HomeMy WebLinkAbout01B-Planning
cliO O~ SAN BERNARDICo - REQUQT FOR COUNCIL A~ON
From: Brad L. Kilger
Subject: General Plan Adoption
De~: Director of Planning
Da~: MCC Meeting of 5-17-89
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
Recommended motion:
That the Mayor and Common Council approve in concept
Chapter 1, Land Use Element, as recommended by the
Planning Commission, subject to the Mayor and Common
Council's final review of the Draft General Plan and
Draft Environmental Impact Report.
Contact person: Brad L. Kilger
Phone:
Supporting data attached: Audit Trail
Ward: Citywide
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Source: (Acct. No.)
IAcct. DescriPtion)
Finance:
.uncil Notes:
An.a.nrl~ I+,a"", Nn
~ --
,
'C
o
o
~
.-
least every five years and revised as necessary to reflect new conditions, local attitudes,
and technological advances. Though not required of a Charter City, it is recommended
that Plan amendments be limited to a maximum of four times per year, consistent with
requirements of a General Law City.
F. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER DOCUMENTS
In the pKpara8eR ef the GefteHI. PtitR, tkKe researeh ea aMlyses aeeuments were
prepared. Perti9t\5 ef tftese }uv:e Been ineW.aea er are fefefeRel!a in ifte BaekgfeYna
seetiefts ef eaek tepie,' elemeM. These ifteltttie:
1,. Ci~ af SaR BefRafaiRe GeReral Plan Update. T-eefttli.e&l Baeltpeuna Re.pel't-.
FeBruary, 1988, Baneem Ce'l'8I'llti8l\ et Id. Preseftts a liet&ilea aesel'iptien ef ifte
~tiftg eeMitieRs ef 1M CUy's phyllie&l, eeeRelBie, ana sesal Kseurees, inekttiiftg
eaek tel'ie eeRtaiftea in tftis CeReral Plan.
:;!,. c;:ity ef San BePRlH'EiiRe Gefteral Plan UJlliate. 1.lH\li U5e hltemeti-.-es V.~MtI.~ Pa,ler.
lliareft 1988, ER\ie:sB\ C9fI'erMi8R at al. Preseaft1 8ft 8'~~\- ef tluree al~
lea tISe pl&ftS geaeratea litIriBg the plamliftg preeess ea e<.'8ltIatiea ef their
e8HtJ'arative lana tISe, fl5e&l, reaevelsl'lBent, eireulati8l\, ,!tilU)', eflflremftefttlll
reS8meE: ana l\a2ani, paalle sefViees, and ~ualHr ef life iMpaets.
a,. City ef 5e Bel'flardiRe Gefteral Plan Ftlftliamefttal "bafta Use Isstie Peli~
S'att:m€Rts. as a"pre-;ea 9y the Mayer eEl Ce&I:II\8R Cel:H\E!il, lEi DemMer 1988,
vliift medifiea89t\5 eR 39 JaIl1:tll1'f 1989, Bft-,oieem Ce'l'eNtieft, et Ill. Itlefttifies
prefureEl peliey liifeeti8l\ fer ifte set ef ~ issties Vlhiek affect 1M ~es,
disRiea8eR, anti iRteRSity ef laRa tises te Be p__":tt:ea BY the Draft Geaeral Plan.
In aadi8eR, a separate ER-.ifellfftefttlll Ift\paet Repert (Em) has B&t\ preparea fer 1M
PIe iR aeeeraanee ""iift the stiBs_Me re~lfteftts ef tfie Califemia Btwifeflll\E!RtaI
Qaality f..et (CEQt.).
The Mayor and Council have adopted. through ordinance or resolution. various land
use documents which bear a relationship to the General Plan. Those documents fall
into one of two ~oups: (1) documents which are incor:porated by reference into the
Plan. and (2) documents superceded by the Plan. Table 1A lists the affected documents
and explains their status upon adoption of this Plan.
5
o
o
TABLEIA
o
o
Relationship to Other Plans and Documents
Title of Document
Incol"J'Orated
by Reference
.Q.oY-
Superseded Comments
General Plan EIR
Technical BackiI'ound
Report
.Q. b 'fJ
.Q.D~
.Q.~
Development Code
Interim Policy
Document
General Plan
o oiL
.Q. o~
State Colles~Area , t1A
Plan /J.~ di./ &-.A V
~ ~/ rv}/.~
~ .,- ~Jl-~
Hi~hland Area Plan "'Ji"
.Q.~
Verdemont Area Plan
.Q.
(portion)
.Q.
(portion)
Highland Hills
Specific Plan
Central City South
Overlay District
.Q.
.Q.
Redevelo.pment Plans
.Q.
o
1'Q.be certified May. 1989 and
updated as needed.
Published February. 1988. To
be updated as needed.
Not yet adopted.
Published May. 1988.
~tP1
Published May.~
Published 1964. Various
amendments.
Published 1976. Various
amendments.
Published 1986. Section V
''Standards'' Pl" 95-156 incor-
porated by reference. Balance
is superseded.
~ 7 ~t:Jft?
Various Plans adopted from
1958 to 1986. General Plan
supersedes redevelopment
plans where land uses or
development guidelines are
inconsistent.
Cl
. '1
o ~"J'~~. 'a-J4, .,1
'r~ ~. 6.r'-cuJP ~~
referen . When er inconsistenci occur be-
Plan r wh d Ii
visions of the General Plan will take ence.
In the c f lans r la districts which hav been r will hereinaf
adopted by the City. the Land Use PJan Map is to be amended to reflect the locational
boundaries of the area identified by the numerical reference. e.~.. "S.pecific Plan 82-1."
In addition. when a new ~c plan or overlay district would. modify the General
Plan. an amendment to the General Plan would need to be awroved at the same time in
order to maintain consistency.
:)
Each of the documents is incorporated into and made a part of this Plan by reference
and are available for review in the Planning Department of the City of San Bernardino,
City Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino, California.
G. PLANNING AREA
The City of San Bernardino is located approximately 60 miles east of the City of Los
Angeles, at the southern base of the San Bernardino Mountains. The City is abutted by
the Cities of Rialto to the west, Colton to the southwest, Loma linda to the south,
Redlands to the southeast, and Highland to the east The City's northern limit is
defined by an irregular line which runs along the lower elevations of the San
Bernardino Mountains and is approximately coterminous with the San Bernardino
National Forest boundary. To the northwest, the City extends to the unincorporated
Devore community, and is abutted by the Cajon Creek Wash. Within these boundaries
are a number of small unincorporated County "islands." Figure 1 depicts the City's
regional location and Figure 2 depicts its boundaries.
The lands adjacent to the City considered by the Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCQ) to represent San Bernardino's "probable ultimate physical boundaries and
service area" (Sphere of Influence) are depicted in Figure 2. Generally, these include the
Muscoy area south of Cable Creek, Cajon Creek Wash area to the north to the Interstate
15-215 interchange, East Twin Creek Wash area, and unincorporated County is~ in
the eastern and southeastern portions of the community. The recently incorporated
City of Highland is not encompassed by the City's Sphere of Influence.
The updated City of San Bernardino General Plan defines policy for the lands within
the corporate limits and as a statement of intent to guide development in lands to be
annexed in the future in the Sphere of Influence. Cumulatively, .these areas are referred
to as the "planning area" in the Plan.
Approximately 64 square miles are contained in the planning area, including 55 square
miles in the City and nine square miles in the unincorporated portions of the Sphere of
Influence.
7
~ _ _ IIiIiI
Q
o
o
o
1.9.32 Establish and enforce standards for property maintenance (debris and
weed removal, storage of automobiles, recreational vehicles, and boats,
etc.) (11.1, 11.2, and 11.15).
l:9:33 Re~ that ~ },e sired te frel\t av;ay &em iRe adjlleeftt lleeE:SS street
~
b. ResidentW Low
Objective .
It shall be the objective of the City of San Bernardino to:
1.10 Promote the development of low-density, large lot, high quality single-
family detached residential units.
Policies
It shall be the policy of the City of San Bernardino to:
Permitted Use. Density. and Height
1.10.10
Permit the development of single-family detached residential units at a
density of Elfle.!U!. to three units per I\E!t gross acre and height of 2.5 stories
(35 feet> in areas designated as "Residential Low" (RL) (11.1 and 11.2).
Design and Development Standards
1.10.30
Require a minimum of 10,800 square feet per lot (11.1 and 11.2).
1.10.31
Require that residential units and sites be designed to convey a "high
quality" image, including:
a. use of architectural design idioms which complement and do not
"dominate" the setting;
b. use of building materials, colors, and forms which contribute to a
"neighborhood" character;
c. use of extensive site landscape; and
1.10.32
d. linkages to equestrian and/or pedestrian trails when the site is adia-
cent to a master planned trail (11.1 and 11.9).
Encourage the development of "high quality" large lot residential
subdivisions; incorporating interconnecting pedestrian paths and
67
()
1.19.33
- - ~ II
o
o
o
greenbelts, consistent and well designed street signage, entry signage or
monument, community amenities (such as clubhouse, meeting rooms,
swimming pools, tennis courts, health club, etc.), and similar uses a1.1,
11.2,11.4, and 11.6).
AeElwe that garage!! he siteS. te Rent jK'.'ilf &em the alijaeeftt street (11.1).
Co Residential Suburban
Objective
It shall be the objective of the City of San Bernardino to:
1.11 Promote the development of single-family detached units in a high quality
suburban setting.
Policies
It shall be the policy of the City of San Bernardino to:
Permitted Use. Density. and Heisht
1.11.1 0
/'
Permit the development of single-family detached residential units at a
density of M YR. to 4.5 units per ftet sross acre and height of two and one-
half stories including a loft (35 feet) in areas designated as "Residential
Suburban" (RS) a1.1 and 11.2).
.
~
Desisn and Development Guidelines
1.11.30
1.11.31
1.11.32
Require that the residential lots be developed at a minimum of 7,200
square feet (11.1, 11.2, and 11.6).
Encourage the incorporation of greenbelts, pedestrian paths, and
community amenities in a residential subdivision aI.1, 11.2, 11.4, and 11.6).
Require residential subdivisions to be oriented away from arterials and
other major highways; locating extensive landscape setbacks containing
trees and shrubs and decorative walls along this frontage (11.1 and 11.2).
68
o
,. ~
o
o
o
d. Residpntial Urban
O~jective
It shall be the objective of the City of San Bernardino to:
1.12 Promote the development of single-family detached and attached, duplex,
mobile homes, complete second units on a single-family lot, and small lot
subdivisions, where the intent is to consolidate lots to achieve more open
space.
Policies
It shall be the policy of the City of San Bernardino to:
Permitted Use. Density. and Hei~ht
1.12.10
Permit the development of single-family detached and attached I El1:lJ'leK
units, 1ft88He llelfte9, complete second units (to permit full kitchens). 8ftti
small lot single-family unit subdivisions, and multi-family unitt at a
density of 4=' .YR. to 9 units per fte ifOSS acre and height of two stories and
loft (35 feet) in areas designated as ''Residential Urban" (RU) au and
11.2).
Permit the development of senior citizen and congregate care housing to a
maximum density of 14 units per net acre and height of two stories
provided that a marketing and financing analysis is conducted which
determines long-term feasibility; a plan is prepared for the conversion of
seniors units to standard units, with a corresponding reduction in the
number of units, if the project is not occupied by qualified seniors; and all
Code requirements are met (11.1).
