Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-18-1989 Minutes . . . City of San Bernardino, California May 18, 1989 This is the time and place set for reconvening Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Common Council of San Bernardino held at 1:20 p.m., Wednesday, May 17, Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Bernardino, California. an Adjourned the City of 1989, in the Street, San RECONVENE MEETING - MAY 18, 1989 At 1:25 p.m., May 18, 1989, the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Common Council reconvened in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. INVOCATION The Invocation was given by Phil Arvizo, Executive Assistant to the Council. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council Member Reilly. ROLL CALL Roll Call was taken by Deputy City Clerk Reese with the following being present: Mayor Wilcox; Council Members Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Minor, Pope-Ludlam, Miller; Deputy City Attorney Empeno, Deputy City Clerk Reese, Acting City Administrator Robbins. Absent: Council Member Estrada. VERMONT SCHOOL - WELCOME Mayor Wilcox welcomed students from Vermont School who were visiting the Council Meeting. COUNCIL MEMBER ESTRADA ARRIVED At 1:40 p.m., Council Member Estrada arrived at the Council Meeting and took her place at the Council Table. GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE REPORT - CONTINUED FROM MAY 15, 1989 This is the time and place continued to for discussion on the General Obligation Bond Blue Ribbon Committee Report. At the Meeting of May 15, 1989, a memorandum dated May 1, 1989, was presented by Edward Wheeler, Chairman of the General Obligation Bond Blue Ribbon Committee. The report contained the recommendations of the committee concerning the funding of capital improvements and provided a listing of proposed projects for inclusion in a General Obligation Bond Issue. The Committee recommended that the proposal be included on the November, 1989, election ballot. Mr. Wheeler was present and explained provisions of the report. - 1 - 5/18/89 . . . Mayor Wilcox stated that there was a possibility that a 7equest for a 1/2 cent sales tax increase and for a utility ~ncrease may be included on the November, 1989, ballot and suggested it might be wise to put the General Obligation Bond issue on the June ballot in 1990. She explained that to get the issue on the November ballot, it would have to have Council approval at the first meeting in July. Mr. Wheeler explained the Committee's recommendation was to get the Bond issue on the ballot as soon as possible, as well as informing the residents of the City of the need for a new police facility, improvements on the transportation system and the addition of park facilities. Fred Wilson, Assistant to the City Administrator, answered questions regarding the cost of the Bond to City residents. He stated that on a $32,000,000 bond issue, for a house with an assessed valuation of $100,000, the cost would be between $120 and $145 per year, depending on interest rates and other factors. A discussion ensued regarding a time frame for getting this bond issue on the November, 1989 ballot. Fred Wilson answered questions regarding various County entities that are involved in putting an item on the November ballot. The resolution should be submitted to the County Registrar of Voters by July 31, 1989. The Board of Supervisors has to approve the measure, probably in early August. Also, the bond counsel indicated it would take them approximately ten days to prepare the documents. A discussion ensued regarding the need to have all necessary information, such as costs, to the tax payers, before the bond issue goes on the ballot, and whether or not there was adequate time to do this. COUNCIL MEMBER POPE-LUDLAM EXCUSED Council Member pope-Ludlam left the Council Meeting. Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Miller and unanimously carried, that the matter of the General Obligation Bond be referred to the Ways and Means Committee at their first meeting in June so a report can be brought back to the Council. JUVENILE FIRESETTER INTERVENTION PROGRAM - BRENDA JO RICE - CONSIDERATION OF FINANCIAL STATUS - CONTINUED FROM MAY 17, 1989 This is the time and place continued to for consideration of the financial status of the Juvenile Firesetter intervention Program. - 2 - 5/18/89 . . . ~ At the meeting of May 15, 1989, Ken Henderson, Director of Community Development, presented a memorandum dated May 9, 1989, which provided background information regarding the Juvenile Firesetter Intervention program. In the memorandum, Mr. Henderson stated that it was found that a number of program areas were not in compliance with certain governmental regulations. He recommended that claims for reimbursement for the months of December, 1988, through April, 1989, not be processed until such time as appropriate documentation had been received by the City. Finance Director Green answered questions regarding reimbursement to Ms. Rice and the lack of necessary documents to process the reimbursement. Deputy City Attorney Wilson explained that Ms. provided the necessary documentation, and should reimbursement of expenditures she had requested. Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Minor, that reimbursement be made for expenses incurred by the Juvenile Firesetter Intervention Program for which there was adequate documentation and had been approved by the Board of Directors. Rice has now receive the Council None. Member The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Members Estrada, Flores, Maudsley, Minor, Miller. Noes: Abstain: Council Member Reilly. Absent: Council Pope-Ludlam. