Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-27-1991 Minutes City of San Bernardino, California March 27, 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 their Adjourned Regular Meeting held at 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, March 21, 1991, in the Council Chambers, 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 March 21, 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 1:15 p.m., Wednesday, March 21, 1991, on the door of the place at which said meeting was held. The Adjourned Regular Meeting of Council of the City of San Bernardino Mayor Holcomb at 2: 01 p. m., Wednesday, Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 Bernardino, California. the Mayor and Common was called to order by March 27, 1991, in the North "D" Street, San ROLL CALL Roll call was taken by City Clerk Krasney with the following being present: Mayor HOlcomb: Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Minor, Pope-Ludlam: Senior Assistant City Attorney Barlow, City Clerk Krasney. Absent: Council Member Miller, City Administrator Edwins. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT CODE - TITLE 19 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE CONTINUED FROM MARCH 21, 1991 (1) Mayor Holcomb stated that the Development Code should address the conflicting goals the City currently faces. He stated that items that have been overlooked, or are still of concern, should be discussed at this time. He explained that once adopted, any amendment to the Development Code would be expensive and time consuming. Mayor Holcomb stated that the City should do everything possible to provide quality affordable housing, and that the City currently has a shortage of housing. Mayor Holcomb explained that the Development Code must be flexible in order to attract development into the city by reducing the cost to build homes. If developers cannot reduce 1 3-27-91 the high cost of housing, many more people will be disenfranchised from home ownership. He recommended that changes be made to permit more flexibility. Mayor Holcomb explained that the Development Code as recommended by the Planning Commission is inflexible because the Planning Commission would retain the authority to make General Plan interpretations rather than the Director of the Planning and Building Services Department. He felt that the authority for General Plan interpretation should be vested with the Director of the Planning and Building Services Department to allow more flexibility. Mayor Holcomb stated that Single Room Occupancy (SRO) is a new concept many cities are successfully utilizing to provide quality low cost housing for homeless individuals. Larry Reed, Director of the Planning and Building Services Department, presented a synopsis of previous Development Code action. He explained that the Development Code combines zoning, subdivisions, flood plain, hillside management and design guidelines in one integrated rule book. This integrated structure will be superior to the current structure of ordinances by placing all of these documents in one fully illustrated format. The new Development Code will provide the City with a clear, concise course for guiding quality development into the next century. Mr. Reed stated that in January, 1989, the City sent out Request for Proposals for consultants to work on the Development Code. In April, 1989, the City hired Jacobsen & Wack, who commenced work on the Development Code in June, 1989. An administrative draft was completed in October, 1989. A Technical Advisory Committee was created consisting of department heads and their designees. A preliminary draft was completed in June, 1990, which went to joint workshops with the Planning Commission, the Council, the Technical Advisory Committee, Development Advisory Committee, Citizens Advisory Committee, the City's Environmental Review Committee and Development Review Committee. A public hearing draft was completed in June, 1990 which was submitted to the Planning Commission. The Council then made a page by page review of the Development Code. Larry requirement requirement Reed answered questions, and to landscape parking lots is for setback landscaping. explained that in addition to the the Mayor Holcomb recommended that this requirement be reviewed, and requested that staff return with a more definitive 2 3-27-91 plan to allow flexibility by permitting the developer an option to pay an in lieu fee into a fund that can be used to landscape areas throughout the city. In some cases, there may not be enough room to meet the parking lot and set back landscaping requirements. Mayor Holcomb recommended a review of the hillside development portion of the Development Code. He explained that the City of Riverside allows a higher density of lots where the slope will permit, and certain additional amenities are added. The Development Code does not have the flexibility of Riverside's code. Mayor Holcomb introduced Ms. Judith Lenthall from HomeAid, 1330 South Valley Vista, Diamond Bar, California. Ms. Lenthall previously worked for the City of San Diego in developing an SRO ordinance, and is now working for the Building Industry Association (BIA). She is under contract to the City as a consultant on housing issues. Ms. Lenthall stated that she had reviewed the proposed SRO standards and offered her support and admiration to the Departments of Planning and Building Services, Fire and Police for their work. She stated that the standards are detailed, contain superior enforcement language, and an excellent management control program. She explained that SRO programs are important to low income people as a partial solution to homelessness. John Montgomery, Principal Planner, Planning and Building Services Department, stated that a policy decision needs to be made regarding land use zones in which SRO's will be permitted, since the SRO concept