The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-Planning }/I'" , --- - .- OVERVIEW OF LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN POLICY The Land Use and Urban Design Element establishes goals, objectives, policies, and programs for the manner in which new development will occur and existing uses and resources will be conserved in the City of San Bernardino. These address each of the following fundamental issues (number in parentheses refers to the issue number listed in the Goals, Objectives, and Policies): A. What types and amounts of land use should be accommodated in the City (1)7 B. How should land uses be distributed throughout the City (2)7 C. What should be the functional role, uses permitted, and physical form and character \ of the City's land use districts (3)7 D. What should be the future role and character of Norton Air Force Base (4)7 E. What should be the future role and character of the railroad yards (5)7 F. How should buildings be maintained in the City (6)7 G. What should be the physical and visual quality of development (7)7 H. How should development be linked with the provision of supporting infrastructure (8)7 I. How should development be related to the City's environmental resources and hazards (9)7 J. What should be the relationship of land use development to public safety (10)7 K. What lands should be annexed to the City and what should be their priority (11)7 L. How should the public continue to participate in land use decisions (12)7 The goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the Land Use and Urban Design Element are intended to reinforce the City of San Bernardino as the dominant regional- serving center (or "capital") of the Inland Empire and, at the same time, provide the mix of uses appropriate for the needs of and which establish a high quality of life for the City's residents. In earlier years, San Bernardino was the principal center of commerce, employment, service, and culture of the southeastern California area. Over time, this role declined as competitive centers developed. The land use policy of this plan is directed at the provision of opportunities to reinforce and "recapture" this role; intensifying and enhancing existing and introducing new uses which attract the patronage and meet the 38 A / - ~ -- -needs of the greater region. Among these are employee-generating commercial and industrial, corporate and professional office, visitor- and convention-serving, governmental, educational, cultural, and similar uses. Further, the land use policy provides opportunities which capitalize on the City's location at the "entry" to the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area (as a major transportation "hub") and San Bernardino Mountains. Specific opportunities to continue and strengthen San Bernardino's region-serving role provided by land use policy include: A. Intensification of "downtown" San Bernardino with governmental and professional offices, convention facilities, hotels, cultural facilities, supporting retail and restaurants, and high-density residential; B. Intensification and upgrading of Central City and Inland Center Malls with new department and ancillary retail stores; C. Intensification and introduction of permanent, year-round commercial, and commercial-recreational uses at the National Orange Show site; D. Intensification of the Tri-City /Commercenter area with professional and corporate offices, hotels, supporting retail and restaurants, and high-density residential; E. Establishment of a "corridor" flanking "E" Street and linking downtown San Bernardino with the Tri-city /Commercenter area in which new major regional- serving uses may be located; F. Reuse of the Santa Fe railroad depot and adjacent properties as a high-intensity mixed-use center, incorporating specialty commercial, industrial, transportation, . and related uses and establishment of a linkage to the downtown area; G. Possible reuse of Norton Air Force Base for aviation-related industrial and commercial uses; H. Establishment of a "corridor" containing corporate offices along Waterman Avenue; I. Expansion of job-generating industrial uses in the west side, southwest of Norton Air Force Base, and northwest along 1-215; J. Continued development of the California State University campus; and K. Flexibility to accommodate other region-serving uses which are compatible with other uses, environmental constraints, and infrastructure capacities. Land use policy, further, provides opportunities which support and achieve a high quality of life for the City's residents. It accommodates a mix of residential and 39 - ,",., '-' -..I supporting commercial service, educational, recreational, cultural, and entertainment uses. Specific opportunities to continue and strengthen San Bernardino's residential-serving role provided by land use policy include: A. Preservation of existing "stable" and significant residential neighborhood; B. Recycling and upgrading of "mixed-density" and deteriorated residential neighborhoods; C. Expansion of high quality residential development into the City's hillsides and periphery within the constraints of environmental and infrastructure resources; D. Development of higher quality multi-family residential units (architecture, structure, inclusion of site amenities, etc.) which are compatible with their neighborhood setting; E. Increased compatibility between residential and abutting commercial and industrial land uses; F. Maintenance and enhancement of neighborhood-serving commercial uses; G. Continuation of existing and development of new "village-like" neighborhood commercial centers; H. Recycling of under-utilized commercial areas into more efficient and economically viable centers along portions of Mount Vernon Avenue, Base Line Street,and Highland Avenue; I. Establishment of a community "ethnic" themed commercial center on Mount Vernon, between 4th and 8th Streets; and J. Continuation and enhancement of existing and new development of parks, schools, public services, and other community-serving uses uniformly distributed throughout the City. The land use and urban design policy contained in this plan is intended to establish order and focus for the City's land use pattern. It organizes land uses around key region- and community-serving districts and corridors (downtown, Tri- City/Commercenter, "Regional Opportunities Corridor", Norton, Cal State, railroad yards, Waterman Avenue, corporate park, local-serving commercial "strips" and "villages", etc.), links these by transportation, and provides linkages to major open space resources (Santa Ana River, Cajon and Lytle Creeks, and the San Bernardino Mountains). These key "centers" are differentiated by use and development intensity and should be recognized throughout the City and region. 40 --- - "-'" . Land Use and Urban Design policy provides for the linkage of development with available and expanded streets, transit, sewers, water, storm drainage, energy, communication, and other public infrastructure and services. It is intended that the timing of development be phased with the provision of necessary infrastructure/ service improvements and their costs be distributed on a pro rata basis to beneficiaries. Plan policies provide for the protection of significant environmental habitats in the City; particularly those located in the foothill drainages, Santa Ana River, Cajon Creek, and Lytle Creek. In addition, the Plan provides for the limitation of critical development in high earthquake hazard areas (fault zone and liquefaction areas) and increased standards for development in high wind and fire hazard areas. The key element of the Land Use and Urban Design policy is the Land Use Plan (contained in the rear pOcket), which depicts the permitted type and density/intensity of use for all lands within the planning area. Lands have been categorized according to residential, commercial, industrial, office-industrial, and public uses. Table 3 indicates these categories, their principal uses, and densities. Development in accordance with the Land Use Plan will accommodate 26,028 additional dwelling units. Of these, 12,956 are single-family units (50%) and 13,072 are multi-family units (50%). This would accommodate a population increase of 65,070. The Plan will permit the development of an additional 36,551,621 square feet commercial (office and retail) and 50,774,408 square feet of industrial and office- industrial uses. Table 4 indicates the amount of new development which will be accommodated by each land use category. In addition, the Land Use Plan will provide open space resources for the City's residents Catezories of open space in a city are As defined by Section 65560 of the Government Code.. The following indicates the General Plan's open space components iRel.t1Eie: whose Plan map designations and salient characteristics and standards are in- dicated in Table 4A: A. Managed Production of Resources: The Plan designates lands for the production of the sand and gravel resources in the Cajon and Lytle Creek and Santa Ana River. Agricultural uses are perimtted as an interim use in areas of Class I and II soils. 41 ,..... '-" '-' . TABLE 4 Estimated General Plan Buildoutl Changes From Existing Use Buildout Acres of Dwelling Building Use Chan~e2 Units Square Feet Residential Estate (RE) 977 604 Low (RL) 1,313 a;a46~ Suburban (RS) 794 !;939~ Urban (RU) 1,027 ~5.728 Medium (RM) 922 8,554 Medium High (RMH) 208 3,851 High (RH) 26 667 Hillside Management (MH) 3,734 2,095 Commercial Regional (CR) 163 9,075,074 General (CG) 485 11,463,326 Office (CO) 294 11,129,361 Neighborhood (CN) 43 1,271,973 Heavy 195 3,611,887 Industrial and Office- Industrial Park Light and Office 1,395 36,470,175 (IL and OIP) Heavy 547 14,304,233 Extractive 1,134 NA Total 26,928 28.044 (ComU 36,551,621 Ond) 50,774,408 Population Increase: 65,919 70.110 Source: Envicom Corporation. 1. Includes City and Sphere of Influence. 2. Includes development of vacant lands. intensification of development (e.g., single-family to multi- family), and recycling to another use. '-/0 - -'~'- '-' - . TABLE 4A Open Space Lands Land Use Map Characteristics/ Type of Space Desi~ation Standards 1 Managed Production of Resources . Sand and Gravel Industrial Extractive (IE) Permits sand and gravel operations consistent with SMRA. . Agriculture Any Permits as an interim use in \ Class I and II areas. Outdoor Recreation . Existing Parks Public Parks (PP) . New Parks Any Expansion of parklands by land (Mini, Neighborhood, acquisition, dedication, in-lieu Community, Regional) fees, Quimby fees, and other techniques; standard of 5 acres/ 1,000 population. . Equestrian Trails Conceptual Trail System Development on public lands (Figure 42); Public Flood (Santa Ana River, Cajon Creek, Control (PFC) and other Lytle Creek) or private lands by dedication or easement. . Public/Quasi Public Public Commercial Continuation and expansion of Golf Courses, Recreation (PCR) existing uses Exhibition/Festival, and Other Preservation of Natural Resources . Significant Biological Biological Resources Preserves riparian corridors Resources Management Overlay (except as necessary to protect (BRM) public health and safety) and requires development to maintain "integrity" of significant resources. 1. Pertinent Plan policies are contained in Appendix B. ~~ · Wildlife Corridors · Hillsides Protection of Health and Safety · Faults · Fire Hazard · Geologic Hazards · Flood Hazards Other · Utility Corridors ........ '~ TABLE 4A (Cont.) None Hillside Management Overlay (HM) ....,,; Study to determine feasibility and location of corridors to provide wildlife linkage from San Bernardino Mountains to Cajon/Lytle Creeks and Santa Ana River; on public lands, or by land acquisition or easements. Requires development to preserve character of hillside areas (15% slope and greater); limits cut and fill building pads to 25% and less, "stepped" footings between 25% and 40%; and no development above 40%; promotes clustering to preserve open space. Seismic Risk Management Requires 10D-foot setback from Overlay active fault, and limits type of development (e.g., no Critical Facilities) Provides for the establishment of a greenbelt buffer for residences. Prevents development on "known" landslides. Retains existing public flood control facilities and lands and prohibits development in 10D- year flood plain without mitigation. Fire Hazard Overlay Hillside Management Overlay (HM) Flood Plain Overlay and Public Flood Control (PFC) Public Facility (PF) (narrow easements and corridors may not be depicted) 10 Maintains as open space or for utility purposes. ..- - - . B. Outdoor Recreation: The Plan designates existing parklands and commercial recreation areas and provides for the expansion of parklands commensurate with population growth at a standard of 5 acres for each 1.000 residents. Standards and implementation procedures are defined for the acquisition and development of the parks throughout the City. rather than the identification of specific sites to avoid inverse condemnation. A full range of park facilities will be provided. including Mini. Neighborhood. Community. and ~onal Parks. The Plan provides for the potential use of the Santa Ana River. Cajon Creek. Lytle Creek. and public flood control corridors for recreational activities which are compatible with their charac- teristics and intended public safety pw:pose. Additionally. the Plan provides for the establishment of an equestrian trail system linking the foothills and River and Creek drainages. C. Preservation of Natural Resources: The Plan designates a Biological Resources Management Area (BRM) in the foothills and in the foothill drainages, Santa Ana River, Cajon Creek, and Lytle Creek which regulates development to protect significant plant and wildlife resources. It provides for the determination of ap,propriate locations for the establishment of one or more open space corridors link- ing the foothills with the River and Creeks as open space for wildlife migration. In addition, the Plan provides for the management of development in hillside areas exceeding 15 percent and prohibits development on all slopes exceeding 40 percent to protect these as open space resources. D. Protection of Public Health and Safety: The Plan designates the zones of the San Andreas and San Jacinto faults as a "Seismic Risk Managemenf' overlay wherein development is managed, including open space setbacks, to protect life and property from seismic hazards. Additionally, the Plan prohibits development on known landslides. In the foothill high fire hazard areas. the Plan provides for the establishment of a greenbelt buffer beyween residential development and natural open spaces. 