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING Chairman Wilcox called the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency/Community Development Commission to order in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. NORTON ECONOMIC EXPANSION PLAN Steven H. Dukett, Executive Director of the Agency, presented two proposed resolutions and authorize the Mayor to formally invite the Bernardino to enter into a Cooperation Agreement of the Norton Economic Expansion Plan. Redevelopment a request to County of San for development COUNCIL MEMBER Council Member and took her place POPE-LUDLAM RETURNED Pope-Ludlam returned at the Council Table. to the Council Meeting RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A LOAN AGREEMENT WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. - 3 - 5/18/89 --T . RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A LOAN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. Mr. Dukett explained that he was recommending approval of the necessary agreements required to initiate the development of the Norton Economic Expansion plan (NEEP). To ensure proper management of the development of this plan, it was recommended that the position of Norton Re-use Coordinator be created in the Redevelopment Agency as either a temporary employee or as a consultant. . Mr. Dukett explained that a special staff committee was formed consisting of Acting City Administrator Robbins, Planning Director Kilger and himself to accomplish those tasks. The Committee recommended the following: 1. That the County of San Bernardino, City of San Bernardino and the Redevelopment Agency enter into a Cooperation Agreement governing the development of the NEEP. It was therefore recommended that the County be invited to enter into a cooperation agreement with the City and the Agency. 2. That the Redevelopment Agency and the City approve loan documents which will capitalize the initial efforts at development of the NEEP at $300,000. 3. That the Community Development Commission authorize through June 30, 1990, the creation of a special position or consultancy with the Redevelopment Agency, to be referred to as the "Norton Re-use Coordinator". City Attorney Penman expressed his concern that there were no definite figures set forth as to the City's share of costs in the documents presented today. He stated he did not have enough information and would not sign the documents until actual costs were provided and assurance given that the City is protected. He also stated that Sr. Assistant City Attorney Barlow had suggested that a cap be put on the City's share of expenses, but that had not been included in the agreement. Mr. Dukett answered agreements. Sr. Assistant City Attorney Barlow answered questions, regarding deletion of the cap. questions regarding the proposed It was pointed that the documents being discussed have just been distributed to the Council and there has not been time to thoroughly study them. . - 4 - 5/18/89 , . It was stated that the Committee had asked Mr. Dukett to prepare these documents and present to the Council for the purpose of information. It was felt that it is imperative for the Mayor and Council to begin to discuss the future use of Norton Air Force Base relative to the designation of Norton as a study project area. The City has a very big vested interest in that facility and should move forward with that study. There is a need to have a new person within the Agency to do what needs to be done. A suggestion was made that Mr. Barlow and Mr. Dukett meet together and work out a solution to the problem. Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Minor and unanimously carried, that the matter concerning a re-use plan for Norton Air Force Base be considered later in the meeting. (See page 13) RECESS MEETING At 2:38 p.m., break. - TEN MINUTE BREAK the meeting was recessed for a ten minute RECONVENE MEETING At 2:45 p.m., the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino reconvened in the Council Chambers of 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 Wilcox; Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Minor, Pope-Ludlam; Deputy City Attorney Empeno, Deputy City Clerk Reese, Acting City Administrator Robbins. Absent: Council Member Miller. MAYOR WILCOX EXCUSED Mayor Wilcox left the Council Meeting. PUBLIC HEARING - LAND USE MAP - REOPEN Council Member Maudsley made a motion, seconded by Council Member Flores and unanimously carried, to reopen the public testimony on the Land Use Map. COUNCIL MEMBER MILLER ARRIVED Council Member Miller arrived at the Council Meeting and took her place at the Council Table. Audit Trail III - A-70 - Staff Planning Director Kilger stated that one site had been inadvertently omitted from the Audit Trail and wished to have it on record before the hearing was closed. Vince Bautista, question is located Principal Planner, stated the site in in the area of City Creek north of Highland . - 5 - 5/18/89 . . . , Avenue and is designated PFC. It was determined that some of this area is privately owned or owned by water companies, as opposed to water districts and must not be designated PFC Public Flood Control. The site is in the Hillside Management Overlay District and a RD designation would be appropriate. Planning Director Kilger stated.an analysis of the ownership in the area had been prepared. CLOSE PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON LAND USE MAP Council Member Maudsley made a motion, seconded by Member Estrada and unanimously carried, that testimony Land Use Map be closed. Council on the AUDIT TRAIL III ITEMS Planning Director Kilger explained handouts relative to Audit Trail III. The first one deals with "A" items, relating to the text, dated May 18, 1989, and reflects additional items, A-I through A-21. The second is a hand written list dated May 17, 1989, which contains map items that were presented May 17, 1989. He also referred to other letters to be added as an addendum to Audit Trail III, which were read into the record by staff on May 17, 1989. Mr. Kilger also explained Audit Trail III contains both text and map issues that have been discussed to this point before the Mayor and Common Council. Mr. Kilger explained that two additional documents relating to the RU District discussion at the meeting of May 17, 1989, had been distributed. One is a memorandum from Deputy City Attorney Empeno to City Attorney Penman, dated May 18, 1989, and the other is a brief discussion paper prepared by staff. City Attorney Penman explained there had been confusion on the RU designation at the meeting of May 17, 1989. He stated it was a policy decision as to whether or not RU applied to multi-family designation or just single-family. Audit Trail III - James Wirth - Letter regardinq CO-l Desiqnation James Wirth, 1980 Sierra, read a letter regarding the new General Plan use category designation CO-l which encompasses both medical uses and uses which are not related to medical uses, and listed the unique characteristics that differentiate the two. He suggested that creating a zone which would group together all medical related uses would help to achieve greater uniformity in the City. He suggested that the site at 2730 North "E" Street, which is currently being considered for a drug-alcohol rehabilitation center, be given an administrative designation, as opposed to a designation which would allow medical uses as well. He