Density and Development Guidelines
1.12.11
1.12.30
Require the following minimum lot sizes:
a. duplexes: 7,200 square feet;
fb.\ complete second units (with a single-family
V "gHflf\1 \tftits"): 7,200 square feet;
detached residence:
~
(12\ smaIl lot subdivisions: 5,000 square feet, as a part of a Planned..tiRir
V Development;
d. clustering of permitted units lvi~ellt let liftes au and 11.2).
69
o
1.12.31
1.1222
1.12.33
1.12.34
o
o
o
Require that areas designated for "Residential Urban" use in the
Verdemont area be developed as a Planned Residential Development,
incxn'porating equestrian and pedeStrian linkages to off-site uses and
extensive landscape and ~ space (incorporating tr~ and shrubs),
subject to public review an J II I ~ - r ~; _.' pproval 01.2,
11.3, and 11.6). -k-.. ~. t ' '<),
,,/
Limit mellile keme sulltWJi~ierlS te artR~ sesi8Mtes fer "Resisefttial
UrBHl" iR t:lK se~'eSt sf the air Ql.1).
Require that ''Residential Urban" residential projects be designed to oJ Y'
convey the visual sense of a single-family residential neighborhood,
including:
a. eensis ISlt variable prep <!fly structural setback;
b. inclusion of extensive landscape (incorporating trees and shrubs) along
street frontages; and
Co architectural articulation of building facades to express a single-family
character au, 11.2, and 11.6).
Encourage Planned Residential Developments in ''Residential Urban"
areas to incorporate interconnecting pedestrian paths and greenbelts,
consistent and well-designed street signage, entry signage or monument,
community amenities (such as clubhouse, swimming pools, tennis courts,
health club, etc.), and similar uses aU, 11.2, 11.4, and 11.6).
1.12.35 Require that sufficient driveway depth and street width is provided to .
accommodate the length and width of automobiles in small lot residential
subdivisions aU). fL.V l ~ V? ~ rf
e. Residential Multi-Family: ,./ ~ C
I ~_
Objective
It shall be the objective of the Oty of San Bernardino to:
1.13 Promote the development of high-quality multi-family townhomes,
condominiums, and apartments which convey a distinctive residential
neighborhood character and are integrated with their setting.
70
o
o
o
o
Policies
It shall be the policy of the City of San Bernardino to:
Permitted Use. Density and Heisht
1.13.10 Permit the development of multi-family townhomes and apartments at a
density of 9.1 to 14 units per net acre and height of three stories (42 feet) in areas
designated as "Residential Medium" (RM) 01.1 and 11.2).
1.13.11 Permit the development of multi-family condominiums and apartments at a
density of 14.1 to 24 units per net acre and height of three stories (42 feet) in areas
designated as "Residential Medium High" (RMH) 01.1 and 11.2).
1.13.12 Permit the development of multi-family condominiums and apartments at a
density of 24.1 to 36 units per net acre and height of four stories (56 feet) in areas
designated as "Residential High" (RH) (11.1 and 11.2).
1.13.13 Permit the development of senior citizen and congregate care housing at a
density of 50 percent greater than that allowed in the residential zone in accordance
with the conditions of Policy 1.12.11 01.1).
Desi~ and Development Guidelines
1.13.30 Require a minimum lot size of 14,400 square feet for the development of-("
multi-family units at the RM density; lots of smaller size shall be developed at the RU
density in accordance with Policies 1.12.10 through 1.12.35 01.1 and 11.2).
1.13.31 Require a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet for the development of
multi-family units at the RMH and RH densities; lots of 14,400 to 20,000 square feet may v
be developed at the RM density and lots of less than 14,400 square feet may be
developed at the RU density in accordance with Policies 1.12.10 through 1.12.35 (11.1
and 11.2).
1.13.32 Require that multi-family residential developments convey a high quality
and distinctive neighborhood character, including:
a. use of materials, colors, and forms that are typical of lower density
residential areas;
b. differentiation of facades and elevations by the use of offset planes and
cubic volumes, articulation of building details (columns, beams, etc.),
inclusion of balconies, arcades, or recessed or projecting windows to
convey a thr~mensional sense, and other techniques which avoid
''box'' -like structures;
71
o
1.13.33
1.13.34
1.13.35
1.13.36
1.13.37
1.13.38
1.13.39
1.13.40
. . . )
o
o
o
c. integration of exterior stairways into the architectural design; and
d. screening of rooftop mechanical equipment 01.1, 11.2, and 11.6).
Rett1:lil'e Encouraee a vertical setback of the building elevations above the
second story to minimize impacts of bulk and height at the ground
elevation 01.1).
Require that a IlliftHJwm ei ';9 percen_ of the street-facing facade of the
. building at the graded elevation of the site be usable for occupiable space
and entries, unless inappropriate, where the intent shall be preserved by
the use of architectural design elements which shall visually convey the
sense of occupiable space (11.1, 11.6, and 11.9).
Require the extensive use of landscape on the site 01.1).
Require the development of a landscape setback along the street frontage,
incorporating trees and shrubs, in proximity to the natural grade elevation
(unless infeasible due to necessary site grading) and of sufficient depth to
convey a "residential neighborhood" character avoiding "wall-like
canyons" of buildings (11.1).
Restrict paving surfaces used in the street and side yard setbacks to that
necessary to accommodate the driveway (11.1).
Require that parking be enclosed and located behind or beneath buildings ~
facing the primary street aRE! eaeleseE! unless infeasible due to site con-
straints (11.1).
Require the provision of on-site open space amenities (11.1 and 11.2).
Require that multi-family residential projects incorporate adequate
setbacks with adjacent residential, commercial, and industrial uses (11.1).
72
..
-
-
-
()
o
o
o
1.13.41
Require that multi-family residential projects of 12 units and ~eater be
subject to Planning Commission review m.l).
HILLSIDE MANAGEMENT RESIDENTIAL
Objective
It shall be the objective of the City of San Bernardino to:
1.14 Provide for low-density residential development in the City's hillside
areas wlliell. pK5erIE:S the ft&t\B'aI aREI. visual eftMlKkr, preteets sigtlifiesnt
eR't,if'enmefttal reselH'ees, aREI. miHgatell petential ewMeRB\l!Rtallt~'nEls
(Me, ReeEI, slepe staeility, e~ake, tte.). and assure that this develop-
ment occurs in a manner which protects the hill~de's natural and to.po-
~aphic character and identity. environmental sensitivities. aesthetic quali-
ties. and the public health. safety. and ieI\eral welfare. This protection is
obtained by insuring that development does not create soil erosion. silting
of lower slopes. slide dama~. flooding problems. and severe cutting or
scarring. It is the intent to encourage a sensitive form of development
while still allowing for residential uses which complement the natural and
visual character of the City and its hillsides.
Policies
It shall be the policy of the City of San Bernardino to:
Permitted Uses. Density. and Height
1.14.10
Permit the development of residential units based on the determination of
the yield by the following categories of slope in the "Hillside Management
Overlay District":
Slope (%)
Units Per Acre
0-15
15-25
25-30
30+
2.0
1.0
0.5
0.1
iR Mell5 EksigRatE:Ei 115 "IIillsiEk MiH\tlgemtRt" fMH) The Hillside
Management Overlay District areas are depicted on the Land Use Plan.
These areas are intended to be the ap-proximate location of the hillside
areas along the foothills in the northern area of the City (11.1 and 11.2).
1.14.11
Permit the exclusion of let parcel areas of less thaa 15 percent natural
slope v:flieh Me eet\tiga9t15 witfi aREI. aBut elalltiRg resiseRtial
73
o
1.14.32
1.14.33
1.14.34
1.14.35
o
o
o
Require that subdivisions be subject to a Conditional Use Permit and
require environmental review in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act, for which the following shall be defined:
a. existing site conditions, including slope, environmental resources,
geologic conditions, drainage, utilities/easements, roadways,
vegetation, and other pertinent data;
b. permitted uses and lot parcelization;
c. street location and sizes;
d. utility location and sizes (water, sewer, telephone, cable television,
electrical, and natural gas);
e. drainage plan;
f. grading plan;
g. habitat preservation plan;
h. slope maintenance plan;
i. fire protection plan;
j. open space maintenance plan;
k. development standards; and
1. architectural guidelines 01.1, 11.2, 11.4, 11.6, and 11.7).
Encourage the clustering of units to maintain the topographic formations,
minimize grading, preserve open spaces and habitat, and protect
properties from hazards at.1, 11.2, 11.4, 11.6, and 11.7).
Require a geologic study for all sites determining the slope stability and
locations of faults, adherence to the standards of the "Seismic Risk
Management" overlay, and prohibition of development on known
landslides 01.1,11.4, and 11.7).
~
pC-
Locate building pads and site developmeM the proposd site and its road-
ways te with minimized grading and the height reduce magnitudes of cut
and fill slopes J2x. utilizing contoured grading l:lRless I"raeaeally lHIa
feefteeUeaRy itlfeasiblt: 01.1, 11.2, 11.4, and 11.6). .
75
"
1.14.12
1.14.13
1.H.H
1.14.15
o
o
o
~eleplfleftt, or less along the external border of the Overlay District at
the base of the hillsides. as determined by the preparation of a slope map
by a lI'llt"GeIi licensed civil engineer (in accordance with Policy 1.14.30),
from the density and development provisions of this il8fte section. tlftd
reversieR te tfte alle'fl&hle tleRllity ef tfte atljaeefl( prepefMS Those areas
excluded shall revert to the underlying zone district density and develop-
ment standard provisions (11.1 and 11.2).
Reduce the total yield of development if other hillside management
standards (grading, habitat preservation, slope stabilization, drainage,
etc.) cannot be attained (11.1 and 11.2).
Permit the transfer of allowable units to lesser slopes according to the
following limits:
a. ~^ t,.....i1,. dlltash.d units may increase the allowable density of thr
slope category by a maximum of 50 percent;
b. JfttI:!.ti EemHy liflits may inerease tfte &Yew-able tlefI5ity ef tfte slape
eatE:gery BY leg pereeRt land area from which density is transferred
shall be restricted from future development (11.1 and 11.2).
l
t~
Preehllie tfte lkve1epmeRt ef atta.ehetl liftits iR MI I areas west ef Devil's
CanyeR (11.1 ana 11.2).
Require that any non-residential use located in the Hillside Management
Overlay District be subiect to a Conditional Use Permit 01.1) .
Design and Development Guidelines
1.14.30
1.14.31
Require the preparation of a slope map for ''MIi'' areas by a qttatiftetl li-
censed civil engineer in accordance with standards of measurement
determined by the City, tlepietiftg eategeFies ef slape aBw:e 15 pereent iR 5
pereeRt iRet'emeRts exellitlittg tlet!!' 8lfI.lies, reek elitet'8f'pift85, anti ether
.."........ -.., (11.1..6 ll.2). ~ i/iv.A'
Permit the development of single-family detach units on.
cut and fill pads or stepped footings in areas of percent slope;
residences on stepped footings with minimum grading as necessary for
driveways, unit siting, drainage, slope stability and fll'e protection in areas
of 25 to 40 percent slope; and no development above 40 percent wherein
the allowable units may be transferred to lesser slopes in accordance with
Policy 1.14.13 (11.1 and 11.2).