51 . /'''''''''' '- APPENDIX B Open Space Resources Policies - -- \"..; "- - The following indicates the General Plan policies which provide for and maintain open space resources in the City of San Bernardino Planning Area. These correspond to the resources listed in Table 4A (Chapter One, Section 1.0, Land Use and Urban Design). Open Space Resource Policy References1 Managed Production of Resources · Sand and Gravel 1.4.1,1.34.10,1.34.11,1.34.30-32,10.7.1-7,10.8.1-11, 10.9.1-5 · Agriculture 1.4.2 Outdoor Recreation · Existing and New Parks 1.1.6,1.37.10,9.1.1-14,9.21-7,9.3.1-10,9.5.1-2 9.1.9 · Equestrian Trails · Public/Quasi Public Commercial Recreational 1.1.5,1.35.10,1.35.20,1.35.30-31,1.36.10-11,1.36.20, 1.36.30 Preservation of Natural Resources · Significant Biological Resources 1.4.3,1.14.33,1.14.36,1.47.1,7.9.9,9.3.2,10.1.1, 10.2.1-6,10.3.1-4,10.4.1-3,10.5.1,10.6.1-3 · Wildlife Corridors 10.4.1-3 · Hillsides 1.1.9,1.14.10-1.14.41,10.1.1,10.2.1-10.2.6,10.3.1-4, 10.4.1-3 1. Policy numbers are revised by the Planning Commission. B-1 Open Space Resource Protection of Health and Safety · Faults · Fire Hazard · Geologic Hazards · Flood Hazards Other · Utility Corridors '"' '--" --' Policy References 1.14.34,1.48.1,12.1.1-2,12.4.1,12.4.3 1.48.4,8.6.1,15.2.1,15.2.3,15.2.4 1.14.33,1.14.34 1.5.2,1.48.3,7.9.5-8,16.1.1-4 1.5.3 B-2 ,,.....~ /1, ~/ ......... -" ..-.~--------- TOIl. Mayor Wilcox and members of San Bernardino's City Council 2. Parkside Medical Services Corp.. Richard L. Ponder. Reg. Dir. 3. Mr. Brad Kilger, Planning Director. Ci1fEC~f/marr'~EiTR'fdino From. Concerned residents of the city of San Bernardino '89 MAY 16 P4 :33 FACTS YOU NEED TO KNOW, THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSBTvtS THE Fact 1. A drug and alcohol rehabilitation center has been proDosed for a North "E" Street sitel a small snot on the map surrounded by residential use zonings West to Mt. Vernon Ave., East to Del Rosa Ave., South to Highland Ave., and North to the crosstown freeway. Fact 2. Thus there is no doubt the site's Commercial General (CG) 70ninF. permittinr a drug and alcohol rehab center or any CG use such as an auto repair - gas station, fast food drive-thru, etc., is a snot zoning - a zoning totally out of conformity with th" rest of the-area. Fact 3. It has been the intention of the city not to expand CG land uses in areas of the city which are residential. Besides that, the city already has a surplUS of CG zoned land, according to Plan. Dent. Fact 4. A CG use of the spot on North "E" Street allows a drug and alcohol rehab center within a very close proximity to a grade school playground, the Holy Rosary School playground facing "D" Street. Easy access from the drug/alcohol center to the school is nrovided by the open park across the street from the proposed center and directly adjacent to the school's playground. Fact 5. A person needing a drug or alcohol rehabilitation program is a person still addicted and under the influence of these drugs, has a greater potential for committing a violent or uncontrollable act. Fact 6. The developer was opposed to the possibility of being required to have a private security guard at the center, should the police department find that the drug and alcohol facility was creating additional law enforcement problems. Fact 7. All residents attending Monday's city council meeting are in favor of rehabilitation of drug addicts and alcoholics. Fact 8. All of the San Bernardino residents attending the may 15th city council meeting are in favor of an additional drug and alcohol treatment program in our city, provided that such a center is located at a site who characteristics are conducive for such a use. Examples of appropriate areas would include additional units within the area's acute care hospitals where auxilIary staff from other departments could be drawn upon should the need arise and where 24 hour security service is already provided. Fact 9. An appropriate use of the site on North "E" Street COUdld. be to acc~modat~ senior citizen/congregate caTe housirg an Wl th th~ 50~,. densl ~y bonus the city's new General PI an waul d allow at ~hlS sl~e,.thls becomes a very viable option. Another option WhlCh ~e bell eve wo~ld be a more than fair compromise, is to give the Slte a commerclal office only zoning. A commercial office zoning would also create the economic incentive a developer would desire. Fa~t 10. To permanently solve the problem of proDosed developments whlch are not conforming to the area, the North "E" Street spot zoning needs to be corrected on the General Plan Land Use Map at the city council meeting to be held at City Hall on Wesnesday, May 17, 1989 at 1100 P.ri'. ' Fact ~l. We respectfully ask all concerned citizens. esnecial1 y coun~ll members Jack Reilly and Norine Miller. to make every effort posslble to be present at the City Council Land Use meetin~ on May 17th. and also any subsequent follow-up meetings. - MAY 10 '89 12:32 HILL,_FARRER&BURRILL P.2/6 . . ~....~ .""" ..,.,; HILL, FARRER & BURRILL A "'AII"I'HU"M'" INe:WOING PROPESaIOMAI. CORPORATION& .rrOANIEYS AT 1..AW THIRTY-FIFTH FLOOA-UNION SANK SOIJA~r. ..... !iOUTH FI(jU.E;ROA $TRa:T LOS ANGE.Llta. CALIFORNIA &00'71--1888 -" C. M. GQULD- WlI.'-IAM c. ..",FIReR' ;.eCN S. "NQVI.E- 5T"NI-E'" E. TOIlN- JACK R. WHITII;' KAARY \,n "HA'1HAW"'V-- /(Vl.E 0. BROW,,- WILL.IAM Jo4. IIlnING- RO&KRT A HC15:&' OAVI'" 4. C.I..'",O'" STu.A,.... H. YOUNG, .1M,' $'TEVEN W. ....CON. TIM C. BRUINIiiM'" WM. HAROUl aOATHWICK' A"THUR .. COOl(' .lAMe. O. JOHNSON' OEgilillGlE ICQIDE' .JONATHAN M. llRAND.ER1 DARlot;N& ,..t.t"CR PI'IIIoI.I"I' SCOTT 1.. OIl",MOAC' KEVIN .... Sltoa...N' .JAMIE8 A. .OWI.C!I' ."ICfoIN A. I.U:''''"H NEIL. Cl. MAR"'" MICHAEL. oJ. DIBlASI: "'''I''''I;D M. C~RK, :=: DAHle", ."I. M~CAA'tHV OAVIO K. ROIIINI 1.0. ANQt:"I:~ c:c;U"INTV TELEPHONE (2131 cao--CMGO FREDERICK oJ. RYAN, JR. AONA1.D w. NOYOTN'<f o\UGU$T W. CA.,"" OEA'" E. DENNie WU.1.rAM A. WHIT' SLl.....N SC"WAATZ WAAO .lAMU R. IVANS, ,JR. RONALD e- PE,t.R$ON G. CRESSWEll. TLIolFlLCTQN. m KEVIN .J. DAEHNIU 1.0RKTTA 'lCI1.IANO .ICNHI,e:1t COO~ ~CWIS C:URTI$ A. WUTPAl.l.. PAUl.. D. "'......ETTI MICMAIi" .. TU"..."t /ll.ICIoU:i.I-E A. ",e.OHROUNI LEAIoI Iii. 5AfFIAH ~I;ON ......1 .IA. J~"NI'C" 1,.. 'ANCAKE iii, C...iEY QIKANE: D..OAAH A. SANOWSKI OF COUH511o JONN N. ",eLAUAINt Vltr4Cl:tIIT C. PAOe El:lWIN H. '''ANZEN. ORANQE COUNTY TIiIoCPMQNIi: ('14) o$o1l.l.ee~. TCJ..I!:JC ..eeOD MIlo" Tr:.L.ttC:C)~Ir:.1III t.I~1 OZ.......41;1 (::1;5) "'.O.IS.:' May 10, 1989 A. .,l. WILL 11"1-1.'2) WM. "'_ 'AAAIiR U.Ct4-1.7Il STANJ..U S. .URl't11.1. (/.Oa.181') "A "I\O'1i:55;O~AIo I;OA'"OtU.TIQN The Honorable Evlyn Wilcox, Mayor City of San Bernardino 300 North "0" Street San Bernardino, California 92418 RE: Draft City of San Bernardino General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Mayor Wilcox: The following comments are intended to bring to your attention specific legal inadequacies of the Draft City of San Bernardino General Plan ("Draft Plan") and the underlying data contained in the Technical Background Report dated February, 1988 ("TBR") and the Draf~ Environmental Impact Report dated March 24, 1989 ("DEIR"). The comments will focus upon the Land Use Element, particularly the Hillside Management Ca~egory of that Element, and the integrally related Housing Element. We encourage you to give thoughtful consideration to ~hese concerns and to take steps to remedy the identified deficiencies before you take final action on ~he General Plan and EIR. As you must realize by now, Stubblefield Construction Company and Stubblefield Properties ("Stubblefield"), whom this office represents, will be directly and significantly impacted by the city's adoption of the new General Plan. We have attempted over a series of months to bring attention to certain glaring inadequacies in the Draft Plan and DEIR. since early last fall, Stubblefield has been repeatedly assured by the Mayor, the planning staff, and the CAe that the City and its officials would undertake a comprehensive study of the hillside development issue, including the exceptionally low density proposed for hillside areas. As you must realize, this has not occurred. Rather than ~ MAY 10 '89 12:32 HILL,_FARRER&BURRILL P.3/6 ~,,,,., ',,,,.,, - Members of the Planning Commission May 10, 1989 Page 2 reiterate each and every point which we have previously raised, we will summarize for you our key points and enclose for your further study and consideration our letter of April 10, 1989, to the members of your planning commission. These issues are serious and deserve far more attention than they have received to date. 1. The Draft Plan does not provide for sufficient housing to meet the City's obliqation under State law. The Estimated General Plan Buildout for the City and "Sphere of In,fluence" is 26,028 units over the next twenty years (Draft Plan at 47) and 23,206 units within City limits for the same period of time. Draft Plan at 157-158. The data contained within the DEIR and the General Plan itself docu- ment the insufficiency of this quantity of housing units. The City has chosen to ignore the clear evidence of growth trends and has refused to adequately provide for clearly projected needs. This conclusion is strongly underscored by the City's indifference to the State law requirements which mandate the incorporation of projections of the Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG") in the local planning process. The City has chosen to disregard the clear import of SCAG's June 1988 report (Regional Housing Needs Assessment for Southern California) which identifies the need for 10,874 housing units in the City by June 30, 1994, and instead has made provision for slightly over half this number -- 5,801 -- for that same period of time (assuming a straight-line utilization of the 23,206 units of Potential New Residential Development Within City Limits). Draft Plan at 157-158. This constitutes an outright abdication of the City's responsibil- ity for providing an adequate supply of housing. 2. The Draft Plan does not make adequate provision for moderate and low income housing. . Not only is the total number of housing units inade- quate, but allocation of those units is not supported by any reliable empirical data. Empire Economics conducted a study for the City in September 1987, which analyzed various types of housing within the City. In the San Bernardino City housing market during the period 1981 to 1986, only 6% of the units sold were in the "move-up" category while 63% were MAY 10 '89 12:33 HILL,_FARRER&BURRILL P,4/6 " ~.., .,~ ,'"#. Members of the Planning Commission May 10, 1989 Page 3 "detached homes." The City has chosen to ignore the obvious implications of the above-cited data. By allocating a full 39.9% of future housing for the "upper" income groups, the City is not fulfilling its legal obligation to provide housing for all economic segments of the community. More- over, the policy and intended implementation disclose de facto racial bias. The Draft Plan Hillside Mana!ement Policies and Standards Are Based Upon Ina equate Analytical ~. The City.'s Hillside Management ("MH") policies are not supported by adequate data, and their effects have not been accurately measured. This is evidenced by Figure 54 in the TBR entitled "Generalized Slopes." There is no indication anywhere of what this map is based upon or how it was pre- pared. It certainly does not provide an accurate measurement of slopes in the proposed MH areas. Yet, all the assumptions as to acres available for building and number of units per acre are premised on this map. If these assumptions are in error, which from all indications they are, then the result- ing conclusions are obviously flawed. 3. The City has concluded, without adequate analysis or backup data, that 2,095 housing units can be built on 3,734 acres of MH-designated land over the next 20 years. (If a straight-line utilization is assumed, only 520 units can be constructed in MH areas in the next five years.) Yet, Joseph T. Janczyk Evans, the same expert who prepared the Empire Economics Report, has advised City officials that this cannot be done. Mr. Evans has apparently advised the City that a maximum of 1,800 units can be built on 6,000 acres (apparently his estimate of buildable hillside area as of November, 1988) that have slopes of 15% or greaterl Assuming Mr. Evans' data is correct, the 3734 acres which the City has allocated as buildable MH land will only yield 1116 (not 2,095) housing units! 4. The Hillside Management Standards Ignore Social And Economic Realities. In the same letter referenced above, Mr. Evans concludes that from a financial viability perspec~ive, Master Planned Communities that are oriented towards move-up/custom house- holds, situated in hillside areas, typically have residential MAY 10 '89 12:33 HILL,_FARRER&BURRILL P.5/6 ',... '''\ J " Members of ~he Planning Commission May 10, 1989 Page 4 densities of at least three uni~s er ross acre. Be further states tat, such land-use ensity is requ1red to provide a basic economic incentive for a hillside Master Planned Communi~y to be developed with a desirable set of product types, amenities and features," and concludes; "EMPIRE ECONOMICS HAS COMPARED THE LAND-USE DENSITIES OF UPSCALE MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITIES WITH THE LAND-USE DENSITIES THAT SAN BERNARDINO CITY WOULD HAVE, BASED UPON ITS PROPOSED HILLSIDE ORDINANCE, AND THE RESULT REVEALS THAT THE ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF A MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY MAY BE SUBSTANTIALLY DIMINISHED AS A RESULT OF THE RELATIVELY LOW LAND-USE DENSITIES." The proposed MH policy is so restrictive as it affects the Stubblefield hillside property that implementation will effectively result in an unconstitutional taking of the property. Most of the property exceeds 30% slope, and under the present standards, no economically viable project can be built. Recent case law establishes the unconstitutional character of the type of action the City is contemplating. We seriously urge this Council to take a long, hard look at these MH standards which effectively deny many property owners economically viable use of their property. 