Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-14-1990 Minutes City of San Bernardino, California February 14, 1990 This is the time and place set for an Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at their regular meeting held at 8:35 a.m., on Monday, February 5, 1990, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. The City Clerk has caused to be posted the order of adjournment of said meeting held on February 5, 1990, and has on file in the office of the City Clerk an affidavit of said posting together with a copy of said order which was posted at 10: 00 a.m., Tuesday, February 6, 1990, on the door of the place at which said meeting was held. The Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino was called to order by Mayor Pro Tempore Flores at 1:40 p.m., in the Feldheym Library, 555 West Sixth Street, San Bernardino, California. ROLL CALL Roll call was taken by Deputy City Clerk Medina with the following being present: Mayor Pro Tempore Flores; Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Flores, Minor, Pope-Ludlam, Miller; Senior Deputy City Attorney Wilson, Deputy City Clerk Medina, City Administrator Julian. Absent: Mayor Holcomb; Council Member Maudsley. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. (1) DEVELOPMENT CODE PRESENTATION Larry Reed, Director of Planning & Building Services, stated that the first objective of the General Plan, which was adopted six months ago, was the development of the Development Code, which replaces Title 18 & 19 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code. Planning staff has been working with the consultants to establish this Development Code. Mr. Reed referred to his memorandum addressed to the Mayor and Council dated February 14, 1990, which stated that the preliminary draft Development Code was prepared to update and replace Title 18, Subdivision, and Title 19, Zoning, of the Municipal Code. The Development Code is one of the primary means of implementing the General Plan as discussed in Section II-1 of the Plan. The preliminary draft Development Code differs from the General Plan in several areas where staff felt that the proposed language would better implement the General Plan goals, objectives and policies. MAYOR HOLCOMB ARRIVED At 1:45 p.m, Mayor Holcomb arrived at the Council meeting. 1 2/14/90 Larry Reed introduced Mr. John Montgomery, Planner, Planning & Building Services. Principal Mr. John Montgomery stated that one of the goals of the Development Code was to create a single comprehensive document which would contain all the information applicable to development projects in the City of San Bernardino. It was to promote communication of the Code and its regulations wherever possible through the use of simple, clear language and elimination of inconsistencies. Mr. Montgomery further outlined the major goals and objectives of the Development Code. Mr. Montgomery stated that the Development Code is a new code. The only provisions that were carried over almost verbatim were the airport overlay district regulation, the recycling ordinance provision and the adult entertainment provision. These sections were considered very controversial at the time of adoption. He also stated that the airport overlay district is dependent upon on the Norton project. John Montgomery answered questions regarding requiring a new Air Quality study for the airport overlay district because the anticipated change in use of Norton. He stated that it will probably necessitate an Air Quality study because the landing patterns and the noise factors were figured on a military aircraft operation, not as a public airport. Mr. Ron Pflugrath, Urban Design Studio, 446 N. Newport Boulevard, Suite 202, Newport Beach, California, 92663, explained some design guidelines included in the Development Code. Mr. Pflugrath stated that one of the important reasons why there are design guidelines is to impart the quality of development the City desires. The other main issue for design guidelines is to make the developer's job easier. This allows the developer to know from the beginning what the City expects. The guidelines cover five major sections which include: residential design, commercial projects, industrial projects, signing and advertising and landscaping. Mr. Pflugrath gave a more detailed overview of the design guidelines and the purpose of these guidelines. Mr. Bruce Jacobson, Jacobson & Wack, Land Use Planning Consultants, Post Office Box 2448, Santa Barbara, California, 93120, explained provisions regarding responsibilities and enforcement of landscaping maintenance at set forth in the Development Code. A discussion ensued regarding the landscape maintenance ordinance. Mr. Bruce Jacobson added that after a building is in non- use for a period of time, its new status must be renewed with a certificate of occupancy or a new plan development. This would bring all conditions into compliance with the Code. 2 2/14/90 Mr. Jacobson answered questions regarding Section III-82, which refers to structures that would require a certificate of occupancy or a permit of some type, other than a building permit. He stated that a single-family home would not be covered in this section. Larry Reed explained that the current ordinance does not require a certificate of