Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-08-2005 MinutesMayor Judith Valles Council Members: CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO Esther Estrada 300 N. "D "Street Susan Longvilte San Bernardino, CA 92418 Gordon McGinnis Neil Derry Website: www.sbcity.org Chas Kelley Rikke Van Johnson Wendy McCammack MINUTES JOINT ADJOURNED MEETING MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MONDAY, AUGUST 8, 2005 - 5:00 P.M. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARDROOM 201 NORTH E STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA This is the time and place designated for a joint adjourned meeting of the Mayor and Common Council and the Planning Commission of the City of San Bernardino from the joint regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council, Community Development Commission, and San Bernardino City Housing Authority held at 1:30 p.m., Monday, August 1, 2005, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. The City Clerk has caused to be posted the order of adjournment of said meeting held on Monday, August 1, 2005, and has on file in the office of the City Clerk an affidavit of said posting together with a copy of said order which was posted at 11:30 a.m., Tuesday, August 2, 2005, in a conspicuous place on the bulletin board of the place at which said meeting was held. Call to Order At 5:06 p.m., the joint adjourned meeting of the Mayor and Common Council and Planning Commission of the City of San Bernardino was called to order by Mayor Valles in the Economic Development Agency Boardroom, 201 North "E" Street, San Bernardino, California. Roll Call - Mayor and Common Council Roll call was taken by City Clerk Clark with the following being present: Mayor Valles; Council Members Longville, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack; Senior Assistant City Attorney Milligan, Deputy City Attorney Empeiio, City Clerk Clark, 1 08/08/2005 Assistant to the City Administrator Sassoon. Absent: Council Members Estrada, McGinnis. Roll Call - Planning Commission Roll call was taken by City Clerk Clark with the following being present: Commissioners Powell, Coute, Heasley, Sauerbrun, Durr, Morris. Absent: Commissioners Enciso, Brown. Planning Commissioner Brown Arrived At 5:17 p.m., Planning Commissioner Brown arrived at the Council/Commission meeting. Council Member Estrada Arrived At 5:28 p.m., Council Member Estrada arrived at the Council/Commission meeting. 1. Joint Workshop - General Plan Update Program Terry Rahal, Principal Planner, stated that tonight's meeting would cover a review of the scope of the General Plan Update, the components of the project that are analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report, the current status of the Environmental Review, and what the next steps are relative to adoption of the General Plan. Ms. Rahal provided a PowerPoint review of the General Plan ("Plan") update. She stated that the components of the update included a comprehensive update of the existing City General Plan, in addition to two Specific Plans coming forward for adoption —the University District Specific Plan, which is primarily a design element for the area surrounding Cal -State San Bernardino, and the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, which is a complete land use plan with a full set of regulations for development of that project, which is proposed for annexation to the City. She noted that the last update to the Plan was done in 1989; and the purpose of this General Plan update was to bring the Plan up-to-date in conformance with current requirements and laws. She advised that the General Plan is not as focused as it needs to be; however, it is not in need of large scale change. She noted that the Plan is not supposed to be a regulatory or straightjacket -type document. According to Ms. Rahal, the General Plan Update is a tool for attacking key issues, a means of capturing new opportunities, a device for bringing people together, and a practical way to achieve a vision. Ms. Rahal advised that in the beginning of the Plan update, a lot of time was spent evaluating the existing General Plan and doing outreach to the community to identify the issues that are of concern to the community and the opportunities that ought to be pursued in the future. She stated that community stakeholders 2 08/08/2005 were consulted to establish a vision statement that staff then used to be the guide for policy revisions or additions to the General Plan. She noted that the community outreach efforts included input from all sectors of the community — residents, businesses, Cal -State, interviews with Council members, etc. Ms. Rahal provided a review of the General Plan Elements and the General Plan Land Use Map, including the Strategic Areas of the Plan, and provided information on the University District Specific Plan and the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan. Council Member McCammack asked for larger maps that show the names of the city streets more clearly. Valerie Ross, City Planner/Deputy Director of Development Services, stated that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies to all projects —it defines the project —and almost every land use -related matter is a project under CEQA. She stated that CEQA is an information process and requires the City to consider the consequences before approving a project or, as in this case, before adopting the General Plan. Ms. Ross advised that the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluates potential impacts of three projects: 1) the General Plan Update, 2) the University Specific Plan, and 3) the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan. She stated that the document distributed as backup is a Program EIR, which is conceptual in nature and based on growth assumptions. She noted that according to a review of development activities in the City of San Bernardino, residential generally builds out at 85 percent of what is permitted under the General Plan, commercial at 60 percent, and industrial at 70 percent. She stated that for the life of this Plan, staff does not expect that to change. Ms. Ross noted that in the DEIR each issue/concern was evaluated for potential impacts and measured against existing policies and procedures, existing regulations and standard conditions, and mitigation measures. She reviewed several impacts to the General Plan and the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan (the University Specific Plan does not address land use changes), noting what the concerns were, whether or not they could be mitigated, and whether or not there would be significant adverse impacts. Ms. Ross advised that we are currently in the middle of a 45-day EIR comment period that ends on September 8; that tonight they were holding the joint workshop; and then, while the process is continuing, she and Ms. Rahal will continue to spend time on the Quality Review and Editing. 