74
'0
1.17.34
1.11.35
1.17.36
1.17.37
1.17.38
.
o
o
o
Require that commercial and office buildings be designed to enhance
pedestrian activity at their street elevations, in accordance with Policy
1.15.34 au and 11.6).
Ret)1lire that ~t IIft8 httlk ifftpaets ef htlildings he llliniHlt2ed 81\
pedestAe aft!&S hy settiRg haek e1~a8eflS HEWe ft\'EI stel'ies (,11.1 ed
~
Continue and enhance the program of streetscape improvements which
uniquely identify the Tri-city /Commercenter and Club areas and provide
linkages among individual building sites (in accordance with Urban
Design for Public Open Spaces Policies 5.3.2 and 5.6.1); including public
signage, landscape, street furniture, lighting, and other amenities al.l~.
.j~/f?~ Gu/ IZ-
Require the consolidation of multi-tenant signage into well dilSigned and -
distinctive mellW\~.t ~ft..l pele signs, M,i. 1 .... L~llflI.telr -.illUde Crelll.
the Iftterstate 219 eerridor au, 11.6, and 11.9).
Formulate a specific or development plan for the Tri-city/Commercenter
area, incorporating the above elements, subject to public review and
approval ef the Ma)'ElF anti CBBlRl6ft Ce1:ll\Eil aU).
d. R~on-Servinl Community Commercial: Auto Plaza
O~jective
It shall be the objective of the City of San Bernardino to:
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.
Policies
It shall be the policy of the City of San Bernardino to:
Permitted Uses
1.18.10
Allow for the development of new and used automobile and truck sales
and related retail and service uses in the Auto Plaza area, designated as
"Region-serving Commercial Auto Plaza" (CR-4) aU).
Density /Intensity and Height
1.18.20
Permit a maximum floor area ratio of 0.7 and height of two (2) stories (30
feet) <n.1).
86
'0
.
o
o
o
Development and DesiiI' Guidelines
1.18.30
1.18.31
Require that new development be designed to complement existing uses;
incorporating aesthetic auto and truck sales showrooms, extensive
landscape, and attractive signage au, 11.6, and 11.9).
Require that signage be integrated into the overall site and building
design aU, 11.6, and 11.9).
e. Community-S~ Comm""";,,1 Uses
O~jective
It shall be the objective of the Oty of San Bernardino to:
1.19 Provide for the continued use, enhancement, and new development of
retail, personal service, entertainment, office and related commercial uses
along major transportation corridors and intersections to serve the needs
of the residents; reinforcing existing commercial corridors and centers and
establishing new locations as new residential growth occurs.
Policies
It shall be the policy of the Oty of San Bernardino to:
Permitted Uses
1.19.10
Permit a diversity of community-serving retail and service uses (groceJy
stores; apparel and accessories, furniture and home furnishings, garden
supplies, restaurants Eelehldiftg 8rYli! tl\r8\l~~, bookstores, cleaning
establishments, shoe repair, beauty salons/hair styling, and similar),
entertainment uses, and professional and financial offices in areas
designed as "Commercial General" (CG-1) aU).
Permit the development of new and used car dealerships and auto-related
retail and service uses with a Conditional Use Permit to ensure
compatibility with adjacent uses au and 11.6).
Density /Intensity and Height
1.19.11
1.19.20
1.19.21
Permit a maximum floor area ratio of 0.7 and height of two stories (30 feet)
(11.1).
Allow for modifications of the height to preserve significant viewsheds
from adjacent properties and open space aU).
87
o
1.24.35
1.24.36
~
o
o
o
Formulate and implement a specific plan which designates land uses,
development standards, urban design/public open space improven.ents,
architectural guidelines, parking improvements, and security provisions
(11.4).
Establish an annual calendar of events for public attraction to the theme,
specialty center (fiestas, mercados, 51< and 10K runs, etc.) (11.11).
It shall be the objective of the City of San Bernardino to:
1.25 Facilitate the reuse of the railroad depot and adjacent properties. for
retail/ specialty commercial and similar uses.
Poli~
It shall be the policy of the City of San Bernardino to:
Permitted Uses
1.25.10
1.25.11
Permit the adaptive reuse of the railroad station building and
development of adjacent properties between 2nd Street. and.' VIaduct
Boulevard [designated as "Commercial General-Specialty" (CG-4)] for a
commuter rail and parkini fadlitv and specialty or community-serving
commercial center; including restaurants, gift shops, art galleries,
boutiques, theaters, entertainment fadlities, food markets, and other
similar uses (11.1 and 11.11).
Encourage and provide a mechanism for the development of the
preceding uses as a unified mixed-use center (11.1, 11.4, 11.5, 11.11, and
11.12).
Densitv /Intensitv and Height
1.25.20
Permit the development of commercial and entertainment uses at a
maximum floor area ratio of 1.0 and height of three stories (42 feet) (11.1).
Design and Development Guidelines
1.25.30
Formulate a specific plan for the reuse of the railroad depot and
revitalization of adjacent sites; defining development and design
requirements for all uses (siting of structures, architectural treatment,
landscape, signage, etc.) (11.4).
98
"
o
o
Objective
It shall be the objective of the City of San Bernardino to:
6.4 Accommodate alternative modes of transportation to the private
automobile in the City, including non-motorized transportation (bicycle
and pedestrian), and public transportation and recreational trails.
Policies
It shall be the policy of the City of San Bernardino to:
6.4.1 Develop and promote interconnected pedestrian facilities and alternate
modes of transportation (16.1, 16.18, 16.20).
6.4.2
Work cooperatively with appropriate regional agencies to facilitate
development of recreational trails, including an equestrian trail system,
that tie into other facilities such as the Santa Ana River Trail system and
provide facilities along the base of the foothills, as well as connections
between these facilities (16.1, 16.19, 16.20).
6.4.3
Accommodate the needs of bicyclists by developing a plan for safe bicycle
facilities not on arterial highways (16.1,16.20,16.21).
6.4.4
Paint pedestrian crosswalks only at signalized intersection locations .m:
where deemed necessary by the City Traffic Engineer (16.2, 16.18).
6.4.5
Encourage direct pedestrian connections between commercial uses and
adjacent residential development through the site plan review process
(16.18).
6.4.6
Require the provision of adequate pedestrian access for new development
projects through its standard site plan review process (16.18).
Require the installation of handicapped ramps on all new sidewalks
unless precluded by physical constraint or where drainage problems
would be created (16.18).
6.4.7
6.4.8
Encourage the installation of sidewalks and wheelchair ramps in existing
neighborhoods, where appropriate (16.1, 16.18).
(.:~
~
Coordinate with SanBAG, Omnitrans and other transit providers, to
ensure that transit services are available to the transit dependent either via
fIXed-route transit service or paratransit (16.11).
328
"
o
Ii
II
H
I[
!]I
"
Ii
II
I
I
o
o
o
Policies
It shall be the policy of the City of San Bernardino to:
r6:6.1J Coordinate with SanBAG, SCAG, the County and other regional, state or
~ federal agencies and the railroads regarding plans for the provision of
passenger, commuter and high speed rail service within the City and
linking the City to adjacent cities and counties (16.11).
6.6.2 Encourage the provision of a buffer between residential land uses and
railway fadlities and encourage the construction of sound walls or other
mitigating noise barriers between railway fadlities and adjacent land uses
(16.10).
6.6.3 Identify existing and future high volume at-grade railroad aossings and
pursue available sources of funding (e.g., California Public Utilities
Commission) to implement grade separations where appropriate (16.24).
Objective
It shall be the objective of the City of San Bernardino to:
6.7 Ensure that air transportation services are available to residents and
businesses in San Bernardino but that the provision of such services does
not significantly negatively impact the City.
Policies
It shall be the policy of the City of San Bernardino to:
6.7.1 Coordinate with regional agencies to ensure that access is maintained and
enhanced between the City of San Bernardino and commercial airports in
nearby cities, such as Ontario (16.11).
I
6.7.2
Evaluate accessibility to Norton Air Force Base consistent with the policies
requiring review and approval of mitigation measures to accommodate
trips generated by new developments such as the potential joint use of
Norton Air Force Base for military and commercial aviation (16.25).
.'
330
'STATfOALlFORNIA 0 0
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Housing Policy Development
19- "ivision
00 Third Street, Room 430
.0. Box 952053
Sacramento, CA 94252-2053
(916) 323-3176
o
o
~
\
GfOIGE DEUKMEJIAfrroI. 4
@
I'
.It :.
.; '.;JC~i
...-.: -.
'.. ~" .
April 7, 1989
'..r."
Mr. Ray Schweitzer
City Manager
city of San Bernardino
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001
Dear Mr. Schweitzer:
RE: City of San Bernardino's Draft Housing Element Amendment
Thank you for submitting the City of San Bernardino draft housing
element amendment, received March 8, 1989, for our review. As you
know, we are required to review draft housing elements and report
our findings to the locality (Government Code Section 65585(b)).
Our review has been facilitated by a March 31, 1989, telephone
conversation with Valerie Ross, the City's Associate Planner. This
letter and appendix summarize the conclusions of that discussion.
The housing element is a comprehensive and well-written document
containing much useful information about the city. In our opinion,
however, certain revisions are needed for the element to comply
with State law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code). For example,
the element should clarify the amount and density of land currently
available and suitable for residential development in the City.
In addition, the element should include an analysis of the amount
of land zoned single-family versus multifamily, and an analysis of
allowed densities. These and other recommended revisions are
outlined in the Appendix to this letter.
For your information, as a result of new legislation (Chapters 1571
and 1572, Statutes of 1988), manufactured housing must be permitted
on permanent foundation systems on all single-family-zoned lots,
so long as the unit is no more than ten years old on the date of
application, and meets federal and optional local standards
specified in Government Code section 65852.3. (A locality may
exempt from this provision any place, building, structure, or other
object listed on the National Register of Historic Places).
Section 65852.3 specifies that local governments may impose
architectural requirements on the manufactured home itself which
o
o
o
o
o
Hr. Ray Schweitzer
Page Two
are limited to roof overhang, roofinq material, and siding
material, so long as the requirements, or any other lot development
standards imposed on the manufactured hoae installation, do not
exceed those required for a conventional boae on the same lot.
section 65852.4 has been added to the Government Code to specify
that a locality may not subject an application to install a
manufactured home on a foundation system on a single-family lot to
any administrative permit, planning, or development process or
requirement unless it is identical to those which would be imposed
on a conventional home on the same lot.
We hope our COllllllents are helpful to the City and we wish you
success in the implementation of your housing program. We
appreciate the time and effort of Ms. Ross during our review. In
accordance with requests pursuant to the Public Information Act,
we are forwarding copies of this letter to the persons and
organizations listed below.
If you have any questions about our cOllllllents or if we could assist
you in the implementation of the programs listed in the element,
please contact Michael Britt of our staff at (916) 323-6172.
c:> Sincerely,
Policy
-NJJ:MB:bt
Attachment
cc: Brad Kilger, Director of Planning, City of San Bernardino
Karen Pally, Consultant, City of San Bernardino
LY-alerie Ross, Associate Planner, City of San Bernardino
Joe Carreras, Southern California Association of Governments
Kathleen Mikkelson, Deputy Attorney General
Bob cervantes, Governor's Office of Planning and Research
Richard Lyon, California Buildinq Industry Association
Kerry Harrington Morrison, California Association of Realtors
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
APPENDIX
City of San Bernardino
The following changes would, in our opinion, bring the city of San
Bernardino's draft housing element amendment into compliance with
Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Following each recommended
change we cite the supporting section of the Government Code.