also made at a requested that previous meeting the Council reconsider the decision to uphold the Planning Commission - 6 - 5/18/89 . decision to approve drug and alcoholic Street. the Conditional Use Permit rehabilitation center at for the proposed 2730 North "E" No official action was taken. RU Desiqnation A discussion ensued regarding the RU Designation. It was pointed out that many decisions had been based on the precept that multi-family units would include town houses, condos, mobile home parks and other residences of this nature. With so much public discussion, it was suggested that the RU designation text be changed back to how it was originally written, and not confined to single-family units. It was stated that the Chairpersons of the CAC and the Planning Commission concurred that the RU Designation was for multi-family upscale units where it was desired to control density, provide buffering and set a pattern of development in certain areas that were compatible with surrounding uses. Mr. Kilger answered questions. He stated there had been some confusion in defining the RU Designation. . Deputy City State Law does complete second Attorney Empeno answered questions, stating that not require that there be a minimum lot size for units. He explained that is a policy decision. Council Member Maudsley made a motion, seconded Member Reilly and unanimously carried, to change the the text under (d.) Residential Urban, page 69, follows: by Council language in to read as 1.12 Promote the development of single-family detached and attached, duplex, mobile home parks, and small lot subdivisions, where the intent is to consolidate lots to achieve more open space. 1.12.10 Permit the development of single-family detached units, mobile home parks, small lot single-family unit subdivisions, and multi-family units at a density of up to 9 units per gross acre and height of two stories and lots (35 feet) in areas designated as "Residential Urban" (RU-l and RU-2) (11.1 and Il.2). 1.12.11 (Retain as set forth) 1.12.30a Two single-family units or a duplex on 7,200 square feet minimum lot area. Permit the development of two single-family units or duplexes on existing legal lots of record, recorded as of the date of adoption of this Plan, on lots having 6,200 square feet or greater within the area bounded by Highland . - 7 - 5/18/89 . . . f' Avenue on the north, Fifth on the east, and 1-215 on City codes and ordinances. Street on the south, Waterman Avenue the west; subject to compliance with 1.12.30b Delete. 1.12.30c Small lot subdivisions: 5,000 square feet, as a part of the Planned Residential Development. 1.12.31 Require that areas designated for "Residential Urban" use in the Verdemont area be developed as a Planned Residential Development, incorporating equestrian and pedestrian linkages to off-site uses and extensive landscape and open space (incorporating trees and shrubs), subject to public review and Planning Commission approval. (Il.2, Il.3, and Il,6). 1.12.33 Retain as set forth. 1.12.35 Require that RU-2 designation meet all standard requirements. all development within the RU-l and normal setback and other development Infill Housinq - Letter from Community Development Deyartment Director A etter dated May 15, 1989, from Ken Henderson, Director of Community Development Department addressed to Planning Director Kilger was presented. Mr. Henderson requested that parcels listed in the letter receive the proper zoning so that the infill housing program can go forward. The addresses referred to were: 1076 Spruce Street, 1045 Spruce Street, 948 8th Street, 1258 Vine Street, 1261 8th Street, 1240 Massachusetts, which were listed as duplex type units; 1181 Eleventh Street, 836 "J" Street, 1829 Davidson Street, 1869 Davidson Street, and "J" Street near 16th Street, which were listed as single family type units. Planning Director Kilger answered questions, stating that this can be either a map or text item and should be entered into the record so that they can be discussed in deliberations. He explained that there was some discrepancy over the zoning designation of these parcels. He recommended that these items be entered into the Audit Trail. Deputy City Attorney Empeno suggested that there was no need to re-open public testimony on the map, and that Council Members can take whatever recommendation staff or any Council Member provides at this point and use that in deliberations. Council Member Pope-Ludlam made a motion, seconded by Council Member Reilly and unanimously carried, to include the items listed on a memorandum from Ken Henderson concerning the infill housing program on Audit Trail III to be considered during deliberations. - 8 - 5/18/89 . Planning Director Kilger stated that the Open Space issue can be carried over to deliberations. CLOSE HEARING ON TESTIMONY Council Member Miller made Member Reilly and unanimously hearing on testimony. Table lA - Relationship to Other Plans and Documents Planning Director Kilger introduced Table lA, which indicates the relationship of other plans and documents to the General Plan, and which would be incorporated by reference into the General Plan or superseded. a motion, seconded by carried, to close the Council public . Council Member Maudsley made a motion, seconded by Council Member Minor and unanimously carried, to continued Table lA, Relationship to Other Plans and Documents, page 6, until deliberations are being discussed in that particular area. Audit Trail III - Item A-I - James Wirth Mr. Wirth requested that a policy be added to the General Plan Text for 5% variance to lots in target area, Highland Avenue to 5th Street, and the 1-215 Freeway to Sierra Way. (See Attachment "A") Planning Director Kilger explained that action covering this request had already been taken in a previous motion by Council Member Maudsley and seconded by Council Member Reilly. (See page 7) and questioned whether an additional motion would be necessary. Deputy City Attorney Empeno recommended that if the Council is in agreement with the request, then a motion should be made regarding that request. Disagreement with a request could be indicated by absence of a motion, or a no vote. In regard to the present issue, the Council has already taken action in revising the RU language to incorporate Mr. Wirth's request. MAYOR WILCOX RETURNED Mayor Wilcox returned to the Council Meeting and took her place at the Council Table. Audit Trail III - A-2 - David Mlynarski - Planning Director Kilger explained that the request by Mr. Mlynarski was Citywide for a) units per gross