is new. Mr. Montgomery explained that staff had proposed allowing SRO's in four land use zones: RM, RMH, RH and CR-2. The basis for these four land use zones was a policy in the General Plan which states that shelters for the homeless, based on a conditional use permit, should be allowed in all multi-family zones designated RM or greater, downtown and areas designated CR-2. Staff allowed that SRO facilities would be homeless shelters. Mr. Montgomery explained that most other communities allowed SRO' s where rooming/boarding facilities and hotel/motels are permitted. Mr. Montgomery suggested that the recommendation to allow SRO's in four land use zones be amended to delete residential land use zones RM, RMH, and RH, and to include land use zones CG- 2 and CR-2, or other commercial districts. John Montgomery answered questions and explained that the requirement to prohibit SRO's within 250 feet of a school, adult 3 3-27-91 bookstore, bar or liquor store was an arbitrary number and could be established at any distance. The Council suggested that within 250 feet of a school, store, be established at 1,000 areas in the Development Code. the requirement prohibiting SRO's adul t bookstore, bar or liquor feet to be compatible with other Sinole Room Occupancy (SRO) Standards Facilities. IV. Specific IV-8. and whether adequate. A discussion was held relative to minimum amenities, or not a fan in lieu of air conditioning would be Mr. Montgomery explained that this would be a cost consideration and felt that it would be adequate. COUNCIL MEMBER MILLER ARRIVED At 2:32 p.m., Council Member Miller arrived at the Council meeting and took her place at the council table. IV-9. minimum unit been doubled Discussion ensued regarding maximum occupancy size, and why the standard for two residents had to 300 square feet. and not John Montgomery explained that the second tenant would use the same facilities provided in the original 150 square foot area for the first tenant. The additional square footage accommodates the need for a second bed and closet. IV-12. facilities, private. A and discussion whether the was held regarding bathroom standard showers are unisex and Mr. Montgomery explained that the individual shower stalls and/or dressing rooms would be located off the communal hallway, and a resident could enter one of these units, close and lock the door for privacy. IV-17. Discussion ensued regarding a manager's residential dwelling unit, and what is considered a complete unit. John Montgomery stated that the minimum apartment standards would include complete cooking and sanitary facilities, and adequate parking in the same manner as other apartments. IV-20. A discussion was held regarding fire sprinkler systems, and whether smoke detectors are required. 4 3-27-91 Mr. Montgomery explained that smoke detectors are required as part of the Uniform Building Code. IV-23. Discussion ensued relating to lighting, and what one footcandle of lighting on the floor surface requires. John Montgomery explained that a light fixture on the wall of the hallway when measured with a light meter from the floor surface, must provide adequate lighting to measure one footcandle of lighting. IV-25 C and F. A discussion was held regarding two components of a management plan which appear to be incompatible: (C) which refers to fair and legal eviction procedures: and (F) which refers to immediate termination of tenancy by the manager. Judy Lenthall explained that both provisions apply to SRO's. During the first 30 days of residency, an SRO operates under the hotel/innkeeper law which states that for the first 30 days, the manager can evict a resident, just as other hotel/motels can for non payment or other reason. After 30 days of residency, the landlord/tenant law becomes effective and eviction procedures can be utilized. Mr. Montgomery explained that when a resident is evicted or asked to leave within the first 30 days, and subsequently arrested, he/she is not be permitted to return as a resident of the SRO. A discussion was held regarding security measures and the need for a security guard. Concern was expressed that a clause may be needed to allow review by the Chief of Police. If warranted by an abundance of police response to the SRO, the Chief could request that the Council mandate a security guard for projects with 75 units or less. John Montgomery explained that Judy Lenthall disagreed with the security guard requirements for any projects, but that the item had been included in response to a request from the Police Department. Ms. Lenthall explained that a licensed, P.O.S.T. certified 24 hour security guard had never been required by an SRO in San Diego. She explained that a security guard had been provided when warranted. She felt a guard was not necessary because of the extra expense and that everyone entering the facility would be required to register with a desk clerk. The Council felt that the provision for a security guard should remain in the standards. If necessary, a method for waiving the requirement could be added. 