HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-06-1989 Minutes
.
.
.
.
City of San Bernardino, California
May 6, 1989
This is the time and place
Meeting of the Mayor and Common
Bernardino at the Adjourned Regular
May 3, 1989, in the Council Chambers
Street, San Bernardino, California.
set for an Adjourned Regular
Council of the City of San
Meeting held at 9:07 a.m.,
of City Hall, 300 North "0"
The City Clerk has caused to be posted the Notice of
Adjournment of said meeting held on Wednesday, May 3, 1989, at
9:07 a.m., and has on file in the Office of the City Clerk an
affidavit of said posting together with a copy of said Notice
which was posted at 4:15 p.m., on Wednesday, May 3, 1989, in the
Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San
Bernardino, California.
The Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Common Council
of the City of San Bernardino was called to order by Mayor Pro
Tempore Estrada at 9:02 a.m., in the Council Chambers of City
Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino, California.
INVOCATION
The Invocation was given by Phil Arvizo, Executive Assistant
to the Counc i 1.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council Member Maudsley.
ROLL CALL
Roll Call was taken with the following being present: Mayor
Pro Tempore Estrada; Council Members Estrada, Maudsley, Minor,
Pope-Ludlam, Miller; Deputy City Attorney Empeno, Deputy City
Clerk Reese, Acting City Administrator Robbins. Absent: Mayor
Wilcox; Council Members Reilly, Flores.
GENERAL PLAN ADOPTION
Infrastructure and Community Services
Planning Director Kilger introduced Chapter 2, Infrastructure
and Community Services, which includes four subchapters:
Circulation and Traffic; Utilities; Public Facilities and
Services, which encompasses POlice, Fire, Education and Civic
Institutions, and Parks and Recreation. (1)
Circulation Element.
Woodie Tescher, Consultant from Envicom Corporation,
explained that the Circulation Element is one of the seven
elements that are required by State law to be incorporated within
the General Plan. This is an element which is highly
interrelated with the other elements of the General Plan such as
the Land Use Map, the Noise Element and Air Quality Element.
- 1 -
5/6/89
.
.
.
.
Michael Meyer from DKS Associates identified the following
issues regarding circulation:
1. A system of roadways must be
adequate capacity to accommodate traffic
in the City at an acceptable level.
implemented to provide
generated by land uses
2. The impact of traffic on adjacent land uses should be
minimized.
3. The impact of truck traffic should be minimized,
particularly in residential areas.
4. Alternate modes of transportation should be
reduce automobile traffic and provide options for
and recreational travel by alternate modes.
encouraged to
both commute
5. The impact of transmission lines and pipelines on
adjacent land uses should be minimized.
6.
should
impact
Railroad services for the movement of people and goods
be available to the citizens of San Bernardino, but the
on adjacent land uses should be minimized.
7. The citizens of San Bernardino need to have access to air
transportation services, but the impacts of air service on the
City should be minimized.
8. An adequate supply of parking is necessary to accommodate
the demands of developments in the City.
9. The availability of parking in some areas is limited.
Mr. Meyer explained that one of the key elements of the
Circulation Element was the preparation of a Travel Demand
Forecasting Model which was used to forecast future volumes at
buildout of the City. The starting point of that model was
developed by Cal Trans and SCAG for the Route 30 Study.
Mr. Meyer showed slides to illustrate various issues
contained in the Circulation Element, such as the designation of
different types and locations of roadways within the City and the
hierarchy of classification, which includes freeways, major
arterials, secondary arterials, collector streets, and
residential streets.
Mr. Meyer stated there had been a great deal of discussion
with the Planning Commission and the CAC regarding the extension
of Pepper-Linden. He stated it had been included in the model
and tested the Land Use Element against it and did not attract a
significant volume of traffic. Therefore, it was determined that
there was not a demand for that facility, and that Northpark and
- 2 -
5/6/89
.
-----.....,,,."-.....;':.'1"'"..,;-
.
other streets, such
movement of traffic in
portion of the City.
as 40th Street; could accommodate that
an east-west direction in the northern
Another facility that was discussed was the Harrison Canyon
Freeway north of Route 30 that had previously been shown on the
Circulation Element. After an evaluation of the travel demand in
this north-south corridor, it was determined that a freeway was
not warranted. The Waterman Avenue corridor and Highway 18 going
up the hill could accommodate the volume that has been projected
through the year 2010, which is approximately 38,000. The volume
is less as traffic proceeds up the hill. It is not proposed to
include it in the General Plan Circulation Plan at this time.
Mr. Meyer explained that they had looked for an alternate
north-south facility in the southern portion of the City. The
Circulation Element and Land Use Elements do include suggested
policies that a Norton Air Force Base Specific Plan be developed
if and when there is change of use. It was also suggested that
access studies be done regarding the possibility of additional
north-south access roads in order to relieve some of the
projected capacity deficiencies in the north-south travel in the
south portion of the City.