Where particular program examples or data sources are listed, these
are suggestions for your information only. We recognize that the
City of San Bernardino may choose other means of complying with the
law.
A. Review and Revision
Review the previous element to evaluate appropriateness,
effectiveness and progress in implementation, and reflect the
results of this review in the revised element (Sections
65588(a) and (b)). There are three parts to the information
which should be provided.
"Effectiveness of the element" (Section 65588(a) (2)): A
comparison of the actual results of the earlier element
with its goals, objectives, policies and programs. The
results should be quantified where possible (e.g.,
rehabilitation results), but may be qualitative where
necessary, (e.g., mitigation of government constraints).
b. "Progress in implementation" (section 65583(a) (3)): An
analysis of the significant differences between what was
projected or planned in the earlier element and what was
achieved.
a.
c. "Appropriateness of goals, objectives, and policies"
(Section 65588(a) (1)): A description of how the goals,
objectives, policies, and programs of the updated element
incorporate what has been learned from the results of the
prior element.
An element revision should also reflect the changing housing
needs of the community as well as past accomplishments.
B. Housina Needs. Resources. and Constraints
1.
Provide additional analysis of the housing needs of the
handicapped, elderly, large families, and farmworkers
(Section 65583(a) (6)). Where available, information on
tenure characteristics should be provided. The element
should discuss the housing needs of each of the special
needs groups relative to their situation in the city of
San Bernardino, and where there is an unmet housing need,
identify potential solutions and resources to address the
o
10
2.
o
o
j
o
o
o
problem. For example, some localities which need
additional rental units for larqe families have
established programs to provide density bonuses to
developers who build units which can accommodate large
families. other jurisdictions have waived fees or
expedited processing of permits for housing designed for
large families. In addition, the most recent data should
be used for all needs analysis. 1980 census data should
be updated. This could be done by a straight-line
projection utilizing current-year state Department of
Finance data. The data for the needs analysis should
include numbers as well as the percentage of households
affected (Section 65583(a)(l)). The element should also
provide further information as to the extent of
homelessness within San Bernardino, and determine whether
an unmet need for emergency shelter or transitional
housing exists. If there is an unmet need, sites should
be identified to accommodate the need. We have sent a
housing element information package under separate cover
which includes a technical assistance paper to assist the
City in meeting this new requirement.
Analyze the city's land use requirements and building
code and enforcement procedures as potential and actual
governmental constraints upon the maintenance or
improvement of housing for all income levels (Section
65583(a) (4)). The analysis of governmental constraints
should include a determination as to whether a policy or
procedure poses an actual constraint in the City. Any
constraints identified should be addressed in the program
section of the element. The land use discussion should
include an analysis of the amount of land zoned single-
family versus multifamily, and an analysis of allowed
densities. The element should also include a discussion
regarding the City'S policies relating to second unit
zoning, manufactured homes, and mobilehome parks.
3.
The analysis of building codes and their enforcement
should include a discussion of any local amendments to
the State Housing taw or the model codes adopted into it
by reference, and should analyze the type and/or degree
of enforcement. For example, a locality'S preservation
or code enforcement program should not unduly penalize
older dwellings built under less demanding codes (Section
l7922(c) Health and Safety Code).
The element should clarify the amount and density of land
currently available and suitable for residential
development in the City (Section 65583(a)(3)). In our
opinion, the land inventory should demonstrate that
adequate buildable sites will be available during the
planning period of the element, at appropriate densities
and with necessary services and facilities, to
accommodate construction of a variety of types of housing
c
10
4.
-
. .
o
o
o
that will meet the regional share, and in particular the
various income cateqories of the reqional share. It may
not be necessary to list all vacant sites in the City to
demonstrate this.
Analyze the availability of financinq, the price of land,
and the cost of construction as potential and actual
nonqovernmental constraints upon the maintenance,
improvement, or development of housinq for all income
levels (Section 655893 (a) (5)).
The analysis of the availability of financinq should
consider whether financinq is. qenerally available,
whether interest rates are siqnificantly different from
surroundinq areas, and whether there are mortqaqe
deficient areas in the community for new construction or
rehabilitation loans. The analysis of land cost could
include an estimate of the averaqe per unit cost of land,
or the ranqe of per unit costs for land in sinqle-family
and multifamily zoned areas.
c. Housina Proarams
c
-0
1.
Include a housinq proqram which implements the policies
and achieves the qoals and objectives of the element
(Section 65583 (c)). In our opinion, each proqram action
should contain specific time objectives for
implementation within the planninq period. In addition,
the city should specify the actions it will undertake to
implement proqrams. Actions such as "Study alternative
sources of revenues...," (pq. 51), do not, in our
opinion, commit the City to undertake any specific
action. For example:
a) What fundinq source does the City expect to use to
expand the Rental Housinq Rehabilitation proqram
(pq. 45)? How will the City emphasize keepinq the
units affordable to existinq tenants?
b) When will the City apply for fundinq for the multi-
family purchase and rehabilitation proqram (p.49)?
c) When will the City establish its task force to
recommend solutions to the loss of affordable units
due to conversion to market rates (pq.. 49)?
d) Provide more information on the Redevelopment Aqency
and the Housinq Authority with reqard to their role
in the City'S effort to encouraqe a variety of
housinq types for all income levels.
(0
()
o
I
o
. .
o
o
o
Identify adequate sites made available through
appropriate zoning and development standards and with
public services and facilities needed to facilitate and
encourage a variety of housing for all income levels, to
accOlDlDodate San Bernardino's share of the regional
housing need (Section 65583 (c) (1)). This should include
sites suitable for rental housing and development and
construction of shelter to meet the identified homeless
population need. Without a complete land inventory as
described in item A-3, we cannot determine whether San
Bernardino City has demonstrated adequate sites.
3. Include a program which promotes equal housing
opportunities (Section 65583(a)(5)). For example, San
Bernardino may wish to provide information on fair
housing laws and refer complaints of housing
discrimination to appropriate State or federal agencies.
2.
D.
Quantified Ob;ectives
Establish the maximum number of housing units that can be
constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year
time frame (Section 65583(b)). The element sets objectives
under various program components: the element should also
include, however, overall quantified goals for construction,
rehabilitation, and conservation. For example, the city may
wish to quantify the number of existing units that will be
preserved at affordable rents through the Section 8 program
or the number of units to be conserved through lIOre stable
zoning, such as mobilehome parks originally developed under
conditional use permits on land zoned cOlDlDercial or
industrial.
E.
Public Particination
Describe the city'S effort, in developing the housing element,
to achieve the public participation of all economic seqments
of the cOlDlDunity (Section 65583 (c)) . For example, some
localities publicize public hearings on the element at local
COlDlDunity centers and through local housing or cOlDlDunity
groups.
F. Enerav conservation
Analyze the opportunities for energy conversation with respect
to residential development (Section 65583 (a) (7)).
G. Consistency with General Plan
Describe the means by which consistency will be achieved with
other general plan elements (Section 65583 (c)).
.,
- - b.. -
'r-o 0 0 -~
!
. .
,
I
I
I
I
,
(
envICLJIIII15ro{~JC2@u;;]~if2C@:L,
. 'O'~"_~':;';;~M:;~: :o~---~~j~4
Date:
12 May 1989
To:
Mayor and Common Council
From:
Woodie Tescher, Envicom Corporation
Subject:
Hill, Farrer & Burrill Letter of 10 May 1989
(Reference: "Stubblefield")
The following comments are offered in response to the letter submitted by Hill,
Farrer & Burrill to the Mayor and Common Council on 10 May 1989 in regard to
the Draft City of San Bernardino General Plan. These are intended as a general
overview of the six principal issues cited in the letter. If necessary, detailed
responses can be subsequently prepared.
1. Reference Page 2: "1. The Draft Plan does not provide for suffi~ent housing
to meet the City's obligation under State law."
The letter states that the Draft Plan "constitutes an outright abdication of the
City's responsibility for providing an adequate supply of housing." This con-
clusion is based on the statement that the Draft Plan's capacity of 23,2061 new
housing units in the City is less than the number which will be demanded by
continuation of historic development "trends" and that the Housing
Element's target of 5,801 new units by 30 June 1994 is below the 10,874 units
identified by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in
its Regional Housing Assessment for the City.
In the former case, the letter assumes that historic growth rates in the City jus-
tify their continuation in the future. While such could be a realistic reflection
of market demands, it fails to account for the City's physical and environmen-
tal conditions which may constrain development and City objectives for its
long-term character and intensity. It, naively, assumes that there is no thresh-
old at which further development should be limited. Using historic growth
trends as the basis to determine the City's housing capacity would, in theory,
result in the ultimate conversion of all single-family areas and vacant lands to
high density apartments and condominiums, the wholesale removal and
1 The number of units cited in the referenced letter reflect the Public Hearing Draft of the Plan
and does not account for revisions made by the Planning Commission.
4764 Park G~enede' Celebeeee Pe~k. CA 81302-1583' Telephone (818)340-8400
, (0
. I
I
I
o 0-
o~
envlC.1..III11 rc::'@)~[j2)@~@![?:O@)UlJ
Mayor and Common Council
12 May 1989
Page Two
degradation of significant environmental habitats (as documented in Chapter
Three, Natural Resources), and siting of development in areas subject to fault
rupture and extreme levels of noise (as documented in Chapter Four,
Hazards).
In the second case, the letter assumes that the City is mandated to accept the
SCAG projections and that they are valid projections. It should be noted that
these are "straight-line" projections of the City's historic development trends,
which are subject to the same criticisms as identified above. It is my
understanding that many cities in the SCAG region have challenged these as
being unacceptable and not reflective of local constraints and objectives.
2. Reference Page 2: ''2. The Draft Plan does not make adequate provision for
moderate and low income housing."
The letter states that the City will fail to meet its "legal obligation to provide
housing to all economic segments to the community" by "allocating a full
39.9% of future housing for the 'upper' income groups." The City's housing
needs are fully documented in the Housing Element and the percentage allo-
cation of units by income groups ("e. FIVE YEAR HOUSING GOALS') is the
same as thatidentified by SCAG (''D. HOUSING NEEDS, 2. Future Housing
Needs, a. New Units"), which the author of the letter has previously used as
the standard for the General Plan.
3. Reference page 3: "3. The Draft Plan Hillside Management policies and
standards are based upon inadequate analytical data."
a. While the Plan recognizes that the Hillside Management boundary on the
Land Use Plan has been generalized, it provides a mechanism for its ad-
justment to reflect a precise engineered determination and reversion of
lands of less than 15 percent slope outside of contiguous hillside areas, to
another land use designation (refer to Policy 1.14.11, Page 72)2.
2 Planning Commission revisions to the Draft Plan have further clarified the location and pro-
cess for reconciliation of this boundary (Policies 1.14.11 and 1.14.30).
, (0
, i
I
I
I
o 0
0-
envTcorn rs@~j02X~)~~rso@o=u
Mayor and Common Council
12 May 1989
Page Three
b. The slope map contained in the Technical Background Report is based on
United States Geological Survey 7.5' quadrangles. This is a commonly ac-
ceptable base for the preparation of such maps.
c. The letter seems to imply that the Plan's estimate of buildout in hillside
areas establishes an upper limit of development which could be affected
by a more precise calculation of slope. This is incorrect. Specific slope
maps prepared for proposed development projects would be used to
determine residential capacity, not the estimates contained in the Plan.
