Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-23-1988 Minutes . City of San Bernardino, California May 23, 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 Wednesday, May 18, 1988, at 5:15 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. The City Clerk has caused to be posted the Notice of Adjournment of said meeting held Wednesday, May 18, 1988, at 5:15 p.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 10:00 a.m., Tuesday, May 19, 1988, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. . The Adjourned Regular Meeting was called to order by Mayor Wilcox at 9:03 a.m., Monday, May 23, 1988, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California, following a meeting of the Re- development Agency/Community Development Commission. ROLL CALL Roll Call was taken by City Clerk Clark with the following being present: Mayor Wilcox; Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Minor, Pope-Ludlam, Miller; City Attorney Penman, City Clerk Clark, Acting City Administrator Robbins. Absent: None. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place set for comments from the public concerning items not on the agenda. (A) STEVEN WINTHROP - STEVEN SOARES - OWNERS OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 48TH STREET AND LITTLE MOUNTAIN DRIVE - GENERAL PLAN REVISION Steven Winthrop, the joint owner with Steven Soares of property located at 48th Street and Little Mountain Drive, stated that they had been given some information, which led them to not be present at the May 18, 1988, meeting of the Mayor and Common Council concerning the General Plan Revision. The information was not accurate, and he requested that either the subject be reopened or that he be given a chance to speak at this time. (A) . 1 5/23/88 . He stated that the May 18th staff report recommended his property be designated RU. There is a small, vocal group requesting it be designated RS, which some Council Members are supporting. He provided the following background information regarding the property: Messrs. Winthrop and Soares purchased the property for $585,131313 and sold it for the same amount to Wiggins Covington, who had a development interest. Wiggins sub- mitted a tentative map for four plexes with 14 units per acre under a PRO with all amenities. The City came back with comments and Wiggins agreed to reduce to 12 units per acre with internal streets to be maintained, and fences to be constructed. Traffic studies were conducted and approved by Roger Hardgrave, City Engineer, and all of the apparent objections of the City had been met by Wiggins Covington. . He further stated that on November 4, 1986, David Anderson, acting as Principal Planner, recommended approval of the tentative map. Upon the building mora- torium being established, Wiggins Covington realized the project was economically unfeasible and walked away from the property, losing their down payment and all engineer- ing and architectural fees. Messrs. Winthrop and Soares became the owners of the property through foreclosure, which was completed approximately one month ago. He stated that since understand what is going They have tried to appease anti-growth group opposing that time, they have tried to on in the political process. the needs of the small, vocal, the project. Mr. Winthrop described himself and Mr. Soares as individuals, not a large corporation, who stand to lose in excess of $21313,131313 because of the proposed downscale zoning. He asked not to be penalized for a lack of poli- tical prowess or huge financial resources to have attor- neys represent them. He stated that the property is 75% surrounded by apartments and some single family units. He requested a continuity in the zoning. The RS zoning would allow 213 buildable lots. They obtained a zoning appraisal for RS of $2313,131313 relative to an initial purchase price of $585,01313, which would result in no development or very shoddy development on the land, which is not in the City's best interest. . 2 5/23/88 . He further stated that on a justice level, the Coun- cil is designed to represent a majority and that a small, vocal group has gained an excess amount of control. Mr. Mulvilhill purports to represent the university and in direct discussions with Dr. Judith Rymer, she related to Mr. Winthrop that she officially represents the university, not Mr. Mulvilhill. It is her official stand is that she is anti-apartment, anti-cheap commer- cial development, but not anti-growth. He related his understanding that Vince Bautista, Principal Planner, has recommended an RU designation based on the odd shape of the property and the anti- growth people want acre lots with single family dwell- ings. He described his ideal to be 14 units per acre, and suggested that a compromise be reached regarding the 4 -9 units per acre with RU zoning. He requested that the Council consider the fiscal realities of development and grant RU zoning for his project. . JOHN LIGHTBURN REPRESENTING MR. KING - OWNER OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON KENDALL AND LITTLE LEAGUE DRIVES - GENERAL PLAN REVISION John Lightburn, representing Mr. King, the owner of property located on Kendall and Little League Drives, spoke regarding staff's recommendations in Exhibit "A", which was distributed this morning. RS zoning is recom- mended wi th a PRD. Neighbor ing land is zoned RU and RU with a PRD. (A) He requested the same zoning as property identified as #6 on Exhibit A, to allow comprehensive build-out and public improvements. All property owners should have the same density ranges with which to calculate an economi- cally feasible project and develop the infrastructure. He pointed out that the minimum restriction of lots to 6,000 square feet on the Verdemont Plan puts a cap on the number of units that can be built. RS zoning will eliminate the bottom end of the building scale of 4.5 to 5. He recommended RU zoning, as it still gives the Mayor and Council the final authority as to lot sizes and the number of units. . 3 5/23/88 ........ . NORRIS GREGORY - CLIFF CAREL - CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT - GENERAL PLAN REVISION Norris Gregory, representing Cliff R. Carel & Associates, stated that an agreement has been in progress for six months, concerning property just west of the Central Fire Station on Third Street. The zoning recom- mendation is residential for this area, which is sur- rounded by a business machine operation, a fire station, commercial property, and an engineering firm. (A) He requested that the property be designated CG on Third Street, west of the fire station up to where the CO designation starts. BOB HOLCOMB - RATIONALE FOR ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS - GENERAL PLAN REVISION Bob Holcomb, attorney, requested that the Council require their staff and consultant to provide rationale for zoning recommendations. He ci ted a case in which a small, triangular piece of property with 31313 feet of frontage that comes to a point and is 1,131313 feet deep, received a zoning recommendation of Rl. It is surrounded by apartments. He described this as flagrant abuse of property rights. He stated that those adversely impacted should be given an opportunity to respond. (A) . DISCUSSION REGARDING AGENDA The Mayor and Common Council discussed the numerical order of the subjects listed on the agenda. Shauna Clark, Ci ty Clerk, stating that Item 1 was requested agenda at the Regular Meeting of Council held May 16, 1988. answered questions, to be put on this the Mayor and Common Council Member Pope-Ludlam made a motion, seconded by Council Member Estrada, that Item 1 concerning auto- mobiles confiscated by the Police Department under the Asset Forfeiture and Seizure laws be heard at this time. The motion Council Members Miller. Noes: sent: None. carried by the following vote: Ayes: Estrada, Flores, Minor, Pope-Ludlam, Council Members Reilly, Maudsley. Ab- . AUTOMOBILES CONFISCATED BY POLICE DEPARTMENT - ASSET FORFEITURE AND SEIZURE LAWS - REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION - COUNCIL MEMBER POPE-LUDLAM This is the time and place set for discussion con- cerning automobiles confiscated by the Police Department under the Asset Forfeiture and Seizure laws, as requested by Council Member Pope-Ludlam. (1) 4 5/23/88 . Concern was expressed regarding the policy of the Police Department regarding confiscated, forfeited or impounded automobiles. There have been complaints that the cars are being driven prior to the court making a decision. Mayor Wilcox provided copies of a report dated May 19, 1988, from Police Chief Burnett, concerning auto- mobiles confiscated by the Police Department since 1985, and a proposed new procedure for the seizure of vehicles. Don Burnett, Police Chief, answered questions con- cerning the current policy for impounding vehicles, stat- ing that the procedures being used by the Police Depart- ment are under the Asset Forfe i ture and Sei zure laws. Vehicles have been stored unti 1 ei ther the state or the federal forfeiture process is complete. A procedure has been developed whereby vehicles are towed each time they are moved. . He described the procedure that was used prior to the last two weeks, stating that vehicles were taken at the scene of seizure by the seizing officer or their designee, driven to a storage location, most of which are City properties, and the event was recorded. A form was used to record the seizure depending on the circumstances and if the off icer possessed the form whi Ie out in the field. This form required an odometer reading and is considered public record. He stated that he would have to inspect each form in order to state why or why not an odometer reading had been taken in each case. James Penman, City Attorney, collected all of the seizure reports. City Attorney Penman answered questions, stating that under the procedure used by the Pol ice Department, cars