acre or minimum lot size and b) delete "custom" from RL in 1.1.3b. There is nothing in writing from Mr. Mlynarski. Mr. Kilger explained that interpretation or calculation of the various land use districts. this matter has to do with densities that are permitted in . - 9 - 5/18/89 . . Woodie displayed on densities. Tescher, Consultant from Envicom, an overhead projector regarding explained a chart the calculation of Planning Director Kilger indicated that Items A-9, Bud Roberts, A-IO, John Edwins, and A-17, Staff, also refer to this matter. Council Member Maudsley made a motion, seconded by Council Member Reilly and unanimously carried, to change Policy 1.10.10, page 67 of the cross out, underline version, to read as follows: 1.10.10 Permit the development of single-family detached residential units at residential units at a density of up to 3.1 units per gross acre and height of 2.5 stores (35 feet) in areas designated as "Residential Low" (RL) (11.1 and 11.2). Council Member Maudsley made a motion, seconded by Council Member Reilly and unanimously carried to delete the word "custom" from the text in Policy 1.1.3b, page 50. Audit Trail III - A-3 - Courtney Buse - Items I, 2, 3 Planning Director Kilger presented a request from Courtney Buse dated May 10, 1989, with 10 suggested changes in the General plan Document. . He explained that on page 68, Policy 1.11.10 is also a density issue. Council Member Maudsley made a motion, seconded by Council Member Flores and unanimously carried, to adopt Policy 1.11.10, page 68, as recommended by the Planning Commission, to read as follows: 1.11.10 Permit the development of single-family detached residential units at a density of up to 4.5 units per gross acre and height of two and one-half stories including a loft (35 feet) in areas designated as "Residential Suburban" (RS) (11.1 and 11.2) Planning Director Kilger explained provisions of Policy 1.11.31. Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Maudsley and unanimously carried, to adopt Policy 1.11.31, as recommended by the Planning Commission, to read as follows: 1.11. 31 pedestrian subdivision Encourage the incorporation of paths, and community amenities in a (11.1, 11.2, 11.4, and 11.6). greenbelts, residential Planning Director Kilger referred to page 71 of the cross out underlined version of the General Plan Document and suggested changes in the the RM District. He also referred to Policy . - 10 - 5/18/89 . . . 1.13.31. These two policies basically set m~n~mum lot size for attaining the densities of the land use district. Council Member Maudsley made a motion, seconded by Council Member Minor and unanimously carried, to adopt Policy 1.13.30, as recommended by the Planning Commission, to read as follows: 1.13.30 Require a minimum lot size of 14,400 square feet for the development of multi-family units at the RM density; lots of smaller size shall be developed at the RU-l and RU-2 density in accordance with policies 1.12.10 through 1.12.35 (11.1 and 11.2) . Audit Trail III - A-3 - Courtney Buse Item No.4 Planning Director Kilger explained 1.13.38 on page 72 of the cross out underlined version of the General Plan Document in view of Mr. Buse's request to substitute the word "encourage" for II require II . Planning Director Kilger and Consultant Woodie Tescher answered questions regarding parking security as referred to in Policy 1.13.38. Council Member Maudsley made a motion, seconded by Council Member Flores and unanimously carried, to accept Mr. Buse's recommendation to change the word "require" to "encourage", so that Policy 1.13.38 reads as follows: 1.13.38 Encourage that parking be enclosed and located behind or beneath buildings facing the primary street unless infeasible due to site constraints. (11.1) Audit Trail III - A-3 - Courtney Buse Item No.5 Planning Director Kilger explained Policy 1.14.10 regarding Hillside Management Residential, on page 73 of the cross out underlined version of the General Plan Document. He stated this was also an issue raised by the Chamber of Commerce by representative Larry Sharp (See A-12) and Jack Vanderwoude (See A-14) Council Member Maudsley made a motion, seconded by Council Member Flores and unanimously carried, to adopt Policy 1.14.10, page 73, as recommended by the Planning Commission to read as follows: 1.14.10 Permit the development of residential units based on the determination of the yield by the following categories of slope in the "Hillside Management Overlay District": - 11 - 5/18/89 . . Slope { % l Units Per Acre 0-15 2.0 15-25 1.0 25-30 0.5 30+ 0.1 The Hillside Management Overlay District areas are the Land Use Plan. These areas are intended approximate location of the hillside areas along the the northern area of the City (11.1 and 11.2). depicted on to be the foothills in Audit Trail III - A-3 - Courtney Buse Item and A-12 - Chamber of Commerce Issue No.2 Planning Director Kilger presented request and the Chamber of Commerce to increase transfer to a maximum of 100% from 50%. No. 6 from Courtney Buse allowable density Planning Director Kilger explained the issue of allowing multi-family attached units in Hillside Management Areas and for allowing for density transfer. A discussion ensued regarding multi-family attached units in Hillside Management areas. . Council Member Reilly Member pope-Ludlam, that follows: made a motion, seconded by Council the policies listed below read as 1.14.13 a. Units may increase the allowable density of the slope category by a maximum of 50 percent. 1.14.13 b. Land area from which density is transferred shall be restricted from future development (11.1 and 11.2). 1.14.14 (Remain deleted) 1.14.31 Permit the development of single-family detached and attached units on cut and fill pads or stepped footings in areas of 0 to 25 percent slope; residences on stepped footings with minimum grading as necessary for driveways, unit siting, drainage, slope stability and fire protection in areas of 25 to 40 percent slope; and no development above 40 percent wherein the allowable units may be transferred to lesser slopes in accordance with policy 1.14.13 (11.1 and 11.2). The Members Members motion carried by the following vote: Estrada, Reilly, Flores, pope-Ludlam. Maudsley, Minor, Miller. Absent: None. Ayes: Noes: Council Council RECESS MEETING At 4:53 p.m., the meeting recessed for a ten minute break. . - 12 - 5/18/89 . RECONVENE MEETING At 5:23 p.m., the Adjourned Regular Meeting of Common Council reconvened in the Council Chambers 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino, California. the Mayor and of City Hall, ROLL CALL Roll Call was taken by Deputy City Clerk Reese with the following being present: Mayor Pro Tempore Estradal Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Minor, Pope-Ludlam, Millerl City Attorney Penman, Deputy City Clerk Reese, Deputy City Administrator Robbins. Absent: Mayor Wilcox. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING The Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Community Development Commission/Redevelopment Agency was called to order by Mayor Pro Tempore Estrada in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino, California. . NORTON ECONOMIC EXPANSION PLAN - CONTINUED FROM EARLIER IN THE MEETING Steven H. Dukett, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency, presented two proposed resolutions and a request to authorize the Mayor to formally invite the County of San Bernardino to enter into a Cooperation Agreement for development of the Norton Economic Expansion Plan. (See Page 3) RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A LOAN AGREEMENT WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A LOAN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. Council Member Flores made a motion, seconded by Council member Miller and unanimously carried, that the matter regarding the Norton Economic Expansion Plan be referred to the Redevelopment Committee at the earliest possible meeting that can be scheduled by the Committee. Audit Trail III - A-3 - Courtney Buse Item No.7 Planning Director Kilger presented Mr. Courtney request to required Geologic Studies only within the fault zone, page 75, Policy No. 1.14.34. Buse's study Consultant Woodie Tescher answered questions, stating that there can be land slides anywhere regardless of earthquake faults and that slope studies are required. . - 13 - 5/18/89 . Council Member Miller made a motion, seconded by Council Member Minor and unanimously carried, to adopt Policy 1.14.34, as recommended by the Planning Commission to read as follows: 1.14.34 Require a geologic study for all sites determining the slope stability and locations of faults, adherence to the standards of the "Seismic Risk Management" overlay, and prohibition of development on known landslides (11.1, 11.4, and n. 7). Audit Trail III - A-3 - Courtney Buse Item No. 9 - Chamber of Commerce Letter - Issue 4 Planning Director Kilger presented Mr. Courtney Buse's request to add to permitted uses: "self-storage facilities", under Policy 1.19.10, page 87 of the cross out, underline version of the General Plan Document. . Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Miller and unanimously carried, to adopt Policy 1.19.10, as recommended by the Planning Commission to read as follows: 1.19.10 Permit a diversity of community-serving retail and service uses (grocery stores, apparel and accessories, furniture and home furnishings, garden supplies, restaurants, bookstores, cleaning establishments, shoe repair, beauty salons/hair styling, and similar), entertainment uses, and professional and financial offices in areas designed as "Commercial General" (CG-l) (11.1) Audit Trail III - A-3 - Courtney Buse Item No. 10 Planning Director Kilger presented a request from Mr. Courtney Buse to restrict commercial and office uses from within the 65 CNEL air corridor - Waterman Avenue DIP, Policy 1.31.10, page 107 of the cross out, underlined version of the General plan Document. Planning Director Kilger explained that the basic issue is the Norton Air Force Base landing pattern and the noise level. He stated that they are required to follow the ACUZ Study and put in certain noise attenuation measures and meet the requirements with respect to the congregation of people. Consultant Woodie Tescher explained the difference between Mr. Buse's request and what the ACUZ Study requires. Council Member Miller made a motion, seconded by Member Flores and unanimously carried, to adopt Policy page 107, as recommended by the Planning Commission to follows: Council 1. 31.10, read as 1.31.10 Permit a manufacturing, research service uses in areas (DIP) (11.1) diversity of corporate office, and development, and supporting designated as "Office Industrial light retail Park" . - 14 - 5/18/89 . COUNCIL MEMBERS ESTRADA, POPE-LUDLAM EXCUSED At 5:20 p.m., Council Members Estrada, Pope-Ludlam, left the Council Meeting. Audit III - A-3 - Courtney Buse Item 11 Planning Director Kilger presented Mr. request to reduce building setback to 25 feet set forth in Policy 1.31.33, page 108 of underlined version of the General Plan Document. Courtney Buse's from 50 feet, as the cross out, Planning Director Kilger stated that this item referred to Public Open Space Policies. Council Member Flores made a motion, seconded by Member Miller and unanimously carried, to adopt Policy page 108, as recommended by the Planning Commission to follows: Council 1.31.33, read as 1.31.33 Develop and implement a program of public streetscape improvements which uniquely identify the Waterman Avenue corridor and other office industrial park areas (in accordance with Urban Design for Public Open Spaces policies 5.3.2., 5.3.14, 5.4.2, 5.4.10 and 5.4.14); including landscape street medians, aesthetic sidewalks and walls, street trees, well designed public signage, street furniture, lighting, . and other amenities (11.17). . Planning Director Kilger stated that Mr. Buse's Items 12 and 13 are in other elements, and the remainder of his items are map items which will be considered when map items are considered. RECESS MEETING - DINNER BREAK At 5:45 p.m., Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Flores and unanimously carried, that the meeting be recessed until 6:30 p.m., for a dinner break. RECONVENE MEETING At 6:35 p.m., the Adjourned Regular Meeting of Common Council reconvened in the Council Chambers 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. the Mayor and of City Hall, 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; Deputy City Attorney Empeno, Deputy City Clerk Reese, Deputy City Administrator Richardson. Absent: Council Members Estrada, Pope-Ludlam, Miller. Audit Trail III - A-4 - David Schultze - San Bernardino Valley Board of Realtors - Item 2 Planning Director Kilger presented a letter dated May 12, 1989, from David Schultze, Chairman, Local Government Relations Committee of the San Bernardino Board of Realtors. . - 15 - 5/18/89 . Mr. Kilger stated that the first item, referring to Policy 1.25.10 was a statement in support of commuter rail and parking facility. The second item referred to Policy 1.30.10 and was in support of the Planning Commission's recommendation. Item 3 supported the concept that the Central City South Overlay be incorporated by reference. Item 4 referred to the Development Code. COUNCIL MEMBER MILLER RETURNED At 6:40 p.m., Council Member Miller returned to the Council Meeting and took her place at the Council Table. Planning Director Kilger explained Policy of the cross-out, underlined version of Document. 