Such may increase or decrease the actual capacity.
4. Reference Page 3: "4. The Hillside Management standards ignore social and
economic realities."
a. The letter states that the hillside management standards would economi-
cally preclude the development ''Master Planned Communities." No evi-
dence has been presented to justify this conclusion and such has not been
the case in the cities of Thousand Oaks, Westlake Village, Simi Valley, and
other areas with similar or more restrictive density standards.
b. The letter states that "the proposed MH policy is so restrictive as it affects
the Stubblefield hillside property that implementation will effectively re-
sult in an unconstitutional taking of the property." While this is an issue
of legal interpretation, the MH policy does not preclude basic entitlements
for "reasonable use". If the entirety of the property exceeds 30 percent, it
may be developed at a density of 1 unit for each 10 acres. This is a fairly
common standard; consistent with the City of Redlands, City of Ventura,
and County of Los Angeles.
/0
(
I
',,-
~
0--,
--0 l~
. . . .
B'1VICom '.==lJ"c(j2)@CZ:~110@Jn
Mayor and Common Council
12 May 1989
Page Four
5. Reference Page 4: "5. The Seismic Safety setback requirements are unduly
restrictive"
The State of California requires that a minimum 5O-foot setback be main-
tained from faults in the Alquist-Priolo Seismic Studies Zone and permits
cities to impose more restrictive standards. The Draft Plan provides for a
10D-foot setback, to account for the geologic substructure of the fault zone
crossing the City and considerable risk, as defined in the Geology /Seismic
section of the Plan, for fragmented ruptures along and adjacent to the
trace of the main fault.
6. Reference Page 4: "6. The process by which the MH policies have been
derived is defective."
Numerous hours were expended in the derivation of the MH policies.
These included the research and evaluation of hillside management
ordinances for in excess of 30 communities throughout California by the
consultant, in addition to CAC review and input. Members of the CAC
testified at the Planning Commission's hearings on the Draft Plan that the
letter (in an earlier version submitted to the Commission) is misrepresen-
tative of the "real" hours of review and discussion, including time outside
of formal CAC meetings. Additionally, the scope of the policies require
subsequent delineation of standards and requirements during the
preparation of the City's Development Code which will be subject to fur-
ther public input.
WT:mp
/
MAY 10 '89 12:32 HILL,_F~
J
-
c
HILL.9AR~ER & BUR9LL
" M/Il'fJIII....... IIICuIHIe ........OMM. OOII.-oMtIO"-
...T'I'OANII:YS AT ....W
TMI"",,"lnw I'1.OOIIMJNION ......K lIC>UA..t
... SOUfH frtOUCIllOA *,",UT
L.O. ANQEL.... CALllI'O"NI.... .0071-1...
.... ....c~ C:O",NTV
"a.c~"OHE 1II13a aao-cMOO
0......0& COUNT"
TCIoC....ONC ~..) ...,...0.
,.It.... ....OD "I....
~~
l:.. M. GOUL.D-
."'''IAN C. '...."11;".
_CON S. AHOV.."-
IT"'U.I:" E. TOliN'
JACK It. WloIITC'
M41t1ltl' ... ~A'JtA.tlAv-'
j('I"LC D. ..Ow..-
WILLIAM M. R'fTING'
flOal," R HC..'
DAVie .. c.e.....o',.
.TIoIAM' .... '10\,1"0, .Il1t.'
."evett W. IACOW'
T.M C. ."UIN.MA'
WM. M,,""OloD IOIllTMWICt('
AlIIlTNVII .. COOIC'
JANca o. ...OM"&ON'
ICO.Oc lCOIDr
...ONATH.... M. .......D......
DAIIIl.&:NC ,.,aC"1I1l1 ",'Iol.t_"
.=0" ... OII."'O"C'
KeVIN M. ..OGA'"
....MI. A. aowloc,'
",,0"" ,.. "II....H
.&11. O. ""..."IN
MICHAEl. .J. D,"lM&
."""SO N. C......". =
DANI'" ..to ....c.."IIl'"
DAV.D It. .0.ll"S
T&&.&1:0~..
1.~ .........0 ~&aJ AM_l..*
May 10, 1989
.,. ~1tO'U.'OM440 ,"OIl-o_T,O"
The Honorable Evlyn Wilcox, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, California 92418
REI Draft City of San Bernardino General Plan
Draft Environmental Impact Report
~HMEN~~
"CE.,eK .J. ."AN, .U..
lItO...."" W. NOVOTNV
AU.US" W. CAtMI
DCAN L GINN'.
W'IoIJANA. WHJTI
lu&ut tC"w.-.TI wMO
....... .. evAN', ..la,
aoNAUII C. ~r.ulSON
G. causwa.&. TE'...~aON. :;a.:
QYlIt oJ. DAl:HNKI
&.OfIIITfA &1(:110.14..0
"C"NlnA c:OO~ I.ewll
1:41"" .. W"'''AU.
NWI. D. ...AMEnI
.,CMAS" .. TUIIIHC"
M.CMIu.E A. MCO"'.OUNI
I.UoN '0 5M"I""
101:0.. ...... ""fl.
.Ibft'"1It Le, .."CAkE
.. CAlIfY O'IUrt.NE
DC.OIlAN .. ",NowlKI
., C16,*''''
..0.... N. "_"'\lIIIIH-
'1INel..T e. ~.I
EDWIN M. '.."ZEN-
A. .t. NU..L Cl........al
WN. M. ".""1. U....'.71'
wr...1.lY to aU".IL" (laoa.,'''1
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 ("TaR") and the Draft Environmental Impact
Report dated March 24, 1989 ("DEIR"). The cOllllllents will
focus upon the Land Use Element, particularly the Hillside
Management Category of that Element, and the integrally
related Housing Element. We encourage you to give thoughtful
consideration to these concerns and to take steps to remedy
the identified deficiencies before you take final action on
the 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 CAC that
the City and its officials would undertake a comprehensive
study of the hillside development issue, including the
e~ceptionally low density proposed for hillside areas. As
you must realize, this has not occurred. Rather than
MAY 10 '89 12:32 HILL,_FARRER&BURRILL
r . oJ' "'"'
Ci
o
o
o
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 rovide for
su ~icient housing to meet the C ty's
obl~qation under State law.
The Estimated General Plan Buildout for the City and
"Sphere of Influence" 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 SeAG'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 ade uate
prov7s~on _or mo erate an ow ~ncome
nous:a.ng.
. 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 housin9 within the City. In the San Bernardino City
housing market durin9 the period 1981 to 1986, only 6' of the
units sold were in the "move-up" cate90ry while 63' were
MAY 10
C.
'89 12:33 HILL,_FARRER&BURRILL
P.4/6
-f')
'...
o
o
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 II 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 ("MR") 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.1I 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 MR 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 MB-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,BOO units can be built on 6,000 acres
(apparently his estimate of buildable hillside area as of
November, 1988) that have ~es of 15\ or greater I Assuming
Mr. Evans' data is correct, t e 3734 acres which the City has
allocated as buildable MH land will only yield 1116 (not
2,095) housing unitsl
4.
The Hillside Management Standards Ignore Social
And Economic Realities.
.
In the same letter referenced above, Mr. Evans concludes
that from a financial viabili~y perspective, Master Planned
Communities that are oriented towards move-up/custom house-
holds, situated in hillside areas, typically have residential
.
P.S/6
MAY 10 '89 12:33 HILL,_FARRER&BURRILL
('"
.,J-'
f'~"
-.."
o
o
Members of ~he planning Commission
May 10, 1989
Page 4
densities of at least three units ross acre. He further
states tat, such land-use ens ty s requ~red to provide
a basic economic incentive for a hillside Master Planned
Community to be developed with a desirable set of product
types, amenities and features,. and conoludes:
"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. aecent 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 eoonomically 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 (100') 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 Defective.
In March, 1988, the CAC adopted the new land use desig-
na~ion called "Hillside Management" without adequately
discussing the underlyinq standards. The CAC merely accepted
the Staff'. recommendation for a loosely worded set of
quidelines as a temporary measure!
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
~.b/b
c
o
o
o
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 CAe, 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 Commis.ion and
Staff for further analysis, and demand adequate and sensible
recommendations from your consultant and Staff before taking
action.
Very truly yours,
.
~ t<l'<~ ~
DARLENE FISCHER PHILLIPS
OF
HILL, FARRER & BURRILL
LOS ANOEl-ES C;~
TEl-E.....ONE 12131 ~O
O....NOE COUwn'
TELE.....ONE 17'41 ~015
TELEX Z...OS -*-
TELECO"'!E.R
12:3) ez......o (2131.....'$.3
'0
1".ItDEIIIICK ". 1It"l'...N. .JA
1II0N...LD W. NOVOTNY
AUGUST W. CAlM'
DEAN C. DC......
WI LLI"'" .... WHITE
SUS"'N .C~IItTZ w......O
""'MC. till. EVANS, ..Jilt.
AON"'1.0 C. ~.ON
G. CtIlIES.WItU. TEM"LE:TON, :1
KEV'N ..J. QACNNKIt
LO.ETT'" SIC' LlANO
..JENNII"EIIt COOK LIEWIS
CU.TIS .... .EST.....LL
.....UL D. ........ETT.
...ICH"'E.. I. TU.NEIIt
MICHE..LC .... MCGHtIlIOUNI
..E"'''' S. SA........M
LEOH ....15. "..
",CNMII"It" '- PANC"'KE
It. CAsn O'ufilE
DE.OIt...... .... ....NOWSKI
or COUW.CL
...ONH N. MCLAU.IN.
VINCENT C. .....GE
EDWIN H. I"MNZEN.
o
HILPFARRER & st9RILL
... IM_aIllSIoII'" 'NCUlDII'UI -"0. ~_TIONS
C. .... GOU"C.
WIL..I...... C. ......IItEIt.
..CON S. "'Nav"t~
STAHLE'\'" E. TO.'N.
......CK III. WHIT~
H...lltIIt.,. L. H...TN...W.......
Ky..E O. .1t0WN-
WI....I...... M. .ITTI NO-
IItO.CIIIT ~ HUS.
O",VID .... C.C.'NOI"I".
,TU...ItT H. YOUNG. ..J1t..
'TEVEN W. ....CON.
TIM C. .IItUIN........
WM. .......0..0 10ItT"WICI(.
"'IIITHU. .. COOK.
......"'ES D. ..JOHNSON-
DECIIIDE !COIOe-
...ON...T...AN M. ....."'OI.CIt.
O...IItI.E"'C I"IICHE. "HII."I"S.
SCOTT ... QI,,"'OIltC.
KCVII'Ii H. .1It00"''''-
......ME. .... .OW..U-
...OHN lit. I.IC."'''''''