5. The seismic safety setback requirements are unduly restrictive We understand that the proposed seismic safety require- ments entail a one hundred foot lIDO') setback. As you realize, this is far more restrictive than the standards of the Alquist-Priolo Act established by state law. Moreover, there is no evidence that the more stringent requirements serve any additional safety function. We urge you to follow state guidelines on this matter. 6. The Process By Which the MH POlicies have Been Derived Is Defect1ve. In March, 1988, the CAC adopted the new land use desig- nation called "Hillside Management" without adequately discussing the underlying standards. The CAC merely accepted the Staff's recommendation for a loosely worded set of guidelines as a temporary measurel The CAC held its first discussion on the MH standards on November 28, 1988, and its second and final discussion December 7, 1988. There was little public input. Well after MAY 10 '89 12:34 HILL,_FARRER&BURRILL P.5/5 ,-.. .' -...-' Members of the Planning Commission May 10, 1989 Page 5 many members had left the second meeting, a vote was taken, and the MH standards were adopted by a tellingly close vote of 7 to 6. Out of the 24 or 25 members of the CAC, only 7 have actually voted for the MH standards as currently proposed. On December 13, the Planning Commission considered and unanimously rubber-stamped the standards barely adopted by the CAC (with very little input), and three days later, on December 16, 1988, your Council, again with inadequate consideration, adopted these standards without change. We urge you to take a further look at 'these policies and the underlying data. Conclusion We urge you to consider the serious repercussions that the proposed housing and land use policies will have on this City's housing supply for years to come and particularly to re-examine the premises and data underlying the current MH policies, refer them back to your Planning commission and Staff for further analysis, and demand adequate and sensible recommendations from your consultant and Staff before taking action. Very truly yours, ~ t~.-<~ ~ DARLENE FISCHER PHILLIPS OF HILL, FARRER & BURRILL c ,..,/ C. M. GOULC" WILL.IAM C. FARRER'" LEON S. ANGVIRC. STANLEY E. TOBIN. JACK R. WHITE. HARRY L.. HATHAWAY. KYL.E D. BROWN. WILLI"M M. I!UTTING. ROBERT P. HESS. DAVID A. EBER5HOFF. STUART H. YOUNG, .JR,. STEVEN W. BACON- TIM C. BRUINSMA. WM. HAROLD BORTHWICK'" ARTHUR B. COOK'" .JAMES G. .JOHNSON'" GEORGE KOIOE* ,JONATHAN M. 8RANOLER* DARL.ENE TISCHER PHILI.IPS. SCOTT L.. GILMORE'" KEVIN H. BROGAN'" JAMES A. BOWL.ES. .JOHN R. LIEBMAN NEIL O. MARTIN MICHAEL oJ. DIBIASE ....LF'FlED M. Cl..ARK, m DANIEL .J. MCCARTHY DAVID K. ROBBINS Hill, FARRER & BURRill LOS ANGELES COUNTY TELEPIoIONE (2t,3) ~20.04eO FREDERICK ..I. RYAN, ..IR RONALD W. NOVOTNY AUGUST W. CAIMI DEAN E. DENNIS WIL.LIAM A. WHITE SUSAN SCHWARTZ WAAG JAMES R. EVANS. .JR. RONALD C. PEARSON G. CRESSWELL TEMPLETON, m KEVIN ..1. DAEHNKE LORETTA SICILIANO .JENNIF"ER COOK LEWIS CURTIS A. WESTF...LL PAUL D. M...NETTI MICHAEL S. TURNER MICHELLE .... MEGHROl./NI LEAH 5. SAFF"....N LEON 8AS5, .JR. .JENNIF"ER 1... PANCAKE R. CASEY O'KANE DEIlDRAH A. SANDWSKI OF COUNSEL .JOHN N. MC:~URIN- VINCENT C. PAGE EDW'N H. F"RANZEN- A P",RTNERSHIP INCLUCIING ~ROF~SION"'L COJlPO",,,,T10NS ATTORNEYS AT LAW THIRTY-FIFTH FLOOR-UNION BANK SQUARE _!5 SOUTH FIGUE.ROA STREET L.OS ANGEL.ES, CAL.IFORNIA 90071-1666 O~ANGE COUNTY TEI..E:Pt-lONE (714) 64!-e60!5 TEI..E:X Z~8905 MIL.L. TEI..ECOPIE~ (Z:3) 6Z4--4840 (ZI3) 48B.15~3 April 10, 1989 A. .J. HILL 118BI-laS3) Wi'll. M. FARRER lISa4-la711 STANLEY S. BURRILL (19D2-1957J .... PROFESSIONAL CORPOR"TION Members of,the Planning Commission Ci:y of San Bernardino 300 North "0" Street San Bernardino, California 9.~lB REI Draft Ci:y of San Bernardino General Plan Draft Enviror~ental Impact Report Dear Members of the PllUlnin9 Commis..ion: Hill, Farrer 5 a~rrill represents Stubblefield Construction Company and Stubblefield proper~ies ("Stubblefield"). Stubblefield owns property within the City of Sail llernardino {"CHy"l which will be impaoted by the City's adoption of the proposed Draft City of Sail Bernardino Cene:-al Plan ("D:-aft Plan"). We unde:-S'l'-anc1 that the Draft Plan is before you for consideration. The following comments are intended to alert you :0 specific leg~l inadequacies of the Draft plan and the underlying da~a contained in che Technic~l Background Report dated Februa:-y, 1988 ("TBRn) and the D:-aft Environmental Impact Report dated March 24, 1989 C"DEIR"). They will iocus upon the Land Use Elemen:, particularly the Hillside Management Category of l:hat Element, ,md the integrally rela- ed Housing Element. We enoourage you to give thoughtful consideration to these concerns and to take steps to remedy the identified deficiencies before you make your recommenda- ions to the Common Council concerninQ the Draft Plan. 1. The Draft plan Falls to Provide Adeq~ate Housin9 Fo:- All Econom~c Seqments ot tbe Commun~l:y. State and local gove:-nments have a statuto:-y responsibi- lity to use their powers to facilitate adequate housing for .--- '-' ,.'........ ~ Members of the Planning Commission April 10, 1989 Page 2 all economic segments of the community and to cooperate in addressing regional housing needs. Govt. C. Sec. 65580ldl and Ie). Cities are required to designate and zone suffi- cient land tor residen~ial use with appropriate standards in relation to substantiated growth projections. This the City has failed to do. a. The Draft Plan does not provide for sufficient hOllsing to meet the City's oQligation under state law. The Estimated General plan Buildout for the City and "Sphere of Influence" il; 26,026 units over the next twenty years (Draft plan at 47) and 23,206 units within City limits for the S~e period of time. Draft Plan at 157-156. The data oontarned within the PEIK and the General Plan itselt document the insufficiency of this quantity of housing units. From 1980 to 1988, the total housing units in the City alone increased 12,113, from 43,459 to 59.571. wi~h the supply of single family units deoreasinq (68.9% to 61.4%1 and the supply of multi-family units increasing from 24.7% to 32.6%1. pra;t plan at 148. Significantly, there is no evidence in the TBR or DEIR of ~n oversupply in uni~s which were owned or nigh vacancy rate in units Which were rented (rental vacancy rete being a~~roximately 7%). OrDft Pl~n at 152. Even assuming the rate of growth does not accele- rate, which from all indications it must. the City will require a minimum of 30,282 housing units just to keep pace with the existing growth rate. The City has chosen to ignore the cleer evidence of 9row-~ trends and has refused to adequately provide fOr olearly projected needs. This conclusion is strongly under- soored by the City's indifferenoe to the State law reguire- ments which mandate the incorporation of projections of the Southern california Assooiation of Governments ("SCAli") in the local planning process. Stete law requires that regional housing needs and each locality's share shall be determined by the appropriate council of governments. based upon data provided by the Department of Housing and community Develop- ment (aIlCO"). according to specified criteria and 5ubjec~ to BCD review tor consistenoy with statewide housinq needS. Govt. C. Sec. 65584Ia). Nonetheless. the City has chosen to disregard the olear import of SCAG's June 1988 report (ReqionQ1 Houeing Neede Aeeeeament for Southern CaliforniQI which identifies the need for 10,874 housing units in the ~, " v -.J M~bers of the Planning Commission April 10, 1989 page 3 City by June 30, 1994, and instead has made provision for slightly over h~lf this number -- 5,eOl -- for that same period of time (assuming a straight-line utilization of the 23,206 unite of Potential New Residential Development Within City Limitsl. Draft plan at 157-158. This constitutes an, outriqht abdication of the City's responsibility for provi- ding an adequate supply of housing. b. The Orafe plan does not make adequate pr~vision for moderate nnd low inccme housing. Not only is the total number of housing units inade- quate, but allocation of those units i8 not supported by any reli4ble empirioal data. As you no doubt recall, Empire Economics conducted a study for the City in September 1967. ThiR study analyzed, among other things, supply and demand of yerioun typen of houning within ~he City, including what it termed "move-up homes" (those rel..tively high-priced horn... built in hillside are"s for those who desire ~ spacious house with a large yard, of apprmdmn.Aly 2,500 sq. ft., 3-4 bedrooms, 2-3 b~thsl a~d "detached homes" (entry level homes for those purchasing their first housing unit.s with 2-3 bedcrooms, 2-3 baths and approximately 1600 sq. ft.). Significantly, the Empire Economics analysis disclo6es that in the San Bernardino City housing market durinq the period 1951 to 1986, only 6% of the unit.. sold were in th.. "move-up" category where 63% were detached homes. The remaining salee were of patio homes (10\), townshous@s ~nd condominiums (lS~) and (apparently) custom homes (perhaps 2%). See San 6ernardlno City's Optimal Housing Product Mix -- Rec..nt Trends, Future Expectations and Policy Considerations by Empire Economics, September 24, 19087, pp. 4,9-11, 2~. The city has chosen to ignore the obvious im~lications of the above-cited data. By allocating a full 39.9% of future housing for the 'upper" inoome groups, the City is not fulfilling its legal obligation to provide housing for all economic segments of the commu~ity. Moreover, as set forth below, it i5 apparent that the City cannot possibly even meet the goal which it has set to provide 2315 housing units for those "upper" income groups. See DEIR nt 4-59. ...... , -- -....I Members of the Plannins Commission April 111, 1989 PlIse 4 2. plan Hillside Mana ement policies and ease Upon Ina equate Ana vt~ea The Drllft Standsr " ~. The State OPR General plan Guidelines ("Guidelines") provide that "(sJound policy depends on solid information" and emphasize the importance of documenting the factual and analytic bafl:i.Cl for policy: "It should also be remembered that data without analysis are seldom useful: analysis serves as the bridge of losic from raw data to policy." Cuidelines at B. Not only should vital backsround information be Sivan "some official c;tatus,. but it should be "readily available to decision makers and the public and used as a benchmark for evaluating changes in conditions when future qeneral plar. revisions are needed.- Id. The fact of the matter is that the City's Hillside Management ("MR") policies are not supported by adequate data, and their effects have not been accurately measured. Your consultants have conceded On several oooasions that accurate mei:lliUrelDent of slopes in the areas proposed as Mli has not been undertaken. Yet, the projected n~Br of housing nnit~ to b@ construct~d in these areas has been premised on conclusionCl which ~hey have derived without adequate study. This is evidenced by Figure 54 in the TBR entitled "Cenerali~ed Slope$." There is no inC!ication anywhere of what this map is based upon Or how it was prepared. It appears to be a general "guesstimate" possibly bassi! upon a U.S.G.S. topographical map of some vintase. It oerteinly does not provide an accurate measurement of slopes in the proposed MH areas. Yet, all the assump~ions as to acres available for building and number of units per acre are premised on this map. If tbese assumptions ere in error, which from all indications they are, then the resultinq conclusions are obviously flawed. The City has concluded, without adequate analysis or bnckup dnts, that 2,1195 houeinq units can be built on 3,734 acres of ME-designated land over the next 20 years. (If a straight-line utilization is assumed, only 520 unite oan be constructed in MH areas in the next five y&ars.) Yet, the same expert who prepared the Empire ~oonornioe Report has advised City officials that this oannot be done. We under- stand that Joseph '1'. Janozyk evans, author of ~he Empire Eoonomics Report on housinq trends, bas recently written the c ",,~~, .....I Member.. of the Planning COIllIllission April 10, 1~e9 page 5 City (with a copy to the Chairman of your Commission) sta- ting, among othor thinqe, that a maximum of 1,900 unite can be built on 6,000 acres (apparen~ly his estimate of buildable hlllelde area ae of No~ember, l~eel that have slopes of 15.' or greaterJ Assuming Mr. EVilns' dilta is oorrect, thc 3734 ccres which the City has allocated as buildable MB land will only yield 1116 (not 2,095) housing units I Mr. Evans concludes, "THEREFORE, A CO~ARISON OF ~BE NUMBER OF MOVE-UP AND CUSTOM HOMES THAT WOULD BE REQ~IRED FOR SAN BERNARDINO CITY TO ACHIEVE AN OrTIMAL HOUSING MIX wITH THE NUMBER THAT MAY ACTUAl,ToY BE; D!VET,OPl';n, ACCORDING TO TnE CURRENT HILLSIDE MANAGEMEI.'T STANDARDS, REVEALS TIlAT Tilt CrTY WOULD NOT ATTAIN AN OPTIMAL HOUSING MIX." (Letter of November, 1966.) This severe restriction on the number of units to be t:on..tructed in hillside "re"s over t.he next 20 ye"rs ("'h&th..r that number be 20~5 or 1116' raises other issues whioh have not been addressed. How will the City monitor.<<nd enforce this numerical limitation7 Will development be allowed to proceed until the numeric..