would not be used prior to the court awarding the vehicle to the Police Department under the Asset and Forfeiture Laws. Police Chief Burnett answered questions, stating that cars would definitely not be used in undercover drug operations prior to being awarded by the court. . City Attorney Penman answered questions, that the City is not insured on these vehicles their being awarded to the City by the court; the current policies take that into account. stating prior to however, He has 5 5/23/88 . reviewed the list of vehicles seized by the Police Department, and the vehicles which have not been awarded to the City, or are awaiting disposition, are presently stored in San Bernardino or with the Federal Marshall in Los Angeles. He stated that the new problem of beginning mileage seized vehicles. pol icy would not being correct recorded the for Police Chief Burnett clarified that out of 21 vehicles seized since 1985, 19 were not driven prior to being awarded by the court. Two were dr i ven in Apr i 1, 1988, by two police personnel on three different occa- sions. The vehicles were in federal asset proceedings. This was considered to be a formality, as they had been stipulated to be forfeited in plea bargaining with the District Attorney's Office. They were not used for per- sonal business. The personnel had authority to take a car home, and in lieu of taking a City vehicle, they used a seized vehicle. New procedures have been implemented to prohibit such use of the vehicles. . Police Captain Mike Lewis explained how records are maintained on seized vehicles and reported that the vehicles seized without recordation of the odometer read- ing, were seized by the same officer, who was failing to record that information. Corrective measures have been taken to make sure recordation of the odometer reading is done in the future. He answered questions regarding forms used for the seizure of vehicles, the stored cars being burglarized, odometer readings on the cars, fees for storage and tow- ing vehicles, and stated that he is personally aware of any of these vehicles being moved. Police Chief Burnett stated that the City Attorney's Office has been asked for an opinion concerning the expend i ture of money from the Asset For fei ture Fund for storage fees, and research is being done for a more secure storage of the vehicles. RECESS MEETING - CLOSED SESSION At 9:45 a.m., Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Counc i 1 Member Pope-Ludlam, tha t the Common Council recess to Closed Session to confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation pursuant to Govern- ment Code Section 54956.9 (b) (1), as there is significant exposure to litigation. . 6 5/23/88 . The motion Council Members Miller. Noes: None. carried Estrada, Council by the fOllowing vote: Ayes: Flores, Maudsley, Pope-Ludlam, Members Reilly, Minor. Absent: CLOSED SESSION At 9:45 a.m., Mayor wilcox called the Closed Session to order in the Conference Room of the Council Chambers in Ci ty Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernard ino, California. (2) ROLL CALL Roll Call was taken wi th the following being pre- sent: Mayor Wilcox; Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Minor, Pope-Ludlam, Miller; City Attor- ney Penman. Absent: City Clerk Clark, Acting City Ad- ministrator Robbins. ADJOURN CLOSED SESSION At 10: 10 a.m., the Closed Session adjourned to the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino. . RECONVENE MEETING At 10: 10 a.m., the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino reconvened in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino, California. ROLL CALL Roll Call was taken with the following being pre- sent: Mayor Wilcox; Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Minor, Pope-Ludlam, Miller; City Attor- ney Penman, City Clerk Clark, Acting City Administrator Robbins. Absent: None. GENERAL PLAN - APPROVAL OF INTERIM POLICY This is the time and place set for final deliberation and approval of an Interim Policy for the General Plan revision. Council Doc umen t (4 ) Woody Tescher, consul tant wi th his memorandum dated May 23, 1988, side Management zoning designation tions. Envicom, summarized concerning the Hill- and answered ques- . Ann Siracusa answered quest ions, regard ing the in- terim policy having a recommendation that Specific Plans be requi red of developers who wish to proceed wi th de- velopment during the interim period, and that there be a cap set as to maximum densities allowed, using the slope density formula based on the percentage of the slope. Woody Tescher answered questions concerning the standards for endangered species, erosion, etc. not yet being developed. 7 5/23/88 . Ann Siracusa answered questions, stating that the proposed cap is the total number of units allowable on a parcel, which is calculated by the slope. The standards have not yet been written for the developer who wishes to beg in hi s proj ect now. In the absence of the standards, she recommended that the cap be set high, and suggested that the County's cap is acceptable. Developers would be required to submit a Specific Plan within the cap for review. woody Tescher answered questions regarding use of the County's standards. Ken Henderson, Director of Community Development, spoke regarding an optimal and balanced housing mix. He stated that statistics were given at a recent Business Outlook Conference that by the year 2riHHl, there wi 11 be 6,000,000 more residents in California, and spoke regard- ing their potential impact. He reported that the City has an adequate supply of affordable housing, which needs to be maintained, but is lacking in move-up and up-scale housing. . Woody Tescher acknowledged the concerns expressed by Mr. Henderson, and stated that in the next phase of the planning process, there is a housing element that will be studied thoroughly to provide a balance of land use. AREA 5, RIALTO BENCH The boundaries of Area 5, known as the Rialto Bench are as follows: North: South: East: West: Rialto bench City boundary Ria 1 to bench City boundary Ann Siracusa reported that staff has no further recommended changes for Area 5, the Ri al to Bench area. The Edison Company was contacted regarding their property in this area, as requested by Council at the April 26, 1988, meeting. The proposed plan seems to fit with what they want to do with their property. AREA 6, WESTSIDE The boundaries of Area 6, known as the Westside, are as follows: . North: South: East: West: Devil's Canyon Flood Control Channel Ninth Street 1-215 Freeway Lytle Creek Wash 8 5/23/88 . Ann Siracusa reported that there are no additional recommended changes for Area 6, other than the portion of the area that received testimony at the last meeting and was designated RS. AREA 7, NORTON The boundaries of Area 7, Norton, are as follows: North: South: East: West: Base Line Street Santa Ana River Palm Avenue Waterman Avenue Staff Recommendation 3, dated May 20, 1988 The north side of Mill Street, east of the frontage on Waterman Avenue, which is currently Commercial Office, should be changed to Heavy Commercial on the north side. Staff Recommendation 4, dated May 20, 1988 The south side of Mill Street, east of the frontage on Waterman Avenue, over to the PF designation, should also be Heavy Commercial. The depth of the designation is to be based on the parcel sizes. . vince Bautista, Principal Planner, answered ques- tions, stating that the MU designation would include parcels fronting Arrowhead and Rialto Avenues, Sierra Way and Mill Street. This would include the types of uses found in Light Industrial, General and Heavy Com- mercial. From Waterman Avenue west to the MU designation before Sierra Way, it is designated Heavy Commercial on the north and south sides of Mill Street. Staff Recommendation The County Coroner's nue, east of Lena Road, was omitted on the map. 5, dated May 20, 1988 Building, south of Rialto Ave- should be designated PF, as it Bill Leonard, developer, answered questions regard- ing the National Orange Show's ownership of the southeast corner of Arrowhead and Central Avenues. Ann adjusted National Siracusa stated that to accommodate the Orange Show. the designations would be property owned by the Discussion ensued concerning the property located west of Norton and south of Third Street, with regard to access to the area designated single family residential and the noise contours for Norton AFB. . 9 5/23/88 . AREA 8, NORTH CENTRAL SAN BERNARDINO The boundaries of Area 8, North Central San Bernar- dino, are as follows: North: Parkdale Avenue to Twin Creek Wash to SR 30 to Victoria Avenue Base Line Street Victoria Avenue 1-215 Freeway South: East: West: Staff Recommendation 6, dated May 20, 1988 The University of Redlands' property, located south of Nin th Street, between Waterman Avenue and the Warm Creek Flood Control Channel, should be des igna ted Com- mercial General, as shown on Alternative E. The Planning Director stated that the University of Redlands was contacted. They have not yet decided what they want to do with their property, and are considering a mobile home park. She suggested the CG designation remain in order to give it the broadest range of com- patible use for the area. . Staff Recommendation 7, dated May 20, 1988 The areas behind the frontages of the areas between Baseline and Highland, and between Waterman and "E" Street, should be designated RS. The Planning Director stated that staff would come back during the next phase with a more detailed analysis of improvements of these older residential neighborhoods, taking into consideration the revitalization of the Cen- tral City area and effects on the Central Business Dis- trict. She referred to the handout provided the Mayor and Common Counc i 1, which gives suggestions for those areas. Woody Tescher stated that the analysis would be done on a block-by-block basis. The Council recommended that the entire area from Highland Avenue south to the Central Business District be evaluated. It was also noted that a change on the map had not yet been made concerning Arrowhead Avenue, be- tween Seventh and Eighth Streets, for three office build- ings to be designated MU. AREA 9, HIGHLAND AREA OF THE CITY The boundaries of Area 9, the Highland area of the City, area as follows: . 