3 08/08/2005 She stated that the next steps will be responding to comments on the DEIR, preparation of the Final EIR, and adoption hearing(s) for the General Plan and associated Specific Plans. Mayor Valles indicated that this meeting was a general overview; however, if anyone wanted clarification of anything, today would be the day to clarify it. She stated that if anyone had very specific questions, it would be helpful if they asked the question and then also put it in writing. She stated that it was her understanding that all questions would be responded to. Ms. Rahal noted that the Council members and Planning commissioners were welcome to send comments at any time and staff would respond right back to them —that it did not necessarily have to be a formal comment to be responded to. Discussion ensued regarding some of the major corridors throughout the city. Ms. Ross pointed out that the Mt. Vernon, Baseline, E Street, and Highland corridors had been identified as strategic areas, and these were areas where staff wanted to focus attention. She stated that these corridors either need some help with development/redevelopment, or they are ripe for development; and staff is proposing that on the major corridors, the City allow some mixed use concepts. She noted that the City of San Bernardino, like every other city in Southern California, has too much area dedicated for commercial, resulting in vacant commercial areas, but this time staff is proposing more live/work and mixed use opportunities. Council Member McCammack stated that she was hoping to see something more about what the vision was to give these aging corridors a shot in the arm, and other than one comment about CDBG funds for fagade improvements, she really didn't see anything. Mayor Valles explained that the corridors that were identified —Mt. Vernon, Baseline, Highland, E Street —were opportunity areas, and as yet there were no specific plans for these corridors. Council Member Longville pointed out that as land use designations, they have been called opportunity areas; however, we won't be able to do anything in them because we don't have any development codes that make it possible to do anything. She stated that they are really just colors on a map, and they will remain colors on a map until we do something with the Development Code. Planning Commissioner Morris stated that his primary concern in the Draft EIR was with staffs conclusion that relative to circulation, we are able to mitigate less than significant traffic impacts of the various changes to the General Plan. He stated that it sounds like staffs conclusion relies upon a full host of various 4 08/08/2005 improvements to the freeways within the City —the I-10, 215, and 30—which arguably are not exclusively within our jurisdiction to control. City Planner Ross advised that the improvements listed are no secret to anyone; they are what staff has been working on for some time. She stated that related to this, somewhat, is the NEXUS Study —that through the NEXUS Study we will get away from the requirement for having to do a Traffic Impact Analysis under the Congestion Management Plan —that through the NEXUS Study it will determine how we will determine fair share and how we will collect fair share to go towards the specified improvements instead of collecting a Traffic Systems Fee. According to Ms. Ross, San Bernardino's Traffic Fee is the lowest anywhere, but we will be looking at our fee, collecting the fee, and putting that fee into accounts. On the HUB Project, for example, we collected a lot on that one, but money we collect on the HUB project would be used in the area where the HUB Project is creating impacts, which is not only San Bernardino, but Loma Linda and Colton. Mr. Morris expounded on Ms. Ross' comments, noting that our ability to mitigate our fair share fees is dependent upon our collection of the appropriate amount to fund our fair share of the reasonable improvements. Additionally, everybody else's collection of that is going into the fund, and if somebody has done the books right, it calculates what the cost will be when we go to build the improvements in 5-10 years. Mr. Morris stated that it just seems like the big elephant in the room is to get all of these improvements that we say we need to construct and mitigate. He admitted that maybe this document is not intended to address how we get the funds to build, it just identifies what the specific improvements will be. Ms. Rahal concurred, stating that this is because a lot of it is outside our jurisdiction and has to be funded cooperatively, but our participation in this program and showing that good faith effort is our mitigation. Ms. Ross noted that one of the good things about an EIR instead of a TIA is you don't have to address fair share —you just have to identify what needs to be done. Council Member McCammack noted that we first started talking about this document three years ago; therefore, through no fault of anyone, it contains a lot of outdated information and data. Therefore, she questioned whether we are using all the new data that we now know when we are talking about such specifics as Circulation and the 85 percent residential build -out. 5 08/08/2005 Director of Development Services James Funk pointed out that the models for the traffic are based on ultimate build -out, and ultimate build -out in this particular case assumes that a parcel that is vacant is going to be filled. He stated that staff found that their assumptions back in 1989 assumed too many trips were going to be generated from certain specific land uses. He added that this time staff is not assuming only 85 percent is going to be built out —they are assuming 100 percent as a more realistic number in terms of the intensity of development. Mr. Funk also advised that with regard to the corridors and the mixed use concepts, that he is working on an amendment to the Development Code that is going to the Design Review Committee on August 18, with presentation to the Council probably in September. He stated that this amendment to the Development Code would also require