} l.imit is reach..d (perhaps in =ive, ten, or fifteen years) or will building permits and other entitlemen~s be .philsed" over the twenty-year period? Docs the City intend to monitor or restrict development approvals and/or building permits "nd, if ao, ho"'? The deve- lopment community is en~itled to this information. 3. Thc Hillside Manaaement Standards Ianore Social And Economic R@alities. Although state requirements for a gener..l plan emphasize environmental and physioal development, "all physical deve- lopment fulfills economic and social n....ds and, in turn, . profoundly affects eoonomic and social conditions. Indeed, general plan policy is social and economic policy.. Guide- linea at 7. The City's Draft plan ignores these important eocial and economic taotors. In the same letter referenced above, Joseph '1'. Janozyk Evans oonoludes that from II finanoial Viilbility pers!,ective, Master Pl"nned COlllmunities that are oriented towarde move-up/custom households, situatod in hillside areas, typically have residential densities of at least three unite per ~~OBB acre. He :urther states that, M[s)uch land-uo~ uAn~ity 10 ~~qui~ed to provide a basic ....~..... " -..J -- Members of the Pldnning Commission April ID, 1989 Page 6 economic incentive for a hillside Master Flanned Community to be developed with a desirable set of product types. ",..enities and f....tures... ant) conclude.: "EMPIRE ECONOMICS HAS COMPARED T~E LAND-OSB D~NSITIES OF OPSCALE MASTER PLANNED COMMONITIES WITH THE LANO-USe DENSITZES THAT SAN BERNARDINO CITY WOULD eAVE, BASEl) UPON ITS PROPOS~D HILLSIDE OROINANCe, ~~O THE RESULT REVEALS THAT THE ECON~lIC VIABILITY OF A MASTER pLANNED COMMUNITY MAY BE SUBSTANTIALLY DIMINISHED AS A RESuLT OF THE RELATIvELY LOW LAND-USE DENSITIES." It one needs further evidence of the soundness of Mr. Evans' oonclusions. he need look no further than ene Amber Hills Project which consists of 19 lots on 41.9 aores. ~he recent;foreclosure speaks clearly to the absence of economic viability for such a project. This should serve as a warning to the City that its presently proposed MH stan- dards contemplate economic di~aster for builders and ~ill result i~ a serious under sUpply of housing for this commu- nity, unless. of course, it is the City's intent to imple- ment policies which result in an inadequate housing supply. The proposed MH polioy is so restrictive as it affects the Stubblefield hillside property that implementation will effectively result in an unconsti~utional taking of the property. Most of the property exeeeds 30\ slope. ~nd undcr the present standards, no eoonomioally viable project Cdn be built. Two recent cases clearly establish the unecnstitu- tional charaoter of the type or aotion the City is conternpla. tini. In Allingham vs. city cf Seattle (19S9) 109 Wn. 2d 947, the Court determined that a Greenbelt Ordin~~ce which required property owners in certain areas to preserve 50 to 70 percent of their land in a natural s~ate was a unconstitu- tionel takini since is deprived the landowners of all profit- able use of a substantial portion of their land. We see no distinction be~ween what the City of Seattle attempted to do with ita Greenbelt Ordinance and what the City is proposing to do by way of its MB 5tandard~. Similarly, in A.A. Frofiles. Inc. V5. City of Ft. Lauderdale (lIth Circu.t, AUgust. 1988) the Court found that a rezoning of property from M-1 (the city's least res~rictive industrial and manufacturing classifioation) to B-3-C Iliiht industrial) denied ~he owner a property interest ,~ .. ' '-" '--.,/ Membero of ~he Planning Commission April 10, 1989 Page 7 because the new classification did not acc~~oda~Q a develop- ment like th~ one he had proposed (a WOOd-chipping opera- ~ion). We seriously urge this Council to take a long, hard look at these MH ~tdodards which effectively deny many property owners economically viable use of their property. 4. The proeeee By Which the MH policies have Been Derived Is Defect~ve. The OPR General plan Guidelines provide thet beeause g-atllering data i8 time-eonsuming an4 eostly, "the local 90vernn~nt should collect ond organize information in the early phases of ~h. general plan prOgram so it can be used later to evaluate the effects of planning options and to eatiefy th~ environmental review requirements..." Guidelines at 55. The City has failed to do this and we urge you ~o oorrec~ ~his deficiency nOW before it is ~oo late. In Mareh, 1~~8, ~h~ CAe a~cpted the new land use dHsig- nation cillled "Hillside Management" withou~ adequately discussing the unaerlying standards. The CAC merely accepted the Staff's recommendation for a loosely worded cet of guidelines as a temporary measure! On NovembQr 28, 19~~ ~e CAe held its first discussion on '~he MH standards. This lasted no more than 2 hours. A secona anQ final discussion ocourred oecember 7, 1988, wherein the CAe listened 'to Mr. Tescher and diecussed the issues among themselves. There was little public input. At about 9,45 p.m., well after many membere had left the mee- ting, a vote was taken, and the MH standards were adopted by a tellingly close vote of 7 to 6. In other words, out of the 24 or 25 members of the CAe, only 7 have actually voted for the MH st<<ndard$ as currently proposed. Five days later, on December 13, the Planning Commission considered and unanimously rubb~r-st~~ped the standards barely adopted by the CAe (with very little input), and three days later, on December 16, 1988, the Common council, again with inadequa~e consideration, adopted these standards without change. We urge the Common to take a further look at these policies and th~ uJwer1ying data. We also note. to keep ~he record clear, that the 50+ aeres of City creek Channel which have been desil/nated Public Flood Control (lPFC"1 are not public landl (Please see our earlier le~ter to the Pl~nning Con~i88ion dated February 6. 1989.) .' C I T ~ F SAN B ERN A R D N 0 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM ~J 8905-804 TO: Brad L. Kilger, Planning Director FROM: Council Office, Ward Two SUBJECT: Letter from Mr. James wirth Pertaining to Minimum Lot Sizes, 1980 North Sierra Way DATE: May 10, 1989 COPIES: Councilman Tom Minor ------------------------------------------------------------- Please find the attached letter from Mr. Wirth express- ing concern of lot sizes of less than 7,200 square feet. It has been my understanding all during our General Plan review that legal lots of record (recorded prior to the adoption of our new General Plan and interim zoning code) which are less than 7,200 square feet may be built upon. There are literally hundreds of lots scattered through- out all parts of the city that are less than 7,200 square feet in area. It is my recommendation that a statement be made in the text of the plan and the development code that all legal lots of record may be built upon within the city of San Bernar- dino, not just the Central city area. I believe that from a legal standpoint we are obligated to allow development of these types of lots. JACK REILLY Councilman, Second Ward JR:jv Attch. . ,"""""-. From: '-' --' Mayor Evlyn Wilcox, City Council Members Jack Reilly, Tom Minor, Michael Maudsley, Jess Plores, Valerie Pope-Ludlam, Esther Estrada, Norine Miller. Planning Director Mr. Brad Kil?erJ General Plan Consultant Mr. Elwood Tescher. JRmes Wirth and Pamily TOI My name is James Wirth. I am a native and lifetime resident of San Bernardino. My family has resided at the same addresR on Sierra Way since 1955. It is my belief that through zonin", it has been the intention of General Plan advisory and decision making parties to revitalize older and declining are~of our city. Certainly the inner city of San Bernardino is one such area. To quote The San Bernardino Sun article Inner citi San Bernardino residents cau~ht in vicel Crime ~iPs once st{l sh nei~hborhol)d (April JO, 19 9) "It (the inner c ty) is the Inlest of six police divisions in San Bernardino for one reason: it has the bi?gest problem and needs the most attention. Once the city's best address, these homes and businesRes are wracked with crime and poverty. Just a few of the oldtime residents remain, others h~ve died or moved away, leaving old Vistorians and shacks alike to the influx of newcomers, many of them without jobs." Because of its condition. portions of the inner city have been Fiven multi- family residential zoning. Unfortunately, it came to my realiza- tion recently that, because San Bernardino is an old city, a number of the lots within the older inner city are slightly less than what current policy considers. a standard sized lot to be, that is 7200 sq.ft. Because current General Plan policy states 7200 sq.ft. must be achieved before any multi-family residential rejuvenation can take place, and no variance-flexibility may be ?iven where General Plan requirements are concerned, a real problem has been created within our older inner city. This is due to the fact that a number of the lots which are within the inner city, which have been fiven multi-family zoning, such aR the central part of Sierra Way, are sli~htly less than. within 5~ of, the now current minimum of 7200 sQ.ft. The end result of this inflexibility to lot size iR that numerous parcels which the city truly desires to have, and are most in need of rejuvenation will be ineligible for this reju- venation. Por example, I discovered that a portion of what I thought was our lot actually belongs to the city. When I recalculated our lot size I realized our lot is slightly under, less than 5~ short of the minimum lot size. Because this lot my family lives on now is fractionally under the 7200 sq.ft. needed, we could not even add one additional unit. Even if we were able to combine our lot wi th our neighbor'S, because we would be fractionally short.. of -the potential our multi-family zoning offers, our two lots to~ether would still only allow just 1.69 additional units to be built. Previously, for more than twenty years, the city considered these same lots on Sierra Way to be large enough to support a minimum of three units per lot, a number of the lots have four units each on them and one fractionally larger neighboring lot has six units h~ built on it. Thus, where we would have been allowed to have T "...., p.2 '- ~ built at least t.he minimum of four and likelv six or possibly even more additional units, on two lots, under the current General Plan we now could add 1.69 additional units to the same two lots. In addition we, as remaining longtime residents of this area, have already paid increased property taxes because of multi-faMily zoning for more than twenty years. . A special policy, Policy Number 1.1), has already been included in the General Plan which calls for Redevelopment A~ency cooperation in combining smaller lots to achieve minimum lot requirements where exsisting lots are substantially below the necessary minimums. However, this policy only applies to two older parts of the city, Seccombe Lake and the Mt. Vernon area. To my knowledge, no provisions at all have been made that would assist smaller lot owners in any of the other older parts of the city, particularly the deteriorated inner city, to help them make their smaller lots useable under the zonin~ they are in. The policy we have proposed would assist smaller lot owners, within the inner city, by allowing them to get some feasible use of the zoning designation their property is in; without calling for any change in any building stardards or development code requirements and without the necessity of involving San Bernar- dino's Redevelopment Agency's assistance. Therefore, I respectfully request that our city adopt the policy we have proposed which will allow older exsistin~ lots, within the inner city, to be more easily rejuvenated. This policy would help smaller inner city property owners and our city in achieving the revitalization Policy 1.1) was designed for, for the Seccombe Lake and Mt. Vernon areas. We plan to attend the upcoming city council meeting devoted to land use, on Wednesday May 10, 1989. If you wish to contact us sooner on this policy issue, please don't hesitate to call. James Wirth and Family 1980 Sierra Way San Bernardino, CA 92405 Phone 886-1880 ...-...... . . v -.../ THE SUN April )0. 1989 THE HIGH-CRIME NEIGHBORHOODS 1'~ddy~s',~t~!I<~~.~: ~n 'Be'm~~~ ~~~f~f4ri:2' .'. . ,".'" . '".:. . '....;. T~ICllnafoq:IO~:"~~~".. Inner city'; ~ ."'" ..' from I~ner cItY: 2"~. . CIty , ...., ..' ~. .' Crtm. category. 1~. ." CIIna ......~xu_~~mt'Ii'~ :~~a~~,f;'i. .~~..... .... '..""''''',"" ""CI"M! . ...... ". .' ill;,:l!Jj' ., Asjgmaje<l iisSau .' - 1 ;37$~: ~'Buiiil''''cftiWJ;t.t'~~-4~'1l 'vii~lCliilieti""''''''''~~'U~f~ : '.I .... . .. .' .... .......}', . . ." 'h~ . o~ the cIly'l be.1'~ 1,,1, these homel 8nd~"*-' . wFackacl with'CI1/tW W P6viift;~~;.; Just a lew of th,'oldllmB "cldenll" . remain, others 11M cIecl or ," . ," rnoWd aWay; leaving. . :-' < ;~:. VlclOrlan. and lhac:ka lib io the . . ~~; '~~MWCOJo~~~~-;~:h> . tMm:-unoul bI.- 0" ~"~~.."o :..:.:~; .~. ........ '.'loiW".' .~'.r..:~-;" .; '''',,' :t~:-o ,..\ . HIghland Ave. . ,~11t it .!{1 'St;!l) ..~.'l\i '"'''' J ~ "i".if". '." t ;fth~; ::~~;~ ~~~: . f~::: I .~kr1~,:;;::. f(;:~..~ . ., .., . "'otl' ;'. :" IETTI J..4 . llNllfllt "'" 6ouICr.SMe..,_..CO&,nrJ......~I_......~. ,w to ... . l' ~....~~. . .: ;... ..~ :... ,,. ;~."' ~".....,...:.~_.