5 3-27-91 John Montgomery stated that the policy defining land use zones in which SROs will be permitted has not been decided, and a consensus should be reached. Staff is recommending that SROs be permitted in CG-2 and CR-2 land use zones. Additionally, Mr. Montgomery stated that CG-1 might be a potential future zone for SROs, but only certain portions of that zoning appears acceptable to this type of facility. The Council felt that the land use zone designation was a sensitive issue as the City is making efforts to clean up blight and enhance the image of the City. The following issues were recommended for discussion: how many SROs would be allowed in the City: how many rooms would be allowed in each SRO: and what percentage of housing units should be SROs. The Council expressed concern that SROs are being viewed as a panacea to the homelessness problem. However, there is a potential for negative impact on the areas in which SROs are going to be located. It was noted that San Bernardino is different from the highly urbanized downtown San Diego area. Ms. Lenthall agreed that SROs are not a panacea to homelessness, but should be used as another means to help homeless people leave the street. The ideal location for SROs is in the downtown area, commercial areas where hotel/motel uses are permitted, and adjacent to employment centers where large numbers of low wage service worker employees are anticipated. She suggested an SRO be implemented for one year, in a commercial area, and be reviewed in a year, and at that time decide whether or not to expand more facilities in the city. Judy Lenthall concurred with the recommendation that SROs should be located in the CG-2 and CR-2 land use zones. Mayor Holcomb explained that the standards being discussed would not allow any developer to build an SRO without first receiving approval under a conditional use permit, which will be reviewed on a case by case basis to ensure that every safeguard is taken. Approval of a conditional use permit many include conditions imposed by the Mayor and Common Council such as a security guard. Concern was expressed that by clustering all SROs in the downtown area it would be in conflict with other objectives for the area. Additionally, there are other low income areas in the city outside of the downtown area that also have access to public services such as post offices, convenience stores, and public transportation. 6 3-27-91 Mayor Holcomb stated that SROs are being successfully utilized throughout the country. The new facilities that are being built are high quali ty, modern developments, that are indistinguishable from other neighborhood buildings due to architectural amenities on the outside, with no frills on the interior. Mayor Holcomb stated that the success of SROs lies with the screening of tenants by a committee made up of other residents. He stated that much like hotels and motels, an SRO has a 24-hour desk clerk with whom everyone signs in. There is also maid service providing light housekeeping for all rooms. If the housekeeping staff sees a problem, such as illegal activity, drugs or a potential health hazard, then management is alerted. Well developed and planned SROs provide adequate indoor recreational opportunities to residents. In many cases, the SRO would provide opportunities that are not otherwise available to low income people. Mayor Holcomb felt that many low income people would welcome the opportunity to live near their place of employment. He recommended that the project be located in the downtown area. If successful, other SROs could be located in areas of the City where appropriate. Discussion ensued regarding whether SROs would type of housing to have in the downtown area as condominiums for middle income residents. be the best opposed to Mayor Holcomb agreed with the concept of building middle income condominium projects in the downtown area but felt that they could not be built with a rent under $900 a month unless the project was subsidized. The rent for an SRO could be around $300 a month in some cases, which would meet the needs of the lower income residents. A discussion was held regarding improving the image of the downtown area. It was recommended that the City consider a comprehensive plan and perform a feasibility study, rather than just taking individual actions without specific goals. Mayor Holcomb felt that the majority of SRO residents are unfortunate victims of circumstance, and are low income people who are entitled to a decent home. The downtown area in San Bernardino has two major supermarkets, theaters, city hall, bus transportation, library, and parks within walking distance. Discussion ensued regarding the maximum number of units that would be permitted in a project. If an SRO were seeking the minimum wage employee, the project would have to be managed and selective to ensure that these workers would want to live there. Ms. Lenthall answered questions and stated that the majority of Section Eight welfare vouchers can be redeemed anywhere for 7 3-27-91 housing and are worth a lot of money on the open market. Section Eight fair market rent vouchers normally exceed what the SRO rent would be. Therefore, the individual does not normally go to an SRO which would have a smaller room when he/she can purchase more space in a studio apartment. Judy Lenthall explained that SROs are most cost effective when the number of units in a project is between 150 and 200. When the number of units exceeds 200, a project looses a certain amount of management control. It would be appropriate to cap the number of units in a project. A discussion was held regarding the Sunset Hotel which has approximately 50 units, and has extremely successful management. Mayor Holcomb explained that for many years the successful SRO in the downtown area, the old YMCA, Fifth and "F" Streets. City had a located at Discussion ensued subsidized. It was felt 20% set aside funds. regarding whether SROs would be that they may require funding from the A discussion was held relative to the most cost effect"ive way of providing SRO housing, whether to buy land and develop, or rehabilitate existing hotel/motels. Mayor Holcomb concurred that SROs would not be a panacea to San Bernardino's housing needs, but would be one more way to solve the homelessness problem. He reaffirmed that a decision was not being made today on a specific project, or how it would be funded, but simply to establish a process to be used to bring in cost effective proposals. The Council expressed concern that the SRO concept would not be welcomed in residential neighborhoods. Concern was expressed that the concept was still too vague, since it is not known who will be residing in