Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-06-1988 Minutes . City of San Bernardino, California May 6, 1988 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 Adjourned Regular Meeting held on Hednesday, May 4, 1988, at 9:15 a.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino, California. The City Clerk has caused to be posted the Notice of Adjournment of said meeting held Wednesday, May 4, 1988, at 9:15 a.m., and has on file in the office of the City Clerk an affidavit of said posting together with a copy of said Notice which was posted at 9:00 a.m., Thursday, May 5, 1988, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino, California. The Adjourned Regular Meeting was called to order by Mayor wilcox at 9:15 a.m., Friday, May 6, 1988, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino, California. . INVOCATION The Invocation was given by Richard Bennecke, Execu- tive Assistant to the Mayor. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Alleg iance was led by Mayor Pro Tem- pore Jess Flores. ROLL CALL Roll Call was taken by City Clerk Clark with the following being present: Mayor Wilcox; Council Members Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Minor, Pope-Ludlam, Miller; Deputy City Attorney Grace, City Clerk Clark, Deputy City Administrator Richardson. Absent: Council Member Estrada. PUBLIC COMMENTS No one came forward to speak during the public com- ments portion of the meeting. . GENERAL PLAN REVISION - CONTINUANCE OF ITEMS DISCUSSED AT PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETINGS - WESTS IDE, AREA NO. 6 - NORTON AFB, AREA NO. 7 - NORTH CENTRAL SAN BERNARDINO, AREA NO. 8 Discussion was held concerning three areas of the City which were discussed at the May 4, 1988, Adjourned Regular Meeting, but not completed, regarding the General Plan revision. 1 5/6/88 . Council Member Miller made a motion, seconded by Council Member Minor and unanimously carried, that dis- cussion of the General Plan revision concerning the Westside, Area No.6; Norton AFB, Area No.7, and North Central San Bernardino, Area No.8, as discussed at the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino, held May 4, 1988, be con- tinued to the Adjourned Regular Meeting scheduled for 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, May 10, 1988, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN - HIGHLAND AREA, AREA NO. 9 - DEL ROSA AREA, AREA NO. 10 This is the time and place set for a public on the land use alternatives for the Highland Rosa areas. hearing and Del (1 ) Ann Siracusa, Planning Director, presented a map of the Highland Area, Area No.9 and the Del Rosa Area, Area No. 10. . HIGHLAND AREA - AREA NO.9 In a staff recommendation dated boundaries of Area No.9, the Highland as follows: May 6, 1988, the area, were listed (la) North: South: East: West: City boundary City boundary City boundary Victoria Avenue Woody Tescher, consultant from Envicom, described the principal recommendations of the General Plan Revi- sion Program Citizen Advisory Committee regarding the Highland Area, Area No.9. He named the Patton Hospital area as a key land use area. East of the hospital, flanking Highland Avenue, is a corridor designated mixed use. The specific intent of the area, per recommendations of Planning Commission, was a mixture of commercial, as well as allowing an opportun- ity in some areas for high and medium-high density resi- dential uses. The recommendation designated for areas abutting this corridor reflect the existing pattern of single family uses. The areas north and south are desig- nated RS, which is more or less consistent with existing land uses within the area. . 2 5/6/88 . Mr. Tescher further stated that the hillside areas, exceeding 15% slope, and adjacent properties considered part of the hillside setting, have been designated for Hillside Management. Specific areas excluded from the Hillside Management classification were immediately east of State Route 330, and the area west of State Route 330, which is designated RU for increased density opportuni- ties in that area. An RM designation is recommended south of this location. Ann Siracusa, Planning Director, described the Plan- ning Commission's recommendation for an area of mixed use along Highland and Palm Avenues, which includes commer- cial, light industrial and medium density housing. The Planning Director made the following staff recommendations: Staff Recommendation 1 The vacant property located east of SR 330 and west of City Creek, designated RS, Residential Suburban, should remain MH, Hillside Management. . The Planning Director explained that this area is part of the hillside environment and requires additional study. She stated that this is an interim policy until the time the General Plan is adopted. Staff Recommendation 2 The vacant property located directly north of Moun- tain Shadows Mobile Home Park, designated RU, Residential Urban, should remain MH, Hillside Management. The Planning Director stated that the applicant's intent is to continue the same type of development. Staff recommends the Hillside Management designation until the area can be studied more thoroughly. Staff Recommendation 3 The vacant property located northwesterly of the terminus of La praix Avenue, designated RS, Residential, should remain MH, Hillside Management. The Planning Director stated that the area is con- sidered part of the foothill environment, and that the long run recommendation will probably be that it remain Hillside Management in the adopted General Plan. . Staff Recommendation 4 The MU, Mixed Use, along Palm Avenue, south of High- land Avenue should be changed to CG, Commercial General, for those properties that front on Palm Avenue. 3 5/6/88 . The Planning Director stated that this area is pre- dominantly developed in general commercial uses, and sees no purpose in designating it for mixed use, as it is a very small area. Hillside Management Designation Woody Tescher gave a presentation concerning the Hillside (Foothill) Management designation, which was conceived due to the concerns of the unique characteris- tics of the hillside areas. He stated that the concept of Hillside Management is to formulate additional standards for the hillside areas to those normally assigned to development throughout the City. It will cover subjects such as slope contour, vegetation and erosion, canyon areas adjacent to the hillside, and architectural impacts, so that the special character of the hillside area can be maintained over time. He explained that the additional standards for the Hillside Management Designation have not been identified, as they require additional study, which will be made if the concept is endorsed. . He defined the slope density formula used in developing hillside standards, which states there is an allowable amount of residential development based upon the slope of a property. Usually the greatest amount of development is allowed on the lesser slopes. With in- creasing categories of slopes, the amount of density decreases. This generally promotes clustering of units on the more gentle portion of the slopes, so that the greater, more steeper slopes are maintained in their more natural character. Mr. Tescher further stated that the slope density formula provides a method of calculating the yield of a property, or how many units can be developed on a si te. Most slope density formulas and hillside management ordi- nances throughout Southern California have a cutoff of development on slopes, and state that even though a property can yield a certain amount of units on a slope, the units cannot be built on steeper slopes. This cutoff has traditionally been placed at between 25% and 30%. He recommended this calculation be approved by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino. . He provided a map of three different types of sites in the foothills of the Verdemont area to indicate the kind of build out that would result if the slope density formula were applied. 