-..... . _ .!. .._4.....:..:.....to. .._ r'~ ~ ~ .' PROPOSED POLICY TO BE ADDED TO THE S.E. GENERAL PLAN TEXT Any lot within the area deRi~nated a~ San Bernardino's Inner City. a section of the city bounded on the North by Hi~land Ave.. on the South by Fifth Street. on the West by Interstate 215. and on the East by Sierra Way inclusive shall be given a max- imum allowance of 5~ for the purposes of, meeting minimun lot size requirements for uses permitted under the land use desi~na- tion the lot has been givenl provided that any development proposal approved for said lot shall contain no variance to any city building or development code requirements. ~ C I T y"-b F SAN B ERN AR D YN 0 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 8904-2501 TO: MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJEcT: SUMMARY OF LAND USE DESIGNATION cHANGES FROM IPD. DATE: April 10, 1989 cOPIES: ------------------------------------------------------------- The Draft General Plan, as recommended by the Planning commission, proposes certain changes to the land use designations adopted in "May, 1988 as part of the Interim Policy Document (IPD). The following table lists all existing IPD land use designations and explains changes recommended by the Planning commission to the Draft General Plan. EXISTING PROPOSED IPD DRAFT G.P. RE RE RL RL RS RS RU RU RM RM RMH RMH RH RH MH RL CHANGES (IF ANY) None None None Draft GP permits clustering of units. IPD did not. None None None MH becomes an overlay district with an underlying designation of RL. CN CN From FAR 0.5 to 0.35 CG CG-1-4 Refinement of CG with suffix 1 through 4 to denote location and permitted uses. Also, FAR changed from 1.0 to a range as follows: CG-1, 0.7; CG- 2, 0.7 ; CG-3, 0.7; CG-4, 1.0 ,,---., INTEROFFICE MEMO~DUM: 8904-2501 LAND USE DESIGNATION CHANGE FROM IPD. April 13, 1989 Page 2 CO CO-4,CO-2 CR CR-1-CR-4 CH CH MU comoonents in IPD MU-1: IL, CG, CO MU-2: IL, CG,CO, CR , ..,., CO-1 remains essentially the same as CO. CO-2 created to permit conversion of residen- tial to office uses along Arrowhead Ave. Also, FAR changed from ~ to a range as follows: CO-1, 1.0; CO-2, 0.35. Refinement of CR with suffix 1 through 3 to denote location and permitted uses. Also, FAR changed from ~ to a range as follows: CR-1, ~; CR- 2, ~; CR-3, 0.7 to 3.0: CR-4, 0.7. From FAR 0 . 5 to Q....1 uses have expanded to industrial and categories. . Also, include office Deleted. CO-l. Uses placed under New From FAR 0.5 to 0.75 From FAR 0.5 to 0.75 None None None None None Deleted and replaced in each case by one or more of the original "component" designa- tion as follows: Reolacement DesianationCsl CR-3 (permits greater range of uses, except no industrial) CR-3 (permits greater range of INTEROFFICE MEMO~DUM: 8904-2501 LAND USE DESIGNATION CHANGE FROM IPD. April 13, 1989 . Page 3 -- ...."J uses, except no industrial) MU-3: IL, CG, CR MU-4: CO, CG, RMH MU-5: IL, CG, CH MU-6: CHC MU-7: CHC, CG, IL MU-8: CG, IL MU-9: CG, IL MU-10: CG, CO MU-11: IL, CG, CO OIP, IL, CG-1 (in specific areas) CR-2 (permits same uses as MU- 4) IL, CG-1, CH (permits same as MU-5) CO-1 (permits same uses as MU- 6) CO-1, CG-1 (permits same uses as MU-7, except no industrial) CG-2 (permits CG and multi- family residential uses) CG-2 (permits CG and multi- family residential uses) CG-3 (permits similar univer- sity-oriented uses) . OIP along Waterman Ave. CH around Sierra Way at Mill Street. In addition to the changes listed above, the following categories are proposed to permit senior/Congregate Care Housing with a density bonus above the established resi dential density: CATEGORY DENSITY CR-2 14 du/ac max. 50% bonus 50% bonus 50% bonus 54 du/ac max. 54 du/ac max. 21 du/ac max. (west of 1-215) 36 du/ac max. (east of 1-215) 72 du/ac max. RU RM RMH RH CO-1 CO-2 CG-2 ~ ....-, ,> CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN REVISION PROGRAM r AUDIT TRAIL """Ill Please press down Date _ ')-~/ /7-% "I Name 01(' In e-S:' W,' ,.. Th Mailing Address 1"7%tJ _<)/e,.. yc... U//2 7 1 an r! sS Phone %;.5',(, - dRsY - Zip 9r>? ~a.s ?t?/"C<-f I Request/Comments Arid r~ " ..s /A S e. Location of Property or Area of Concern STAFF ONL Y BELOW THIS LINE Existing IPD Designation Proposed General Plan Designation Existing Land Use Existing Zoning , By Comments Date of Action PC MCC Action Comments Illtrrr..... 171-003 (3-89) &:~~=~~ ~ '4 -+- -r ,."If' CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN REVISION PROGRAM AUDIT TRAIL Please press down /_ Date S//(f),L89 Name Bub ,l?dgt!S~ S Mailing Address ~7,{JC 7 ~:::sr .d'76~ U. Phone IE) 6 Z ~9 ~tY 0 Zip 9~~ Request/Comments C !4h4-;</9e... ,t?~y 4'/PS".f" , / /-..B L/d Ac./U- ,e l:. bC~/~N''',/;r;..J ~ Ae/Y:- ~ /- .;t. ~,,< '" 9rurr , location of Property or Area of Concern ~ 11',/,. /)'lPN-I' /fu~ /",./ 6B7t/~"..G STAFF ONL Y BELOW THIS LINE Existing IPD Designation Proposed General Plan Designation Existing land Use Existing Zoning By Comments Date of Action PC MCC Action Comments 171-003 (3-89) CITYOFSAN8E~ CENTRALI'AlNTNiISERVICES ...I- -r- ,. .,.. -, / ,)" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN REVISION PROGRAM AUDIT TRAIL lease press down Date 5-/0 - ~q Name ~\."Jl ~r"'o.rsk J~ur: Mailing Address-.5Ql 1\\.. p\al ~ Atr-{ PhonM sz 'i ~5' (tV ZiP---9~~ ( ~~~ ~ Request/Comments~et" '-.I". ~l?C'>~' ~L @ 4 J.u.. l at. location of Property or Area of Concern G~I".1~ STAFF ONL Y BELOW THIS LINE Existing IPD Designation Proposed General Plan Designation Existing land Use Existing Zoning By Comments Date of Action PC MCC Action Comments 171-003 (3-89) CJTY OF SAN 9ERNARDlNO CENTRALPRlNTlNGSEflVlC10S + -I- .- - ,. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN REVISION PROGRAM r "" REQUEST TO SPEAK y{: DATE OF HEARING ~ - r '3 ~ g 1 SPEAKER'S NAME ~~Oe., I ~ ADDRESS 3ZS;-W/;t;{ __ PHONE ZIP'7LytJ I ORGANIZATION Note: Individuals - Max 3 minutes, organizations - Max 5 minutes. ISSUES/AREA OF CITY TO BE ADDRESSED ~ ARE YOU PLANNING TO SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS PRIOR TO THE HEARING? ~es No Staff Only Below This Line Request Received: Phone In Person ____ Written ____ By Date: / / 88 Time A.M. P.M. position on Agenda PC MCC \.. ~ L ...- ~ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN REVISION PROGRAM REQUEST TO SPEAK DATE OF HEARING PHONE tfL- 4 f9G SPEAKER'S NAME ADDRESS ZIP ORGANIZATION Note: Individuals - Max 3 minutes, organizations - Max 5 minutes. ISSUES/AREA OF CITY TO BE ADDRESSED ;; {p -/7--1- ARE YOU PLANNING TO SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS PRIOR TO THE HEARING? Yes No Staff only Below This Line Request Received: Phone In Person ____ written ____ By Date: / / 88 Time A.M. P.M. position on Agenda PC MCC ...J-, s-.. ",,. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN REVISION PROGRAM ,. "'" REQUEST TO SPEAK DATE OF HEARING S I, {; (6 \' SPEAKER'S NAM~lil ~&++-ULL-!:- PHONE 00Z ~ 6c::;.iC ADDRESS 7"7 ILl- ( MA-S-F::( l N~ / --t---tr ~ b-rCA-V) ZIP '12 <; 4f., ORGANIZATION-~ -r.;;bllJO V~--y ~f) ,)-F /2;=:.-A-(1lJ~;: Note: Individuals - Max 3 minutes, organizations - Max 5 minutes. ISSUES/ARE~CITY TO BE ADDRESSED + 7{it.r C+--\ ~V0Ck~+T1~'~ - -1!;r'2I\~-t<; MILL IN\,kNJ> (tt0lEtL J)/L- D{~ - UAf&:rqr/A--rE- (t-rl II ____ {;;~ A- D~AIiz;.vJ ~ -fu l?-iV -1l!-1':::f]xZf-:- / SF/' &:;VSD, 7--:/ 00VT ~(j)~ / ------;T1'r~ 0 r. ~ r- ARE YOU PLANNING TO SUBMIT WRITTE~, COMMENTS PRIOR TO THE Yes ~ No HEARING? Staff Only Below This Line Request Received: Phone ____ In Person ____ Written ____ By Date: / / 88 Time A.M. P.M. position on Agenda PC MCC \. ~ ....,... ~ " ,---,' CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN REVISION PROGRAM , ""'" REQUEST TO SPEAK DATE OF HEARING M~ 10\ (Qfy1 SPEAKER'S NAME 1-0r1~<;;(,V'I ADDRESS I i-f~1 N. l'&~C<... i~ 0 I 130-/... h ~ ?-1 ORGANIZATION G(:{f,'1~ ~S PHONE (1JL-/) 11/-?93! tN~, CA- ZIP 1'2~f3 Note: Individuals - Max 3 minutes, organizations - Max 5 minutes. ISSUES/AREA OF CITY TO BE ADDRESSED Gf aSS" Y'5' Net ~5"J'-1 J <c"SIK_ f ARE YOU PLANNING TO SUBMIT WRITTEN,/COMMENTS PRIOR TO THE HEARING? Yes 1<-. No Staff Only Below This Line Request Received: Phone ____ In Person ____ written ____ By Date: / / 88 Time A.M. P.M. position on Agenda PC MCC \... ,- .) "'~/ . .. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN REVISION PROGRAM r AUDIT TRAIL "'" 'F l..CbV' cbtJ.l7COL \7l':;;;- Please press down q 6 a I l - Date tvf Al-Cl 0 I l 0 -L Name_~6-) MILLt=.~/p.&\}t:== Cl2:.LVlS Phone (11c\)gB7-277~ - ... (, _I -L 4/ L- Mailing Address 8 Z,s r:: 'S ry ~\. Zip qz [ v RequesVComments TrcfT Av0 Y;::U() 1!v{\7-"^\ LJZ -~ ["")1 S 1d2IGT Location of Property or Area of Concern I:,J)!:6 f-11:,.CA!;:. 012. Wili Put.7,A ~'(ZFfl, -(AJ/O STAFF ONL Y BELOW THIS UN! Existing IPD Designation Proposed General Plan Designation Existing Land Use Existing Zoning Comments Date of Action Action 1~~ _& ~~ nM~~ a~,;i rP~ Il~_ . ^ - (A:7 rJ,V' , _ ~. PC MCC Comments \..... 171-003 {3-891 CITYOFSANBERNAADINO ,j CENTfW. PAlNTm SERVICES ~ M~ . - "-" . CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN REVISION PROGRAM , """ DATE OF HEARING ~ \ \.0 \ ~~ \ 1 SPEAKER'S NAME -:S:ftr.cN<-- \/ ft..~"0c..[l v-I~ ADDRESS \)0 fovx.. $4<:\ \ \ PHONE tl$ '7 '\ t <aLl- ZIP 't "2 4 \ L- ~ ORGANIZATION Note: Individuals - Max 3 minutes, Organizations - Max 5 minutes. ISSUES/AREA OF CITY TO BE ADDRESSED l::;;"~v.. f\~- \ l..J'v..J1) ~~ ARE YOU PLANNING TO SUBMIT WRITTEN C9MMENTS PRIOR TO THE HEARING? Yes V No staff Only Below This Line Request Received: Phone In Person Written By Date: / / 88 Time A.M. P.M. position on Agenda PC MCC " ~ --- .....- . ~ .. "-,.....' ',.~ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN REVISION PROGRAM Please press down Date S- ftJ- ? 7 Name JjeN~ g/cK-~1L Mailing Address 3 "56YJ L,lIIe I1tJ,v~ U &86-- 06 (, '1 /ffIJ". - 9 2 'If) 7 Zip Request/Comments J-IiU s,;jt~ IJ1 L'iAAF4U" CY .4-/2-,.". A Location of Property or Area of Concern S/)/"v,J.~,- J-/J/> C;",L+ r;,1'~~" AR-P.:/4 STAFF ONL Y BELOW. THIS LINE Existing IPD Designation Proposed General Plan Designation Existing Land Use Existing Zoning By Comments Date of Action PC MCC Action Comments 171-003 (3-89) CITYOFSA/llBEIlNAADINO CENTRAl. PflINTlNGSEIlVlCES &. J__ ...........~----_..- , CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN REVISION PROGRAM Please press down o&:fB-. Date 4Xl~ Name ~ o'A ~ Phone [f It!' 96 eI- (a-69 Mailing Address PO BY-- ~I I3ALI:nv/~ d?1,e*-.z.ip 9/70 C) /A/Fo ~ ~..1? .A 1 A:L.J<. '----- ~ Request/Comments Location of Property or Area of Concern flPp Ie 0 x.. l.f ~ u /J L l ir^J STAFF ONL Y BELOW THIS LINE Existing IPD Designation C. J.I Proposed General Plan Designation Existing Land Use Existing Zoning (21-} By Comments 0/,<:;' ~ /,1,,,,, J: IIv C .r .J r/-o ~ Op l::7e,.+tTc:- , t-o (!4'TU r-" , l2e/vfoRC /1'#Ji} /,eo J...J Date of Action PC MCC Action Comments 171-003 (3-89) CITYOF~Bf.Flw.!lDlNO CENTflAl.PFlINTlNGSEFlVlCES ....- '......,.' ". .,~. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN REVISION PROGRAM AUDIT TRAIL Please press down Date () - S Name Q A '- 1'1 h G '\'" ILL Mailing Address ~ ~ J..j q 0 ~ I h~ tI f!l' t-+1."J.!.,::)NP C.i4, Phone 7 I 4- '26 V I.J It.l.f ., Zip 9:2:.?~ Request/Comments ~q1CjIr-I(~ I -,.' ~ -r.. I> l). 1\ F I U I ,0 5"'0 , ,r C' -I ~ Go.e -t. t:) ~ ;; It..-I,. L 1" Location of Property or Area of Concern e" f;;....!: r.i 1..4-1.)..1-"').1 tl,,<~r; STAFF ONL Y BELOW THIS LINE Existing IPD Designation Proposed General Plan Designation Existing Land Use Existing Zoning By Comments Date of Action PC MCC Action Comments 171-003 (3-89) CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO CEN1lIAl.PIlINTItlGSERYICES ..... "'../ , CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN REVISION PROGRAM r AUDIT TRAIL .., Please press down li1 Date A~ 10 J 11 'K'7 Name 1\ ('r).l -,-;:, ,.;; J.t SJc..J..J ,,1 , MailingAddress 11__ 7? I{) I(A~I< /,'NIL Phone "li.. 7 - fl:J f) q 7 Zip 9 :l... Y / / Request/Comments 74,A'/.; J /C:7/f/ff: $(:;:> ~/ d.c/0// 4'~f /4-e"e, ~~ /f / C/Nt;{ ~f/f':;// ~:o/~ /"~~ e {j- -2 7/7 4/< .?-t/.(>'-; location of Property or Area of Concern IJ P Ac1 \ STAFF ONL Y BELOW THIS LINE Existing IPD Designation Proposed General Plan Designation Existing land Use Existing Zoning By Comments Date of Action PC MCC Action . Comments ftrrrr....... 171-003 (3-891 &:~~~se:~ ~ AJI , _ - CiTY OF SAN BER'NARDINO GENERAL PLAN REVISION PROGRAM REQUEST TO SPEA DATE OF HEARING !)) / D / ::r 9 I SPEAKER'S NAME /?/C-K A.-/-t.2AIE'. PHONE ADDRESS d..42 E: JJlbHLl'1ft./11 "t1i/E. 5',13 ORGANIZATION /-A;u:j!2- ~ cRL71 i!.D ',' J/UG; 8'J'(,rC~53 ZIP CJ;2 c.;o1 Note: Individuals - Max 3 minutes, Organizations - Max 5 minutes. ISSUES/AREA OF CITY TO BE ADDRESSED -.SAN 8E./G/l)i1P..JY NO ;:::-<Dfffll/Ll.-S &LoL 0 {?/ CA L f'ItUL-'7 LING ::')er &f1Ctt A[;t(fY/ / If. r::fi1 r'// ns- ARE YOU PLANNING TO SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS PRIOR TO THE HEARING? Yes )(_ No Staff Only Below This Line Request Received: Phone ____ In Person ____ Written ____ By Date: / / 88 Time A.M. P.M. position on Agenda PC MCC -I .. \"",..,J CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN REVISION PROGRAM r AUDIT TRAIL "'" Please press down Date ~-7'o -.5'7 Name ~I:) <<> :7 Mailing Address / 7,.f" /) LtJ/V'-/-h ,,::>> ~ r Y",,\ w~ ~ .s-/3 / r? - P ?c~L Phone R.P,{, - d<~f>L Zip '7.::J,Jo..J. Q~ RequesVComments .t:' kl .t-. n A .A Location of Property or Area of Concern STAFF ONL Y BELOW THIS LINE Existing IPD Designation Proposed General Plan Designation Existing Land Use Existing Zoning By Comments Date of Action PC MCC Action Comments Ifltrrr..... 171-003 (3-89) &:~~~lC~ ~ -- .. , -' CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN REVISION PROGRAM r AUDIT TRAIL " Please press down Date '~-ID~ ~7 . N.m. ~~I{h ~ Pho", JiJ.NJfh Mailing Address /..fJ.~ '::.. , ~/Ih:'-/../(_ Zip <(:J..... VI) 7' -Xl _ ( R""",,omm,," ~".f_-fo ~ f);2_'YJ::4. ~/}'i {J"~,,~_~~ CJD A -~ -~- O(?,_I Location of Property or Area of Concern ! _~ 3 (.. 'YL-v / ~A<- !1~.. ~~--t.. (U--u)~ 4jZi4 - I & f2e AA_' I . 7) Ll:i.~r ~ (A/1~ STAFF ONL Y BELOW THIS LINE Existing IPD Designation Proposed General Plan Designation Existing Land Use Existing Zoning By Comments Date of Action PC MCC Action Comments \... 171-003 (3-891 g~~~~~~?~ ~ _ u 11" ,. .... CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN REVISION PROGRAM r ~ REQUEST TO SPEAK DATE OF HEARING S /8 - 07 SPEAKER'S NAME c9c,,~;,J ,.::')-hA<;<;/a-r.....JJ PHONE ADDRESS rl. .;L5~ ~h r ORGANIZATION ~. i?6 ' d, ?5,v-/-.-V1 f n~ I Note: Individuals - Max 3 minutes, organizations 86'7- (5"d-.?-" ZIP '1C).~ Y'6 - Max 5 minutes. ISSUES/AREA OF CITY TO BE ADDRESSED U~J (t CL <;)..r!~ klUt<I>t!.~ i-,tfA)7) I ARE YOU PLANNING TO SUBMIT WRITTE~ COMMENTS PRIOR TO THE HEARING? Yes X No Staff Only Below This Line Request Received: Phone In Person Written By Date: / / 88 Time A.M. P.M. Position on Agenda PC MCC \... ~ " -'- , --- ----- BULLET SUMMARY OF~AL PRESENTATION MADE BY ~S WIRTH AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEE~ WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 1989~ 4. 