Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-22-1989 Minutes . . . --------------,.-.;,. City of San Bernardino, California May 22, 1989 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 the Adjourned Regular Meeting held at 9:50 a.m., Saturday, May 20, 1989, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino, California. The City Clerk has caused to be posted the Order of Adjournment of said meeting held Saturday, May 20, 1989, and has on file in the Office of the City Clerk an affidavit of posting together with a copy of said Order which was posted at 4:30 p.m., Saturday, May 22, 1989, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino, California. The Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Council of the City of San Bernardino was called to Mayor Wilcox at 9:15 a.m., in the Council Chambers Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino, California. Common order by of City INVOCATION The Invocation was given by Phil Assistant to the Council. Arvizo, Executive PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council Member Reilly. ROLL CALL Roll Call was taken by Deputy City Clerk Reese with the following being present: Mayor Wilcox; Council Members Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Minor, Pope-Ludlam, Miller; Deputy City Attorney Empeno, Deputy City Clerk Reese, Acting City Administrator Robbins. Absent: Council Member Estrada. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. (Al GENERAL PLAN DELIBERATIONS - CIRCULATION ELEMENT This is the time and place set for General Plan deliberations regarding Chapter 2, 6.0 Circulation Element. (2al Deputy City Attorney Empeno answered questions regarding the pub~ic hearing. He stated that if the Council wishes only to reVLew a portion of the Circulation Element, he would suggest that a motion be made to revise whatever portion of the Chapter desired and open the public hearing for that portion only to reflect what is to be considered. Council Member Miller made a motion, seconded by Council Member Pope-Ludlam and unanimously carried, to re-open the - 1 - 5/22/89 . . public hearing on the Circulation Element relative to the proposed State Route 18, including discussion of Waterman Avenue Harrison Canyon Freeway; and including discussion on the circulation needs for Norton Air Force Base area. Mayor wilcox stated that she had received many letters and petitions from people who could not attend, and those documents would be included as part of the record. Larry Veres, 3184 N. Broadmoor, local businessman, educator and property owner, stated he wanted to discuss completion of the Master Plan. He stated he had been told by the Planning Department prior to purchasing his home, that Waterman was a temporary situation and it would be replaced at some future time with another type of roadway. He complained of noise pollution, severe vibrations from passing trucks, frequent accidents on Waterman and the danger when children try to cross Waterman. Jim Smothers, 4994 Mariposa, a lifetime resident and real estate appraiser, stated he felt Council Member Miller had a potential conflict of interest, as her daughter lives at 3356 Broadmoor, and although she has the right to speak, she should not vote on this matter. He stated he didn't think it is wise to improve one area by destroying another, and that is what would happen if the Harrison Canyon Freeway were constructed. . Mr. Smothers disastrous to the He cited several not needed. He foothill areas. stated that the proposed freeway would be 40th Street and Sierra Way shopping centers. studies that indicated that the freeway was also spoke against low cost housing in the Deputy City Attorney regarding the potential Member Miller. He stated in the same household or Mrs. Miller, then there is Empeno commented on the statement conflict of interest with Council that if her daughter did not reside provide the majority of support for no conflict of interest. Mrs. Miller stated that her residence is near the Harrison Freeway area and if she had any conflict, it would probably be against the freeway. She explained that she would not base a decision that benefits one area of her Ward at the expense of another until all the information had been heard. Clyde Brunson, 3889 Belle, expressed concern for the safety of the citizens that reside on or near Waterman Avenue or those who use the street. He stated there is no protection for pedestrians using the sidewalk on Waterman Avenue between 30th and 40th Street, and noted the 50 m.p.h. speed limit. He requested that the Mayor and Council retain the Harrison Freeway on the Master Plan and implement its construction. . - 2 - 5/22/89 . . . Elliott Barkan, 4703 David Way, stated the question is not of growth or no growth, but of quality growth. It was his feeling that the time had come for the Mayor and Council to bring vision into the City and improve the environment. City Attorney Penman explained that there had been unbridled growth in the City during the past years, and that many of the issues being considered at this time are a result of planning by previous administrations and Councils. He stated that the present Council is attempting to undo many things that had been done, and that it was not entirely fair to blame the present Council for previous decisions. purpose of the General Plan for quality growth and Mayor Wilcox commented that the meetings is to make decisions improvement. Nancy Sedlak, 3272 parkside Drive, stated that there are two schools on Waterman Avenue, Parks ide Elementary, and Golden Valley Middle School, and the noise and pollution from the traffic on Waterman created a learning and health hazard to school children. She felt that the 50 m.p.h. speed limit was too fast, and that traffic should be re-routed away from Waterman Avenue. Linda Campbell, principal at Parks ide Elementary School, agreed that the school is affected by noise pollution. She expressed concern for the children crossing Waterman Avenue every morning. She felt that the 50 m.p.h. speed limit is excessive. She stated that the proposal to widen the street to six lanes was totally incomprehensible. Paul Wine, 749 E. 39th Street, complained about the quality of life in the City and stated that the proposed Harrison Canyon Freeway would be a disaster, and an example of very poor planning. He was also opposed to high density housing in the