HomeMy WebLinkAbout52-Planning & Building Services
CITY. OF SAN BERtaRDINO - REQUEST .R COUNCIL ACTION
R~("C _ 'f"''''-l ,r.ll:::: Evaluation of the alP Corridor
From: Al Boughey, Director ,~~. ,....,"....bJWct1;. along Waterman Avenue.
Dept: Planning and Building seLI31~~~ -~: ~~y;}r2 And Common Council Meeting
February 17, 1992
Date: February 6, 1992
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
None.
Recommended motion:
That the Planning Division be directed to evaluate the Waterman
Avenue Corridor within the alP, Office Industrial Park designation
and come back with a report in May, 1992.
Al
Contact person:
Al Bouqhey
Phone: 384-5357
Supporting data attached: Staff Report
Ward:
1 & 3
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct. No.1
(Acct. DescriPtion)
Finance:
Council Notes:
75-0262
Agenda Item No. S~
CI'TY-OF SAN BERN.DINO - REQUEST FeR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
Subject: Evaluation of the OIP Corridor along Waterman Avenue.
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
February 17, 1992
BACKGROUND
When the General Plan was adopted, the Waterman Avenue Corridor
from 3rd Street south to the Santa Ana River was designated OIP,
Office Industrial Park. The Development Code established the uses
permitted in the OIP district and the standards by which
development could occur.
Staff has received several inquiries from property owners in this
corridor with concerns ranging from the non conformity of their
existing uses to the limited uses now permitted. Staff met with
Councilmembers Estrada and Hernandez and various affected property
owners to address these concerns. While there was agreement that
there were issues to be resolved, a final recommendation or course
of action was not determined.
Instead, staff suggested that an evaluation of the Waterman
Corridor be prepared to address the distribution of existing land
uses, permitted land uses and lot configuration. We will compile
and evaluate this information and prepare options based on the
conclusions reached. At that time the Mayor and Common Council can
determine if amendments to the General Plan and/or Development Code
are in order and how to proceed.
FUNDING
Since no final action will be taken at this time, there will be no
direct costs (ie. County filing fees, special environmental
studies, etc.). However, there will be indirect costs associated
with compiling information and preparing the report. Staff
estimates that the costs associated should not exceed $2,500.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Mayor
Planning Division to evaluate the
the alP designation and come back
and Common Council direct the
Waterman Avenue Corridor within
with a report in May 1992.
75-0264
o~