4 5/6/88 . The sites were located at the end of Little League Drive, the north end of the Palm Avenue area and immedi- ately east of Palm Avenue. The yellow colored areas on the map indicate gentler slopes that average 0% to 15%. The darker the color of the area, the steeper the slope. The steepest slopes are colored dark green and indicate slopes exceeding 30%. The square footage of the acreage and its density yield was calculated. Mr. Tescher described the suggested the following density factors: two uni ts per acre in the most gentle portions of the property - 0% to 15%, one unit per acre on slopes 15% to 20, one unit for every two acres, or a .5 designation, on slopes 20% to 25%, one unit for every four acres, or a .25 designation, on slopes 25% to 30%, . one uni t for every forty acres on slopes 30% or greater. He explained that by applying the above listed den- sity factors on the Little League Drive site, the total permissible number of units would be approximately 52. It is a 60-acre site, which is less than one unit per acre. In contrast, another 30-acre site with the same kind of range of densities as this area, but with gentler slopes, would yield 47 units per acre, and a 45-acre site, would yield 45 units per acre. Mr. Tescher described other building standards that could be included in the plan, such as no building per- mi tted if the si te has a 100 year floodway. These stan- dards could potentially reduce the yield of units on the sites. He stated that staff recommended each classified hillside area be subject to a specific plan preparation. He spoke regarding the amount of yield on adjacent properties to hillsides. COUNCIL MEMBER ESTRADA ARRIVED At 9:30 a.m., Council Member Estrada arrived at the Council Meeting and took her place at the Council Table. . 5 5/6/88 . COUNCIL MEMBER POPE-LUDLAM EXCUSED Council Member Pope-Ludlam left the Council Meeting. Ralph Monge, 28317 Carriage Hills Drive, Highland, described his four-acre parcel of land located just north of Highland and east Boulder. He stated that Caltrans has advised him that a full intersection will be con- structed adjacent to the four-acre parcel. He requested that his property be designated for commercial develop- ment. COUNCIL MEMBER ESTRADA EXCUSED Council Member Estrada left the Council Meeting. Mr. Monge answered is presently zoned RS, commercial developments. questions, stating and that the area his property contains no Ann Siracusa, Planning Director, would make sense to carry MU or General to that intersection. stated that it Commercial zoning . The Planning Director answered questions, stating that it was probably the Planning Commission's intent to recommend the MU or General Commercial zoning to that intersection, as freeways are noisy and less desirable for residential. Discussion was held concerning the freeway develop- ment in the Highland and Boulder area and its effect on the zoning of the adjacent properties. COUNCIL MEMBERS ESTRADA AND POPE-LUDLAM RETURNED Council Members Estrada and Pope-Ludlam returned to the Council Meeting and took their places at the Council Table. Ann Siracusa, Planning Director, answered questions, describing the Commercial/General designation as includ- ing most types of general commercial development, the type of retail sales that draw from a wide area. This could include restaurants, clothing stores, department stores, 7-11 stores, gas stations, etc. The Citizens Adv isory Commi ttee recommends omitting auto sales from the current description of General Commercial use. The Planning Director answered questions regarding the intent of the Citizens Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission in designating the property Resi- . 6 5/6/88 . dential Suburban, stating at the configuration of were stopping the general the freeway. that they probably did not look the property and real i ze they commercial designation short of Woody Tescher answered questions, stating that he does not believe this area was previously discussed as a freeway off-ramp. The decision was made under the belief that Boulder was a logical eastern boundary to the com- mercial zoning. Ann Siracusa, Planning Director, answered questions regarding the amount of time the Citizen Advisory Com- mittee spent on Hillside Management, stating that it was discussed fairly thoroughly in three of their hearings. Char les Schul tz of Reid and Hellyer, 599 N. Arrow- head Avenue, representing Highland Hills Properties, stated that the Highland Hills property is subject to a Specific Plan, which was approved in 1982, and Condi- tional Use Permits 87-5 and 87-47 which were approved by the Mayor and Common Council on December 7, 1987. The permits allow a portion of the property to be developed for apartment units. . He stated that it grandfathering provisions the General Plan. is his understanding that will exempt that project the from He further stated Highland Hills Properties is in- tending to proceed with the development of Specific Plan 82-1. The owners of the property are working with developer Warner Hodgdon. Mr. Schultz requested that the interim policy guide- lines and the interim policy land use designation cur- rently on the 541 acres, be designated consistent with the existing General Plan, which allows for 2.3 units per acre. His interpretation is that the MH designation on the last page of the staff report, Items 47 I & J, indicates that a new Specific Plan and environmental im- pact report will be required to develop the property. Ann Siracusa disagreed with Mr. Schultz's inter- pretation of Item 47J on the staff report, stating that the Hillside Management designation requires a specific plan, and in this case, there is a specific plan. During the iterim period, until the General Plan is adopted, the area would be subject to environmental review. . 