10 5/23/88 . North: South: East: West: City boundary City boundary City boundary Victoria Avenue Staff Recommendation, dated May 20, 1988 That the MU designation along Highland Avenue, from Orange on the north side and from Central on the south, going east of the extension of La Praix, be changed to Commercial General along the frontage, with Medium Den- sity Residential behind. The Council pointed out that an earlier recommended change for the northwest corner of Highland and Boulder Avenues had not yet been made on the map. AREA 10, DEL ROSA AREA The boundar ies for Area 10, the Del Rosa area, are as follows: North: South: East: West: . City boundary and sphere of influence boundary State Route 30 Twin Creek Wash Victoria Avenue Staff Recommendation Ann Siracusa stated that staff has no further recom- mendations for Area 10. AREA 11, UNIVERSITY AREA The boundaries for Area 11, the University Area, are as follows: North: South: East: West: City limits, foothills Southern boundary of Shandin Hills and Parkdale Twin Creek Basin 1-215 Freeway, Devil Canyon Flood Control Channel Staff Recommendation 9, dated May 20, 1988 The southwest corner of Li ttle Mountain and 48th Street should be changed from RS to RU, which is up to nine units per acre, due to the unusual shape of the parcel. Woody Tescher answered questions and shape of the parcel adequa tely 7,200 square foot development, taking . regarding the size supporting an RS, into consideration 11 5/23/88 . the access roads and configuration of the parcels. The RU designation provides a maximum density of nine units per acre and 5,000 square foot lots. Planning stating that for small lot Director Siracusa restr ictions could be subdivisions. answered questions, put on the proper ty Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Pope-Ludlam and unanimously carried, that the parcel located at the southeast corner of Little Mountain and 48th remain RU with a PRO restricted to small lots subdivision. Staff Recommendation 10, dated May 20, 1988 The two vacant parcels on Northpark Boulevard, be- tween University Parkway and Little Mouantain Drive, which are designated MU, should be changed to RS for the parcel closest to University Parkway and RU for the par- cel closest to Little Mountain Drive. Discussion was held concerning the Northpark area and requested zoning for apartments. . Planning Director Siracusa answered questions re- garding staff's recommendation of an RU designation with up to nine units per acre in the area. Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Miller and unanimously carried, that the first parcel on Northpark Boulevard, listed on the Area E map, remain MU; that the designation be specifically limited to university-oriented, commercial business and exclude apartments; that the lot owned by the Church of Latter Day Saints, and the vacant lot next to it, be designated RU; that the area erroneously marked PF, be designated RM because there are existing apartments and that the parcel with the school designation remain RS. Discussion ensued regarding the property located at the southeast corner of University Parkway and Kendall Drive. The property was originally zoned CN and at the May 12, 1988, meeting it was unanimously changed to CG. In a letter dated May 21, 1988, John Edwins of Southwest Builders, Inc., requested that the property remain zoned CG. . 12 5/23/88 . The letter pointed out that the property has a recorded map for multiple family units, but in an attempt to meet the desires of the area, the owners began a Change of Zone process for commercial. The zone change was delayed by the moratorium. During the delay, the owners contacted several full-service restaurants for that site, but those that responded stated that the demo- graphics of the area will not support a full service restaurant. Some neighboring residents are in favor of, and some are in opposition to, a fast food restaurant at that location. They do not want convenience stores or a gas station, which are allowed by the CN designation. Council Member Minor requested that the property remain CG, and that the developer and the university make a 90-day search for a sit-down restaurant, such as a Denny's or Coco's. The Council reminded staff that it was previously requested that a study be made of the Arrowhead Suburban Farms area. It is now classified RS and has deep, narrow lots, with mixed use of apartments and single family residential. . Ann Siracusa presented a map of Area 11, showing Shandin Hills, with regard to the developer of the area requesting an RS designation. Discussion ensued regarding a proposed development on property located west of Mayfield, north of Hill Drive, extended across by 59th Street, and Acacia Street comes north across Hill Drive into the property. The property has two types of zoning, half Hillside Manage- ment and half RS. Woody Tescher answered questions regarding changing the property's designa tion and hav i ng an overlay on the lot to change its size. The Council concurred that the parcel located west of Mayfield, north of Hill Drive, extended across by 59th Street, and Acacia Street extends across Hill Drive into that property, have a change of zone designation to RL. . RECESS MEETING At 12:01 p.m., Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Reilly, that the meeting re- cess until 1:00 p.m. in order for the Personnel Committee to meet. 13 5/23/88 . The Council Ludlam, None. motion Members Miller. carried by the following vote: Estrada, Reilly, Flores, Minor, Noes: Council Member Maudsley. Ayes: Pope- Absent: RECONVENE MEETING At 1: 14 p.m., the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Common Council reconvened in the Council Cham- bers of City Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino, California. ROLL CALL Roll Call was taken with the following being pre- sent: Mayor Wilcox; Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Minor, Miller; City Clerk Clark, Acting City Administrator Robbins. Absent: Council Member Pope- Ludlam. Absent: City Attorney Penman. AREA 11, UNIVERSITY AREA CONTINUED Staff Recommendation 11, dated May 20, 1988 The north side of Kendall Drive, west of University Parkway, north to the Devil's Canyon flood control chan- nel, is recommended to be changed from MU to Commercial Neighborhood. . CITY ATTORNEY PENMAN ARRIVED City Attorney Penman arrived at the Council Meeting. The staff analysis for their recommendation is that the property goes to the top of the hill, but the actual level portion along Kendall Drive is quite narrow. In order to develop this property with mixed or general commercial uses, a large portion of the hill would have to be graded. Neighborhood commercial uses, which are less in tense, can be accommoda ted on the si te wi th less grading. Ann Siracusa answered questions, location is in Area 11, not Area 12, staff recommendations. stating that this as listed on the She also answered questions limitations for the northwest corner way and Kendall Drive, and staff's this property be designated CN. regarding grading of University park- recommendation that Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Maudsley and unanimously carried, that the northwest corner of University Parkway and Kendall Drive . 14 5/23/88 . be designated MU, with commercial, college-oriented uses, but prohibiting multiple dwelling units; and requiring a protecti ve grad ing plan to be developed by the Planning Department. COUNCIL MEMBER POPE-LUDLAM ARRIVED Council Member Pope-Ludlam arrived Meeting and took her place at the Council at the Table. Council AREA 12 - VERDEMONT The boundar ies of Area 12, the Verdemont area, are listed as follows: North: South: East: West: City limits, foothills Cajon wash Devil's Canyon Flood Control Channel Devore Road . Staff Recommendation 12, dated May 20, 1988 The parcels adjacent to Kendall Drive, from the Devil's Canyon flood control channel to Al Guhin Park, should be designated as shown on Exhibit "A", which is a map dividing Area 12 into sub areas, on an attached memo from Woody Tescher, consultant with Envicom. Each parcel is listed as a sub-area, and received a recommendation by the consultant. Sub-Area 2 This area is bounded by Kendall Drive on the north, the proposed public park boundary on the east, the Inter- state 215 freeway on the south and the Cable Creek chan- nel on the west. The recommended designation for this area is RS. Woody Tescher answered questions regarding his analysis that unlike Sub-Area 1 (bounded by property lines to the north, the Devil's Canyon Flood Control Channel to the east, Kendall Drive to the south and Cable Creek Channel to the west), the parcel depth in this location is deep enough to accommodate a parcel map for suburban-density single family houses. An existing single family development, which has a similar adjacency and topographic features, establishes a precedent which can be followed here. . Sub-Area 3 This area is bounded by channel on the north and east, south, Sub-Area 4 on the west Kendall Drive. the the and Cable Creek drainage 1-215 Freeway on the Sub-Area 3 straddles 15 5/23/88 . The recommended designation for this area is RU with a PRO requirement. Woody Tescher answered questions regarding his analysis that the north portion of Sub-Area 3 is similar in character to Sub-Area 1, as it is too narrow to develop at RS densities, unless very deep parcels all fronted onto Kendall Drive. The portion south of Kendall Drive is like Sub-Area 2, but is too narrow to develop RS densities, unless they front directly on Kendall Drive. In addition, commercial uses recommended to the west, straddling the Kendall/Palm intersection, indicate an increase in activity at this segment of Kendall Drive, suggesting that a slightly higher density may be appro- priate. The PRO requirement would allow a development plan that is sensitive to the linear hill feature to the north and the freeway to the south by providing bermed setbacks from these features. Sub-Area 6 This area is bounded by Cable Creek Channel and Little League Drive on the east, the 1-215 Freeway on the south and the proposed public park boundary on the west. . The recommended designation for this area is RS with a PRO requirement. Woody Tescher answered questions regarding his analysis that it is unlikely that the one-third acre lots will be developed through a master plan situation at this location due to proximity to the freeway, adjacency to the public park and a commercial area. On the other hand, these features and wide depth do provide opportuni- ties for master-planned residential uses. Proximity to freeway access and commercial uses suggest that a higher density than RL may be appropriate. An RS designation would be appropriate for a land use adjacent to a public park, and such land use configurations are often mutually beneficial. The PRO requirement would allow for inclu- sion of common area buffers, such as the olive windrow and the Cable Creek Channel, and the Little League Drive frontage. Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Maudsley, that the interim plan include the staff recommendations shown on Exhibit "A" for Area 12 as follows: Sub-Area 2 = RS; Sub-Area 3 = RU wi th a PRO; and Sub-Area 6 = RS with a PRO. . Discussion ensued regarding the limitations of a strict RS designation for these locations. 16 5/23/88 . Ann Siracusa designation being to do a small lot answered questions regarding used as an implementation tool subdivision. the PRD in order The Counc il Council None. motion failed by the following vote: Members Maudsley, Minor, Pope-Ludlam. Members Estrada, Reilly, Flores, Miller. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Council Member Reilly Council Member Flores, that Exhibit "A" for Area 12 be changes: Sub-Areas 2 and 6, with a PRD. made a motion, seconded by the staff recommendations on approved wi th the following in Area 12, be designated RU The Council Miller. None. motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Members Estrada, Reilly, Flores, Pope-Ludlam, Noes: Council Members Maudsley, Minor. Absent: . Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Maudsley, that the area bounded by Little League Drive on the west, Devil's Canyon Creek on the east and south, and the National Forest on the north, is to be designated RL-Hl,8100. (In the Verdemont Area plan book, these areas are described as R-3, R-4 and R-7) Discussion ensued regarding the protection of owners of recorded lots. James Penman, City Attorney, regarding the moratorium regulations Office of Planning and Research. answered questions in effect by the The motion failed by the following vote: Council Members Maudsley, Minor, Miller. Noes: Members Estrada, Reilly, Flores, Pope-Ludlam. None. (Reconsidered - See Page 39 ) Ayes: Council Absent: Ken Henderson, Director of Community Development, pointed out that the allowance of four units per gross acre is not possible under an RL designation. Ann Siracusa stated that an adjustment will be made so that a 110,81010 square foot lot can have an RL desig- nation. . 17 5/23/88 . Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Miller and unanimously carried, that the Cable Lakes area, bounded on the south by 1-215; north by Cable Canyon Road; east by Little League Drive, which is now designated RS, be changed to RL with a minimum lot size of 10,800. In a memorandum dated May 18, 1988, Council Member Mi nor prov ided recommended publ ic improvements and development standards in the Verdemont Area. Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Reilly for discussion, that in the area bounded by Little League Drive on the west, Devil's Can- yon Creek on the east, the alignment of Cable Canyon Creek (flood control channel) on the south and the National Forest to the north: 1. That no development be approved until a financ- ing plan for all developers and property owners to share in the costs of the following improvements totalling $3.6 to $3.9 million has been approved by the Council. The improvements are as follows: . a. Palm Avenue box culvert b. Bailey Canyon storm drain and debris basin c. Chestnut Street storm drain and debris basin d. Traffic signal at Palm Avenue and Kendall Drive; 2. That a finding be made that the improvements benefit the entire area, and as such, require the par- ticipation of every developer and property owner; 3. That any new development in the Verdemont Area will not be supported until an infrastructure financing plan has been approved which addresses the projects listed above as a minimum, and also includes plans for the installation of curbs and gutters, along with full street improvements, at the following locations: a. Palm Avenue, from Kendall Drive to Ohio Street b. Irvington Avenue, from Chestnut Street to pine Avenue c. Belmont Street, from Chestnut to Pine Avenue d. pine Avenue, from Belmont Avenue to Ohio Street; . 18 5/23/88 . 4. That development standards in this motion in- clude more stringent than current standards. These standards should, however, be supplemented and contain more specificity. The development standards set forth in the Verdemont Area Plan be adopted by the Counc ii, and that these development standards be supplemented by the following: a. All residential structures (houses, garages, barns) shall have clay tile or concrete tile roofs b. Minimum front set-back requirements are as follows: Lot Size 7, 21313 sq. ft. 113,81313 sq. ft. 14,41313 sq. ft. 18,131313 sq. ft. 213,131313+ sq. ft. Minimum Setback 25 feet 35 feet 45 feet 513 feet 613 feet Allowances May vary, provided that the average setback for all buildings is equal to the required minimum setback for the lot size in question. . c. Landscaping shall be provided at the inter- sections of all arterial and collector streets and a maintenance district established prior to the release of improvement bonds. d. Landscaping shall be provided for all open space fronting parkways, arterials and collector thoroughfares prior to the release of improve- ment bonds. e. Every residential zoned property shall include front yard landscaping and front yard street trees as a requirement of bond release. f. All developments opening onto an arterial or collector street shall provide an entry treatment. g. All developments having perimeter fencing shall use slump stone, split face block, river rock or concrete block with stucco color coating only. Wood and/or chain link fencing shall not be allowed on the perimeter of or corner lots within any developments. h. CC&R's: All developments shall include restrictions covering satellite dishes, equestrian/hiking trails, screening of storage, recreational vehicle storage, repair of motor vehicles and other matters approved by Council; . 19 5/23/88 . 5. And, that these development standards are effective immediately and include all projects in various phases of development, including tentative tract maps and projects going through final engineering as of this date, May 23, 1988; (See following text for amendment) And, that a six-month time frame for development of the infrastructure financing and implementation plan be imposed. Discussion ensued regarding the intent of the motion being that it would pass through the City Attorney's Office for review and come back in legal form. Also, before development can take place, a financing and an implementation plan for the infrastructure will be developed. Ann Siracusa answered questions regarding the Speci- fic Plan process accomplishing the need for having the developer responsible for improvement costs. The motion Council Members Ludlam, Miller. None. carried by the following vote: Ayes: Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Minor, Pope- Noes: Counc i 1 Member Estrada. Absent: . Discussion ensued regarding reconsideration of the action taken on 10,800 square foot lots. Council Member Reilly made a motion, seconded by Council Member Estrada and unanimously carried, that Paragraph 5 of Council Member Minor' s motion be amended to read: These development standards are effective immediately. Legal lots of record as of this date, May 23, 1988, are exempt from these development standards. Ann Siracusa defined the following as needing to be accomplished before the General Plan can be sent to the State of California: finalization of the map, action on hillside management densities, action on the interim implementation policies and adoption of a resolution forwarding the packet to the state with a request for exemption from the moratorium. RECESS MEETING The Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Com- mon Council of the City of San Bernardino recessed for a short break. . 