NEIl.. O. MAItTIN
"'1C:"'''El.. .... D'.I"'SC
.....I"IItEC M. C.....ItK. m
DANIE:. .J. M.C..."THY
C",Vle K. IItO..INS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
TMIRTY-~IFTH ,.LOOA-UNION ItANK SQUARE
_5 SOUTM ~IGUEIlICM. STREeT
LOS ANGELES, CAL.''''OIltNlA 80071-leee
April 10. 1989
.... .... HILl. 11..1....3)
WM. M. I"A"IItEIIt {I......1.711
ST...Nl.EY .. 'UIt.'L.. 1180.l-18S71
." ".:"US'ONAL CO...O....',ON
Membe:. of ,the Plannin9 Ccmmiss~on
c~ty of San Bernardino
300 North "0" Str*~t
San Bernardino, Califo~ia 92'18
e. Draft C~ty of San Berna..""ltino General Plan
Draft ElIvironm..nUl Impact R*port
Dear Members of the Pl.nnin9 commi~5ion:
Hill. F..rr~r , aurrill r*?r.....nt. Stubblefield
ConGt:uetion Company and stubbl..f~.ld proper~~e.
("Stubblefield"). Stubblefield own, prope=~y within the
City of SAD Bernardino ("C~ty") wtieh will be impacted by
the City's ~doption of th.. proposed Draft City 0: SL~
Bc:n~:dino Concral ~lan ("Draft Plan"'. w. und.r.~&nd that
~. D:aft Plan ia before you for COftsideration.
The following comm..nta are ~ntended to alert you to
.p.=if~e leq~l inadcquac1ca of the O=aft plan and the
underlying da~ contained in ~e %echnical Background Report
dated February, 1988 ("TiR"' L~d tbe Draft Environmental
Imp.ct Report d.t~d March 24, 1989 ("DErA"). They will focus
upon the Land Uae Element, part~cR1&=ly the Hill.ide
Management Ca~egot'y of that Element, dDd tl1.. int..r;rally rela-
ed ROUGing Element. We enoourage you to g1va thoughtful
con.1deration to th.... concern$ .na to take steps to remedy
the identified defic~en=ic. bc~cre you make your rec~~enda-
ions ~o the Common Conncil concernin9 the Draft Plan.
1. ~he Dr.it plan Falls to pro~id. Ad~ou.te Housin
or Al con~c eqmentG ot tne ~~nn~ty.
Stat. and local governments have a statutory racpons1bi-
~Q us. their powers to facilitate adequate housing for
lity
c.
o
o
~
Members of ~be Plannin~ Commission
April 10" 1989
paqe 2
all economic .eqmente of the community and to CDOpe~ate in
addreesing regional housinq needs. covt. C. 580. 65580(4)
and (el. Cities ere required to designate and zone suffi-
cl.n~ land for r.siden~ial u.e with appro?riate standards in
relation to .abetantiated qrow~h projections. This the City
hac failed to do.
a. The Draft Plan doe. not provide for
sufficient bousing to meet tbe City's
obligation un:er State law.
The Estimated Gena~al Plan Buildout for the City and
"Sphere of Influence" is 25,028 ~~its over the next twenty
years (Draft plan at .7) and 23,206 units within City l~its
for the scma period of time. Draft Plan at 157-158. The
data conea!ned wi~in the D!:R and the General Plan it.elf
cocument the insufficiency of this quantity of housin~
units.
From 1~80 to 1988, ehe tetal housing unit. in the City
alone inereaeed 12.11), from '),458 to 58.571. with the
supply of single family units decreasing (68.9\ to 61..\1
and the supply of multi-family units increasini from 24.7\
to 32.6'1. Dra~t plan at 148. Sii~:ic&ntlY, ~ere is no
evidence in the ~BR or DEli 0: ~n overaupply in ~~its whi~h
were owne6 or h1ah vaea~cy ra~e in units which were rented
(rental vacancy =~te beini app~oximately 7.1. Draft Plon
at 152. Iven assuming the rate ot irowth doe. not accele-
rate. which from all in;i~aticna it muat. the City will
re~ire a minimum ot 30,262 be~.ini unit. just to keep pace
with ~he axis~in; iro~~h ~ate.
The City has ~hosen to ignore the clear evidence of
grow-~ tren6. an6 haa r.:us.6 to a6.quately provide for
cle~rly proje~ted nee6s. This conclusion is st:on;ly under-
scored by the C1ty'. 1n~1::er.nee ~o the State law reauire-
ments wbich mAndate tbe incor~ration of projections of the
Southern california AssoeiaticD of Governments ("SCAGO) in
the local planning proceaa. State law requiree that regional
housing needs and each locality'. ahare ahall be determined
by the appropriate council of ~overnment.. based upon data
prov1ded by the Department of ~ous1ng and commun1ty Develop-
ment ("UCD"). according to ape:i:ied criteria and subject to
BCD review ~or conaistency with seatewide housing ne.dc.
Govt. C. Sec. 55584(a). Nonetbeless, the City has cbosen to
diare~ard the e~ear import of SeAG's June 1988 report
(ReqionDl Housin; Needs Asses$ment for Southern California)
which identifies tbe nee~ for ~o,e'. housinq units in the
.0
o
o
o
M~ber. of the Planning Commissio~
April 10, 1989
page 3
City by June 30, 1994, and ins~.ad has made provision for
slightly over hAlf this number -- 5,801 -- for that s~
period of time (assgmtng a straight-line utilisation of the
23,206 units of Potential New aesidential Development Within
City Limitsl. Draft Plan at 157-158. This constitute. an.
outright abdication of ~he City's responsibility for provi-
ding an adequate supply of housing_
b. Tbe ora~t Plan ~oes not make adequate
provision fOr moderate nnd low income
housing.
Not onlf is the to~al number o! housing unit. inade-
quate, but a.1ocation of those units i. not supported by any
reli4ble empirioal data. As you no doubt recall, Empire
Economics conducted e s~udy for ~e City in Septemher 1987.
ThiR study analyzed, -among othAr things, supply and demand of
variouD typeD of houDi~q withi~ ~he Ci~y, including what it
termed "move-up homes" (thos. relatively high-pri~d hDm*&
built in hillside areas for those who desire a spacious houee
wi~h a large yard, ot approxima~Rly 2,500 sq. ft., 3-4
bedrooms, 2-3 bath.1 and "detached ho=ec" (entry level home.
!or those purchasing their first housing units with 2-3
bedcrooms, 2-3 b.~. and ap~roximately 1600 sq. ft.).
Significantly, ehe Em?~re ~conomics analysis di~close6 that
in ~he San ~ernardino Ci~y hocainq marke~ during the perioa
1961 to 1986, only 6' of ~he ur.i~s sold were in the "move-up"
oateqory where 63\ were detachod ho=sG. The remainins sale.
were of pa~io homes 110\), townshou..s and condominiu&6 IlS\)
and (a~parently) custom homes (perhaps 2%1. S.. San
Ba.~ard1no City's Optimal Huusinq Product Mix .- a.cent
~ends, Pcture E~pectetions and Po1iey Conlideratione by
Empire Economics, September 24, 19087, pp. 4,9-11, 26.
The City has chosen to ignore th~ obvious im?lications
of the above-cited data. By alloeatinq a full 39.9\ of future
housing for ~he "upper" income ~roupl, the City il not
fulfi1lini its leial obligation to provide hoasing :or all
economic segments of the co:munity. Moreover, as .et forth
below, it is a~pAr.nt that the City cannot possibly even meet
the 90al which it hal set to provide 2315 housing units for
those "upper" income ;~oups. See D~!R ~t 4-59.
.0
o
o
o
Members ot the Planning Commission
April 10, un
Page 4
2.
The Draft plan Hillside MAn_Dement policies and
Stanoaree Are iaseo Oeon In&A.Qua~e AAalvt~eal
~.
The State OPR General plan Guidelines ("Guidelines")
proviae tAat "(a)ouna policy depends On solid ia!o:mation"
and emphasize the importance of documenting the factual and
analytic basie for policy. "It should alao be reaambersd
that data without analysis are aeldom useful: analysis serves
as the bridge of logic from raw data to policy.- Cuidelines
at B. Not only ahnuld vit~l b.ckground information be giv~n
"soma official ctatus," but it .hould be "readily available
to decision makers and the public and used as a benchmark for
evaluating change. in condition. when future qeDeral pIar.
revisions are needed." Id.
The [act oE tb~ matter 15 that the City'a Hillside
Management ("MH"' policies are not supported by aoequate
data. and tbeir effects have not been accurately measured.
~our cono~ltar.tG have conceded on several ooca.10n. ~at
accurate me~aurement of slop~s in the areas proposea as ME
ca. not b.en undertaker.. Yet, the proje~teQ n~er of
bousing units to ~ constructed in tbes. areas hss been
premised on conclusion. whicb they have derived witbou~
/ldequate study.
~hi6 ia evidenced by Figure 54 in the TBR entitled
"Ceneralized Slopes." ~here i. no in~ica~ion anywhere of
~hat this map is based upon or bow it was prepared. It
appeare to be a general "gue.stimate" poa&ibly base: upen a
U.S.G.S. topographical map of some vintage. It cer~inly
does net provide an accurate measurement o~ elopee in ~~e
propos~d MH dr~d~. Yet. all t:,e a~sumption. a8 to acres
av.ila:le for building and Dgmber of units per acre are
premised on this map. If these assamptions ere in error.
which from all inaieations tbey are. then the resulting
conclusions are obviously flawed.
Th~ City hdS concluded, ~tt~hout .dequ.te an.lysis or
:nckup dnta, that 2,095 housing units ~an bc built on 3,734
acres ot MH-dasignated land over the next 20 y.ars. (If.
straight-line utilization is assumee, only 520 ~nit. can ba
=Qnstru~~ed in MH .rQ~Q in th~ n.x~ =ive year~.) Yet. the
same expert who prepared the Empire Eoono~ic. Report has
advie&d City Q~!icials ~&t teie o&nnot be done. We under-
stand that Jos.ph T. Janczyk Evan., author of the E=p1re
tconcmics Report on h~csinq trends. has recently written the
0-
o
o
o
Members of the Planning Commission
April 10, U89
Page 5
Ci ty (wi tis a eopy to 'the Chaiman of your COmmisdon) st..-
till\J,. 4IIlOllQ other thillg'e, that a _ximWll of 1.800 unite
can be built on 6,000 acres (ao~aren~ly his estimate of
bu~lQAble h.lle~de area as of November, 19881 that bave
slo:le. of 15\ or qre.tarJ AsS1lllling Mr. Evans' data :lS
oorrect. the J7J4 Acree which the City has allocated ae
buildable HB land will only yield 1116 (Ilot 2.DtS) housing
units I Hr. EVAne concludes I
. THEREFORE. A COHl'A.USON O!' ora! NtlHllER or MOV!:-tJP AND
CUSTOM HOMES THAT WODLD Bl!: REQt'IR!:O FOR SAllI BEJlIIARDINO
CITY TO ACHI~ AN OPTIMAL HOOSING MIX WITH 'l'BI NDY~ER
TIlAT MAY ACTllAJ.J.Y R!: D!VE7.oPF.D, ACCORDING TO THE
CURRENT HIU.S Ie E H1.NACE!'.Z!."l' S1'ANDAllDS, 1UlVilALS '1'HA'l' '1'llt
C!TY WOULD NOT ATT~IN AX OPTIYAL HOUSING MIX.. fLetter
of Nove~ber, 1968.)