7 5/6/88 . Cynthia Grace, Deputy City Attorney, answered ques- tions, stating that discussion of Highland Hills project is appropriate as it relates to future actions that can be taken concerning the property and not the substance of the pending lawsuit. Ann Siracusa explained the intent of the statement in Item 47J of the staff report, as environmental review could be required for projects in that area, as old environmental information would not be relied upon. It does not necessarily mean that an entire EIR would be required. Mr. Schultz requested that the property be desig- nated as under Specific Plan 82-1, which is in effect, or under the proposed standards, which would make it either RL or RS and 2.3 units per acre. He stated that the policy document has grey areas in need of clarification. . Ann Siracusa answered questions concerning develop- ment of the property under the Specific Plan, stating that if the State agrees and the policy is adopted, the grandfathering provisions on Page 4 of the interim policy document provide that projects with active CUPS approved prior to April 22, 1988, would be allowed to proceed during the interim period. The Planning Director stated that the intent of the Hillside Management designation is for the balance of the project, outside of the areas covered by the two CUPS. If addi t ional env i ronmen tal work appears necessary, it may be required for projects to be approved. If staff determines that enough environmental change has occurred, the old EIR would no longer be applicable. Mr. Schultz stated that it is his understanding that this is an interim policy document, not setting a prece- dent. It will have some precedental value, as it allows the public, as well as the developers of property and the Council to recognize that they are proceeding in a cer- tain direction until the General Plan is adopted. He expressed concern over the setting of a prece- dent, stating that the Specific Plan in effect is valid, the environmental review is valid and that it would be appropriate to recognize them. . He suggested that it may be appropriate staff look at the findings and conditions in Plan, as they comply with the consultant's to have City the Specific recommenda- 8 5/6/88 . tions concerning clustering, grading, vegetation and other items. It may also be appropriate to have staff review and allow the designation of the property as 2.3 uni ts per acre under the Spec i f ic Plan. He requested staff's clarification of these issues. Ann Siracusa, clarified that an environmental impact report on a General Plan does not preclude the need to do environmental impact assessment on specific projects, because there are si tes wi th un ique circumstances that cannot be addressed in the kind of detail needed. Cecil Dossett, 28725 Arroyo Vista Drive, Highland, a res ident near the Highland Hi 11s proj ect, stated that there has been a change from the Specific Plan of 1982 from condominiums to apartments and that has an effect on several matters in the area. He spoke against high den- sity. . Mr. Dossett also spoke regarding the impact on schools of families from apartment dwellings moving from one school distr ict or system to another, stating that the area of the Highland Hills project is overbuilt with apartment projects. San Bernardino has an approximate 30% vacancy rate in apartments. He quoted statistics from an apartment owner of a set of apartments in the City. He stated that high density is a liability and that the high vacancy rate increases the amount of that liability. He noted that a serious problem with apart- ments is management firms located outside of the City, as the rental money leaves this area and is not circulated in this community. Bill Fowles, 28654 Live Oak Road, Highland, Board Chairman of the Highland Hills Homeowners Association, stated that the homeowners in the area are very concerned about high density housing. He reminded the Council to look at the study con- ducted by Empire Economics, as contracted by the City, which strongly recommended that high density housing is not the most economical and feasible housing desired for this City. The study recommends upgrade housing and custom homes from economic and land use standpoints. . He also spoke regarding the 30 - 40% vacancy rate in apartment units in the City, stating it would be a very unpopular decision to create more high density housing. He listed problems that follow high density housing, such as crime and fire. 9 5/6/88 . Mr. Fowles noted that City services such as schools, must be maintained when more high density housing is constructed. There are approximately 14 homeowner com- muni ties wi thin the Ci ty which represent a large cross section of the City, and they are all concerned about high density. They formed a Homeowners Association and will be meeting and writing a letter to the City to urge the Mayor and Common Council to try to make decisions against high density. John Stubblefield, 2258 Bradford, Highland, repre- senting Stubblefield Enterprises, stated that his attor- ney was unable to be present and submitted a copy of her letter dated May 5, 1988, to the City Clerk for the review of the Mayor and Common Council and inclusion in the record. His attorney is Darlene B. Fischer of Hill, Far rer and Burr i 1, 445 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, California. In her letter of May 5, 1988, Ms. Fischer stated that Stubblefield Enterprises owns real property in four areas of the City which may be impacted by the adoption of a Preferred Land Use Alternative, and identified these areas on a map. . The Planning Director stated that the Planning Com- mission has proposed a land use designation of RU (5-9 units per acre) for Area 2, which is not opposed for that property. Area 1 is designated RS for single-family residential use, which is opposed, as the property is located immediately adjacent to the new proposed freeway. She suggested a zone designation of RM. The Planning Director also objected to the proposed designation of RS (3-4 units per acre) for Area 4, as it is approximately 30 acres of land affected by Review of Plans 86-51, which has been pending before the City since May 3liJ, 1986. The property is currently zoned R-3-2liJliJliJ (21.5 dwelling units per acre) and received that desig- nation in 1968. In 1975, it was designated for multiple family housing (8 to 14 units per acre) in the San Ber- nardino/Highland Community Plan. She urged the City to retain the current land use designation on that property for the following reasons: 1. The City made oral representations to Stubble- field as early as 1968 that it would be able to develop the property in accordance with the R-liJ3-2liJliJliJ standard; . lliJ 5/6/88 . 2. The City entered into an agreement with Stubble- field whereby it sold and Stubblefield bought sewer capacity rights for the property at a cost of approxi- mately $393,000; 3. Stubblefield has relied upon the designation in the East Highland Community Plan for the past 13 years and expended approximately $975,000 in preparation and planning costs related to its project; 4. It has been the policy of the City to process projects under land use regulations which were in effect at the time an applicant filed his application for approval of the project. This practice of the city parallels that mandated by state law, which requires a local entity, in approving or disapproving a tentative map, to apply only those ordinances, policies, and stan- dards in effect on the date the map application was accepted as complete. 5. Stubblefield has repeatedly received assurances that the Ci ty would treat the proj ect fa i rly and under the regulations which were in effect at the time of its application. . Finally, the Planning Director is informed that the Planning Commission has recommended that the Stubblefield property north of the ROP 86-51 project be designated "Hillside Management". Engineering studies indicate that with this designation, along with proposed interim development standards, Stubblefield will not be able to build at all and will, in fact, be deprived of all economically viable use of the property. Such a land use regulation would be so excessive and so onerous as to constitute an undue restriction and thus a taking of that property without due process of law. The Planning Director further stated that federal courts have indicated that general plan restrictions may be challenged as a taking and listed court actions sup- porting her statement that local governments must pay compensation if a regulation goes too far. That is, where the application of a restriction as applied to a particular property has the potential of destroying the reasonable investment-backed development expectations of the owner and denies the owner economically viable use of the property. It is her opinion that a Hillside Manage- ment designation along wi th currently proposed develop- ment standards to Area 3, would do precisely that. . 