20 5/23/88 Note: This motion was clarified. See Page 50 of 6/20/88 Minutes. . RECONVENE MEETING At 2:50 p.m., the Mayor called the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernard ino to order in the Counc il Chamber s of Ci ty Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino, California. ROLL CALL Roll Call was taken with the following being pre- sent: Mayor Wilcox; Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Minor, Mi ller; Ci ty Attorney Penman, City Clerk Clark, Acting City Administrator Robbins. Absent: Council Member Pope-Ludlam. AREA I - TRI-CITY (HOSPITALITY LANE) The boundaries of Area 1, the Tri-City Hospitality Lane are as follows: North: South: East: West: Santa Ana River Barton Road Gage Canal and Mt. View Avenue Hunts Lane . Staff Recommendation 1, dated May 20, 1988 The area south of the Santa Ana River, between Tip- pecanoe and Mt. View Avenues, was recommended to be changed from Light Industry to Heavy Industry, and that the RU designation be brought westward to Richardson north of the railroad tracks. The staff analysis for their recommendation was that the area already appears to be developed with manufactur- ing and other heavy industrial uses. Due to the lack of Industrial Heavy on the plan in general, any vacant land in the area should go to Heavy Industry. Bringing the RU over to Richardson, rather than having Industrial Light, allows the street to serve as a buffer between residen- tial and industrial uses. Vince Bautista, Principal Planner, answered ques- tions, stating that existing developments would not be considered non-conforming with the new designation. Light industry is permitted within a Heavy Industrial zone designation. Council Member Flores made a motion, seconded by Council Member Maudsley and unanimously carried, that the area south of the Santa Ana River, between Tippecanoe and Mt. View Avenues, be changed from Light Industry to Heavy Industry, and that the RU designation be brought westward to Richardson, north of the railroad tracks. . 21 5/23/88 . Discussion ensued r8garding the location of adult bookstores. Ann Siracusa explained that distribution standards can be used to deal wi th the adult bookstores, and sug- gested that she review the problem with the City Attor- ney's Office to find a legally acceptable solution for the Council. City Attorney Penman stated he would recirculate an opinion on file in his office regarding the placement of adult bookstores. Shauna Clark, City Clerk, answered questions, stat- ing that adult bookstores do not have a separate business 1 icense ca tegory. They are handled through the Cond i- tional Use Permit process, which designates their dis- tances from schools and other uses. She suggested that adult bookstores be required to have an Operator's Permit for business licenses to offer an extra level of review. The permi t requ i res a Pol ice Department check on the operator of the business. . Discussion ensued regarding two areas within close proximity of one another in the First Ward having adult bookstores. City Clerk Clark suggested that since one of the two areas in the First Ward are in a redevelopment project area, that perhaps the redevelopment plan would be a method of addressing the problem. Ann Siracusa answered questions, suggesting that Item 50 regarding adult bookstores be taken out of the Interim Policy Document so that the bookstores do not affect the viability of the designation. Council Member Reilly made a motion, seconded by Council Member Flores and unanimously carried, that Item 50 of Page 20 of the Interim Policy Document, dated May 18, 1988, concerning adult businesses as defined in Sec- tion 19.46 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code being permi tted in areas designated Heavy Commercial, be deleted. COUNCIL MEMBER POPE-LUDLAM ARRIVED Council Member Pope-Ludlam arrived Meeting and took her place at the Council at the Table. Council . COUNCIL MEMBER MINOR EXCUSED Council Member Minor left the Council Meeting. 22 5/23/88 . AREA 2 - INLAND The boundar ies as follows: CENTER of Area 2, the Inland Center area, are North: South: East: West: Rialto Avenue Santa Ana River Waterman Avenue 1-210 Freeway Staff Recommendation 2, dated May 20, 1988 The RU area just west of Waterman Avenue and south of Rialto Avenue should be changed to Industrial Light. The staff analysis for the recommendation is that this is a transition area which has a lot of poor quality, older, single-family housing mixed in with a few newer single-family and multiple uni ts (generally tri- and four-plexes). The area is zoned R-3-1200. It is an area which needs improvements. Retention of the RU designation would allow single-family dwellings to remain and permit new ones (although there are not likely to be very many) but would preclude development of multiples. It will not cause the area to improve or transition. Over a 20-year period, as Waterman Avenue develops, this area should transition to another use. . Ann Siracusa answered questions, recommending that if the Council wants the area to be kept residential, it should be designated RS because that keeps the multiples from continui ng to prol i fera te. She suggested tha t the land use transi tion over the term of the plan. The RU designation would not cause enough densi ty for improve- ment or change. Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Reilly and unanimously carried, that the RU area just west of Waterman Avenue and south of Rialto Avenue, be changed to RS. COUNCIL MEMBER MINOR RETURNED Council Member Minor returned to the Council Meeting and took his place at the Council Table. AREA 3 - CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT The boundaries of Area 3, the Central Business Dis- trict, are as follows: . North: South: East: West: Base Line Street Rialto Avenue Waterman Avenue 1-215 Freeway 23 5/23/88 . Discussion ensued regarding the designation of the forestry building. Council Member Reilly made a motion, seconded by Council Member Estrada and unanimously carried, that the area west of the Meadowbrook Tower Apartments, from King Street south to Rialto, which is currently RMH, be changed to CO to accommodate the old forestry building. AREA 4 - VALLEY COLLEGE (MT. VERNON AVENUE) The boundaries of Area 4, the Valley College area on Mt. Vernon Avenue, are as follows: North: South: East: West: Ninth Street Ci ty boundary 1-215 Freeway Ria 1 to Bench Ci ty Clerk Clark answered questions, stating that the County land off Orange Show Road, which is being considered for flood control catch basins, was designated CG with the understanding that no development could take place until they met the environmental impact report standards. . A letter dated May 20, 1988, from Messrs. Morteza Froughi and Frank Sohaei, Esq., owners of the northwest corner of Eighth and "F" Streets, was introduced. Mr. Frank Sohaei was present and stated that he had been out of town and did not have knowledge of the public hearing previously held concerning the zoning designation on his property. He requested that the property be designated commercial, C-4 as it was when he recently purchased it. In speaking before the Council, Mr. Sohaei stated that he was told six weeks ago by the Planning Depart- ment that the property was zoned C-4. He released money to close escrow and purchase the property. On last Fri- day, he attempted to purchase a second parcel in the area, and the Planning Department then notified him of the General Plan Revision in process. He stated he would not have purchased the first parcel, had he previously been advised that the zoning was subject to change. . Ann Siracusa answered questions regarding the pro- perty, stating that the property is designated RU. She stated that one way to change it would be to designate CG around the San Bernardino City Unified School District building and Sturges Auditorium and bring it down to this property. She stated that the designation would take a lot of single family housing with it and the Council could grandfather this parcel. 24 5/23/88 . The Mayor and Common Council discussed the recycling of that residential area and their inability to recommend changing the zoning designation at Eighth and "F" Streets to residential. AREA 7 - NORTON - CONTINUED FROM EARLIER IN MEETING - SEE PAGE 9 Staff Recommendation 7, dated May 20, 1988 The frontage on the north side of Mill Street, east of the frontage on Waterman Avenue to the Commercial Office, should be designated Commercial Heavy. The Mayor of designation trial. and Common Council did not make any change for this area, leaving it Light Indus- Staff Recommendation 4, dated May 20, 1988 The frontage on the south side of Mill Street, east of the frontage on Waterman Avenue to the PF, should be designated Commercial Heavy. The Mayor and Common of designation for this trial. Council did not make any change area, leaving it Light Indus- . Staff Recommendation 5, dated The County Coroner's Office Rialto Avenue, east of Lena Road, read Public Facilities. May 20, 1988 on the south side should be corrected of to Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Reilly and unanimously carried, that the correction be made to designate the County Coroner's Office on the south side of Rialto Avenue, east of Lena Road, as Public Facilities. AREA 8 - NORTH CENTRAL SAN BERNARDINO The boundaries for Area 8, North Central San Ber- nardino, are as follows: North: Parkdale Avenue to Twin Creek Wash to SR 30 to Victoria Avenue Base Line Street Victoria Avenue 1-215 Freeway South: East: West: . Staff Recommendation 6, dated May 20, 1988 The property south of Ninth Street, between Waterman Avenue and the Warm Creek Flood Control Channel, owned by the University of Redlands, should be designated Commer- cial General. 25 5/23/88 . The Council concurred with the Commercial General designation. Staff Recommendation 7, dated May 20, 1988 The area behind the frontages of Baseline and High- land Avenues, and between Waterman and "E" Street, should be designated RS. Ann Siracusa answered questions, stating that this is the area that is going to have a detailed study. The Council concurred with the RS designation. AREA 9 - HIGHLAND The boundaries for Area 9, the Highland area, are as follows: North: South: East: West: City boundary City boundary City boundary Victoria Avenue . Staff Recommendation 8, dated May 20, 1988 The area along Highland Avenue, from Orange on the north and from Central on the south, going east of the extension of La praix, should be changed from Mixed Use Commercial General along the frontage, with Medium Den- sity Residential behind. Counc i 1 Member Flores made a motion, seconded by Council Member Estrada and unanimously carried, that the area along Highland Avenue, from Orange Street on the north and from Central Avenue on the south, going east of the extension of La praix, be changed from Mixed Use to Commercial General along the frontage with Medium Density Residential behind. AREA 11 - UNIVERSITY AREA - CONTINUED FROM EARLIER IN MEETING - SEE PAGE 11 Vince Bautista, Principal Planner, provided a re- vised map of the Shandin Hills area, and described the area on Little Mountain Drive behind Shandin Hills Inter- mediate School, which is designated RM, Residential Medium. This property is owned by Block Bros., as dis- cussed during a previous meeting. He described the corner of University Parkway and the 1-215 Freeway, which was labeled CG on the opposite side of an area already designated CN. . 