.
Mr. Meyer stated that the Circulation Element includes 30
implementation programs. They range from the preparation of the
Five-Year Capital Improvement Program to new policies such as
developing traffic impact analysis standards and required traffic
impact studies of individual developments as they come through
the development review process. Also covered are other
facilities such as pedestrian, equestrian and recreational
trails.
Sr. Planner Bautista reviewed the Planning Commissioner's
recommendations on Chapter 2, Subchapter 6, Circulation Element,
as contained in the strike out, underlined version, beginning on
page 323. The goal of this Element is to achieve an integrated,
balanced, safe and efficient transportation system that
accommodates the demand for movement of people, goods, and
services throughout the City generated by the Land Use Element.
Planning Director Kilger explained that due to the concerns
raised by the Council at the April 1, 1989, meeting as to the
deletions that had occurred on the proposed Circulation Plan,
especially the Pepper-Linden crossing extension and the proposed
Harrison Freeway north of the Cross Town Freeway, those items
were presented to the Planning Commission at their hearing on the
Circulation Element for their consideration. Also discussed was
the issue of the Harrison Freeway south of the Freeway.
.
Mr. Bautista stated
Commission had made and
regarding the Circulation
that on
adopted
Plan:
April
the
8, 1989, the
following three
Planning
motions
- 3 -
5/6/89
..
.
Motion #20: Commissioner Lopez made a motion to not add the
Pepper-Linden Extension from Cal State Campus to Waterman Avenue
to the General Plan Circulation Element.
Motion #21. Commissioner Brown moved that the General Plan
Circulation Element should not include an extension of the
Harrison Freeway north of the State Route 30 on the Circulation
Element.
Motion #22. Commissioner Brown moved that
Plan for the Norton Air Force Base area
additional north-south access between 1-10 and
specific route should not be included in
Circulation Element at this time.
a future Specific
should establish
State Route 30. A
the General Plan
Mr. Bautista stated that the Planning Department had
received a letter from the local office of Cal Trans, dated May
3, 1989, commenting on both the General Plan and the Draft
Environmental Impact Report. One of the items in that letter was
as follows: "The adopted routing for Route 18 between Route 30
and Waterman Canyon Road shall be reflected in the General Plan
as per Division 1, Chapter 1, Article 2, of the Streets and
Highways Code of the California Transportation Commission".
.
Mr. Bautista explained that the Planning Department had
responded to that item in a memorandum dated May 5, 1989,
addressed to the Mayor and Common Council. The response was as
follows:
"Staff has researched this matter and found that Section 75.9
of the Code Division, Chapter and Article cited does require the
so-called Harrison Freeway to be addressed in the Circulation
Element. Staff proposed three (3) options:
1) Show SR 18 north of SR 30 to Waterman Canyon as a dashed
line on the Circulation Plan, but take the opportunity to direct
staff to proceed under Section 72 "Abandonment of Highways" of
Division 1, Chapter 1, Article 2 of the Streets and Highways Code
to delete the route as a State Highway.
2) Show RS 18 north of SR 30 to Waterman Canyon as a dashed
line on the Circulation Plan, but state in the text that the City
has no means or anticipation of funding, but would not oppose
state acquisition, funding and construction. It has been
determined that buildout under the Land Use Element is not
contingent upon construction of that facility.
3) Show SR 18 north of SR 30 to Waterman Canyon as a dashed
line and add text or policy to study the availability of funding
sources to proceed with eventual development."
.
Planning Director Kilger explained that the portion of
Harrison Canyon Freeway south of the Crosstown Freeway
formally deleted in the mid 70's with noticed hearing
the
was
and
- 4 -
5/6/89
.
.
comments from the City; so that it no longer exists within the
State Transportation Plan. Therefore, there is no responsibility
to reflect it in the Circulation Element.
Deputy City Attorney Empeno stated that the City Attorney's
Office had just received this morning copies of the memorandum
from the Department of Transportation dated May 3, 1989, and the
memorandum from the Planning Department dated May 5, 1989. He
recommended that some corrections be made to the responses from
the Planning Department.
Regarding Option #1, he stated that Section 72 of the
Streets and Highways Code was repealed by the statutes in 1980,
so that reference should be deleted from the memorandum, and in
its place should be direction to staff to proceed under the State
Highway Code to petition the State Highway Commission to delete
the Route as a State Highway. There are ways within State law to
petition the State Highway Commission to delete that Route
without referencing any particular code section.
Mr. Empeno stated that the decision to place the Harrison
Freeway in whatever fashion the Council wishes on the General
Plan is a policy decision of the Council and advised that
whatever decision is made, there should be substantial evidence
on the record justifying that decision.
.