11 5/6/88 . John Stubblefield of Stubblefield Enterprises read a portion of the following statement before the Mayor and Common Council and presented a copy of the entire state- ment to the City Clerk for inclusion into the minutes: "I am here today to discuss the Mountain Shadows area, as it is affected by the proposed interim develop- ment standards, and the proposed land use designations of the current General Plan update. For the benefit of our newer members of the Council, allow me to provide a very brief history on this are of our community. Mountain Shadows as my father when he bought Al though I was young at him telling me of the acres. The planners had master planned community neighborhood commercial. the name given to this area by this land almost 30 years ago. the time, I can still remember plans envisioned for this 600 this area designated for a total of quality housing projects and . Although the closest sewer line was over four miles away, he extended the necessary infrastructure to this area and began construction on one of the larger master planned communities in the San Bernardino area. Today, we are in the City, but not too long ago all of this land was in the County, and much of it still is today, evidenced by the large County islands that still remain in the Mountain Shadows area. In those earlier years, San Bernardino was the "City On The Move", and they were hungry for growth and they were hungry for land. It was during this time that the City approached us and asked that we consider annexing. Their position was that if we were in the City, we would have more efficient services and because of those services, we could develop our land to a more efficient density. We declined. We had all of our approvals for our Master Plan in the county and could see no possible benefit in re-submitting these lands to a new government bureaucracy for a new approval process. . The City, however, was persistent in their quest for this land and so once again, they approached us. Only this time, they were prepared to formalize their offer. 12 5/6/88 . The plan was simple: If we would agree to annex to the city of San Bernardino, the City in return would agree to concurrently enlarge some of our existing zoning classifications and change some of the others. Many meetings followed, the agreements were made, the pre- zoning formalities were finalized. And so, because of these inducements and this offer by the city, we agreed. The zoning and current General Plan designations, as it stands before you today on these lands are the direct result of this City's agreement with us in exchange for our agreement to annex. And, as a result, we are proud of the projects that we have been able to produce because of this agreement with the City. Were it not for the dramatic swings in San Bernar- d ino I s Hous i ng Cycle, this 600 acre master planned com- munity of Mountain Shadows would have been built out by now, and we would not be here today. . But we are here and we are asking you to consider that these zonings, as they are today, have yielded good quality developments in the past, and they can continue to do so now and in the future if you will leave the intent of these land use designations as they now exist. So, at the risk of oversimplifying, the bottom line is this: We are asking this City Council to honor the agreements of this city's forefathers by leaving the integrity of the existing zonings and land use designa- tions as they exist today, not as they are being proposed on Alternative Maps A through E. Now, I have been reminded on previous occasions that one City Council does not necessarily bind another Coun- cil. That reasoning does not, however, negate or in any way change the truth - that this City of San Bernardino did, in fact, entice and induce us to annex to this City in exchange for the present zonings on the lands as you see them today with the exception of the land east of the M. H. (mobile home) park, and that was annexed at a la ter date and under a different administration.... . I th ink most of you are fami 1 iar wi th all the pro- jects that have been built to date in this area, so I will contain my remarks to those properties which remain undeveloped. These are five distinct areas which con- stitute about 400 acres of land. 13 5/6/88 . 1. At the entrance to the Mountain Shadows area, there are three parcels of commercial frontage. These parcels are separated by Denair Street and Bradford Avenue. Moving in a northerly direction from there - 2. is a parcel that is north of and adjacent to the M.S.M.H.C. 3. Next, proceeding east just across State Highway 3313 but before you get to the Ci ty Creek stream is a relatively flat property, located well above and away from the City Creek stream bed. This area was annexed in about 1978. Again, it was the City who came to us and asked us to annex. We did not ask the Ci ty. We had nothing to gain. The City asked us to cooperate and we did. From this area, we go west past the M.H.P. to an area that is 4. the largest remaining undeveloped parcel in the Mountain Shadows community. It consists of approximately 250 acres of land currently designated R-l-l13,81313. This land extends north to the forest service boundary. . 5. Last, but not least, is acres, zoned multi-family, known as Villas project. It is also known 86-51. an area of about 313 the Mountain Shadows as Review of Plans Commercial Frontage Referring back to the com- mercial areas that are on the north side of Highland Avenue at the entrance to the Mountain Shadows area, it is our understanding that this area is being recommended for a mixed use designation. As such, it is our under- standing that this land use will allow for retail, com- mercial, office, light industrial or some multiple family uses. with this understanding, we agree with this choice because we believe that it is consistent with the original overall plan for Mountain Shadows. Area north of Mountain Shadows Mobile Home Park - This area is located north of the M.S.M.H.C. It was designated RU by the Planning Commission and we agree with this land use designation. City Creek property, located on the east side designated residential detached homes. east of Highway 3313 - The area of State Highway 3313 has been suburban for single family . We ask that the Council give serious consideration at to the appropriateness of putting single family detached homes right next door to a freeway. 