1. Problem. With an intention of achieving revitalization, older deteriorated portions of the city have been given particular land use designations, which the owners of these properties can not utilize. RECEIVFD- ell Y el_ER~ Problem Resolved. Policy #1.13, pal;.e 134, .baii. b,~e,n included in the General Plan to resolve the ~v~Yph6br~~ut only for two older portions of the city. . Problem Remains. The problem still remains to be solved in San Bernardino's older, badly deteriorated "inner city" area. A Result of Problem. Badly needed rejuvenation of the "inner city," which would benefit the city as a whole, will not take place. 2. 3. 5. A Result of Problem. Property owners are deprived, bein~ un- able to get the real use of the land use designation they have been given. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. A Result of Problem. The city will not achieve the number of housing units that was predicted for "inner city" area in the IPD. A Solution. One solution is to formulate a policy with the same provisions as Policy #1.13 for the entire "inner city." Our Proposed Solution. A solution which we believe to be the most practica~ since our survey shows a large percentage of "inner city" lots are fractionally undersized) is to adopt the policy we have proposed. Benefits of Solution. A policy designed to. solve numbers 4, 5, and 6 above is included in the General Plan. Benefits of Solution. Because our proposed policy allows no variances to any city development codes, older lots with at least 95% of a new required lot size will achieve an end product equal to any development that can be achieved on a fractionally larger lot. Fact. A fractional difference in lot size will not determine if a development is adequate or not. Fact. The consultant and staff recommended that the policy we proposed could be incorporated within poLicies 1.12.30, 1.13.30 and 1.13.31. Fact. Now, since a small misunderstanding has been cleared up, Counilman Reilly again stated he supports the policy we have proposed, as can be verified by Mr. Henry Empeno, whom' Council- man Reilly assured us he would call. ... r ~da(s.:~~~_fi,~,~~i~an 'Be-mSfdi~i~~I~~!.''?~~~~\2~ . .' '.. I.;,. Total caUa for po lea. MI;Y!C,'" Inner city. - .",. from Inner clly: 24,~3 . City, . . ". . I . .- .' Crime Category, 11188. :. calla rkii;;;j6111i\W'l'}~)~r,~l,j"'11W~bi\j Highland Ave. . '.' .:::l.~..._."""~~~..~:!I!I).,,,.!........ Rape.'. . __. . . 81 . ?Rob~""~"\\fi1ft1\~\~~m$'~f; ~....-.-..nl";a~,...;"".^.ilinGl.\l'~"""",,- \1<.1, ,.. Aggra.\,a!''''~~~l~.~~,.,,~;gjl~~~.' }~~.m€?fth~h~L~:~:7.~~?~::; . rlnt'.Athll Cb(~~..f1,:).f" Ihesa home. andbwllnessll.'ire '.... wiacked wllh'crlrlMi..-m ~itY::~'.~ Just a few of Iha 'oldllme reSkkihl." - remaJt1; olhalSlIM ~ or " . , .. ;:a:1~.';~~~'": . .lnnux01 IIIWCOrriirs; manr oI-.L",", , then'.lthoUtJobi.~~~~~.n (~:~.~,~':'.:~l. -"~:i~~;.::......~., '_t.' ;~"';.'::/~:.:~.. ~~:.",:\ '.' . -~~, l' i ~ct'1':'~1 'Y"8EnS~QHl ~,8IIft e."*,,!~III)If...CMa""'.) ~"~f'f.i......~~__~.....~......~, Su,g:gestion Made I made the following sug- gest.ion on Policy 1.12.1~e68 (a policy not directly related to our proposed policy). If it iR the Mayor's and Council's intent to have smalJer (under 20 unit) Sr. Citizen developments occur, because developments need to be cost effective,. the follow- ing change incorporated within the existing policy would be most helpful. After the word feasibility add (for any project of 20 units or greater: and in every case) a plan is ... ~1_~Jl[ .... ;'13111( SU~ ...1tIlll.. :~~3:.. ,':j'i:i:t:~#x Wi-i#::'~;.j;; TRANSPORTATION I FLOC() CONTROL DEPARTMENT 825 East Third St,aet . San Barnardlno. CA 92415-0835 . (714) 387-2800 ,~I"lfe .........~t~....... -~ ~ -:::.- ...::::- ---~ ~....... /'lftllll\\\~' COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY KEN A. MILLER Director May 10, 1989 The Honorable Evlyn Wilcox Mayor of the City of San Bernardino 300 North D Sreet San Bernardino, California 92418 Dear Mayor wilcox: 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. That application was requesting a change fran open space zoning to CM zoning. Through the process of amending the City's General Plan, the Flood Control District owned lands have now been designated CR-4. It is our opinion that the property is sufficient in size to accarm:xlate not only future auto related uses, but also other regional land use activities. Accordingly, the District requests your consideration to amend the text of the General Plan as it relates to the subject property. The proposed language amendments are attached (all changes are shown in upper case letters). I believe that these amendments would allow for the expansion of auto related uses as well as allowing other regional oriented uses that would be canpatible with the property location. For your reference, attached are location maps and information relating to the property. The Flood Control District would appreciate your consideration in this matter. Very truly yours ~a.~ KEN A. MILLER Flood Control Engineer KAM:rc Attachments as noted cc: Supervisor Barbara Cram Riordan '0 l\ V o PROPOSED TEXT CHANGES TO SAN BERNARDINO CITY DRAFT GENERAL PLAN 1.18 Provide for the continuing development of the San Bernardino Auto Plaza as the principal center of new car dealerships, serving local residents and adjacent communities AND PROMOTE OTHER COMPATIBLE REGIONALLY ORIENTED RETAIL AND OFFICE USES. 1.18.10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - IN ADDITION, ALLOW COMMERCIAL, REGION-SERVING RETAIL USES AND COMMERCIAL OFFICE USES WESTERLY OF AUTO PLAZA DRIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE "DENSITY/INTENSITY AND HEIGHT", AND "DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN" GUIDELINES. 1.18.32 REQUIRE A TRAFFIC STUDY PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT WESTERLY OF AUTO PLAZA DRIVE WHICH IS 5 ACRES OR MORE IN SIZE OR THE SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY WHICH CREATES BUILDABLE PARCELS OF 5 ACRES OR LESS IN SIZE. THIS REQUIREMENT MAY BE WAIVED IF A SPECIFIC PLAN IS APPROVED THAT ADDRESSES TRAFFIC ISSUES. i; ... " ~I IF;~ , . " ""I"';!':!"'~m'''''''''''-'~':'''"'''' , ..:; ~, ~ .!t j-;:~.... OI..M J.L.~~ ~I ,I~, ~ ~ ~ x: .., ir--~. '1 '.. t.1!.l -:: t ,.I;!I~'1 ~" ;' - ~ " '." '.\ I" " "'-' ~ .~, . M' JI" -; ~ ~ i;:l:y.--- .; )" ~ ~i(:.~ . '"!'::.:.' .!"~.I'" ,:ir'! r.;,; _I """" "t- --'l-~ _~ _l-""."""'lf-.u-- -- -~4-~-Li:-- ---~ ':' ~~~S ---9'" :4.:~.- ~::Il i-,....-l! t. -It-Jj.;....-t~ ~""'\.. '~fl; ;:;, '"I .,"-rm.~1 9THI i <<I ~ U') \. ~ t S1 '1 l~ .1....-- 19TH ~....,;;;- .." ,,'~ "!,j'I~:i;" ,. --"""''' .- - .;<, -'h'" "',: '. ::S~;":I' ~ TH, "I 1 ~i"'t~~''1' l! ~_l BTH" t I1H ;' $' -~Jf ,C I 0<'.: 1 1 1 "'.' Ii' ,,,' ~':.' ~...:: . ~,.,.... -" . -';:I , ".' ~ ~ ,.~. ~~I<:'/ _ :....1!....,lti lj Vt. ,~ I: I "'s' >Ooi':;....~~' !1_ . ....r-'t,=- ... ....., ,.-J:;. < "" :1!, __:- . ~~l_ ..'-- ~ I :> p. ~ I" ;, I",.....w -' i:r.. .{ tlW f.... 'c: n f~" r'r----~ ...!.!..!!.' r, ~' Jr-'I-;;lf: ,\ :: /, , . ~c.y.-: ..;:' '~I-!rb~~";" ";', ~~ ,"1'-.. .. ~ L.. Y'! ""'".;..;':: E ;':' ) ...p : .kO~~, ; ,_. .l' ~.- '\ji.J.. ~r~,:.t-:._. iit If, ~ '~.;,[-"- ~nr.-:;:,'::--'~ -R:r'"- , I :.......-:.....;'- " ~" l:( ~ ~Iz ~ ~8~" '" ::\'-i-~l ~ f~ ~ f_, I'rt;-'~,J.~e. . .'J;" _ ........jl !~R'" I !;~Ull IJ" '. .,.:;: i:;u~"' ".' :, ~ ... t!;_". " AST;---' .... '::"~:,':.'-;,, ,,,,,',"..~' .,..I....~.'..::~ T:~ . J li'-TI""""?!' 'T" '~i.~ :-;'~"'::t ST'~ .:. , ~ '.~' ..,,-. ;' :.~'II:'H j ..., ,::' ~i'~ :\~I'l::r:,~ / or' .';,::1., -7 ~W -- ~. I"" 1 1'--- _.-.---. '""""", 1 %~;;;::::;:::.:::.;;~'t ~, ('" :'....~i ~~ihr I ~ /' ib&ir-~ ~~ll ) , I M.S' ".--"-- 1_",...11,,,110,.. .__..*-~*~; ~:~:~::~~;t:~ii<". 3~~ ~..[~.'..'? .,.i r".~ I,..~... ST ~r,,:-~...~~~i1 q 3RO \y ~ "" ......1" ~ sr_.... :;~A.j~l."'" -.:--:>,..?;..;..;.... Ihl, ~tf*:",. :.,I~' ....., 1 I ' " ',~~_ ~, 'I. -> ..;;-~. .. i:_ 1""''''''' i.- ~ :..o(f,.,....J.;.:.: J -,~ ...,,!. ..-., ~f., ::.;' ::-~Io' $1 I~, ~",-! , ~I II ." r :, <( ./....'" _ /1....... \!~.tln.....j',..... I ...D........... '-1.;:;1 I l C'OuI." _,_. 2ND ~T '...-r.... I I ,,~;: ; 'li" . "00 ~~I:;;~I it ...,,,1 liiF . -..1. u. '~T ~ ~ RIAnoi~: I .,~ ;[i RIAno ~ 'I~\~;: ....' ) LRIALT~ \A,!"" '., .; !~''':.~ ~,~..'AL;?!' ':l~: :1 'AV' J ,\!:'.:.,"-:)_!_ !i.IAl'r: '- '~;?1~ \*"-":: ~ ~; ..:.f ~I~. ~'; ~ - =:~ .~:: , 'm ','~~"".: > .7'\:1 11-- ~ f.,~"- I t;r / 1;~':J~~' iibI" 'if!"'; , '~~L . ~ -" '" ". o>-..t. , 1, u -. ,<.' :~~; : ~\ :t :~i~ ~HN $! il:-p: .. .....(WO~ ~'''IT i'" 1 null ~~ i\.Jb / ~1-~1~' _J :l :1 ~I;~"l'~~,;: ~, ':' : "!~" 0 !... ~ ~:- > I....,,, . ~,\,'.., ,,I .I ",' I /'. 'II: :~!~ ""'i~ ~ W.I"U A'At: ,.. lOll - -'I ~"1~~~: '/ .~,. ~o <( ~tJ' ~ ,.:::,:: 50 '~~\ l' ,.", ".,,!I"'t' , , 'W'" < . l' ' 0 .; : : :' " Sf . [tihl 'i, \ 111 :'1i-R ,'1 ri ~ ~ ,r}\'-- .J . \~ ~~r: 'f'; ! 'f" ~ ' ~;:;, ~: ~ L L.~L..~,~,~ r:~~5.l. ~ILl~ "'T M . \ ,J.t'1'}!"':;;;- .""1.----(0< "S.. I ~.... Mill ,\. 19 ~ :; 1'" _srI /~' ... Mltl ST '-I Mli'"'i........~..,... ST ...J-_. _~.~'~ ~.H~'~;.~.i.\-\ "'t' !.- -"",'., ":i-+":... "..-fc l<-i '-w._r'~;;;,<.1- ,!-., ,--,~~..!: :.=...."","'."----t-- '1 "' .'-' <;~. I !I,~ ----\.\ ,. lOR.... ' I""~ _.}" .0;, I.........w ----- ! r 1 I l. .,~~f"11.,~~~1;. .. I ~ FII '"'<1.' "'-.*" \Q~ .=~. ~.s, ::~.~- .~~ -~".!<H-~- 1 -;:-~1 -".'" ~ ..~. '. .. ,~.. ,.,," . ~ 11,,"1< '''/' ~ ,. . ~ . ..,4, ~' I ,... ,---, ~ 1 \,. ~!tr-:!'''?''''' lVI'~~" ': I .. ~ ,..-"~:\l/l"'Al'" U .-.' ,'/ I ~ :.::: ,OlIO 6 I KJO OIlANGl AV\ ...... fJ1n:' _ or J:- 0 OHl..i!. -+[t, ~ . :";.?:~ I" . ~ . , .. toO< t. ~ SUlJv... \1~-i I ... ,.,J "J.lli.~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ..I~~~ tr- ~ ~~fl.$'-$;.-";.;::; .'.::... * .' . / z IlIoU 11 > : ~~.,.. ......' '\J "l'1l, > '-~.' , 'I,,, ::, , . ,,~.::,"~:~;:1 =. CE.,,^, I" 'v ."'"'' p -- ,- , I ....... ! ~ ..,f,"""", ..:. ~ 0 -~;'o..j /.........;~I~:~ o,.>go;~ l 1\ z ,...... AV' .. ~Cl1.U'S -iJ'slf7': ...%~. ,- r....... ... .~, ~ I-- ~;'''''''I''jJ'''/'?''~''';S ,. <I .,.... ~ .....~ I ~1f!1l I 11\1 """. l~ "/ "'i'~ ~';.' .," . ;);;.:::.;:2;~~"... I "'"""- ~ " , . ~ ~.- j' " '1-<ic _,. ...'<.,'./ ~1~1~ ':: '":. -.....~!Q-~,.,./y./>>~-rr-.. 3:~ $' ~ I lr ~ ~I J I ~c::;o ~ '" ~"""':I'-.... <I , :t; _ ~-:-F-_"-;"';'*:~>;J.- :~.2/0"'lIt"fSl __ +\~_{ __ - .. ~.:... --- . ." ".. '.~E"~ "','" .-..... ,- - "."'""" AN' I ~g I ~ ~\.~ =1.1.\;"1\ 'g ~ >~ .;-. ( .......!;o ~~, O~'\"I(;f SMOWAD:! t~~, i. ~ ! . tl Iftf~ % ~~~ ~', I .. \:~' J]S! I~ --'I~~-~.!. 1......tJ!!._____Sl_.__w~ I !!rtl :-"3"-1; ~ "d i!r ",,' '..,i' d " ~ ~.."":._'''~"."' 1 . '" 'I 'i I~!AB' ~$J~ I ~~...o ~ ~~ ~. "!f p.. ~ - ........... 1......_ ANT" I U .oeo.....~"1 'r~;Ji$m.:(l_9:s~ill<:i'\ ~""ll\ tl>O~~~..~" .. I ~.. - 5 I~~ ~. _;j 1110. 'Oll, U 1 !t; '.A~ ('1 1<1 lrE~ ~ .. ,,<<:: . :; ~. ....~~A "~/'9G; ("~ ~. I I' 0'1Ot1T Ii= ....n I- ..,.....,.. :=;: /\ ,~, .. 1-.' 'f....~ I I ........ I ~ r. ~,(. - ..'/ u~~i !. ~:~ & ;lsi 't.fi- f,€..... ,<>- ~~~ . I 'S"N~"lIoNO ~:..~ -i'}-~~-~~--jtt.- __. :iirE-q' ~:, ';',- s[~:;.i....~,,~~ ~'x J~~ ~:~zC~:~~~~.f~...}:;77 - ~ '1:' ~IOQ~~-,~ : :; ~ :;,1.e.tt"t;!n "~7H:. ~).=.:, ~:'l.. eI J~~ r ~~ ~"!.I~ t..~ i \ I F" "---- "if <( ':Tl '-' C'~ s~ ~..~.". '''_h' / ../ '1 1 -;; .. 1 ... L" >-- .....~'W.. b" t > .if IY.J : W I \~ /--- J \. > ---'$ -"'-ll '."'1' ", ~ ;- _~ It ~f ~ tr" II. <t: UI"W"V~' nR :, / :to",,""'IF.t_. .~~. ~"L,j; I ... II. 0Ul$10<0 ~_~ U~:I Ot ": : ~ -~-'.....!!J .1 J V~. '\ V ~ J'1,1\" II: 0" .;:L!i1 r/---'", ---OJ. -~ ~~ _n!l.J___}L.J'...~___. ~~:-;;---F~~"" :.+....-,...dn.-T.- ----!lr"""""----""-- .~, ~....:. - < > 100 ( IiRWY U . \. X ~I'" ;~~ L ~~ "",""" .' '.~~ I t'~.~J.w\'I'QQIL ~''--. -L , "iff). O~..... :r' , ,.- "" ~ ~- ~ - ~ _.'H_':"'-.Y,..:::..,!..--- . ~___ !'O';"'"~..''''' : ._~~' '. ;+i-:'~. -::::-". '-~r J-, ~~ . ' '\ /', ,.,.. r- -,-',,-~. ~JyQll"01'\!---~--7.'- L" liT ,~~I' ' ';I'~ .,..,... , II ! U , - . ~~ ~h( f -" ft!~ , ' -. ""'^-I;JI;1 - V,~I1...; .~.- ,~ .F ...\ ,'II 1"<0 '''',: I ""~Il " ;~. ~I ;;." " ",'. r,'!\- >' \, " I. :..... ". ~/s:~~ '/!':' !I ;r.o . : "/9 ,\ t.'~ I ~.....,..'u. --_ ' I . - ~"D[." U ~ -.... ~t~ 'Si1-" ."~'~;~':' - -f--- -r 'f,~ ---~ ~\\~fi1~1' :",:~,,;;,~::::~~':')'~:.=.::-nnn~~;1-: III~ ~ l::t - ~\.. ~L_" l~ ;- . ~~_~ ~-i I;~~.-"".r.i ;lYt:i~~~' ______ ~ 1;L.ll ..~ )11 f. 0 t 0.. ~"'K!" . 1 j. I:t. *~M"" ~.. '., /III'!" ! 1'~'!4..~I:. 1 '(~' \~ ~~ ~.c... i, ;'I~~.'~ -~j,.4-[ ~l ,~(;r/',,' 'M~ ~ ' """.'" ,",~r,':<>;1 ~ '/-',,:r 'I ::;~, _.>' Ii jr.1':1 , fl _ I ....'" toOol.DIl to '''1~_~''!'i~ I 'tF:-"" y.~I-;;: M" ~ :; <.!j':" J '1, ~e.....,; ..,L 3 ~ I ~ ~I~.,...,'" ....-!.__........""~" ~ -I-fr.. -, . '.. 1,.J.'" ,'" ~I 1 ~" '''t~ 0 , \ / ...!i .:.T,.~.:;".JJ "'::""'" t !:' 11,~,,~~~.., ::> t I ~ ~"/ I .J .. (\ ''''"'Yf~~:''' r- 1-' 5T & t I. '.:r~ ,.. ," . ..... ~-...... , (O'R:">.. ~ 1 ., :'''(~''lI'or. ~-n. '-... " 'S ~."' = [" I ::)t).".!o 1.>:-/"'; r"'''!\.u~l~ 11 .--,. z ri...~~.lJ~ . ,... ,- / UNIVERSITY ~ V AV '1........._) , ". !: 't'" " I" 1- .....1'.1\... 'jl"1l' a ,....-..... % ,~ ~ ~ ~ or ,L:....~. ~';,.;;~,;i'!\! z .. \ ''''. .'; h! ...... :",,~~.~,i_=- :!!lR?-;'ll1J'~''''SIr' . -. :,;'dt;l o~ Cl ~~ 't .I'~'..'''':f.i':; I I~Z~"l:'!'rr:~ ,.,....!---~.;~ I .q,~11 I."'~ f.0I= 100'..... I _ ~.. ... l.) ..~.:. ~t'" Z ~... ~ ~~::( 'I I-/" . . ..,,,,,,, ...... :! "0'IPl1' l: :y--,.".----- --, --iJ~~--!!:-;--t --,....,--..'! ._'~. O~.'-+--'"'4',tlf,J~il-^ '":~.::-;';. ,... ~ I 2;;:" :> _J I VlltAGt s f 'Op-f\'! I _'. ,,~. . t.;1->>"'... 1 .:. . l I <( """5"'1""'" ~. taj::n--- ~r"'I" W,AStH:~~~~.ST:ft. /.,/; :. I l;t'''\t~U'l'''' '"L: \.:'<10":- BAR1CW\1 ~.'$ ~:1 ~ 1 ::i:. }o!-;J("ol'~ .-.--0 .,":0 ~~~..... I : .;*\i, ....: ,-., \ j\",' ~v ~ :~J::j,_,<.,.,~ '";'OA.~~~""...:ir~ r~l i~,J !;;~ii; i~.;<ri'C[,:,~i.t~Jl:';'i~ I ~... ~1' o....J -... tjo( I'" I ~ I I fYN -. ~ Tli I . .r .~ I ~"'''''''' ' ~'Il I ~~1l1'" 0 i. r._~ -!. h. I 1 1 II ~;'(QO I j~, I "". I '-'?~::;; . I "" F', -<41 :, 1= I .9_ . I .~ o:r;.1l~".~ I 1 / J....