Gene Klatt, Assistant City Engineer, referred to Page 339,
Implementation Section 16.26, which specifies that the City
Traffic Engineer shall conduct a review of the parking
requirements in at least 20 other California cities comparable to
San Bernardino to determine the current standards of practice in
the State regarding parking requirements. He stated that this
requirement would cause problems. This provision also conflicts
with POlicy 16.30 regarding a Parking Demand Analysis. He
recommended that the reference to the 20 cities average be
deleted.
Planning Director Kilger suggested that this change could be
made by deleting the last two sentences in 16.26, starting with
the word "Otherwise".
Deputy City Attorney Empeno answered questions, stating that
the recommendation regarding this issue could be included in
a motion later in the meeting adopting all the changes being
recommended today.
Jim Lynas, 1160 E. Sonora Street, urged the Council to
permanently delete the Harrison Canyon Freeway north from any
planning involving this City. He stated that the existing sewer
system would not be able to handle additional subdivision
development, which would probably follow the building of the
freeway extension. He predicted if this freeway were built, the
.
- 5 -
5/6/89
.
.
City would be faced with lawsuits and sewer
recommended that if the City wants development in
should be done with businesses that bring jobs to
backups;
this area,
the City.
He
it
Courtney Buse, Member of the CAC, and City resident,
expressed concern regarding the widening of Waterman Avenue to
six lanes and Sierra Way to four lanes to absorb additional
traffic in lieu of the northern portion of the Harrison Canyon
Freeway. He felt that would increase localized traffic onto
Valencia Avenue and 40th Street. He felt there would be a
negative impact on the two schools and two churches on Waterman
Avenue. He recommended that the Council support the third
alternative developed by staff and set forth in the Planning
Department memorandum dated May 5, 1989.
Duane Sanders, 3927 San Gabriel, a licensed contractor, and
licensed real estate agent, spoke against the proposed Harrison
Canyon Freeway, northern portion. He stated that if it were
built, there would be a possibility of a sand and gravel
operation being constructed in the wash, which would be very
detrimental to the environment, and to the value of the property
in that area. He also felt that the proposed freeway is not
necessary to carry traffic to the mountains, as shown in traffic
circulation studies.
.
COUNCIL MEMBER MILLER EXCUSED
Council Member Miller left the Council Meeting.
Jim Smothers, 4994 Mariposa, a real estate appraiser, stated
that he felt the proposed Harrison Canyon Freeway, northern
portion, would be an eyesore. He explained that a quick study of
properties showed that properties near the freeway were about
10% lower in value than those away from the freeway. He also
stated that he felt high density, low cost housing might be built
in the area if the freeway is built, and that the City needs more
upscale housing rather than more apartments or cluster homes. The
noise level would also increase. He suggested that Mt. View
Avenue could be used for additional access.
Mr. Smothers presented a petition with 375 signatures against
the proposed Harrison Canyon Freeway, and asked that the matter
be continued for one week to allow time to bring in more
petitions.
Art Meyer, 4751 David Way, stated he felt that the
construction of the Harrison Canyon Freeway in the northern
portion of the City would be more costly in this location due to
the water flow. He also stated that the southern portion of the
freeway is more needed than that in the northern section of
town.
.
Janet Minkoff, 3916 San Gabriel Street, stated that the
effect of the proposed Harrison Canyon Freeway on the ecological
issue hasn't been addressed. She stated that open areas are
- 6 -
5/6/89
r
.
.
rapidly disappearing and there are few places left to walk or
jog. The wild life refuge is also being destroyed. The proposed
freeway would further impact these concerns.
Jan Anziano, 575 E. Ralston, stated she wanted to emphasize
previous testimony by other citizens regarding the proposed
freeway. She was also concerned regarding dust and dirt and the
problem of freeway rats.
Mrs. Wilson Baugh, 3385 Valencia, explained that when the
area which includes the wash was annexed into the City, the
residents were told that area would remain open space. Since
there is very little open space remaining in City areas, the
residents do not want any development that would reduce the
benefits of that open space.
Council Member
Member Maudsley
hearing be closed.
Minor made a
and unanimously
motion, seconded by
carried, that the
Council
public
.
Assistant City Engineer Klatt answered questions regarding
POlicy No. 6.4.4, page 328, mid-block crosswalks. He stated that
the policy so far has been to have no mid-block crosswalks
because of the hazard. However, at some point there could be a
situation where it wouldn't be construed as a hazard and could be
permissible. He stated there are several sections in the Vehicle
Code that cover the placement of crosswalks in a specific project
mid-block. The City Engineer's office is trying to avoid a hard
and fast policy that provides for no mid-block crosswalks under
any circumstances without any consideration.
Mr. Klatt suggested that the last part of that Policy could
be changed to read "where deemed necessary by the City Traffic
Engineer and approved by the Common Council", to allow more
control by the Council.