1.30.10, page 106 the General Plan . Vince Bautista, Principal Planner, answered questions, and explained what had been changed in that policy. Council Member Maudsley made a motion, seconded by Council Member Flores and unanimously carried, to adopt Policy 1.30.10, as recommended by the Planning Commission to read as follows: 1.30.10 Accommodate new and used automobile and truck sales, and repair facilities, lumberyards and related building materials and hardware sales, plant nurseries, light industrial manufacturing and storage facilities and similar uses which require extensive outdoor or indoor space for their sales, service, and/or storage, excluding typical neighborhood commercial uses, in areas designated as "Commercial Heavy" (CH) (11.1). . Audit Trail III - A-4 - David Schultze - San Bernardino Bernardino Valley Board Realtors - Item No.1 In a letter dated May 12, 1989, David Schultze, Chairman, Local Government Relations Committee, stated that the Board of Realtors was pleased to learn of the use added in Policy 1.25.10 for "commuter rail and parking facility". He requested that the Council encourage and support efforts to establish and promote commuter rail travel as an alternative to the use of private automobiles for commuting to communities west of San Bernardino. A discussion ensued regarding Policy 6.6.1 in the Circulation Element, regarding the provision of passenger, commuter and high speed rail service within the City and linking the City to adjacent cities and counties. Policy 6.4.9 in the Circulation Element relative to the coordination with SanBAG, Omnitrans and other transit providers, to ensure that transit services are available to the transit dependent, was also discussed. . - 16 - 5/18/89 . . . . Council Member Flores made a motion, seconded by Council Member Miller and unanimously carried, to adopt Policy 1.25.10 as recommended by the Planning Commission to read as follows: 1.25.10 Permit the adaptive reuse of the railroad station building and development of adjacent properties between 2nd Street and Viaduct Boulevard {designated as "Commercial General-Speciality" (CG-4)} for a commuter rail and parking facility and specialty or community-serving commercial center; including restaurants, gift shops, art galleries, boutiques, theaters, entertainment facilities, food markets, and other similar uses (Il.l and Il.ll). Audit Trail III - A-4 - David Schultze - San Bernardino Board of Realtors - Item No.3 In a letter dated May 12, 1989, David Schultze, representing the San Bernardino Board of Realtors, stated that the Board of Realtors had concern regarding the proposed Zoning Designation of IL for the areas bounded by Mill Street, Inland Center Drive, and 1-215 (a triangle) and that it will not accommodate the current uses and could not allow future expansion of those existing uses which prove successful. The Board recommended that the Council direct staff to study this concern and propose a CH designation usage. Planning Director Kilger and Principal Planner Bautista answered questions. Council Member Flores made a motion, seconded by Council member Minor and unanimously carried, to retain the Central City South Overlay District Zoning designations as recommended by the Planning Commission. Audit Trail III - A-4 - David Schultze - San Bernardino Board of Realtors - Item 4 In a letter dated May 12, 1989, David Schultze, representing the San Bernardino Board of Realtors, referred to Section 65850.2 of Title 7 of the Government Code which relates to second dwelling units. He stated that the Draft General Plan is silent in the provision of State Law. He further stated that the consensus of the Realtors in San Bernardino County appears to favor inclusion of provisions for.development of "Granny Flats" within any Community General Plan. Deputy City Attorney Empeno explained provisions of State Law which permits the City to provide for granny housing by the use of a C.U.P. or other types of discretionary permits and allows the City to develop those standard. He also explained the provisions under which the City can have its own local ordinance. Council Member Maudsley made a motion, seconded by Council Member Reilly and unanimously carried, that the recommendation made by David Schultze, representing the San Bernardino valley - 17 - 5/18/89 . . . . Board of Realtors regarding "granny units" be referred to the Development Code Committee and not be included in the General Plan. Audit Trail III - A-8 - James Wirth James Wirth, a San Bernardino citizen, spoke regarding senior citizen congregate care and made suggestions. Planning Director Kilger answered questions regarding the number of senior citizen facilities in the City. He suggested that the City might want to consider some kind of safeguards to prevent an excessive number of senior citizen projects. A discussion ensued regarding the need for a feasibility study and safeguards relative to senior citizen facilities. Planning Director Kilger answered questions. Council Member Miller made a motion, seconded by Council Member Flores and unanimously carried, to retain the language in Policy 1.12.11, to read as follows: 1.12.11 Permit the development of senior citizen and senior congregate care housing to a maximum density of 14 units per net acre and height of two stories provided that a marketing and financing analysis is conducted which determines long-term feasibility; a plan is prepared for the conversion of seniors units to standard units, with a corresponding reduction in the number of units, if the project is not occupied by qualified seniors; and all Code requirements are met (11.1). Audit Trail III - A-I] - Highland Hills Specific Plan 82-1 - Letter from Craiq Williams - Reid & Hellyer In a letter dated May 17, 1989, Craig Williams of Reid & Hellyer Law Firm, on behalf of the Highland Hills Properties and Rancho San Andreas Company, thanked the Council, the City Attorney's Office and other entities for their efforts in settling the litigation which concerned the Highland Hills Specific Plan 82-1. Deputy City Attorney Empeno stated for the record that the Highland Hills Homeowners Association Case