14 5/6/88 . In order this request, land located Home Park in Route 330. through E, apartments. to lay the foundation and understanding for it is necessary to examine another piece of just south of the Mountain Shadows Mobile the general vicinity of Boulder and State Please note that on each alternative, A that this area has been designated for When I asked why, the explanation given was that it was appropriate for this land to be apartments because that would be the most efficient zone for compatible development, next to a highway or freeway. To us, tha t is log ical and we bel ieve that idea makes for sound planning. What I would like to point out, however, is that the planners did not apply this same logic to our location. The new freeway will not run right next to the pro- perty south of the M.H. park. To the contrary, it will be located easterly and will, in fact, be located right on and adjacent to our property. . Upon completion of the new freeway, the existing State Route 330 will, from highland Avenue to just north of the M.H.P., remain as you see it today. It will carry only local neighborhood traffic and will actually act as a buffer between this vacant land just south of the M.H.P. and the new freeway. The area east of Highway 330 constitutes today about 40 acres. This will be reduced to about 20 acres after the new freeway is built. With these thoughts in mind, I think the Council can appreciate that noise factors from this new freeway will have a substantial impact on our land. We believe that it would be highly inappropriate to place single family residential lots with a freeway in the back yards. Therefore, in order to keep the land tions on this property compatible with the we ask that the Council redesignate this Residential Medium." use designa- new fr eeway, land to RM, Mr. Stubblefield asked if the Mayor and Council would like to discuss each parcel and render a decision. . 15 5/6/88 . Mayor Wi lcox expressed concern over the amount of time available for this meeting, stating that she doubted a decision would be rendered at this meeting. She re- quested that Mr. Stubblefield bring his presentation to a close so that other members of the public could be heard. Cynthia Grace, Deputy City Attorney, answered ques- tions, stating that discussion of the future legislative action to be taken regarding this property was not an issue on the pending lawsuit and was proper at this time. Ann Siracusa, answered questions, stating that the Planning Commission recommended single family residential zoning on the property Mr. Stubblefield identified as being along State Route 330. Staff has recommended that for the interim period it be left with a Hillside Manage- ment designation for future study, and Stubblefield is requesting an RM designation. The Citizens Advisory Committee on the General Plan Revision Program recom- mended Hillside Management for this area and the Planning Commission changed it to single family residential. . Mr. Stubblefield questioned the Council and the planners concerning the recommended zoning for the pro- perty located next to the freeway, as Alternatives A through E recommend apartments. If it is applicable to have apartments there, why would it not be applicable on his property, when the freeway is closer to his property than to the property south of the mobile home park. Woody Tescher stated that the rationale for the site northwest of the freeway interchange being designated RM, is there is a transition in that area between commercial immediately west on Highland and the mobile home park to the north as an intervening densi ty. The densi ties to the east of Route 330 were considered to be less and there was concern regarding the riparian habitat. The impacts west of the freeways were not perceived to be as great as there is no riparian habitat. Ann Siracusa described a riparian habitat as animals and plants. Woody Tescher expla ined tha t along the Ci ty Creek area adjacent to the Stubblefield property there is an important species of trees. . The Mayor and Common Council discussed environmental study of the area in question, and the development of a plan that will work for the area for the next several years. 16 5/6/88 . Ann SiJ:acusa stated staff J:ecommends that fOJ: the inteJ:im peJ:iod, the aJ:ea in question be consideJ:ed undeJ: Hillside Management to allow a study of the aJ:ea in J:elation to the J:equest to deteJ:mine the aJ:ea's best use. The Planning DiJ:ectoJ: pointed out that when the actual plan is developed, the aJ:ea may OJ: may not be J:ecommended to be consideJ:ed Hillside Management. Vince Bautista, PJ:incipal PlanneJ:, answeJ:ed ques- tions, stating that when the Highland AJ:ea Plan was being done and got to the point that the cUJ:J:ent study is at now, alteJ:natives weJ:e J:eviewed, but not selected. When the GeneJ:al Plan pJ:ogJ:am staJ:ted, the Highland Plan was included. Discussion was held conceJ:ning when the Stubblefield pJ:oject might commence and the constJ:uction of low income and multi-family housing. . M.. Stubblefield pointed out that his piece of pJ:o- peJ:ty is well oveJ: 100 feet away fJ:om the J:ipaJ:ian J:ight of way. He has attended almost eveJ:Y CAC meeting and eveJ:Y Planning Commission meeting and at no time has he been given adequate time to make a pJ:esentation and J:e- quested that he be able to continue. MJ:. Stubblefield continued his pJ:esentation, J:eading fJ:om a pJ:epaJ:ed statement as follows: "PJ:eseJ:vation of views fOJ: sUJ:J:ounding J:esidents - We would otheJ: aJ:ea of conceJ:n that has to below the M.S.M.H.P. and the development on this pJ:opeJ:ty will residents. mobile home paJ:k and like to point out one do with the vacant land potential impact that have on the sUJ:rounding RegaJ:dless of what zone is put on the pJ:operty, we are veJ:Y conceJ:ned that the views from the adjoining residences be pJ:eserved and protected. To that end, we ask the council to take action today on this vacant pJ:operty to insuJ:e tha t wha tever is bui 1 t on thi s land will not be an impedance to the views of the sUJ:J:ounding residences.11 . At this point, MayoJ: wilcox again expressed concern over the amount of time being allotted members of the public for presentations. She requested that Mr. Stubblefield end his reading of his presentation. The remainder of the document is contained in the following pages of the minutes. 17 5/6/88 . Mr. Stubblefield to adequately discuss Common Council. expressed his the property lack of opportunity wi th the Mayor and Mayor wi lcox sta ted tha t there would be an oppor- tunity to discuss this area at the meeting of the Mayor and Common Council to be held May 18, 1988, during the public comments portion of the meeting. Mr. Stubblefield asked if it would be more appro- priate to have each of the five parcels individually presented, as he pointed out he appears to be taking up all of the time and he has five distinct areas to dis- cuss. Mayor wilcox requested that he wait until the re- maining speakers are heard. The remainder of Mr. Stubblefield's written pre- sentation as given to the City Clerk for inclusion in the minutes is as follows: . "250 acres currently designated R-l, 10,800 - This is approximately 250 acres of land bounded on the north by the forest serv ice area and the Ci ty 1 imi ts. The slopes generally fall into a category of about 25% and greater. This is the final parcel of Mountain Shadows land that has been planned for upscale hous ing. Currently, this land is zoned hillside 10,800. On the sur face it might seem appropr ia te to des igna te the area land use as Hillside Management. The term Hillside Management, however, in and of itself, is a meaningless term. Until you attach a development standard to it, it is only a concept. Unlike all of the other zones you are studying, which designate a firm density, you do not know, and subsequently we do not know what we will be allowed to do with this land. That is, until