Questions were raised concerning the possible conflict in the
language in Policy No. 6.3.5, on page 327 and Implementation No.
16.17, beginning on page 336, which relates to the transportation
of hazardous materials.
Woodie Tescher, Consultant from Envicom Corporation, answered
questions, stating that when revisions were made to Policy 6.3.5
through the Planning Commission, the Implementation Program was
not revised accordingly. Those changes can be made to remove any
inconsistency.
A discussion ensued regarding the recommended changes on
Waterman Avenue to six lanes which might have some impact on the
schools and churches on that street, and whether or not that
recommendation was considered on the Environmental Impact Report.
.
Woodie Tescher, Consultant from Envicom Corporation, answered
questions, stating that the traffic consultant indicated that the
- 7 -
5/6/89
.
right~of~way on Waterman Avenue would not be changed from the
existing designation; but the widening to six lanes would require
the removal of parking during peak hours of traffic. If that
could be accomplished within the existing right-of-way, then no
additional property frontage would have to be removed by
acqui si tion.
Mr. Meyer, Traffic Consultant, answered questions, stating
that traffic on Waterman will definitely increase. The present
volume on a typical day is 19,000 vehicles. It is anticipated
that it will go to 38,000. If it is restriped to six lanes, it
could accommodate that volume, even though there will be
congestion. The figure of 38,000 will be reached by the year
2010, based on regional growth and complete buildout of land uses
within the City.
Planning Director
comply with State law
deletion which could
16.31.
Kilger explained the language needed to
regarding the Harrison Canyon Freeway
be added as Implementation Policy No.
Deputy City Attorney Empeno recommended that the record
reflect the intent of the Council on each of the changes that are
being proposed today.
.
All of the proposed changes were read and clarified and are
contained in the following motion.
Council Member Maudsley made a motion, seconded by Council
Member Minor and unanimously carried, to approve in concept
Chapter 2, Section 6, Circulation, as recommended by the Planning
Commission with the following enumerated changes, subject to the
Mayor and Common Council's final review of the Draft General Plan
and the Draft Environmental Impact Report:
6.3.5 - To read as follows: "Regulate the issuance of
permits to transport of hazardous materials through San
Bernardino and require that any such materials generated within
the City must be transported to the nearest freeway via the
shortest route using arterial streets, never local streets
(16.17) ."
6.4.4 - To read as follows: "Paint pedestrian crosswalks
only at signalized intersection locations or where deemed
necessary by the City Traffic Engineer and approved by the Mayor
and Common Council. (16.2, 16.18)"
.
16.11 - To read as follows: Hazardous Materials Ordinance
The City shall adopt an ordinance regulating the transportation
of hazardous materials within the City. This ordinance shall
define materials considered hazardous and/or toxic and designate
the specific roadways on which the transport of such materials is
permitted as well as those on which is it prohibited, either at
- 8 -
5/6/89
.
all times or during certain hours of the day. The hazardous
materials ordinance shall be consistent with the truck route plan
adopted by the City.
16.26 - Delete the last two sentences, leaving the paragraph
to read as follows: "The City shall review the parking
requirements included in the City's Development Code for all land
use categories, at least once every five years, to either confirm
that they adequately reflect current demands or adjust them to
reflect current demand. Empirical data shall be utilized where
available to determine current parking demands by land use type
in the City of San Bernardino."
16.31 The following Implementation program was added:
"That State Route 18, north of State Route 30 to Waterman Canyon,
be shown as a dashed line in the Circulation Plan and that staff
would be directed to petition the State to delete the route as a
state highway."
Mr. Jim Lynas, 1160 E. Sonora, requested that each speaker
that appeared today be notified by the Clerk by mail whenever any
consideration is made regarding the Harrison Canyon Freeway.
.
Deputy City Attorney Empeno explained the legal requirements
regarding hearings, and stated that if the City amends the
General Plan in the future, it would have to be publicly noticed
in the newspaper, and in certain situations, notices be mailed to
certain property owners.
Planning Director Kilger explained various procedures
regarding notification, and stated that if the General Plan is
amended, there would have to be public hearings which would be
publicly noticed.
Council Member Pope-Ludlam made a motion, seconded by Council
Member Minor and unanimously carried, to continue the remainder
of Chapter 2 to Monday, May 8, 1989, at 9:00 a.m., in the Council
Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino,
California.
ADJOURNMENT
At 10:45 a.m., Council Member Minor made
by Council Member Pope-Ludlam and unanimously
meeting be adjourned to 9:00 a.m., Monday, May
a.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300
San Bernardino, California.
a motion, seconded
carried, that the
8, 1989, at 9:00
North "0" Street,
IP~ ,,~
Deputy Ci y Clerk
.
No. of Items:
No. of Hours:
2
2 3/4
- 9 -
5/6/89