occupancy for single family duplex dwellings. There is an ordinance that requires property owners of rental single-family duplex and triplex units to comply with the City's property maintenance ordinance. Mr. Jacobson answered questions regarding a mandatory compliance for landscape maintenance. CR-4 re~lacement with CG-1 Council Member Flores referred to the memorandum dated February 14,1990, from Larry Reed, Director of Planning/Buildings Services, in which the preliminary draft Development Code deletes CR-4 and replaces it with CG-l. John Montgomery, Principal Planner, stated that the CR-4 designation was assigned to limit the area to automotive use. He stated that with this land use designation there had been difficulty in trying to allow commercial use in the Auto Plaza. Because of this, it was decided to change the CR-4 to a CG-1 designation for the Auto Plaza area. CR-3 south of I-10 replaced with CG-1 Mr. Montgomery explained why the preliminary draft Development Code recommended the deletion of CR-3 south of I-10 and that it be replaced with CG-1. He stated that the General Plan designates the land use for the Club area as CR-3. Offsite Replacement of Billboards John Montgomery answered questions regarding how the Development Code addresses freeway billboard signs. He stated that the sign code was completely rewritten and is inconsistent with the General Plan policy. However, it does allow off-site replacement of billboards on a one-to-one ratio. He also stated that there is a highway overlay district within 300 feet of the interstate which billboard signs are restricted. A discussion ensued regarding possibly trading off billboard signs along Highland Avenue to a location along the freeway. Open Space District & Floodplain Overlay Valerie Ross, Senior Planner, Planning/Building Services, explained that the PFC, PCR and PP are public designations in the General Plan and are defined in the Development Code as OS, Open Space District. It was recommended that the three separate designations be deleted from the General Plan. 3 2/14/90 A discussion ensued regarding the reason flood plain areas were designated as open space. John Montgomery stated there were problems with several designations in that there was no open space designation in the General Plan. He explained one of the designations was PFC, Public Flood Control, that proposed to create a flood plain overlay zone which is in line with the natural topography. Bruce Jacobson pointed out that in Section II-115 a planned development permit is required for the following uses: a. public and private golf courses; b. baseball stadium, arenas, exhibition, convention, and sporting facilities; c. entertainment, hotels, restaurants, specialty commercial, and farmers markets; d. flood control facilities; e. park and recreation facilities, subject to additional provisions outlined in Chapter 12.80 of the Municipal Code; f. open space; and g. other such uses that the Director may find to be similar with those uses listed above, pursuant to Section 19.04.030. Mr. Jacobson explained that other such uses serve as a tool to allow flexibility in the code. Mr. Jacobson explained that in Section IV-2, Threshold of Review, there is a breakdown of how the projects will be reviewed and who has authority to make that decision. A discussion ensued regarding who should have authority on open space designations. It was pointed out that before a land use consideration is made, the City Council would be asked to determine what is the appropriate use of the parcel. Airport Overlay Valerie Ross stated that the Development Code proposes an airport overlay to include the standards that are not existing in the ordinance. She stated that the General Plan does not contain an overlay but does contain a noise contour. Valerie Ross, Senior Planner, explained the proYisions for the following categories: Foothill Fire Zone Overlay The Development Code proposes a foothill fire zone overlay development standard. The General Plan included residences in the Foothill Community Protective Greenbelt Program and incorporated the appropriate standards. The standards are included in the Development Code. 4 2/14/90 Main Street Overlay An overlay development standard is proposed in the Development Code for Main Street. The General Plan does not address Main Street. Freeway Corridor Overlay A freeway corridor overlay is Code with development standards for number of feet of the freeway. Development Code language would need Plan in order to make it consistent. proposed in the Development properties within a certain If it is included, the to be added to the General Bruce Jacobson stated that this overlay zone is intended to provide special design guidelines which address the siting and design of non-residential structures within the immediate viewshed of motorists traveling the I-10 and I-215 freeway corridors and State Highway 30 and its connecting segment to the I-215. Deletion of Central City South Overlay District Valerie Ross stated that the General Plan incorporates the Central City South Overlay District by reference. The Development Code does not. The Development Code assumes that within the overlay district, specific land use designations are assigned to the property. It has not been determined whether