you adopt a standard to go along with it. As this concept of Hillside Management has pro- gressed throughout the meetings and updating of the General Plan, and discussions to date have been mostly generalized. The concensus has been to adopt this land use designation in principle now, and the details will be worked out later. . However, it is our understanding conclude this phase of the General Plan the Council, must adopt some standard land use designation. Otherwise, meaning. tha t in order to process that you, for this hillside it will have no 18 5/6/88 . It is also our understanding that in order to keep the process mov ing ahead, staff and the consultant have developed a proposed set of interim development standards for your consideration and adoption. Once adopted, these standards would become a part of the Hillside Management designation. Then you could submit to OPR for their approval. I have spent a couple of weeks studying these pro- posed standards and I have had to work pretty hard to understand the impacts they would have on the hillside area of San Bernardino. As I began to understand the proposed standards, I asked many of General Plan updating process if impacts of what was being proposed. people thought that these standards idea. As I pressed to see if they net resul t would be, almost nobody effect these standards would have. implications of these those involved in the they understood the For the most part, sounded 1 ike a good understood what the could tell me what . After two weeks of studying the implications of these standards, I finally know what impact they will have. At least on this 250 acre parcel of land that we are currently discussing. I would like to state that in our opinion and in the opinion of our engineers, if you vote to accept the proposed interim development standards as currently written, you will vote for no development on this land. without development, land is rendered useless and is deprived of all economic use and value. Three areas of the proposed standards serve to bring this about: 1. The allowed permissible density for each slope category. Since most of these slopes average in the 30% ca tegory, we could not bui ld ing on them. We could only use this acreage to transfer density at the rate of one unit per forth acres, which would allow a whopping six lots on the 250 acres. In our opinion, that one item alone, without discussing any others, renders this pro- perty useless. 2. The proposed grading limitations, which are admittedly vague and ambiguous, but even so communicate just enough to let us and our engineers know that we could not design a successful project. . 19 5/6/88 . 3. The automatic requirement for a Specific Plan to be prepared by the Ci ty for the landowner and at hi s expense, which we believe to be so cost prohibitive under the auspices of a government agency that it alone will serve to stop most development in the foothills. That is about 18 pages of single spaced typewritten notices compressed into three short paragraphs. Maybe thi s Ci ty can afford the luxury of agreeing to a tem- porary standard that effectively stops development on thi s proper ty, but the way it looks to us, those of us who have been so fortunate as to put our investments into hillside properties, we are going to be singled out for different treatment. On every other zone I have studied, it is fairly clear cut what each landowner can and cannot do. For those of us in the Hillside Management category, it is only clear at the moment that we cannot bui ld on our land. . It is very interesting to note that just a little over 12 months ago in the City's observations and find- ings of fact for the Mountain Shadow villas project located just below this parcel, the City concluded that this 250 acres of land could accommodate about 900 hous- ing units. On the basis of this information a focused environmental impacts was required. That is a fact and is a part of this City's records. It is fascinating to me how a City can at one moment in time conclude that this parcel of land would accom- modate 900 units, and then turn right around, taking the exact same parcel and recommend a proposed set of stan- dards that will be going to OPR that would allow a paltry six units to be transferred, of course, to another pro- perty. I think that is pretty incredible disparity in numbers for the same parcel of land. . One final observation on this piece, as I read through the Empire Economics report, I noticed that it was their recommendation that the City should use its resources to encourage quality development in our foot- hills not discourage it. When OPR rendered its decision about the deficiency of this City's General Plan, I have not read anywhere that OPR said you have a bad city, or even that you have a bad plan. As I under- stand it, they simply said to update your plan. On this piece of property, it feels like the City is doing major surgery and the patient is about to die! 20 5/6/88 . We have spent millions in building the proper sized infrastructure to service the densities on this land as it is zoned. It would be our request that if you want to call it Hillside Management, fine. But leave it Hillside 10,800, along with a grading standard as we know it today so that a community of fine quality homes can be built. Review of Plans 86-51 - Mountain Shadows Villas -In area located at the northerly terminus of La Praix and Citrus Street is a proposed project being processed through the City as Review of Plans 86-51. It has been in the processing stage since early 1986. . In November of 1986, about 2:00 a.m., after approxi- mately seven hours of public testimony on a four to three vote, the City Council rendered a decision to require a focussed environmental impact report on this project. After the vote had been taken, Mayor wilcox made a final closing comment to the audience. The record will show that the Mayor directed her comments to the audience and to paraphrase, she sa id, 'at the conclus ion of this E IR, when it is done, and however it comes out, the Ci ty is go ing to abide by its concl us ions, and if those conclu- sions allow this project to move forward, I hope it is not the intent of the opposition to come back down and try and stop this project again'. It is fairly common knowledge that it has always been the intent of some of the opposi tion to stop this project. If it is not stopped, then at least postponed to a point that either the developer would go away or new legislation could be passed to stop the project. On the subject of hoping the developer away, the record speaks for itself. As you are are still diligently trying to move forward project. would go aware, we with this In conclusion, as you deliberate over this property today, I ask you to keep one simple truth in mind. It is an undeniable fact that this area of our foothills has been zoned to receive multi-family units since before a house was built around it. It has been notoriously pub- licized through previous General Plan processes. The knowledge of this zoning has been available to every single homeowner prior to moving in or buying a house in this vicinity. . The zoning proj ect has been and restrictions opponents to this of thi s land recorded in of many of project live 21 and the bui ld ing of thi s the condi tions, covenants the subdivisions that the in today. 