-,. r,1 I~("~'~I:~ I L . LI.... I ~.. 11-- - -1i.,1' -/l-_..~?'''''. - . . '/ ,,~L~:::hl'i= .." -0" ~." - - t - - ~ '~:'" ~r--I 1~~~~';'7 " ----,-;- -'-.1'1 \ "" f 'I, ~ .Y <l1ji:~--.!'{>ot :'1 14", I .~. " ,~~_Q!o....! 1 ~ I ~S"'-~":"'" CI i I '~ '"'"" v ....... ...,) " ~. / .' "".' ....f.L-- .' ..,..... ., <r tP'" /', ..sF' . -/ \ " Y \ ;../ <$',.., '-;. ,.' ., 1-~,.j'I , ~ 'f' \ ---__ I ----=- - ---- ,"" \ \ ", '\) , Q' U , \ " C.M " \ \ \ ,,<p . I ~v , i i I ~.Emv vEl I J n : 0 : ( :') " Ii , I I ' '~ .;J <...0 J.\tj ~ it II I " d I n i .,\. \tjJ~O\ J, i ; i o { ( o ,0 \ o \ ! ... \ .". 0 ,&r: " .0 <> 4f"A ~roPl I i J <j ~ I1.l ~ ",Z' , \J' ~ ;i- t ~ ...... ,.;--.......... I '" \ ,I ~' . ,. .(\ ~ ~ //(1 '.,' - o o \\ \- \~\\ '\ ';:\'1 ....,......-.~...."....... . \, , : \ " . , \ \ ~ I I " .. .' . .\ ~. ~ .. .. .. ~, '" , II" ". ..... ~. ". ~j ". > , : 0: ,. ..~. . .' "/ " .' " , . . :;1: I. '~ I 'I I :!: - r :'1 ',J J ~ .. 11 ~ ~ I. ; ~ ;~: " , , : " ~ I: I , , I: I '. ! , " '. " \ n; . 0 . c, : . , I . " ',I . ; . \ " I , " , ": . - ". , ". ". "11 . ! . . - ~ i g i ~ l. i I . ! ~ ;;;, . . r . f I i ! . . ! ~ ~ , " , .~.. ..~ *.- .~:~. . ,i :rr. ::\]! .' . ~ @ I .~. 1 ... f , , cti : ~ 0 ,:. .@ . ...V' . ' .m i'>, -. . . , . . . @ ""'t, . m ", cD <Vil, " , ',-';. II.~ n; o .1 I . '. -. = *. ... . ....,~ .. .....,--:. . '~.IO... . . .......... : ." , i ,. i ,. ,1. " ,. . . . , . . . I .. - . , \ . <.'t'2 ~~I.; "''':'\'''''\ ilt," . '. ~! \ . k:l '" 8 , ~ :.,: \ ., \\". . . \.. 1 ',"1 \ I ~ <\I .:' : ". \,~_\\:, , :: .'if~ 0 \ ~'\"'\'}~ . .' '\ '; \ , '/ ,\ , . '" .' ~ ~ " , a, \ci:l "teN r. , 1.- :~: L .. r L\ .. ;: '". \." '\ . " , / . , , __-?_~~__LJ..J. _~ (~ ~~'~ ;,g, u J.b ~ ; e\iy -;:'(lo","'1. ~ <t.:;:: ~ ' . 6' lC1 ~, ~~ .' ...... 09 " ~ ':-, "J~~~S-~ ~~).; ~ ,.... ,.j e. ~ (! ",I ~I ~"ifb ! I I "\; \ , r, :0 _.:.; :.;-- ~ <t ~ @~ ~ ~ ~ <3 0",0> .~ ON ~.~~ g <t ~~~ \".Q)-O Q)oRr-- COn: _- C:lo:;t2r-- 0000 (f)J.:;r--r-- @ N " " ~lL 3 '~ :.tu . 0 " . '. ~, ,.!_, :;\-_~ f'---:':.....,_:..,.-, '." ;~.. ".-" \ I r, " o c: 'i5 '" o c: '" Q) IXl c:'" 01:: lflai 0::;' .c: o c: o a:: r ~, ,'" L"; -~~\:\, ';'" '-, ...; "'C:" ...r ,~.'.': ,~-...:., <. _I;:: ." ~';'1 " ~ '" ~ " ~,\."!) ~ " ~ _ __L_"~ -i-li;:~~~~~i_ ~!::I;:-;'::~/-r p/..tr-,:= . ()~tw'iO- * ~...... ...'\.,,#.,- .....,& ~ NY : . -..9/ 5 ~ ~Cl"~ ,". .@ .* .J"'-""". II'I~ @ c~ (t. , . K.~ *~ i~ " ~ ---~>r ~'f'__ '"', .. ~,' 0; 6>ci": :.x---- " /~ / , " .e~v~..." .", .-/,- t-'" -,. ~ _~ -<~/d) :: 0~~ ~~o) '" ~~ '" '- J~'/ ,/ ..: & :'<1'1(1) '',2(\.1/ '''-,~"--/ _'7<'7" .':r:""_/'V".-"" .'/;" ,-I :, '<1'1''<1'\ <0,.., I ,- , , , r:;;-\ ~ ',~ ~ (~l &: -- ..... ! Cl~~~~:~ \ ~'" Ct;I I >~:ltt;~~t rO,'", ^" 1t:":':!:.-;':'"'7 ;; "'f\lU,)rn~ . ~ " "'<3 "'0 "''''0 00>" ~~~ .'" 0 ~-" 0'1' ~ ..~ '" ;.. Ul ..0" ..00 <tCOll) o , " \ \ \ \ \ \ i i :ilIOC5~ ":"-;-6r-: m!Q_Q) 0') ......"...... 10",."" Qm~U) :>!:;;:;;:;; Q;o.:o.:o.,: ","';.;ui r::~~O ml"--.,..,~ 000 . 2'z:;:~ g.ga.g. ::;,,~::; <i;,Q)Q;Q; uUou ~~~~ ~, " ~ ~) , , '~~ ~ '" '" -, ~QJ~ ~~~ :E~Q. Q~~ N:E~ '" .0 ",,,,, ~ -.~ Cl ~~~ -,.. Q.c:_ \ '~!5 ~ ~-'8~ '(l-- "'On. ~~~~ 't,,'. . . 2 ,~ J~ ',}~I;j:~~fJ:~;.>,,~:.).~j;~~:tl~_~~~k~~:~":':~;!~;_~l~~:,'.~;~"ii~i.t.-~.~...~.;Q;~.:~",~~:.:'~'Y;'~ lIW;,t~oOl"Q.'~.,J;;o~'_jl..~~~:l.it-',..", ", _. ,.~~ , ,r,",,c :~~;- n r' ~ ~ -i ERN ARDIN 0 300 NORTH "0"" STREET. SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 92418 EVLYN WILCOX Mayor !\o1emDe,s 0' the Common COl,l"'c Esther ESHIClI. . . . . . . . . . . . . F'l"$t WI'" J.Ck Reilly. . . . . . . . . . . . . . SK:I"ICI W"d R.IPh Me'"&nCl., . . . . . . . . . . . T"l~,C1 Ward St..... MarkS. . . . . . . . . . . . . FOwnh WArd Goraon Quiel . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fifth Ward Ooln Fruie, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sixth Ward Jack Strlckl.r . . . . . . . . . . . .s...-.r\th W.rd January 23, 1987 Mr. David R. Lewis Real Property Agent Engineering Contract Services Department 825 East Third Street San Bernardino, CA 92415-0834 Dear Mr. Lewis: Subject: Proposed General Plan Amendment Adjacent to Auto Center Plaza, North of Fairway Drive This letter is written in regard to our discussion that we have had over the past several months concerning the appropriateness of the .0. zone and Open Space designation for the Flood Control District's property located immediately west of Orange Show Road. It would appear to us that it would be in the District's best interest to aFPly for a General Plan Amendment to a General Commercial designation and for a change of zone to C-M Commercial-Manufacturing. Both of these designations would be consistent with the land uses to the east of Orange Show Road and to the south in the City of Colton. As I indicated to you earlier, the process- ing of the General Plan Amendment would be separate from the processing of the change of zone application. Approximate time for processing of the General Plan Amendment is three months, whereas the processing of the application for the change of zone is approximately 45 days. :. ..: - :.~': ,...... ......, -'" ...,) Mr. David R. Lewis January 23, 1987 Page 2 Your application for the General Plan Amendment should be submitted as soon as possible. Should you have any further questions in regard to this matter, please feel free to call me at (7141 383-5057. Respectfully, /-- ~,,,-G- ~,l FRANK A. SCHUl'IA Planning Director mkf cc: Lu Little Real Property ~ ".~"":!-'" ~/ ~ ~~'~ I~ (1':-, _ '\~\ (.:; '(,1.;'/~?]8 L:: ~ ',;'">:-;j \- ., ~..., \" ~,\ ", :::-I '\.f'l--- ./\ '/ ..~ / r:;-::\ '" \/ '-.~ May , . 18S3 ~~\\~,~'" ~I~ -..; ~ ....~ ~...... ';1fIIIII\\\~ County or San BernardiDo DATE PHONE 3!:l7-277lJ FROM DAVE LEWIS Acquisitio TO UlKE WALKER, Director Transportation/Flood Control/Airports SUBJECT GENERAL PLAN ~iDMENT (87-1) AND ZONE CHANGE (87-7) WARM CREEK BASINS/CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO On May 13, 1!:J!:l7, I met with Roger Hardgrave, Director of Public Works/City Engineer, and Dave Anderson, Acting Planning Director, regarding the information requested by the environmental review committee on May 7, 1~87. The City originally requested a detailed traffic study and geological study which included trenching. According to Roger that the property the Flood Control information for the and Dave, the City wants to be assured can be developed. I t was agreed that District would submit the following environmental review hearing: 1. Letter report on the location and extent of fault traces using existing information. Trenching will not be necessary until the site is graded or subdivided. 2. Cursary traffic report describing road capacities and traffic volumes generated by CM and C-3 zoning. The report should discuss the City of Colton's plans to upgrade Fairway. A report was previously made on the Auto Center. 3. A detailed letter on how the property possible flooding. water can be drained describing various options can be protected from any Also describe how surface into the flood channel. It may be timely to do a soils test and describe what grading and filling should be done to make the property developable. DRL:lc cc: Roger G. Hardgrave, Director Public Works/City Engineer 12-1367-000 Rev. 9/85 DATE FROM TO IOTEROFFICE MEI\,Q) IS'3 ~~\'~I~k ~I~ -=: -- ..... ..... -~ ~...... /1!4'II,\\"- CounlY of SaIl Bernardino W'd.~8RH'- ROBERT W. CORCHERO, Chief Water Resources Division PHONE 2515 DAVE LEWIS Engineering Contract Services Department Real Property File: 2-421/1.00 SUBJECT ZONE 2, WARM CREEK CONSERVATION BASINS '2.1367_000 Rev. 9'85 At the request of Ken Williams, Chief of Flood Control District Right of Way Engineering Section, this office investigated the potential flood hazard for the area bounded by Interstate Highway 215 on the northeast, Orange Show Road on the east, Fairway Drive on the south and the Warm Creek Channel on the west. This area encompasses the District's Warm Creek Conservation Basins #2, 3 and 4. Since the completion of the Warm Creek Channel by the Corps of Engineers, the area is relatively free from flood hazards. Additionally, the turn-out facility which directs water into the Warm Creek Conservation Basins has been deactivated, further eliminating inadvertent flows entering the area. The site is subject to minor tributary flows from the east. These flows will have to be conducted to Warm Creek Channel when the site is developed. Please advise if this office can provide any additional information. RWC:JJJ:alg cc: Mina Ghaly ._~.... " r" > .... m ~ c o , r">> 0< 0~ '0 Zo c.>> ~~ 00 o.~ ~~ >>0. nz ~m m >> o o i LA CADENA DR. A. T.S.F. & U.P. R.R. '" n > r" ml 161 j~ /r' .....~') .~o~ --., .. ~ ~33~a ~ . I ~ .. m !!j I o <:D mm :DC') ~o 0;:: :1';:: Om mZ roO -m Zo m" ~> Oz Z fI) s~ r"Z m~ " Z> o.z ~, ,>> >>< <m 0>> >>m m' m0 ~z S,P.R.R. z <:: ~8 ~ ",'<li ~~ ~~ li~ "30 ~~ ~= 0'3 ::J.G ~a- "ii" 3 n'" i ~ ;:r; " , 0" il~ -0 ." ". F I~ fa /& J'Sl !II >t -. v ~Q en )> Z III m MT. VERNON :0 AVE. Z .. )> > 'jj :0 :E 0 > -< z , 0 1'1 ::!- ~I ~ :0' ~\ :0, ..' t ';\< ~ ~ ~ ~ I I~~ -'" 0.6 'l\ ~ '(l :Ii.... =t'(n ::;'(1] ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, o.o~ ~~ ~~ ::J ii aiD "22" ::I'" 1>>'" :.U; ;j g. >li" ::l!Jl 2."2 il"2 -" g '< ll'< 3~ _._ :"'"":1 gog Cii 8 5' ~ .... :; iir~ ~ ~ ~~ [ : ~a: :e a .2.e!. I>> III III e !i ~ C')~ ~ it ! CD~:7 3' ~n ~5'~ 0<00 ~~~ N ~ 1lI(/)=: -2'~ i. n::l o~ 0- ;:rg EAST TWIN CREEK ........ AVE. I I I I I I I .. [-'" "'" ".. ~.~~~ :::r:r~ Q,,-.,. 3~:e ~!!.3 , -. ;;; - ?; . II ;; ~ .-- m Gl m Z o ,..-..... ......" .....; SUGGESTED REVISIONS TO CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN May 10, 1989 by Courtney F. Buse 1) page 67 - 1.11.10 Increase maximum density to 5.0 uni.ts per acre. The present R-1 zoning has always guaranteed 7,200 sq. ft. lots. Regardless of "net" or "gross" the reduction in the Residential Low density may result in larger lots. The tradition of this City should be maintained in areas designated for standard subdivisions. 2) page 67 - 1.11.31 Omit reference to greenbelts, paths, and amenities in residential subdivisions. Such amenities are appropriate for PUDs rather than standard subdivisions. Homeowner associations and special maintenance fees should not be encouraged. 3) page 69 - 1.13.30 Delete reference to minimum lot size for properties in the RM District in order to enjoy the maximum unit density. There is a need for small-scale rental housing and single lot projects should enjoy the same density of development as large projects. \ 4) page 71 - 1.13.38 Residential Multi-Family - Substitute the word "encourage" for "require". Site-specific designs (especially small parcels) may not accommodate parking behind or beneath the buildings and may compromise useable open space. 5) page 71 - 1.14.10 Change slope/density formula to permit 3.0 units per acre within the 0-15% slope. To create a more appropriate density and permit a greater transfer of units in order to retain hillsides in a more natural condition. 6) page 72, 1.14.13 Increase allowable density transfer to a maximun of 100 percent from 50 percent. '-' .- -..) 7) page 72 - 1.14.31 Permit attached units throughout the Hillside Management Overlay District. Attached homes will provide another option for greater flexibility in the design of unusual or difficult parcels. 8) page 73 - 1.14.34 Require Geologic Studies only within the fault study zone. ~) page 85 - 1.19.10 Add to permitted uses; "self-storage facilities". Self-storage was previously permitted in the General Commercial zone. Self-storage should be convenient to the places where people live and do business rather than limited to industrial areas. 10) page 104 - 1.31.10 Waterman Avenue OIP - Restrict commercial and office uses from within the 65 CNEL air corridor. Protect the flight path from high intensity uses with respect to noise and other aircraft hazards. 11) page 105 - 1.31.33 Reduce building setback to 25 feet from 50 feet. To reflect the pattern of new existing development and give continuity to the street scene. 12) page 389 - 8.4.2 Omit "new multiple-unit residenti~l developments" from the requirement of installing fire protection and sprinklers systems. Such systems are expensive not absolutely necessary for the protection of property. 13) page 519 - 112.4 Do not include single-family homes as "sensitive facilities" subject to a 100 ft. fault set-back. The 50 ft. set back has been the standard in the State since the creation of the Law. Special site-specific conditions have always been addressed by individual engineering recommendations and should remain so. ~ ~ -- ~ -J 14) Fortieth Street between "E" St. and "Mt. View" - No demand for excessive amount of commercial. Major of street should be Residential (RU & RM) with some Commercisl and Light Industrial (C") extending from the two major intersections. 15) State College area - Provide for off-campus student housing (RM & RMH) reflective of the original State College Area General Plan. 16) Verdemont- The addition of PUD requirements in the Residential (RS) is not necessary to direct standard subdivision development. 17) Mt. Vernon Corridor - Limited demand for extensive Commercial as designated. Include Residential (RU & RM) as an appropriate housing type for that portion of the community. 18) Reinstate existing "T" designation as a parking option for older linear commercial districts. In the past additional parking has been useful for the expansion of existing business. 19) Alternative "H" - Adopt Residenial Medium (RM) for the area designated in the vicinity of Baseline and Waterman. I r J I I I I . . I I . ,.: ~," . S', b,' .TT':, ___:M, 1-'1t= , \j)' '!'. i ~ <:::> T; .LL1.~1t I L~'@r' q .. .111~~ ! I ! :. . i : , ': f~34 . @: :u:u.J +' !! I .'f-tl~-S-'r~:n I @. . r"- . , :-:-t'?> ~.Z=-_+'~' .=-:.=:-:-t==_. i !, I I ! . ! ~ r..,t 1-T~@)j~rr'r:: : : ! .~: .~ -~t--: t.~ .; u -T-I._..mh. ._. r::::_.. ,h ! ! : ! ! i I! i ~ 4__--+_~__~__.._ ----, t-_....~.. N '('0> ,...'~- . -...,I ...... r-=TOl.+-,-+-- -,~T ill-' - r=r-l-i ni ~ , [r ,...l-H---! -t-+I~ I r......n -1" Ii' : ,'~ ~n:=:-r-: i~-r~r~ l7.T4Llu ~T l(j~L 'Mir~ 'jl"+" i..:.-.' u~ [1-- -++ ll,n. r,j.'