Teis severe restriction on the number of units to be
con~truct~d in hillsid~ areas ov~r the next 20 years (wh.ther
t~t Ilumber be 2095 cr 1116) :aiscs other issues which have
not b.en addrassed. Bow will clIe City monitor dnd ...uDr=~
this IlQmer1cal lim1ta~10n7 W~ll development be allowed to
proc~l:ld until thl:l num~ric..l !.imit is reach..d (perhaps in
:1ve, ten, or f1f~e.n yeArs) or will building perm1te and
other en~i~lemen~s be .phased. over the ~enty-y~.r period?
~oea the City intend to monitor or ree~rict Qevalo~n~
approvals and/or bQilding p.rmits and, if so, how? The deve-
lopment community i. en~1tled to thia information.
3.
The Hillside Manaee=ent Standards lcnor8 Social
And Economic Realities.
Althou9h 8ta~e reqciremen~s for a general plan ~hasize
enviroll:entAl and phygical develo~ent, "all phyeical deve-
lopment fulfill. economic and social needs and, in te--n,
profoundly affects economic and social conditione. Xndeed,
~~neral plan policy 11 social and economic policy.- Guide-
_~nc:. A1; 7.
'l'"l1e City'. p::'Aft !'lllll i'1no=5 these ilnportant social
and economic tactors. In the same le'tter re!erenced above,
Joseph '1'. Janczyk ~Yans concludes that from a fillancial
viahilit)' I'~r.p"ctive, "'...ter Plenned Co_unities th..t are
or1entcd tow~rd. move-up/custom household., situated in
bill.ida AreAS, typically have residential densitie. of at
laast trxee unite er crose acre. ae :urtl1er s~te. ~~,
M ~ uch land-u~~ uRn.~~y l~ r~~ul~*d to pravid* & b&~ic
..0
o
o
o
. M~mber~ of the Planning COmmission
Apri.l 10, 1989
Page 6
econemic incentive for a hillside Master Planned Community
~o be aeveloped with a a88ir-=le .et of product types,
amQnitie. ana features,. and conclude..
"EMPIU !CONOMICS BAS Co.VAllED T!! LAND-OS!: 1>=5ITI1::5
OF OPSCALE HASTER PLAJlN!:I) COHMtlNITIES WI1'H THE LAND-VSE:
DENSITIES THAT 8A1ll BE1UIAllDINO C:TY WOULD ElAVB, BASil!)
UPOI/ ITS PROpOSED aI:.:t.s:tDE OSlDINAIICI:, A....a '1'1IB RESULT
UVEALS TElAT TKE ECONOMIC VIA3ILI:Y OF A HU'1""..A pLANNEI>
COMMUNITY KAY BE SUBST~I~Y nIHII/ISHED AS A RESULT
OF THE BSLATIVELY LOW LAND-USE nEXSITIES.M
It ODe nee~& further evidence of the soundne.s of
~r. Evans' oonclusions, he ne.d look nO further ~&D the
Amber Bills Project which consists of 19 lots on 41.8 acres.
~h. recen~'forecloeure epeake clearly ~o the absence ot
economic viability for such a project. This should serve .s
a warning to the City that its pre.en~ly proposed MB stan-
dards contemplate economic disaster for builders and will
result in a serious un4er supply ot housing for this commu-
nity, unless, of cour.e, it is the City's intent to imple-
ment policies which re.elt in an inad.~ate housiDg supply.
The propos.d MB pol1cy ~I 10 restr1ct1ve a. it a~f.ct.
the Stubblefield hillside Propa=ty that iaplementation will
effectively result in an uncons~itutional taking of the
property. Most of the property exceeds 30' sloPe, Dnd under
the pre.ent .~ndards, r~ econom1cal~y viable project Cdn be
built. ~o recent ceses cleerly eate=lish the u.~constitu-
tional character of the type o~ aotion the City is eontempla-
ting. !n Allinqhem vs. City c! Seattla (1988) 109 Wn. 2d
947, the Cou.~ Qete~~n.d that a Greenbelt Or~in~ce which
required property owner. in certain areas to preserve 50 to
70 percent of their land in a natural state was a unconstitu-
tional takini since is deprived the landowners of all profit-
able uee of a .ub.tan~ial-E2rtion of the1r land. we se. no
distinction between what the City of Seattle ettempted to do
with it. Greenbelt Ordinance an4 wha~ the City is proposing
to do by way of its MB s1;andards.
Similarly, in A.A. Profiles, Inc. vs. C't of Pt.
Lauderc1ale (11th Circu:.t, August, 198' the Cour~ found
thet a rezoning of property from M-1 (the City's leeat
r.stric~ive industrial and manu!acturing cla.cif1cat1onl ~c
a-3-C (liqht industrie:) denied the o~~er e property interest
o.
o
o
o
. . .
Kembe~e of the Planning COMMission
AprU 10, UU
Page 7
b.caule the new cla..i~ic&tion did Dot &Ccomodate a develop-
_nt like th. aD. he had p~opo..d (a woo4-chippiDlI opc~a-
tiOD) . We aeriouely urge tll1. COIIllCil to take a long, bard
look at these KH lit4Ududs which effectively deny IIIlI.I\Y
p~operty OWDe~. economically viable lI.e of their property.
TAe Process aI Which the KH poliei.. bave a.en
Derived Is De ect.v..
4.
Th. opa General plan Geidelin.. provide that becallce
CJatlle:i.nCJ data iil t:i.lu-conl\lll'ling all4 conly, "the 10cll1
government should collect end organize information 1n the
ea:ly phases of the g.neral plan program co it oln be used
later to evaluate the effects of planning options and to
oatiofy th~ env1ronm.n~al r.view r.qllirem.nts.... GuidellnQ~
at 55. The City has failed to do thi. and we urCJe you to
correct this defici.ncy now befo~. it i. ~oo late.
In Karch, 1988, the CAe adopt.d the new land us. dQsig-
nation called "Hillside Mana'1elllent" without adequately
d1seu8e1~g the un4.rlyinCJ standard.. The CAC merely accepted
the Staff's recommendation for I loos.ly worded Get of
'JUide11ne. a. a temporary mcal~rel
On November 28, 1988 the CAe h.ld it. first discuxsion
on the MR standards. 'rbi. lastea nO more than 2 houn. A
second and final d1.oue.ion oeccrrea D.cember ?, 1988,
wherein the CAe listencdto Kr. Te.cher and aiecullled tho
i"u8a among them.elv... There wa. li~tle public input. At
about 9,45 p.m., well a!ter many members had left the m..-
ting, a vote wa, ~..~, and eh. MH eta=4ard. were adopted by
a tellingly close vots of 7 to E. In othe~ wo~dl, out of the
24 or 2S members of the CAe, only 7 have actually voted for
the MH st.nd.rd~ as currently proposed.
rive days later, on December 13, the Planning Commission
conaidered and unanimouely rubb.r-stL~ped the .~andlrd.
barely adopted by the CAe (with very little input), and throe
days later, on Deoembcr 16, 1988, th. COmmon Council, again
with inadequate consideration, adopted tho.e standards
without c;han~e. We urCJe the OOlllllon to take a furth.r look at
the.e polici.. and tha u,~.rlyin'1 data. We .lso note, to keep
the record clear, that ~he SO. acr.. of City cre.k Channel
which have bean designated Public Flood Control (.ppc", are
not public landl (P:.a8. .ee our .erlier le~t.r to ~he
Pl.nning Commission dated Febr~ary 6, 1989.)
c
.
o
o
o
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City Clerk
City of San Bernardino
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, California 92412
HIGHLAND HILLS HOMEOWNERS
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
CASE NO. 241464,
JUDGE BEN T. KAYASHIMA
FOR
HIGHLAND HILLS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,
CITY OF HIGHLAND
AND
THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, COMMON COUNCIL
FOR THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO,
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR
THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO,
HIGHLAND HILLS PROPERTIES, SAN GORGONIO COMPANY, INC.
WILLIAM G. SMITH, WARNER W. HODGDON. AND
RANCHO SAN ANDREAS COMPANY, INC.
, 1989
o
o
o
o
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
This Settlement Agreement (WAgreementW) is made effective
thirty (30) days after the adoption of the General Plan and
Environmental Impact Report ("EIRW) by the City of San
Bernardino, but only if said General Plan and EIR incorporate
Highland Hills Specific Plan 82-1 as the preferred land use
alternative for the property as described in Exhibit C to the
Development Agreement and incorporated by this reference. This
Agreement settles the action filed in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Bernardino, Case No. 241464 by
Highland Hills Homeowners Association, an unincorporated
association against Highland Hills Properties, a limited
partnership, San Gorgonio Company, Inc., a California
corporation, william G. Smith, Warner W. Hodgdon, the City of
San Bernardino, Common Council for the City of San Bernardino
and the Environmental Review Committee for the City of San
Bernardino. The City of Highland appeared as amicus curiae.
RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, Highland Hills Homeowners Association
(WHomeowners") filed a writ of mandate on behalf of its members
against the City of San Bernardino, Common Council for the City
of San Bernardino, Environmental Review Committee for the City
of San Bernardino (collectively referred to as "San
Bernardino"), as Respondents and Highland Hills Properties, a
limited partnership, San Gorgonio Company, Inc., a California
corporation, william G. Smith (WSmith") as Real Parties in
Interest. Warner Hodgdon ("Hodgdon") has been named, served and
appeared as a Real Party in Interest (Doe XXI);
B. WHEREAS, The City of Highland ("Highland") appeared in
the above entitled case as amicus curiae and not as a party to
this action;
C. WHEREAS Rancho San Andreas Company, Inc. ("RSAC") has
prepared two Plans of Development entitled Rancho San Andreas
North and Rancho San Andreas South (aka San Andreas Country Club
and Resort);
D. WHEREAS, the Homeowners, San Bernardino, Highland Hills
Properties, San Gorgonio Company, Inc., Smith, Hodgdon, and RSAC
desire to, and have agreed to, settle the above entitled
litigation and further commit this Agreement to writing;
E. WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement recognize that
Highland has not appeared as a party and appeared as amicus
curiae only;
18/R/R0549-001/0698q
2
o
o
o
o
F. WHEREAS, San Bernardino acknowledges its prior
approvals recognizing the validity of Highland Hills Specific
Plan 82-1 as amended, Parcel Map 9166 and CUP's 87-5 and 87-47
allowing Highland Hills Properties to an exemption for its
development rights as found in the October 17, 1988 opinion by
Ben T. Kayashima in the above entitled litigation into the
Interim Policy Document ("IPD"). RSAC has agreed to acquire the
property under Highland Hills Specific Plan 82-1 as amended;
'G. WHEREAS, the State Office of Planning and Research
("State OPR") exempted Highland Hills Specific Plan 82-1 from
its June 1987 moratorium and the Highland Hills Specific Plan
82-1 has been followed throughout the planning process in San
Bernardino and excepted from the City of San Bernardino's IPD;
and
H. WHEREAS, Highland Hills Mortgage Revenue Bonds were
issued on on June 1, 1985 as interim bonds covering the first
phase of the Highland Hills Specific Plan 82-1. On June 1,
1988, the Highland Hills Bond Indenture and Loan Agreement for
$33,000,000 principal amount of multi-family mortgage revenue
bonds were amended and approved. Said interim bonds thereunder
were reissued in accordance with the June 1, 1985 Cooperative
Agreement between the San Bernardino Redevelopment Agency
("RDA") and the San Bernardino County Housing Authority
("Authority"). The RDA is to receive $375,000 on or before June
1, 1990 and upon issuance of the amount of long term loan bonds
referenced above;
PROVISIONS
IT IS THEREFORE AGREED, in consideration of the terms,
covenants, conditions and provisions stated below:
1. All parties to this Agreement agree to use their best
efforts in supporting the separate processing and the Homeowners
agree to use their best efforts to support the separate approval
process of the Rancho San Andreas North in San Bernardino and
Rancho San Andreas South in Highland Plans of Development with
San Bernardino and Highland. The illustrative outlines of these
Plans of Development are incorporated in a book of data and
documentation that is a part hereof and the index of which is
also attached as Exhibit 1 and incorporated by this reference.