5/6/88 . If it was not enough to put it in the CC & Rs, we also asked each homeowner to acknowledge their acceptance of this zoning in their escrow instructions. We did this so that every single person would have full opportunity to know what was going to be built near them. We also did it because we believe strongly that this zoning is entirely appropriate and correct for this piece of land and would be no impedance to the sale of single family homes. As you can see, it was not. There can be no denyi ng tha t many, if not most, of those asking you to take this zoning away from us have been dutifully and properly informed of the zoning on this land. They have made their choice to buy in this area with that full and complete knowledge. That is a fact. . San Bernardino is deserving of a quality high end move up rental community and this site was selected for that designation because of the possible sites in San Bernardino this area provided the best opportunity to fit into a community and to provide a panoramic view un- equalled in most single family homes. Without that com- bination of location and view, no such project would have the chance for economic survival. We have been asked why we don't just build this project down on the flat land. The answer is real simple. To incorporate the quality and expense designed for this project in any other location would be economic suicide and the project would fail... The infrastructure that serves this land has been bui 1 t and si zed to serve the densi ties tha t are called for by the current zoning. To downzone this property now would be to throwaway the millions that have been in- vested to provide that infrastructure. In many cases, developers coming before you come to request something extra. We have not in the past, nor are we now, asking for anything extra on this land. We are asking you for nothing that would serve to personally enrich ourselves beyond that which we already have. We only ask that you vote to preserve the investment that has been made on this land by voting to leave the current land use zoning as it is today." . 22 5/6/88 I . Jack Widmeyer, 1321 E. Highland Avenue, San Bernar- dino, representing the Highland Recreational Trails group of equestrians, hikers, bikers (non-motorized), who have been working on trails in the east end of the valley and have a tentative agreement with the East Highland Ranch, which was obtained through efforts of the Ad Hoc Trails Committee of the City of Highland. Mr. Widmeyer presented a letter addressed to the Mayor and Common Counc i 1 of the Ci ty of San Bernard ino dated May 4, 1988, which described the action of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors in their adoption of Resolution 76-268 on October 19, 1976, concerning the "Preliminary Master Plan of Equestrian and Hiking Trails". Exhibits included with this letter are: 1. The California Trail Corridors of the California Recreational Trails Plan 2. San Bernardino County Major Trails in our area 3. San Bernardino County Sub-Major Trails in our . area 4. Available funding The letter stated that the Green Belt Trail, which would connect the trails of Highland and east San Ber- nardino with trails in the Devore area is critical to implement this plan. Community trails giving access to the above are needed. He requested that these recrea- tional trails be coordinated and included in the City of San Bernardino's General Plan, so that the state trails of the Santa Ana River and Pacific Crest Trail, the San Bernardino County trails and the trails through the City flow together in an integrated trails system. He sta ted tha t he owns 51 acres which are loca ted below the San Manuel Indian Reservation, between Orange Street and Palm Avenue, which is presently designated Hillside Management. He recommended that the property be designated as RL, as it is his intention to develop single family custom homes on the property, which would include 40+ lots on the 51 acres. It has been developed since the early 1950s, and requires no further grading or massive change of the area. . He 45 lots 1956. answered questions, stating that the approximate were graded on the property between 1951 and 23 5/6/88 . Woody Tescher answered questions, stating that per- haps the project could be attractively integrated into the hillside areas and deal with the standards that will ultimately be developed. Existing conditions would be incorporated. Within Hillside Management ordinances are the abilities to provide standards for existing pads that have been in place and stability has been demonstrated. It provides a uniquely different si tuation than an un- touched site. He explained that the level of defining precisely what is needed in an ordinance has not yet been done. Hillside Management ordinances generally reflect existing conditions. Ann Siracusa stated that under the interim policy as currently proposed, Mr. Widmeyer would be able to build on any lot that is at least one acre. Woody Tescher pointed out that the land use plan map does not normally show trails subject to the ultimate circulation element, which is considered separately in the General Plan process. . Ann Siracusa answered questions, stating that the trail proposal will be considered by the CAC during the next review of the plan. Mr. widmeyer stated that the County of San Bernar- dino has established a group to work on establishing trails and that the trail would cross his property. Robert Shelton, 7089 Browning Road, Highland, Coun- cilman for the City of Highland, represented the interest of the City of Highland regarding open space equestrian and recreational trails. He stated his willingness to participate in the special forum for this subject during consideration of the City of San Bernardino's General Plan. Hy Weiser, 3915 Dwight Way, San Bernardino, spoke regarding fire and flood dangers, and requested low den- sity in the foothill areas. He is concerned about en- ticing the habitation of dangerous locations in the foot- hills. . He pointed out that in discussion with a member of the Planning Commission, he discovered they did not have a copy of the City's "Optimal Housing Product Mix", which was prepared by the Community Development Department. He felt that they were making recommendations without having all of the facts available to them. 24 5/6/88 . Rick Lazar, 248 E. Highland Avenue, San Bernardino, a real estate broker specializing in land sales and development, stated he feels the MH designation is too restrictive in its demands for environmental impact reports and specific plans. It is his recommendation that measures be taken during the General Plan revision to include good conditions and restrictions on develop- ment prior to having to specifically look at each individual development which is time consuming and overly restrictive. He in San getting pointed out Bernardino, approved. a proposed project in "Holcomb Hill" which is having a difficult time Mark Landers, 2334 N. Sierra Way, San Bernardino, a real estate broker, spoke regarding property located at Foothill Drive and Sterling Avenue, Tracts 11857 - 11860 in Area 10, which has been designated by the Planning Commission in Alternative E as RL. He expressed concern with the MH designation and specific plan requirements making the project financially prohibitive. . Woody Tescher noted a discrepancy on the map con- cerning the property described by Mr. Landers, stating one map shows an RS designation and another map shows RL, which will be verified