the same amendments to the General Plan, which would allow mixed use developments, both live/work and the traditional mixed use. According to Mr. Funk, the City has two developers that are doing two live/work projects in the city that are willing to be used as experiments. One of them is Watson and Associates with the Art Colony in the north end, which is single-family detached, more tech -park and art colony professional; and the other one is right here on Third Street with TransTech, who bought a piece of property and has twelve units in a more commercial setting with a park and field in front of it. He stated that these projects are going to be examples of what the code would allow that would be consistent with the new General Plan wherever you would have, for example, CG-2 development. He noted that staff was really specific in the design criteria in the Development Code, but not in the General Plan —so that helps. Council Member Longville agreed that it helps a great deal, but as long as staff is going to start the process now, she questioned whether it wouldn't be helpful to give those Development Code suggestions to the Council for their input so the Council doesn't get back something that is entirely staff driven that may not meet the actual needs, since this is something that has been critical to the development of some of the corridors. She stated that she was thrilled to hear that this was happening sooner than expected. Mr. Funk stated that he would be glad to meet with anyone interested in this matter. Ms. Longville suggested that staff send a draft of the proposal to the Mayor and Council for review, but that a meeting would not be necessary. Council Member Longville stated that she only had a chance to go through certain areas of the environmental analysis; however, the one area that she knows something about is land use as it relates to hydrology and drainage. She stated that although some mitigation measures were included relative to drainage, there are other mitigation measures that she thought would be very, 6 08/08/2005 very helpful for staff to include within this document. This information could then be given to our applicants when they are submitting a project, with the request that they explore inclusion of these mitigation measures into their designs. Council Member Kelley asked if he could obtain a copy of the NEXUS item that was submitted to SANBAG—that he wanted to verify that some of the things that he would like to be included are in there. Ms. Ross stated she would speak with Robert Eisenbeisz, Senior Civil Engineer, to determine what information to provide and how best to provide it. Council Member McCammack reiterated that there are things in the document that are just not factual anymore; for example, the CYSA South Soccer Foundation, which no longer exists. She questioned whether cleanup of the document language was going to happen. Mayor Valles acknowledged that there was some cleanup of the document that must be done —some corrections and so forth. Ms. Rahal advised the Council and the Commission members that if they see something that needs to be corrected, to please send a quick e-mail to staff. Discussion ensued regarding traffic/circulation issues relative to the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, as well as mitigation of traffic on the surrounding freeways through the use of parallel routes to the freeway through the city. Planning Commissioner Heasley inquired whether the impact mitigation is done post build -out, or as the building occurs, because we are in a situation right now where we have a higher rate of build -out than we have mitigation for the increased traffic loads. Ms. Ross advised that for the City, mitigation occurs with development; however, with the freeway improvements we have no control over the timing and all of the funding, so it always lags behind. Planning Commissioner Powell stated that it appears what we are trying to do is to make the General Plan very much a strategic document and remove the tactical items and move them to the Development Code; He stated that the Planning Commission has had discussions regarding some of their concerns with the Development Code, and he thought it would be helpful to have a review of the Development Code that could occur shortly after this, or in conjunction with this. He stated that probably the Development Code as a whole needs one big review in relationship to this document, since it is what will support this document. 7 08/08/2005 Mr. Funk agreed with Mr. Powell, stating that it was his hope, that while there might be some imperfections in the General Plan, the Council would adopt it and then direct staff to continue to refine it. He stated he could see things in the Plan that he would recommend tweaking, but he was hoping it could be adopted and then periodically amendments could be brought forward with regard to the text as well as the land use. He stated he would like to get a base for making additional amendments, and then also redirect staff to start working on some of the Development Code amendments that are a follow-on to the General Plan. He stated that staff is anxious to move forward with the Development Code, and in some respects they are not waiting; in fact, he felt the mixed use amendment might beat the General Plan through the process. Council Member Longville commented that the General Plan could not have been done without a consultant; and likewise, we will never be able to really update the Development Code unless we allocate the resources to do it. She stated that sales tax is going up and resources are coming in, and one of the most critical things that we have to do is to allocate the resources to get this thing done. She stressed the importance of getting to work on the Development Code, with the use of consultants, in order to get the job done and get it done fast, so that some of the horrible vacant corridors have a chance. Ms. Ross pointed out that the City still has over 100 major projects, and it is imperative that the General Plan is adopted; however, as soon as it is adopted, staff will start working on the Development Code. 2. Adjournment At 6:23 p.m., the meeting adjourned. The next joint regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council/Community Development Commission is scheduled for 1:30 p.m., Monday, August 15, 2005, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. No. of Items: 2 No. of Hours: 1.25 RACHEL G. CLARK City Clerk By: Linda E. Hartzel Deputy City Clerk 8 08/08/2005