The book of data and documentation and index is denominated as
Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference covering, but not
limited to the real property which is the subject of the
litigation in San Bernardino County Superior Court Case
No. 241464. Said real property consists of land designated as
Highland Hills Specific Plan 82-1 as amended, San Bernardino,
California, as referred to under tab 14 to Exhibit A and
incorporated by this reference. The second Plan of Development,
Rancho San Andreas South, concerns land located within Highland.
3
o
o
o
o
2. Homeowners agree to a Stipulated Judgment (the form of
said Stipulated Judgment is shown under tab 17 to Exhibit A and
incorporated by this reference) in San Bernardino County
Superior Court Case No. 241464 pursuant to the October 17, 1988
order by San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge Ben T.
Kayashima re writ of mandate, preliminary injunction and
attorneys fees in the above-entitled litigation as shown under
tab 15 to Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference.
Homeowners further agree to abandon their appeal and not to
further appeal the above entitled case. Homeowners represent
that they fully concur with the Rancho San Andreas North and
Rancho San Andreas South Plans of Development. Said Plans of
Development were presented by Hodgdon to the Homeowners at their
public meeting on December 17, 1988 held at the Highland
American Legion Hall. The Plans of Development and/or golf
course site plans are more specifically outlined as shown under
tabs 10, 11, 12 and 13 to Exhibit A which are incorporated by
this reference.
3. Highland Hills Properties agrees to withdraw the Dukes
and Dukes and Martin Parcel Map 9166, which is composed of CUP's
87-5 and 87-47; Tentative Tract Map No. 12639 north of Arroyo
Vista Drive and Tenative Tract Map No. 12638 east of Orchard
Avenue from their approval or pending application by or before
San Bernardino within 10 days of the effective date of this
Settlement Agreement. The withdrawal of these approvals will be
in a form attached as Exhibit 2 and incorporated by this
reference. For the mutual benefit of all, including Homeowners,
Highland Hills Properties and RSAC agree not to develop under
the provisions of and give up all rights to those approvals or
applications. Highland Hills properties, San Gorgonio Company,
Inc, Smith, HOdgdon and RSAC warrant that they know of no other
contemplated proposals for development of Rancho San Andreas
North and Rancho San Andreas South. RSAC agrees to develop
Rancho San Andreas North so that the first phase of multi-family
residences and the golf course are constructed concurrently.
Further, RSAC agrees, at its option, that either an 18 hole
championship executive golf course or a 9 hole championship golf
course, as shown under tabs 12 and 13 to Exhibit A will be
constructed on Rancho San Andres North. Rancho San Andreas
North includes, but is not limited to, the above-mentioned golf
course(s), a resort adjacent to said golf course(s) as shown
under tab 11 to Exhibit A, a maximum of twelve hundred (1200)
dwelling units (Neither this Settlement Agreement and/or the
attached Development Agreement (Tab 18 to Exhibit A) shall be
construed to allow density transfers to increase this maximum
nor shall RSAC be prohibited from constructing less than this
maximum of twelve hundred (1200) units), a multi-family
reside~tial rental gated community as shown under tab 11 to
Exhibit A, and traffic control signalization at the first
intersection (Country Club Circle Drive) on Highland Avenue
approximately seven hundred (700) feet east of the Route 330
4
o
o
o
o
.
freeway ramps and the second intersection further east at
Orchard Drive and Highland Avenue.
4. Homeowners and RSAC understand that portions of the
golf course routings require approval of a long term ground
lease from the San Bernardino County Flood Control. The terms
and conditions of this lease are not available at this time,
therefore, should the terms and conditions be prohibitive,
including but not limited to, economic, environmental or any
other reason, RSAC at its sole discretion may determine not to
go forward with the Rancho San Andreas North and/or South Plans
of Development. In addition, other approvals may be necessary
from other governmental and/or public entities, including but
not limited to, the State Department of Fish and Game, the State
Department of Transportation and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Should any approvals be unobtainable or those terms
and conditions prohibitive, RSAC at its sole discretion may
determine not to go forward with the Rancho San Andreas North
and/or South Plans of Development. However, should RSAC
determine not to go forward with Rancho San Andreas North or
South Plans of Development, RSAC will notify Homeowners within
ten (10) days of such determination. RSAC and Highland Hills
Properties further agree not to resubmit any request to the City
of San Bernardino covering the prior development under CUPs 87-5
and 87-47. It is also agreed and understood that any plans of
development under Highland Hills Specific Plan 82-1 must be
submitted under a CUP(s) process to the City of San Bernardino.
Further, RSAC and Homeowners agree that provisions of the
Agreement apply to the RSAC Plans of Development only.
5. San Bernardino agrees to accept the withdrawal of CUP's
87-5 and 87-47 of Parcel Map 9166, Tentative Tract Map No. 12639
north of Arroyo vista Drive and Tenative Tract Map No. 12638
east of Orchard Avenue. In lieu thereof, San Bernardino agrees
to process one (1) or more overall CUP(s) and parcel map(s) for
development under Highland Hills Specific Plan 82-1 as amended
for the Plans of Development and/or golf course site plans known
as Rancho San Andreas North as shown under tabs 10, 11, 12 and
13 to Exhibit A. Provided that RSAC determines to do so, San
Bernardino also agrees to concurrently process a Development
Agreement, the outline draft of which is shown under tab 18 to
Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference. In addition, San
Bernardino aCknowledges that the above-entitled litigation did
not prevent the development of CUP's 87-5 and 87-47. Further,
San Bernardino acknowledges that the State OPR granted an
exemption to the development covered by CUP's 87-5 and 87-47
from the State OPR moratorium, and the Superior Court's October
17, 1988 opinion declared San Bernardino's development approvals
valid, exempting Highland Hills Specific Plan 82-1 as amended
from the requirements of the lPD.
5
o
o
o
o
.
6. San Bernardino aCknowledges that because of the State
OPR exemption, the Superior Court's opinion hOlding the
development approvals valid, Highland Hills Properties could
have begun construction of CUP's 87-5 and 87-47 and recorded
Parcel Map 9166. In consideration for the agreement to withdraw
CUP's 87-5 and 87-47, Parcel Map 9166, Tract 12639 north of
Arroyo Vista Drive and Tenative Tract No. 12638 east of Orchard
Avenue, San Bernardino agrees to consider grandfathering
Highland Hills Specific Plan 82-1 as amended into the General
Plan and Environmental Impact Report to be adopted in 1989.
7. San Bernardino agrees the Plans of Development as shown
under tabs 10 and 11 of Exhibit "AU will reflect Plans of
Development pursuant to Highland Hills Specific Plan 82-1, as
amended, and will be considered for designation as the preferred
land use, when and if such grandfathering into the General Plan
and Environmental Impact Report is approved in 1989. Homeowners
consent to this grandfathering of Highland Hills Specific Plan
82-1, as amended, in order to accomplish review of the Plans of
Development. San Bernardino agrees to accept for processing a
Development Agreement (An outline draft of which is shown under
tab 18 to Exhibit A) and/or a CUP(s) for Rancho San Andreas
North Plan of Development.
8. The validity, construction, interpretation and
enforcement of this Agreement, and its terms and provisions
shall be governed by the laws of the State of California.
9. This Agreement is a release of disputed claims. It is
understood by all parties that this Agreement does not
constitute an admission of liability, but is entered into solely
as and for a compromise settlement of such disputed claims.
10. Each of the parties hereto, for its heirs, assigns,
executors, administrators, successors, representatives,
employees, attorneys and agents, fully releases each and every
other party hereto, and its heirs, assigns, executors,
administrators, successors, representatives, employees,
attorneys and agents, from all claims, de~ands, liens,
interests, debts, actions and causes of action of any kind
whatsoever, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected,
arising out of or in any way connected with the allegations
contained in the instant litigation, except as made in this
Agreement.
11. It is understood and agreed by and between the
undersigned that other damages not now known may 'develop or be
discovered, or other consequences or other results may develop
or be discovered, and this Agreement is specially intended to
cover and include, and does cover and include, all such future
damages or future consequences or results of known or unknown
damages, including all rights of action therefor; that the
6
o
o
o
o
.
provisions of section 1542 of the Civil Code of the State of
California are expressly waived by all parties hereto, and all
parties acknowledge that said section provides the following:
"A general release does not extend to claims which the
creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at
the time of executing the release, which if known by him
must have materially affected his settlement with the
debtor."
12. The terms of this Agreement are contractual, not merely
a recital. The foregoing Recitals are incorporated by this
reference.
13. All parties hereto agree to perform whatever acts may
be required to effectuate the terms of this Agreement and
achieve its purpose.
14. This Agreement, consisting of nine (9) pages, may not
be altered or modified except by a writing signed by each party
to this Agreement. The Development Agreement (tab 18 to Exhibit
A) is a recognized exception to this paragraph.
15. If any part of this Agreement is determined to be
illegal or unenforceable in any respect, all other parts shall
be given effect separately except only those directly and
obviously related to the illegal or unenforceable part.
16. This Agreement is executed in multiple counterparts,
each of which shall be deemed an original and together shall
constitute one and the same Agreement.
The undersigned have read the foregoing Agreement, consent
to its terms and provisions.
DATED:
, 1989
HIGHLAND HILLS HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
By
william B. Fowles,
President
DATED:
, 1989
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, COMMON
COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO AND
ENlVI NMENTAL REVIEW.. COMMITTEE
FOR C~Y OF , a~RN:RDINO
By ; /'j d,/f., ../;: I A_l<:-c,y
. Mayor
[Signatures continued on next page]
7
DATED: , 1989 HIGHLAND HILLS PROPERTIES, a
limited partnership
By
W.E. Leonard
By
William G. Smith
DATED: , 1989 SAN GORGONIO COMPANY
By
W.E. Leonard
WARNER W. HODGDON
DATED: , 1989 By
Warner W. HOdgdon
DATED: , 1989 RANCHO SAN ANDREAS COMPANY,
INC.
By
APPROVED TO AS FORM AND CONTENT
o
o
DATED:
, 1989
o
o
REMY & THOMAS
By
Sharon Duggan
Attorneys for Highland
Hills Homeowners
Association
[Signatures continued on next page]
8
o
DATED:
DATED:
. .
, .
o
, 1989
, 1989
o
o
REID & HELLYER
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
By
Dan G. McKinney
J. Craig Williams
Attorneys for City of San
Bernardino, Common Council
for the City of San
Bernardino and
Environmental Review
Committee for the City of
San Bernardino
REID & HELLYER
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
By
Dan G. McKinney
J. Craig williams
Attorneys for Highland
Hills Properties, San
Gorgonio Company, Inc.,
William G. Smith, Warner
W. HOdgdon and Rancho San
Andreas Company, Inc.
9