by the Planning Commission. Helen Kopczynski, 5180 N. Cable Canyon, San Bernar- dino, cautioned the Council regarding the impacts of the designation of commercial around the future freeway interchange and extensive commercial along Highland Avenue. She stated that historically, freeway develop- ment pulls commercial development away from neighbor- hoods. She commented that citizens are adversely affected because of a deal struck by previous City administration, which may penalize all future residents and their quality of life. She stated that the purpose of the General Plan is to identify inappropriate land use planning. This is an opportunity to revise it and requested the Council to recognize the need to revise it. During the San Gorgonio public comment period from the area residents, it was requested that a park be placed at the bottom of City Creek. She feels City Creek should remain as a riparian area and not be channeled. A park would become an asset. . Alice Todd, 4027 E. piedmont Drive, San Bernardino, spoke regard ing concerns expressed in her letter dated May 6, 1988, to the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino. 25 5/6/88 . Her letter concerned property on the northwest corner of Highland and Boulder, and submitted a copy of the tentative tract that was almost developed at that location in 1981, and a map showing the total effects existing at that location and what could happen if it is not developed properly in the future. She requested residential zoning with single family homes, one story near the houses above, and that the area be restricted by Ordinance MC-577. Ann Siracusa answered questions, stating that Ordi- nance MC-577 is in effect, but that it does not include property south of Piedmont. A new ordinance would be required, or specific policies for this area. Alice Todd provided information regarding the fires of 1980 which preceeded the flooding the next year and its consequences. Ann Siracusa stated that there are 15 to 20% slopes in that area. . DEL ROSA AREA - AREA NO. 10 Vince Bautista, Principal Planner, boundaries of Area 10, the Del Rosa Area, described the as follows: (lb) North: City boundary and sphere of influence boundary State Route 30 Twin Creek Wash Victoria Avenue South: East: West: Woody Tescher pointed out land use descriptions on the map, stating that commercial is basically limited in areas along Del Rosa and other small locations. The residential neighborhoods southerly of the foothills correspond with existing use and are either developed or designated RS. The foothills are designated with Hill- side Management. Ann Siracusa made the following staff recommenda- tions: Staff Recommendation 1 The vacant property located northwesterly of the terminus of Sterling Avenue and Foothill Drive designated RL, Residential Low, should remain MH, Hillside Manage- ment. . 26 5/6/88 . Staff Recommendation 2 The vacant property located northwesterly of the terminus of David Way which is designated RS, Residential Suburban, should remain MH, Hillside Management. Ann Siracusa answered questions regarding the staff recommendations opposing the Planning Commission's recommendations, stating there was specific discussion by the Commission on each site as to why they chose the RS designation. Their basic reasoning was that someone had asked for that designation. The applicant had stated similar reasons to those heard, as it was too costly to develop and they do not want to be covered with a speci- fic plan or environmental work. Warner Hodgdon, 3295 Broadmoor Boulevard, San Ber- nardino, provided the following letters for the records and files of the City Clerk: May 6, 1988, regarding General Plan Revision Pro- grams, public input and approval of an interim policy document per meeting schedule revised April 15, 1988. . Attached to this letter were three previous letters filed with the Planning Department identified as follows: 1. March 25, 1988, concerning the General Plan update, Alternatives A, Band C, circulation continuity with land uses, State College (University) General Plan Harrison Freeway and circulation plan element Attachments to this letter included: a copy of the officially adopted State College Area General Plan, a draft memorandum dated March 15, 1988, regarding the State College (University) Area General Plan report adopted in 1964 by San Bernardino County and City, which included the State Highway Commission resolution dated May 22,1963, adopting State Route 30 and the Harrison FreewaYi City Resolution adopting State Route menti No. 7604 dated March 9, 1963, 30 and the Harrison Freeway align- . City Resolution No. 7700 dated May 4, 1964, for the interim Route 18 (Waterman Avenue), and an excerpt from the State Department of Transportation Memorandum dated May 16, 1977, and 27 5/6/88 . General Plan alternative land uses A, Band C, which were presented to the public on March 7, 1988 2. March 28, 1988, concerning State Route 30/330 at Highland Avenue, Highway 18 (Harrison Freeway) from Route 30 north to Waterman Avenue, and the MH Hillside Manage- ment first draft definitions 3. April 13, 1988, concerning the State College Area General Plan and the update covering highway 18 (Harrison Freeway), Waterman Avenue interim Route 18 and Old Arrowhead Road and contiguous land. He requested that adhere to the unanimous Commission. the Mayor and recommendations Common Council of the Planning Discussion was held concerning the need for time to study the maps and recommendations and the Hillside Management areas. . Woody Tescher responded to the issue of the bound- aries of Hillside Management, stating that recommenda- tions adhere as much as possible to existing slope maps and U.S. Geological Maps. The level of accuracy on these maps varies. He suggested a provision that an engineered map be prepared when a site is being considered, to determine the start of the 15% slope. In cases where the land is found to be at a less than 15% slope abutting existing development, he recommended that the land use revert from the MH category to adjacent residential den- sities of existing tracts. Council Member Maudsley stated for the record that he resides in the area described by Mr. Stubblefield, with slopes of 15 to 25%, and understands the problems in the area. He described the purpose of the decorative block walls along Palm Avenue as being to control drain- age, as the street was improperly designed. Due to an improperly graded lot, the house north of his slipped on one end by eight inches. An engineering firm, costing $40,000, put 1800 sacks of cement under the house to raise it. He described problems in the Amber Hills area due to improper grading, stating that the foothills need study and consideration to control development. The need for more maps to provide better descrip- tions of the locations being discussed during these General Plan meetings was discussed. . 28 5/6/88 . John Stubblefield of Stubblefield Enterprises read the remainder of his statement, which was previously quoted into the minutes. (See Page 17) The need for a mapping session before May 10, 1988, was discussed. ADJOURN MEETING Council Member Maudsley made a motion, seconded by Council Member Pope-Ludlam and unanimously carried, that the meeting adjourn to 5:00 p.m., May 10, 1988, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California, at which time Areas 6, 7 and 8 will be discussed. ~~...?/~~ /' City Clerk . . 29 5/6/88