of the Development Code to 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, February 6, 1991, in the Management Information Center (MIC), Sixth Floor, City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. RECESS MEETING - CLOSED SESSION At 3:17 p.m., the Meeting recessed to closed session to confer with the attorney regarding pending litigation which has been initiated formally to which the City is a party pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) Stubblefield Construction Company. et al vs. City of San Bernardino. et al San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 242998; San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 252058. 8 2/1/91 CLOSED SESSION At 3:18 P.M., The closed session was called to order in the Mayor's Conference Room, Sixth Floor, City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. ROLL CALL Roll call was taken by Deputy City Clerk Reese with the following being present: Mayor Pro Tempore Estrada; Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Maudsley, Minor; City Attorney Penman, Deputy City Clerk Reese, City Administrator Edwins. Absent: Mayor Holcomb; Council Members Flores, Pope-Ludlam, Miller. Also present: Sr. Assistant City Attorney Barlow. ADJOURN CLOSED SESSION At 3:23 p.m., the closed session was adjourned. RECONVENE MEETING At 3:24 p.m., the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Common Council reconvened in the Management Information Center (MIC), Sixth Floor, City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. ROLL CALL Roll call was taken by Deputy City Clerk Reese with the following being present: Mayor Pro Tempore Estrada; Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Maudsley, Minor; City Attorney Penman, Deputy City Clerk Reese, City Administrator Edwins. Absent: Mayor Holcomb; Council Members Flores, pope-Ludlam, Miller. ADJOURN MEETING At 3:24 p.m., the meeting was adjourned. RACHEL KRASNEY City Clerk Deputy City Clerk r by No. of Items: No. of Hours: 3 2.25 9 2/1/91