had been settled, and contains the appropriate amendment that the Council had discussed. A copy of that settlement agreement has been distributed to the Mayor and Common Council. He explained that the Council approved the settlement in Closed Session and the City has executed it. Planning Director Kilger referred to the cross out, underline version of the General Plan document, pages 5, 6, 7, which is the complete overall text relative to Item F "Relationship to other Documents" . - 18 - 5/18/89 . . . Deputy City Attorney Empeno stated that in the language of the Highland Hills Homeowners Settlement Agreement, the City has agreed to give good faith consideration to incorporate the Highland Hills Specific Plan into the General Plan document. If the City were not to do that, then the Settlement Agreement would not take place and the City would be back in the middle of the lawsuit. He explained that if the Council wishes not to incorporate the Specific Plan in to the General Plan, there is a provision in the Government Code which states that all existing specific plans and other plans of the City be reviewed and amended in they are inconsistent with the City's new General Plan. Deputy City Attorney Empeno answered questions regarding what the City would do if the Highland Hills Specific Plan were incorporated into the General Plan without underlying zoning and the project failed. In that event, it will remain until the Council considers a General Plan amendment or the Council could consider changing, eliminating or amending the Specific Plan at some future date. Planning Director Kilger suggested that in addition to considering the incorporation of the Highland Hills Specific Plan, the Council might wish to consider the entire Table IA at the same time. Planning Director Kilger referred to the second sentence in the first paragraph on page 7, regarding inconsistencies between a document and the General Plan. He explained that in Table lA, there are certain issues, such as the Verdemont Area, where there may be some inconsistencies. It was staff's goal that the more restrictive provisions apply. The present language would not allow that to occur. The General Plan may be less restrictive and it would rule. He suggested that the following language could provide the necessary provisions: "Whenever inconsistencies occur between a document and the General Plan, or where a document omits specific policy or text regarding any issue, then the more restrictive provisions shall take precedence." Deputy City Attorney Empeno recommended that there be a statement regarding the Highland Hills Specific Plan. He explained that the applicant is willing to withdraw the existing C.U.P.s and submit new ones along with a proposed Development Agreement which have to come back to the Council for consideration. If the Council chooses to deny passage of the C.U.P.s, there is still a Specific Plan and the Council could amend that Plan with a noticed public hearing. RECESS MEETING At 7:22 p.m., the meeting was recessed for a ten minute break. - 19 - 5/18/89 . . . . RECONVENE MEETING At 7:27 p.m., the Adjourned Regular Meeting of Common Council reconvened in the Council Chambers 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino, California. the Mayor and of City Hall, 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; Deputy City Attorney Empeno, Deputy City Clerk Reese, Acting City Administrator Robbins. Absent: Mayor Wilcox; Council Members Estrada, Pope-Ludlam. Continue discussion of Hi hland Hills Pro ect Counci Member Mauds ey made a mot10n, seconded by Council Member Minor, that in Table lA, entitled "Relationship to other plans and documents" that the item designated as Highland Hills Specific Plan be incorporated by reference and changed from "superceded" and the remainder of the plan as recommended by the Planning Commission be incorporated into the General Plan. This is done in the belief that this is the correct course of action and will resolve a long standing problem in the east end and will incorporate the wishes of the Citizens' Committee that has worked long and hard with a number of entities to resolve this problem and that they have done so in good faith, and will become an asset for San Bernardino. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not this motion encompassed more than just the Specific Plan. Council Member Maudsley withdrew his motion, and Council Member Minor withdrew his second, on the basis that they only wished to include the Highland Hills Specific Plan. Council Member Maudsley made a motion, seconded by Council Member Minor and unanimously carried, that the Highland Hills Specific Plan be incorporated by reference and be changed from superseded. Central City South Overlay District Council Member Flores made a motion, seconded by Council Member Maudsley and unanimously carried, that the Central City South Overlay Zone be incorporated into the General Plan. Deputy City Attorney Empeno answered questions, stating the Central City South Overlay District being incorporated into the General Plan is similar to the Highland Hills Specific Plan. If there are any questions about uses or intensities, the specific document is referred to. For example, the Overlay District or the Specific Plan documents would be controlling. Table IA - Discussion and Adoption Planning Director Kilger pointed out a typographical error in certain copies of the Table IA. The Interim Policy Document - 20 - 5/18/89 . should be in the Superseded Column. He stated that the following items should be in the "Incorporated by Reference" Column: Plan EIR~ Technical Background Report~ Development Code. The following items should be in the "Superseded" Column: Interim Policy Document~ General Plan, published May, 1964~ State College Area Plan, published 1964~ Highland Area plan, published 1976. (This item is not to be confused with the Highland Hills Plan which was discussed at this meeting). Principal planner Plan was adopted in known as the East San Bautista explained that the Highland Area 1976 by the City and the County. It was Bernardino Community Plan. . Planning Director Kilger recommended that the text be changed to reflect the proper name. Planning Director Kilger explained that the Verdemont Area is unique in that a portion is incorporated by reference and a portion is superseded. He explained that Section V "Standards" should be incorporated by reference, and the remainder be superseded. Mr Kilger explained the final item is the Redevelopment Plans Item which is proposed to be superseded. This included various plans adopted from 1958 to 1986. He stated Planning staff has been in contact with the Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency. They are fully aware that they will have to revise the land uses within the Redevelopment areas to make them consistent with the General Plan. Planning Director Kilger changing a Redevelopment Area. answered questions regarding Deputy City Attorney Empeno stated that each of the Redevelopment Plans would have to be reviewed after this General Plan is adopted to determine if there are inconsistencies and to amend those Redevelopment Plans to change those inconsistencies. Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Maudsley and unanimously carried, to adopt Table lA, with the exception of the Redevelopment plans, as recommended by the Planning Commission and with typographical corrections identified by the Planning staff. Item F - Relationship to Other Documents - Paqe 7 Planning Director Kilger proposed language change for the second sentence in the first paragraph at the top of page 7 which is incorporated in the following motion. He explained this language would respond to the Verdemont Plan or any other documents that have separate language. Council Member Flores made a motion, seconded by Council Member Maudsley and unanimously carried to change the language on . - 21 - 5/18/89 . page 7, Section F, the second sentence in the first paragraph, to read as follows: "Whenever inconsistencies occur between a document and the General Plan, or where a document omits specific policy or text regarding any issue, then the more restrictive provisions will take precedence." Audit Trail III - A-5 - John Stubblefield - Cit ide- Inadequacies 0 t e Genera P an (See Attac ent "C") Planning Director Kilger introduced two letters into the record. One is dated May 10, 1989, from Hill, Farrer & Burrill, Attorneys at Law, 445 South Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, representing John Stubblefield; and the other is a response to that letter dated May 12, 1989, from Woodie Tescher, Envicom Corporation. The letter from Hill, Farrer & Burrill, signed Fischer Phillips, sets forth the following issues for by the City: by Darlene attention 1. "The Draft plan does not provide for sufficient housing to meet the City's obligation under State law." 2. "The Draft Plan does not make adequate provision for moderate and low income housing." . 3. "The Draft Plan Hillside Management Policies and Standards Are Based Upon Inadequate Analytical Data." 4. The Hillside Management Standards Ignore Social And Economic Realities." 5. "The seismic safety setback requirements are unduly restrictive. " 6. "The Process By which the MH Policies have been Derived Is Defective." In his letter dated May each of the issues, defended provided appropriate data. Deputy City Attorney Empeno recommended that, if the Council so wishes, a motion be made to reject the allegations made in the letter from Hill, Farrer & Burrill. He stated he had read Mr. Tescher's response to the Stubblefield attorney's letter and he agreed with those comments. He explained he was confident of the City's position relative to the Stubblefield attorney's arguments. 12, 1989, Mr. Tescher responded to the City's position on each item and Council Member Maudsley made a motion, seconded by Council member Flores and unanimously carried, to reject the allegations in Mr. John Stubblefield's attorney's letter dated May 10, 1989. . - 22 - 5/18/89 ,-- . . . f Audit Trail III - A-6 - Ken Miller In a letter dated May 10, 1989, Ken A. Miller, Flood Control Engineer, Transportation7Flood Control Department, stated that in March, 1987, the San Bernardino County Flood Control District made application to the City for a change in General Plan designation and zoning on approximately 62 acres of property located westerly of Auto Plaza Drive and northerly of Fairway Drive. He proposed the following changes: 1.18 Provide for the continuing development of the San Bernardtno Auto Plaza as the principal center of new car dealerships, serving local residents and adjacent communities and promote other compatible reqionallv oriented retail and offICe uses. 1.18.10 . .In addition, allow reqion-servinq retail uses and commercial office uses Auto Plaza Drive in accordance with their "Densit Intensit and Hei ht" and "Develo ment Guide ines. commercial, westerly of res ective and Desi n" to the a roval of is 5 acres or more which creates buildable This requirement mat be that addresses tra fic 1.18.32 Re uire a traffic stud rior development westerly of Auto Plaza Drive in size or the subdivision of property parcels of 5 acres or less in size. waived if a specific plan is approved issues. Planning Director Kilger answered questions regarding these suggestions. He explained the concerns of staff relative to traffic problems. He stated that the Public Works Department had indicated in a letter that they felt the CR-4 would be appropriate for that area, as they felt that the traffic generated would be less and could be dealt with at the time of Development and Review of Plans or C.U.P.s. The Flood Control District prefers CG. However, they are in agreement with CR-4, provided certain additional policies be added to the General Plan. Planning Director Kilger explained uses in the area. He stated there were several issues to consider: The possible need for more CR-4 to encourage the viability of the Auto Plaza; the possible need to expand the uses allowed in the CR-4; and how to deal with the traffic concerns. Planning Director Kilger answered questions regarding height restrictions and the Norton flight pattern. Woodie Tescher, Consultant from Envicom, answered questions regarding the height requirements. He stated the principal use in this area is auto related. Most of the show rooms are one story in height, and the recommendation of the CAC was to keep it at one story, or two stories if there was a supporting use. - 23 - 5/18/89 . . . . A discussion ensued regarding the use of CG-l or CR-4 zoning in the Auto Plaza area and traffic studies. Council Member Maudsley made a motion, seconded by Council Member Flores and unanimously carried, that the subject property (Auto Plaza) be designated CG-l. ADJOURNMENT At 8:10 p.m., Council Member Maudsley made a motion, seconded by Council Member Minor and unanimously carried, that the meeting be adjourned to 9:30 p.m., Saturday, May 20, 1989, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino, California. ~~it1~ No. of Items: 4 No. of Hours: 6 - 24 - 5/18/89