the development guidelines standards for the overlay district should be discarded in the General Plan or if they should be included in the Development Code. John Montgomery stated that the Central City South Overlay District does not designate what land uses are allowed, and where and how the standards apply. Mr. Montgomery stated that it is recommended that the area be designated in one or more of the various different land uses and that all the various standards within the plan for the Central City South Overlay District be incorporated into the Development Code. Valerie Ross explained that the Central City South Overlay District was adopted in 1987. It set out land uses that are not consistent with the General Plan. A discussion Overlay District designations. ensued regarding why the Central City South was established and the different land use John Montgomery suggested two alternatives: (1) to designate the underlying land use designations and expand the freeway corridor overlay to include the Central City South Overlay District; and (2) to develop new land use designations for Central City South area. Environmental HearinG Officer Valerie Ross stated that presently the Environmental Review Committee is referenced in the General Plan, but the Development 5 2/14/90 Code is proposing to have an environmental hearing officer as opposed to an Environmental Review Committee. John Montgomery reported that direction was given to streamline the environmental review process. In an effort to do that, the position of environmental hearing officer was created, which would be the Director of Planning/Building Services or his designee. The officer would make determinations of a categorical exemption, negative declaration, or the need for preparing and environmental impact report for discretionary applications. Decisions would be final unless appealed to the Planning Commission. If the developer was not satisfied with the Planning Commission's decision, the developer may appeal to the Council. Following a discussion regarding the pros and cons of having an environmental hearing officer instead of the Environmental Review Committee, the Council expressed concern regarding such a change. Mayor Holcomb spoke in support of the environmental hearing officer. He stated that a good streamlining process needs to be established. He also stated that an environmental hearing officer is more professional and more effective and is less costly for the taxpayer. RECESS MEETING At 3:07 p.m., Mayor Holcomb declared a ten-minute recess. RECONVENE MEETING At 3:20 p.m., Mayor Holcomb reconvened the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Common Council in the Feldheym Library, 555 West Sixth Street, San Bernardino, California. ROLL CALL Roll call was taken by Deputy City Clerk Medina with the following being present: Mayor Holcomb; Council Members Reilly, Flores, Minor, Miller, Senior Deputy City Attorney Wilson, Deputy City Clerk Medina, City Administrator Julian. Absent: Council Members Estrada, Maudsley, Pope-Ludlam. Deletion of Verdemont Area Plan Valerie Ross stated that the General Plan incorporates by reference the development standards for the Verdemont area plan. The Development Code does not include the Verdemont area plan standards. However, it does include the equestrian, trail and bicycle path design standards. Limits or Ranqes for Multiple Family Densities Valerie Ross explained that the General Plan has caps on density for residential development. The Development Code addresses the multiple family densities with limits and ranges. 6 2/14/90 John Montgomery explained that the Permitted. Planned Development Permitted and Conditional Iv Permitted Uses table in Section II-4 of the Development Code needs to be revised. Hillside Development Valerie Ross stated that the General plan permits attached and detached units in hillside management. The Development Code prohibits attached units in hillside management. Ron Pflugrath, Urban Design Studio, answered questions regarding the type of units allowed in hillside management in the Development Code. He felt that the hillside management area should remain low density. Mayor Holcomb stated that the hillside management area needs to be debated before setting a public policy. He also expressed concern regarding the hillside designation in the General Plan. He stated that economically, the density is so low that no one can afford to subdivide and develop in the hillside. A discussion ensued regarding whether attached or detached units should be allowed in the hillside management area. John Montgomery stated that there are two concerns that need to be addressed: (1) the density of the hillside area; and (2) whether to allow attached or detached units in the hillside management area. It was the agreed by Council to discuss the hillside development at a later meeting. ADJOURNMENT At 3:40 p.m., Council Member Flores made a motion, seconded by Council Member Reilly and unanimously carried, that the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the of the Mayor and Common Council be adjourned to 8:30 a.m., Monday, February 19,1990, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. SHAUNA CLARK City Clerk By 0'LndAJL /?vtzmaJ Deputy City Clerk No. of Items: 1 No. of Hours: 2 7 2/14/90