~t '-in_~-~; , ~ ~I . i+-~r t f--10l. - '~, I _1::),_ !_-,-.~;l ~l~-.~: + , J I I i I , ..c..., __j- J _I:L: I , l ! 1- i 18Z 1404 . "jn: . ~~ 1,~4 i . . ~'I'~' ~ ..~. ~~_ ~l4.~1 ~_ L : i _ ~_ i ' , ! , . i _----i -1~__L I, ~_ ge.~ , . ' 1, I i I ! I , -1----r--r----j--- --t . ji-!=t-l , " I -----L_._L__.:...._,._!~_ , ' I , IS7b I I : l I I! ! t . : i " , ~,- - '- t- -j - t .j , 'G)' ' , , ' 4., n:, :::: . I~;_u__+ I,. ,@.t" , . ! ~ i_' . Q3' I ~:--- . .e>@':I:.' '2..~. Q; ~.._. _L . . - : ! . t 1--- I . ~ "'_:..82. ~~ '-Ii , '\}.- . . ~83 ~,. . .- --S~. . ~~'.. l J9gs Sh .67 '6& 12009 , @-- , . ~_L.+__.L 1/492. " , I ! ! "- ""- -nii I:/~J, ' . @ 'i!! r--Ij~-i-;?1-- --~!-- ~ . . ib :-e-~' .' .1 ; .; nl t ; f - f [jut tinT -LtTlJ..ll.itUjjj.jT" I (It ~ ~I \}-i . ' i .-, , ' f-----i ! i I , n' . ,._-,...._.~----~-- j i I ~......_.- , , -t..-..--1 I .;...1... . il~ ~<;" p,c. (;';','6 -^~ _ €Ii' -SS r,\,': '--1~-L--l--~-- i t -jt , I _~___..L_~..._. j I : I I 'P\)' I ~ '~' . c;:) g- ~. :l< ~ ~ ':l \:)-. ~ ... ib' ~ ::::t-". C':I ;:,...,. ~ I:C ~. 9",' ~ (r \fI I --..... ~i t:;:! .::!i ~ > ~, (J)' ',j. t- '" '" '" '" '-"', .~. ~, G1 ! 3069 '~ ~ I'"ri ~ ~\ ~) . r;:\. ~. .L_._ IPDI DGP PC OPTION .....,; GROSS: 43,560 f-----. NET: 32,670 GROSS: 43,560 ACRE: 43,560 ~ --' 10 ACRES RL r- - - -..... . NET ACRES = 326,700 . AT 3.1 DUfNET ACRE = 326,700 1 I 43,500 x 3.1 = 23 DUs . GROSS ACRES = 435,600 . AT 3.1 DUfGROSS ACRE = 435,600 I I 43,560 x 3.1 = 31 DUs (35% DIFF.) . GROSS ACRES = 435,600 . AT 10,800 ILOT ~30~8600~ = 140 DUs I OR 4 DU/ACRE (DIFFER: IPD/DGP: 74% PC: 29%) . OR(IF INCLUDE STREETS): 435,600 X 0.85 = 370,260 370,260 110,800 = 134 DUs I (3.4 DU/ACRE) - v --. -../ To. Mayor Evlyn Wilcox, City Council Members Jack Reilly, Tom Minor, Michael Maudsley, Jess Flores, Valerie Pope-Ludlam, Esther Estrada, Norine Miller: Planning Director Mr. Brad Kilger: General Plan Consultant Mr. Elwood Tescher. From: James Wirth and Family My name is James Wirth. I am a native and lifetime resident of San Bernardino. My family has resided at the same address on Sierra Way since 1955. It is my belief that through zoning, it has been the intention of General Plan advisory and decision making parties to revi tal i ze older and declining areas of our city. Certainly the inner city of San Bernardino is one such area. To quote The San Bernardino Sun article Inner cit~ San Bernardino residents cau~ht in vice, Crime ,grips once stylish neil<hborhood (April 30, 19 9) "It (the inner city) is the tiniest of six police divisions in San Bernardino for one reason: it has the biggest problem and needs the most attention. Once the city's best address, these homes and businesses are wracked with crime and poverty. Just a few of the oldtime residents remain, others have died or moved away, leaving old Vistorians and shacks alike to the influx of newcomers, many of them without jobs." Because of its condition, portions of the inner city have been ~iven multi- family residential zoning. Unfortunately, it came to my realiza- tion recently that, because San Bernardino is an old city, a number of the lots within the older inner city are slightly less than what current policy considers' a standard sized lot to be, that is 7200 sq.ft. Because current General Plan policy states 7200 sq.ft. must be achieved before any multi-family residential rejuvenation can take place, and no variance-flexibility may be given where General Plan requirements are concerned, a real prOblem has been created within our older inner city. This is due to the fact that a number of the lots which are within the inner city, which have been given multi-family zoning, such as the central part of Sierra Way, are slightly less than, wi thin 5% of, the now current minimum of 7200 so.ft. The end result of this inflexibility to lot size is that numerous parcels which the city truly desires to have, and are most in need of rejuvenation will be ineligible for this reju- venation. For example, I discovered that a portion of what I thought was our lot actually belongs to the city. When I recalculated our lot size I realized our lot is slightly under, less than 5% short of the minimum lot size. Because this lot my family lives on now is fractionally under the 7200 sq.ft. needed, we could not even add one additional unit. Even if we were able to combine our lot with our neighbor's, because we would be fractionally short of the potential our multi-family zoning offers, our two lots to,gether would still only allow just 1.69 additional units to be built. Previously, for more than twenty years, the city considered these same lots on Sierra Way to be large enough to support a minimum of three units per lot, a number of the lots have four units each on them and one fractionally larger neighboring lot has six units built on it. Thus, where we would have been allowed to have f"",\ ~. p.2 """" .......I built at least the minimum of four and likelv six or possibly even more addi ti.onal units, on two lots, under the current General Plan we now could add 1.69 additional units to the same two lots. In addition we, as remaining longtime residents of this area, have already paid increased property taxes because of multi-fa~ily zoning for more than twenty years. A special policy, Policy Number 1.13, has already been included in the General Plan which calls for Redevelopment Agency cooperation in combining smaller lots to achieve minimum lot requirements where exsisting lots are substantially below the necessary minimums. However, this policy only applies to two older parts of the city, Seccombe Lake and the Mt. Vernon area. To my knowledge, no provisions at all have been made that would assist smaller lot owners in any of the other older parts of the city, particularly the deteriorated inner city, to help them make their smaller lots useable under the zoning they are in. The policy we have proposed would assist smaller lot owners, within the inner city, by allowing them to get some feasible use of- the zoning designation their property is in; without calling for any change in any building stardards or development code requirements and without the necessity of involving San Bernar- dino's Redevelopment Agency's assistance. Therefore, I respectfully request that our city adopt the policy we have proposed which will allow older exsisting lots, within the inner city, to be more easily rejuvenated. This policy would help smaller inr.er city property owners and our city in achieving the revitalization Policy 1.13 was designed for, for the Seccombe Lake and Mt. Vernon areas, We plan to attend the upcoming city council meeting devoted to land use, on Wednesday May 10, 1989. If you wish to contact us sooner on this policy issue, please don't hesitate to call. James Wirth and Family 1980 Sierra Way San Bernardino, CA 92405 Phone 886-1880 ."",,, v -, -...) THE SUN April )0, 1989 THE HIGH-CRIME NEIGHBORHOODS 7j' ~dciy~:'. ~~~fl,!,~.~: ~an iBe'm~i~~j,nl~~rC~ii.4;\( . ", _. Total calla for 110 Ice ..rvlcu' . , ' Inne'rclty': ':~,':, frOin In.ner city: 24,90,3' . CIIY , , , ' .. Crlmacategory,1888_: calle l "u"~'~;liWPiK,~~i~i;A'!til1l'if;' Highland Ava. :~'I'~~itfu.h~__if~' ii'.fl.....l!~\?i"~'Wi\1ti~,.'\'~w~~.Jf$) ~. ..~. .....'>.....ea"..>):...j~~'~. ......,. ,.AfI~~Y.~L'rI~~~~~~~~~' ~~~6;h~M~::;:.':r~?~,:; , Once th8 clly'8 belfield_pi..l, these homel andbuilneisae'i'ai'll" Wrecked wftIl'cttr/MJWid ~itf~~;,~ Just a few of Ule'oldllme reCklents" . 18rnalt1; oth8f$hM dIe\l or' . , ' lI'lO'IedaWay; leavlng.oId '.' :'~ c:L" ~':'i:~~(!~8I'~J: ~~.~ .=ri=~~t~-11;,: }, 6IM~t.. %iWt..."..u" ',: ~. . thilmwllhou\lobl.:.., ~-',; '". .::..'>C fi: ,-.~_~t. ., ..-...~;r.:;-.~~,;,('.. ;:. "--~,' :~:i::,. . ;:.:.:t ..... '. . .... '." ";'. .'"8EfTSJ._rOIllltloi-.. 6ouIcI: 88ft e.1_d6l"COI.I'nJ_~""'_"IIgallII,",::" ~" f.........~......,.-~,...........,...~. . .;. ,.... ..: ...:. .. ..-'" '_~I;'" '~A.').r~.........,-"-...-,-,,,,>..,;~ ,., ,J,._.40".,,~.,... _..~. i~~11Ii, 1~~1; )I;~~ ; ~"r.~ , ~......Jil ...,m ,,,13' 1,. E ....~wi ;%%~ i~f!I" ". 7; -.I .. '...""." {f.::~t:: '~:~B..'.~' ::\;'.......'.>.:~ .: . ,(.'1.1 .to W""'<' ..... 'A'.. ~ A3th:Sb.',,) .' ,~k. """" """'" ....,; PROPOSED POLICY TO BE ADDED TO THE S.B. GENERAL PIA~; TEXT Any lot within the area designated as San Bernardino's Inner City. a section of the city bounded on the North by Highland Ave., on the South by Fifth Street. on the West by Interstate 215, and on the East by Sierra Way inclusive shal] be given a max- imum allowance of 5% for the purposes of meeting minimun lot size requirements for uses permitted under the land use designa- tion the lot has been given; provided that any development proposal approved for said lot shall contain no variance to any city building or development code requirements. - ~- - ,~ V m'ITION ,." We. the undersie;ned. hereby petition the San Bernardino City: Council to reconsider the proposed zone change for the 1300 block of North D Street. to Reidential/Units .We need and want the zone to be Commercial/Office the same as has been proposed for the rest of D Street from Highland Ave.. past Baseline to town. The 1300 block currently has at least 13 businesses in operation or licenced. others have invested in property on this block based on the current Admin/Office zoning for building projects that llould greatly enhance the area and thus. the town. otherwise, we fenl this could cause a bliehted area if this ONE block is zoned differently than the rest of D street in both directlons and become undesireable spot zoning. NAME . ----------_.._.'...._-_..-..-_..~. ----.. -'.. -.... .......... -........ -. ~.' . ....... ~._--. .. -.....-..-..--.-...-- FRONE -<"t;,s ~J~ Ad. 1I,2/Z3 ..5~ 6i.... r_~ ,;' ("'- '1.2 '/67 , Al."flAl/\ vt.,.v< J i\,....1 L 13 IS NorUv "D' -s--tt..a-<1 st'1N\. Se y......~ \ ,",0 > i )~ (2.[), fr-(j) /1rZt!!t!A,' 1"3 D y /IJ ~ IJtl '" r -L .....~. ~ uf- .J/"7/ '?14 ??q-c;- y)) ~ Dv(J ~ J3os- /)b>H-. p ,;f-7/t{ ~ -J- ~ 'bM e~ '4-~ . ~33, ~ '1 M--- Che-.") I Z:V"'-e.rS~ L~~\Q.~~\~S )( 1t),~hD-~1 J, -r;td~ f)Y-, k'e"'- - , /'$0- , ADDRESS \ 7'73 -Sz:,3? 132-"1 c-"'" 1.0"" c.-r. P-~Jl",.-J5/ Cof42-37'j ,AdS CDtlic ,Av-c-tt.;fo3 hl'-l)~~D-::,-7L..cQ SeLl( ~~(\() ,C:k Sd'/D'l 'li't7- 74'53 ~7tlt-) 3F!-1- J:"D 7.1- Rct-'lJ!5 I f'f~-137 b . sg ~ ~?rf 31<f7 Ai -- J~,;(~q 9<W'O( /J J cJ ~ .7J sJ .>, 6- OJ (-- <)L'- ( 16!~ It! 'j}'If! (tJ~~) s~--6 L(63&'I-Z/3o " ~- '''..... --, '-' PETITION ......,I We, the undc~'sicnecl, hereby petition the San Bernardino City Council to reconsider the proposed zone change for the 1)00 block of North D street. to Reidential/Units. We need and want the zone to be Commercial/Office the same as has been proposed for the rest of D street from Highland Ave., past Baseline to town. The 1)00 block currently has at least I) businesses in operation or licenced. others have invested in property on this block oo.sed on the current Admin/Office zoning for building projects that >rould greatly enhance the area and thus, the town. Otherwise, we feel this could cause a blighted area if this ONE block is zoned differently than the rest of D street in both directions and become undesirP.able spot zoning. ----------. . - . -. --..--. ~ --". _.. -----. -.." ,... ....... -..--. . ... -- , . , .-. ..._...~ -. --. ....._. ___ _. _ c. ...___ NMlE ccfj~ ~JJj)6 , ~/ ~ g ?r. \ b <1 ~ "b' S '\ ~ ~ ~ - S ~ S \ (~~[l~ /39G> y!tJ. i9~~t- 88~-7~f/'9' . ~~ J;;~~,~L4 ,;l1j /l ~ /J701/0/1<< tJ a.z7 -jr(/~ (/~ S/ll/ ,f;;(IIM~#d Q8Y- r~T ' ~Mt 4;?~ #tJ~t:E ~~ L~)~ v/C/C t.> r' .:s~ ,.r::iJ11P' /JJ'er~ ADDRESS ffiONE '6 <g ( -z;S do 8 ):61' 1 PST I }<7t/ 1JD1r/t D >~cef/ ~~ ~ " d ~~ 3-~/- ?~O() ~aV' d~ a;hzw; X~ /39rJ fi/ j;:? ~ /~ <( &- ~ ;r8!-?t./Ov l.3flo /J D StYI2.l)1 Sl,\ IH L/ ,~ I 'S; f{ Date Lv I " ~o...n 'JS.ex- (\<:1K' d gu s) ~f /$7# 7J- :0- ~ /2.:22 .IV j) sr .,- AI -u J'leR#ARP/~ C/,2 3 8' J -31./ 0 0 6'e' f'ye-/7 -....... -' ......,./ ~Ir~ & ~lt'S~ Robert WIllis 3155 I~. Sepulveda Ave., Si::"\n Bet"nat'dino, G.:... '7'24(.14 HP~"ll 27, iSla':,:;; Councilman ~eilly City Hall San Bernard.no, Ca. Dear Councilman Reilly, We are property owners in your dlstr.ct and we need your help regard.ng the proposea zonein master plan. Our property is on D Street In the 1300 biock. When we purchased it two years ago .t was for the express purpose of liv.ng there and operat.ng a f.re extinguisher company 'tnen and later adding a ta:{ preparation business in t~\e second office. We got the permIt to live tnere and to operate the fit~e e;~tin9uishet~ company. We wet~e plannIng on openIng the tax prepat~atlon office thIs coming Wln~et.. The pr'oposed zone change .s to m,,\ke all 0" D Str'eet fr'om well below Baseline to Hlghland Ave. Commercial/OffIce With tne one exception of the 130(:1 blOCk. Why this one block should be different we 00 not understarld. Cut~rently this 1300 block of D Street contains 13 business pt"opet~ties and 15 residential properties. ],t is not a good reslderltial al"'ea and se\'et~al of the r~e~ldence5 ar~e old and not well kept. One c~ the reSIdential prOpet~tles flas recently been sold and we understand he hoped to build a new medical o~~ice building which he could not do undet' the proposed zone c~lange to Residential/Units. Our understanding o~ the new zones effects would be that any property CUt~rently bEIng used +Ot~ bUSIness will immediately revet~t to R;U upon sale oi the pr"operty Ot' Ii the business is not active ior 5i){ months. Thl~ would substantlall) reduce OUt~ pt.operty values ana ma~:e it especially difficult to find a buyer without taKing a large, urlnaffordable loss and most of OUt. neighbors would also have the saine p t'OD 1 em. We at.e asking if you can set the City Council to reconsldet~ changing the zonIng on this one block and make it uniform Ccmmet'cial/'Of~ice for all 0+ D Stt'eet ft~om below Basellne up to Highland Av~. We are not t~e~uestin8 spot zoning. We are requesting you elifninate spot zoning. ~e have spo~:en to several propet~ty owners on this bloci~ and all ar~e in agt~eement with this re~uest. Flease respond and let us know what you can do fOt~ us. If there 15 anythIng more we can do, please let us know.