26 5/23/88 . He also pointed out property on Kendall Drive, next to the Stater Bros. CN designation, and immediately west, which is designated RH at 36 units an acre. This was also the Planning Commission's recommendation. He requested clarification as to whether these designations were the the Council's intent for the area. Ann Siracusa answered questions regarding the Shan- din Hills area. The areas shown on the revised map are owned by a single owner. She recommended that regardless of what designation had been given to this area during previous meetings, that the revised map should be review- ed and any desired changes be made. Discussion ensued regarding tract numbers having been used during the presentation by Block Bros. Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Miller and unanimously carried, that the sliver of land south of the parcel designated RH on Ken- dall Drive, between the PF and CN designations, be desig- nated RU, instead of RH, as requested by the developer. . The Council discussed the Planning Commission having recommended designation property. that this property gives a top of nine be zoned RH. uni ts per acre The to RU the Ann Siracusa answered questions regarding the zoning designations on the north side of Kendall Drive. COUNCIL MEMBER MILLER EXCUSED Council Member Miller left the meeting. Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Reilly and unanimously carried, that the area south of Kendall Drive, across from Shand in Hills Jr. High School, remain as designated RL and RE on the Alternative E Map. Ann Siracusa stated that the RE area designated on the Planning Commission's recommendation is at one unit per acre due to the steepness of the slope. COUNCIL MEMBER MILLER RETURNED Council Member Miller returned to the Council Meet- ing and took her place at the Council Table. . 27 5/23/88 . HILLSIDE MANAGEMENT DENSITIES FOR THE INTERIM PERIOD In a memorandum dated May 23, 1988, Woody Tescher, consul tant from Env icom Corpora tion, summar i zed i nfor- mation and considerations of the Mayor and Common Coun- cil, and provided charts and graphics concerning the Hillside Management designation. Ann Siracusa, Planning Director, described the com- promise recommendation formulated by staff and Envicom for density allowance per gross acre by slope category as stated in Attachment "A" of Mr. Tescher' s memorandum dated May 23, 1988. She stated that this recommended cap would provide adequate protection during the interim period and still allow developers to go forward with a reasonable yield. Woody Tescher answered questions, stating that the Council can decide on a threshold for prohibiting build- ing after a certain slope limit. Discussion ensued comparing the recommended densi ty allowance per gross area by slope category with that of other cities and the County of San Bernardino. . Ann Siracusa answered questions, stating that details of a proposed development, such as the infra- structure costs, will be in the Specific Plan from the developer. Env ironmen ta 1 reconna i ssance would be pre- pared first, then the developer will prepare a Specific Plan. Council Member Maudsley made a motion, seconded by Council Member Miller, that the recommended density allowance per gross acre by slope category be accepted, as follows: Slope Units Per Gross Acre 0-15% 15-20% 20-25% 25-30% 30-40+% 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.10 The motion Council Members Noes: Counc i 1 None. carried Estrada, Members by the following vote: Flores, Maudsley, Minor, Reilly, Pope-Ludlam. Ayes: Miller. Absent: . 28 5/23/88 . INTERIM IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES The General Implementation policies listed as Item IV on Page 10 of the Draft Interim POlicy Document, are intended to establish the manner in which the map and development policies will be interpreted and implemented during the interim prior to the adoption of the General Plan. Each item was discussed individually and the fol- lowing described changes were made. Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Reilly and unanimously carried, that Item IV(l) of the Draft Interim Policy Document, be changed to read: "Changes and clarifications to the Interim POlicy Document may be approved by the State Office of Planning and Research upon request of the Mayor and Common Coun- cil.1I Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Miller and unanimously carried, that Item IV(7), of the Draft Interim Policy Document, concerning proposed development in a redevelopment project area, be deleted. . Council Member Reilly made a motion, seconded by Council Member Maudsley and unanimously carried, that Item IV(15) of the Draft Interim Policy Document, regard- ing annexations, be deleted. COUNCIL MEMBER MILLER EXCUSED Council Member Miller left the Council Meeting. Counc i 1 Member Counc il Member Minor following sections of Document be approved: ed - See Page 32) Estrada made a motion, seconded by and unanimously carried, that the Item IV of the Draft Interim Policy (Item IV(12) was later reconsider- 2. All development which occurs shall be consistent with the Interim POlicy Document and this document shall take precedence over all parts of the Zoning Ordinance, adopted resolutions, policies and procedure which are NOT consistent with the Interim Policy document. . 3. All proposed development shall be consistent with the December, 1983, Foothill Communities Protective "Greenbelt" Program and meet the standards adopted in the November, 1986, Verdemont Area Plan if such development is within Foothill Fire Zones "A", "B" or "c" as defined in that document. 29 5/23/88 I . 4. All proposed development in whole or in part within areas of liquefaction hazard, as identified on the most recently available maps of the U.S. Geological Sur- vey File Report No. 86-563, Map 1 of 5; Map 4 of 5, San Jacinto Fault; Map 3 of 5, San Andreas Fault; Map 5 of 5, Rancho Cucamonga Fault; all as further amplified in Open File Report No. 86-169 entitled "Liquefaction Suscepti- bility in the San Bernardino Valley and Vicinity" shall comply with the requirements of City Resolution 82-345 and the applicant shall prepare and submit to the City a liquefaction report for the specific project si te pre- pared by a qualified professional. 5. For all proposed development in whole or in part within the Alquist-Priolo Special Study zones, the appli- cant shall prepare and submit to the City a geology report for the specific project site prepared by a quali- fied professional. 6. All proposed development shall be consistent with existing Airport Districts, Chapter 19.64 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code. . 8. There shall be no amendments to existing rede- velopment plans pursuant to Communi ty Redevelopment Law or the creation of new redevelopment project areas. 9. There shall be no General Plan amendments, other than those required to permit implementation of the Hill- side Management and Floodplain Management Land Use Desig- nations or the Development Policy III C./Z and no amend- ments to specific plans adopted prior to April 22, 1988. 10. projects Doc umen t All Ci ty publ ic works and shall be consistent with and subject to environmental capital improvement the Interim Policy review. 11. Existing uses which do visions of the Interim POlicy expanded. not conform to the pro- Document shall not be 12. Notwithstanding Zoning Ordinance requirements, industrial projects which have a gross floor area of 6:<1,000 square feet (Later reconsidered - See Page 32), and which are within 500 (five hundred) feet or less from any residential land use designation as shown on the Preferred Land Use Alternative, shall require approval of a Conditional Use Permit. All measurements are taken from the periphery of the parcel upon which the project . 30 5/23/88 r . is to be developed, or in the case where the project does not utilize the entire parcel, the measurement shall be taken from the periphery of the project area, including all buildings, parking, landscaping, setbacks, and other features of the project. 13. Notwithstanding Zoning Ordinance requirements, commercial projects which have a gross floor area of 35,000 square feet or more and which are to be located within 500 (five hundred) feet or less from a residential land use designation as shown on the Preferred Land Use Alternative, shall require approval of a Conditional Use Permit. All measurements for are taken from the peri- phery of the parcel upon which the project is to be developed, or in the case where the project does not utilize the entire parcel, the measurement shall be taken from the periphery of the project area, including all buildings, parking, landscaping, setbacks and other features of the project. 14. exclusive feet. The minimum lot size in small lot subdivisions, of common open space, shall be 5,000 square . 16. Extensions of active projects shall be proces- sed pursuant to applicable sections of the San Bernardino City Municipal Code if consistent with the Interim Policy Document. 17. When the Main Street Design Guidelines are adopted by the Mayor and Common Council, all development in the Main Street project area shall be consistent with those Design Guidelines. 