the SRO, whether or not the project will be subsidized, and whether or not the community will oppose this concept. Mayor Holcomb stated that the only way to know community will welcome SROs is to have a public hearing land use zone has been selected, and after a specific plan has gone through design and environmental review. if the after a project Mayor Holcomb explained that the SRO concept was originally put forward by the Homeless Task Force. With the input from the Building Industry Association and Judy Lenthall, the concept was 8 3-27-91 established that the best way to prevent homelessness was to provide affordable living quarters for low income residents. The Task Force felt the best way to provide affordable living quarters was through SRO' s . Mayor Holcomb stated that the recommended motion today does not approve a specific project, but establishes a procedure for interested developers to develop specific plans. Discussion ensued regarding whether SROs would be required to be new construction. Ms. Lenthall perfect condition, facility. explained that unless a structure was in it would be more cost effective to build a new A discussion was held relative to requ1r1ng new construction and whether it would present legal problems. Dennis Barlow, Senior Assistant City Attorney, stated that as long as a structure met the minimum standards one could not, and should not, discriminate against new or rehabilitated buildings. A developer may find it is cost prohibitive to rehabilitate a structure. Larry Reed, Director of Planning and Building Department, stated that the City currently has motels as SROs by default without benefit of regulation. Services operating Mayor Holcomb explained that the motels operating by default as SROs are the ones that are currently presenting the city with problems such as blight and crime. The key to the success of an SRO is management, so that no one enters the facility without registering at the desk, and periodic checks of the rooms through housekeeping services. Mayor Holcomb opened the public hearing regarding Single Room Occupancy Standards (SRO). Dennis Barlow, Senior Assistant City Attorney, stated that this was not a public hearing, but that public testimony would be taken just as the Council would on any other ordinance. John Lightburn, P. O. Box 1622, San Bernardino, California, a resident of the City for over thirty years, and a resident of the downtown area for approximately ten years, explained that state law requires every jurisdiction to provide housing for every income segment in the community. Residents need access to decent adequate standardized housing. However, many people utilize motels in the downtown area for permanent living 9 3-27-91 quarters. These people frequently are not able to meet the rent for these motel rooms, which many times are substandard and subject to blight abatement and code enforcement actions. He stated that middle income condominium projects in the downtown area face problems with maintaining property values because they are frequently surrounded by blighted property or structures. Mr. Lightburn stated that as the standards are currently written, a builder could not develop a project with affordable rents. Judy Lenthall expressed confidence that developers could build affordable SROs according to the proposed standards. She stated that the proposed standards do not include rent regulation, therefore the rent would be charged according to what the market will bear, as a free market system. Mr. Lightburn stated that he felt that the SROs would require subsidies to be built or the rent would not be affordable to the people who need them the most. He expressed concerns relating to whether the standards should be specific in terms of availability of a bus service. Mayor Holcomb agreed that the standards should not identify a specific bus schedule. A discussion was held regarding the possibility of having two models, one that is built from the ground up and one that had been rehabilitated. Specifics, such as the location of the facility, what the rent would be, whether it would be subsidized, and other issues need to be discussed before a decision to approve the concept can be made. Mayor Holcomb stated that the purpose of today' s meeting was not to approve a specific project, but to find out if this type of facility is wanted, and to approve the concept. Mr. Lightburn expressed concern about requirements and whether they were necessary. the security Mayor Holcomb recommended that Mr. Lightburn list all of his concerns in writing and submit them to the Council by the following Monday so that staff can review and respond to them. John Lightburn stated that the objectives of the standards were good, but that he felt that many issues had not been adequately debated and that the proposed standards would make the housing too expensive for the people who need it the most. Mayor Holcomb stated that he appreciated Mr. Lightburn' s comments but did not agree with his conclusions. He reaffirmed that SROs are successfully operating in other cities, and with the experience of Ms. Lenthall, San Bernardino should be able to develop a very successful ordinance. 10 3-27-91 Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Pope-Ludlam, and unanimously carried, that the item relative to Single Room Occupancy (SRO) standards be continued to the meeting of April 1, 1991 at 2:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. CLOSED SESSION The Mayor and Common Council did not session during this Meeting. (2) adjourn to closed ADJOURNMENT (3) At 3:30 p.m., Mayor Holcomb adjourned the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Common Council, to Monday, April 1, 1991, at 8:30 a.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. RACHEL KRASNEY City Clerk By ~/~ .~ Melanie Vale Deputy City Clerk No. of Items: 3 No. of Hours: 1.5 11 3-27-91