18. The Moratorium Exemption Committee established by the January 14, 1988, letter from the Office of Plan- ning and Research, shall be eliminated. 19. The November, 1986, area defined by development standards contained in Verdemont Area Plan shall apply to that plan. the the COUNCIL MEMBER MILLER RETURNED Council Member Miller returned to the Council Meet- ing and took her place at the Council Table. COUNCIL MEMBER POPE-LUDLAM EXCUSED Council Member Pope-Ludlam left the Council Meeting. . 31 5/23/88 . RECESS MEETING At 5:45 p.m., the meeting recessed for a short break. RECONVENE MEETING At 6:00 p.m., Mayor wilcox called the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Common Council to order in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. ROLL CALL Roll Call was taken wi th the following being pre- sent: Mayor Wilcox; Council Members Reilly, Estrada, Flores, Maudsley, Minor, Miller; City Attorney Penman, City Clerk Clark, Acting City Administrator Robbins. Absent: Council Member Pope-Ludlam. Jim Richardson, Deputy City Administrator, pointed out that there are projects in progress that would be affected by Item IV(12), which requires projects with 60,000 square feet or more to have a Conditional Use Permit and answered questions of the Council. . Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Reilly, that Item IV(12) of the Draft Interim Policy Document, regarding industrial projects which have a gross floor area of 60,000 square feet or more, be reconsidered. (See Page 29) The motion carried by the Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Noes: Council Member Maudsley. Pope-Ludlam. following vote: Ayes: Flores, Minor, Miller. Absent: Council Member The Council the requirement trial projects square feet. discussed the ramifications of approving of a Condi t ional Use permi t for i ndus- having a gross floor space of 60,000+ Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Reilly, that Item IV (12) of the Draft Interim Policy Document, requiring approval of a Condi- tional Use Permit for industrial projects having a gross floor area of 60,000 square feet, be modified to concern industrial projects having a gross floor area of 70,000+ square feet. . The mot i on Counc il Members Council Members Pope-Ludlam. carried Estrada, Maudsley, by the Reilly, Minor. following vote: Flores, Miller. Absent: Council Ayes: Noes: Member 32 5/23/88 . DESCRIPTION OF LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND BUILDING INTENSITIES - EXHIBIT "B" Exhibit "B" of the Draft Interim POlicy Document dated May 18, 1988, is a chart entitled "Description of Land Use Designations and Building Intensities". The chart provides information regarding permitted uses for land use categories and codes, and residential densities and commercial/industrial FARs. Ann Siracusa, Planning Director, spoke regarding the number of allowable units per acre for each density. IMPLEMENTATION OF LAND USE DESIGNATIONS On Page 13 of the Draft Interim Policy Document, dated May 18, 1988, the implementation of land use desig- nations is described as being needed in order to make land use decisions during the period of time preceding the adoption of the General Plan. The City proposes to use the Preferred Land Use Alternative Map and the fol- lowing policies. These policies establish how develop- ment will be permitted within the land use designations on the map, as well as spelling out the general rules for applying zoning. A chart is attached for a comparison of land use designations to existing zoning districts. . Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Reilly and unanimously carried, that the following items listed under Implementation of Land Use Designations be approved: 22. If an existing zone district is deemed herein as compatible with a land use designation, the correct zoning wi 11 be requi red on a parcel of land in order to process a development project. 23. Applications for changes of district deemed compatible herein with designation on the map, shall be accepted zone to a zone the land use and processed. 24. All of the uses permitted in a zone district, which are deemed compatible with a land use designation, shall be permitted within the area of that land use designation UNLESS otherwise specifically prohibited. . 25. All the standards of the existing zone dis- trict(s) deemed compatible with the land use designation shall apply to development within the zone district UNLESS otherwise specified. In all cases, the densities and minimum parcel sizes established by the Interim pOlicy Document shall take precedence over densities and parcel sizes provided for in the existing zone district. 33 5/23/88 . Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Miller and unanimously carried, that the following two items listed under Implementation of Land Use Designations, be amended: 35. Delete the second paragraph which states: "M-1A uses will be permitted in the CO (Commercial Office) land use designation ONLY in the Commercenter and Tri-City CO areas.1I 39. Delete "adult businesses" as being permitted in CH land use designation. Council Member Reilly made a motion, seconded by Council Member Miller and unanimously carried, that Item 41 listed under Implementation of Land Use Designations be amended to insert after (Commercial Manufacturing Dis- trict) the words "(on site sales of manufactured goods shall be ancillary to the light industrial use)". Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Miller and unanimously carried, that the following items listed under Implementation of Land Use Designations be approved: . 42. Within the IH (Industrial Heavy) land use designation, the necessary and compatible zone districts for development are the M-l (Light Industrial District), M-1A (Limited Light Industrial) and M-2 (General Indus- trial District). 43. Wi thin the IE (Industrial Extractive) land use designation, extractive uses and temporary uses may be permitted subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit consistent with the State Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. 44. The land use designated of existing public facilities shall be PF (Public Facilities). New pUblic facilities may be permitted in any zone district or land use designation subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. 45. The land use designation of existing public parks shall be PP (Public Parks). Expansions of facili- ties and improvements within existing public parks and new public parks may be permitted in any zone district or land use designation subject to the approval of a Con- ditional Use Permit. . 34 5/23/88 . 46. within the PFC (Public Flood Control) land use designa tion, the necessary and compa ti ble zone d i str ict for development is 0 (Open District). Development may be permitted in the 0 (Open District) subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. 47. The land use designation of existing public commercial recreation facilities shall be PCR (Publici Commercial Recreation). Expansion of existing and new commercial recreation uses may be permitted in any zone district or land use designation subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Council Member Reilly made a motion, seconded by Council Member Miller and unanimously carried, that Item 48 listed under Implementation of Land Use Designations concerning flood plain management, be deleted. Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Reilly and unanimously carried, that Item 49 (h) listed under Implementation of Land Use Designa- tions concerning Hillside Management, be amended to read as follows: . 49 (h) . One single-family residence may be con- structed on a legal lot of record which existed prior to April 22, 1988, without being subject to the requirement for a Specific Plan. Item 49 reads as follows: 49. Within the MH designation, development lowing: (Hillside Management) may occur subject of land use the fol- a. A Specific Plan shall be prepared, pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65450-65457 by the applicant, based on an environmental reconnaissance and scope of work prepared by a consultant hired by the city and paid for by the applicant. The Specific Plan shall be sufficiently detailed to describe the nature, inten- sity and distribution of land uses proposed; the phasing of development, the phasing, timing, and financing of infrastructure improvemen ts; responsi b i 1 i ty for develop- ment of infrastructure, common fac i 1 i ties, etc. and any other details to be determined by the City. . 35 5/23/88 . b. An Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared by a consultant hired by the City and paid for by the applicant, which shall address the environmental impacts on the subject property and on any other properties affected by the project, including up and downstream impacts, and shall propose adequate mitigation measures. c. Such Specific Plan shall be adopted by the City by ordinance. d. The overall densities and intensities and types of uses proposed shall be cons i stent wi th the Inter im Policy Document. e. The maximum yield of development shall be estab- lished on the basis of slope density formula in the In- terim Policy Document. However, the maximum yield of development computed with the slope density formula is not guaranteed and may be reduced due to specific si te constraints. . f. If any part of the subject parcel has a natural grade of 15% (fifteen per cent) or greater, the entire parcel shall be included in the Foothill Management Land Use designation and shall be subject to the requirement for a Specific Plan. g. If any parcel or part of a parcel is substan- tially surrounded by natural grades of 15% (fifteen per cent) or greater, the entire parcel shall be subject to the Specific Plan requirement. h. The single-family residence may be constructed on a legal lot of record which existed prior to April 22, 1988, without being subject to the requirement for a Specific Plan. (Amended later - See Page 40) i. No grading permits shall be issued within the MH (Hillside Management) land use designation prior to the adoption of a Specific Plan. j. Development wi thin the Highland Hills Specific Plan area shall be subject to environmental review pur- suant to the CEQA because of the length of time which has passed since the adoption of the plan and certification of the EIR and because of changes to the project. (De- leted at subsequent meeting - 6/6/88) . 36 5/23/88 . LAND USE ALTERNATIVES - TRANSLATIONS AND DEFINITIONS The Council returned to their discussion on Items 26 through 41 in the Interim Policy Document, which pertain to the uses permitted in the new land use designations. These items translate old zoning classifications to the new land use designations. Planning Director Siracusa recommended that the land use designations for residential uses be defined by lot size. Range can be indicated in both net and gross, and as long as it is defined by minimum lot size, the yield will be equivalent. The Council discussed how this recommendation would affect densities. After lengthy discussion, Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Maudsley and unani- mously carried, that the definitions of the land use designations set forth as Items 26 through 41 in the Interim Policy Document, designating not only the lot size but the densities, remain as they are. . Helen Kopcynski, 8150 N. Cable Canyon Road, a member of the General Plan Revision Citizens Advisory Committee, stated that the land use designation definitions were never discussed by the CAC. The Planning Director stated the designations were always presented as net acres to the CAC and to the Plan- ning Commission. GRANDFATHER PROVISIONS OF INTERIM POLICY DOCUMENT The Planning Department presented a recommendation listed as Item 20 in the Interim Policy Document to grandfather certain types of applications in effect prior to April 22, 1988. City Attorney Penman recommended that projects that were held up during the moratorium and their Conditional Use Permits expired during the moratorium, but which are consistent with the new designations and they do not have to be changed, be grandfathered in. He explained that a cogent argument would be made and legally supported that the purpose of the moratorium was to stop those projects that would have been inconsistent with the new desig- nations. . 37 5/23/88 . He stated that even if the project expired during the moratorium and if their Conditional Use Permit is one tha t can be bui 1 t out now, why make them go back and start over again. What OPR seemed to be concerned about was grandfathering in projects of a different use that would be inconsistent with the interim land use designa- tions. Members of the Council expressed concern with for- mulating a grandfather policy which will have a major impact on pending development, without more time to assess that impact and the policy recommended by the City Attorney and/or Planning Department. The Council discussed the level of approval for grandfathering. Does the project just have to conform to the land use designations as set forth on the map, or must the project conform totally to the new standards of development and other policies set forth in the Interim Policy Document? The Planning Director urged total compliance with everything adopted in the Interim pOlicy Document. . After considerable discussion on the issue, Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Flores, that all Conditional Use Permits, subdivision maps and review of plans approved and/or expired, but held up during the moratorium, be given a time extension commensurate with the amount of time the project was suspended by the moratorium, as long as the project is consistent with the land use designations on the map and Items 26 through 49 as amended of the Interim Policy Document. In the case of MU designations consistent with the uses permitted in the MU as set forth in Part III, C, 1 (Development policies for MU). If a project in process has not received approval, but meets the land use desig- nation and every requirement adopted within the Interim Policy Document, the project will be allowed to continue processing. The motion carried by the Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Noes: Council Member Maudsley. Pope-Ludlam. fOllowing vote: Ayes: Flores, Minor, Miller. Absent: Council Member City Attorney Penman explained the recommendation of the City Attorney's office that Item 20 of the Interim Policy Document not be included in the document. . 38 5/23/88 . The Planning Director stated that at this time she could not give an exact number of projects that would be inconsistent with what is being adopted. Probably most of the tracts south of the line that were approved and good for two years would be consistent. However, those north of the line which would have been approved two years ago, now would not be consistent and would have to refile. Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Flores and unanimously carried, that Item 20, the grandfather policy, be deleted from the Interim Policy Document and be replaced with the above action. Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Minor and unanimously carried, that Item 21, which enumerates the types of applications and development projects that are deemed "dead" and not allowed to develop, also be deleted from the Interim Pol icy Document, based upon the adoption of the above grandfather policy. . VERDEMONT MINIMUM LOT SIZES - 10,800 SQ. FT. - RECONSIDERATION OF PREVIOUS MOTION Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Maudsley and unanimously carried, to re- consider the motion which gave an RL designation to the Verdemont Area surrounded by Little League Drive on the west, Devil's Canyon Creek on the east, the alignment of Cable Canyon Creek Flood Control Channel on the south and the National Forest to the north. (See Page 17) Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Miller and unanimously carried, that the area bounded by Little League Drive on the west, Devil's Canyon on the east, the alignment of Cable Canyon Creek Flood Control Channel on the south and the National Forest boundary on the north, be designated RS-10,800, except those existing legal lots of record. HILLSIDE MANAGEMENT - ITEM 4, PAGE 7 - INTERIM POLICY DOCUMENT Council Member Reilly made a motion, seconded by Council Member Estrada and unanimously carried, that Item 4 on Page 7 and Item 20 on Page 9, of the Interim Policy Document, be amended to read as follows: 4. All development in the MH, Hillside Management areas, must occur as part of a Specific Plan, except as noted in Item 49(h). . 39 5/23/88 . 213. Existing residential structures along Waterman within area designated CO, Commercial Office, shall not be permitted to convert to office uses. Only new office structures shall be permitted. SOUTHWEST BENCH AND MT. VERNON AREAS _ MI XED USE It was noted for the record that the MU Southwest Bench area was to include CH as well as and CG set forth in the Interim Policy Document. in the the IL The Planning Director also pointed out that the document would also have to be amended to reflect the changes made by Council in the MU in the Mt. Vernon, Base Line and Highland corridors, and that Planning staff would make the necessary corrections. HILLSIDE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION - PAGE 19, ITEM The City Attorney recommended an amendment on 19, Item H, within the Hillside Management land designation. H Page use . Pursuant to the recommendation of the City Attorney, Council Member Reilly made a motion, seconded by Council Member Flores and unanimously carried, that Item H, Page 19, be amended to read as follows: "49 (h) . One single-family residence may be con- structed on a legal lot of record which existed prior to April 22, 1988, without being subject to the requirement for a Specific Plan; further, any parcel remaining in excess of one acre that is the result of a public acqui- sition, will be permitted to construct one single-family residence." COMMERCIAL HEALTH CARE DESIGNATION - COMMUNITY HOSPITAL City Attorney Penman spoke regarding the previous discussions on the CHC designation near Community Hos- pital. He recommended an amendment to clarify this designation. Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Flores and unanimously carried, to clarify the uses permitted in the CHC, Item 37, Page 16, as fol- lows: . "Uses permitted in the CHC include hospitals, medi- cal offices, and medically related commercial including restaurants. Convalescent homes and senior housing facilities are permitted by Conditional Use Permit. Fast- foot and drive-throughs are prohibited." 413 5/23/88 . INTERIM POLICY DOCUMENT - APPROVAL AS AMENDED Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Miller and unanimously carried, that the Interim Policy Document be approved as amended. RES. 88-162 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO SUPPORTING THE REQUEST TO THE STATE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH FOR A TIME EXTENSION TO COMPLETE THE GENERAL PLAN. City Clerk Clark read the title of the resolution. Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Miller and unanimously carried, that fur- ther reading of the resolution be waived, and that said resolution be adopted. Resol ution No. 88-162 was vote: Ayes: Counc il Members Maudsley, Minor, Miller. Noes: Member Pope-Ludlam. adopted by the following Estrada, Reilly, Flores, None. Absent: Council . ADJOURN MEETING The meeting adjourned to 10:00 a.m., May 31, 1988, in the Management Information Center (MIC Room), Sixth Floor, Ci ty Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernard ino, California. ~#1t?/4'~ /' City Clerk No. of hours: lO~ No. of items: 4 . 41 5/23/88