foothill area. James Lynas, 1160 E. Sonora stated he was in support of the people on Waterman in fighting any increase in that artery. He was not in favor of the Harrison Canyon Freeway and suggested other alternatives be considered. He also spoke of proposed construction in the foothills that would result in much litigation. Dr. Harold Boring, Assistant Superintendent, Administrative Services, San Bernardino City Unified School District, stated that the Board of Education on May 16, 1989, discussed the widening of Waterman and took a position in opposition to this suggestion. They took no position on the Harrison Canyon Freeway. He explained capacity and some that Golden Valley School is always at its expansion will be necessary. Taking any of - 3 - 5/22/89 . . . ~ Waterman Avenue to widen the street would compound their problems. He also spoke of the problems of parents dropping off their children for school, and the difficulty of ingress and egress if Waterman were six lanes. He asked the Council's support in opposing any plan to expand Waterman Avenue. Roger Lintault, 3921 San Gabriel, stated he was pleased that the Mayor and Council were reviewing the decision of May 6, 1989, because it is an opportunity for them to address the future in a more comprehensive way. He stated that the review process should have been made fifteen years ago, and that traffic on Waterman Avenue should never have achieved the levels that it has. He requested that Council rescind its decision to develop Waterman Avenue, delete the Harrison Freeway and find a creative and better way to route traffic in this area. Jeff Bowlick, 295 E. 34th Street, representing some of the new residents_ in the Waterman area, stated he is against the Waterman proposal and in favor of the Master Plan Freeway. He explained that he had purchased his home with the understanding that a Master Plan was in effect for the Harrison Street Freeway. He stated that the traffic on Waterman Avenue creates noise, dirt and smog, and felt it was an unsafe situation. He urged the Council to deny the widening of Waterman Avenue. Thomas Sharp, 3484 Broadmoor, Right-of-Way Manager for San Bernardino County, spoke against the widening of Waterman Avenue, and explained that if it were widened, there would be no provisions for emergency situations or emergency parking. He referred to technical documents regarding the widening of Waterman Avenue, and felt that decisions should not be made on the basis of available criteria. Don Ricci, 3420 Broadmoor, stated he purchased a home in 1958 and was assured by the real estate firm that Waterman Avenue would not be extended because Sierra Way was then the route to the mountains. He stated that was changed and Waterman Avenue was widened. He felt that further widening of Waterman Avenue would cut into his property. He suggested that a ten foot wall be put up on both sides of Waterman Avenue to protect the owners from noise. John Traver, for the CAC, of individual. 4594 David Way, stated he was speaking first which he was a member, and secondly, as an He explained that for two years he represented the citizens of San Bernardino on the CAC and during that time, the widening of Waterman was not a topic of discussion. He stated that other alternatives were discussed, but none were taken into consideration for the General plan until it was directed to draw the dotted line for the Harrison Freeway. He stated only one developer had spoken for the Harrison Canyon Freeway. - 4 - 5/22/89 . . . Speaking as an individual, Mr. Traver stated that by putting the dotted line on the map, the worth of his home would decrease. He suggested that the Pepper-Linden route be used instead of either the Harrison Canyon Freeway or widening Waterman Avenue. Rev. John Franklin, 3515 Belle Street, Pastor of the Wesley Community Church, 30th Street and Waterman Avenue, explained that he and his wife had purchased their home two years ago and it was never mentioned that a freeway might be constructed in that area. He stated they moved into the neighborhood because of its affordability and security for their children. He felt that any further extension of Waterman Avenue would lower the quality of life in the area. He also stated that the noise and air pollution is disruptive to the congregation on Sunday mornings. Janice Hester, 3808 Parks ide Dr., a community planner, and speaking for area residents living in the area between Leroy and Parks ide and between the easterly Freeway 30 and 40th Street, stated these citizens felt that the Circulation Element to the City's General Plan should not have been adopted, and that any proposal that would increase traffic on Waterman Avenue should be deleted. She spoke of increased population in the mountains will make Waterman even more unsafe. She requested that Council delay any decision pending a detailed focused analysis of the circulation in the area. John Webster, 3544 Broadmoor, a resident for 17 years, stated he was told when he purchased his home, that Waterman Avenue's busy status was a temporary situation and that as soon as the City or State had sufficient funding to complete the Master Plan, Waterman would be returned to a normal street. He spoke of the danger to school children in the area, and the possibility of run-away trucks on the grade coming down from the mountains. He stated that the residents of this area ask the City to return Waterman to a City street, and that it not become a permanent freeway. Chet Anderson, 793 E. Bernard Way, expressed concern for the safety of the children crossing Waterman Avenue, and recommended that the Council take a positive stand toward making the area safe for those children. He suggested that the speed limit be reduced, that noise barriers be constructed, and adopt safety measures, such as consideration of one way traffic flow. He also had concerns about the quality of life which would be enhanced by maintaining more open space, in this case the Twin Creek Wash Area. However, as much as he wanted to preserve the open space areas, he did not want it done at the expense of the children's safety. Geula Barkan, 4704 David Way, recommended the City consider building the Pepper-Linden Freeway. - 5 - 5/22/89 . . . Mignon Schweitzer, 3394 Parkside, expressed concern about the children's safety because of the heavy traffic on Waterman, and the destruction of a very beautiful area of the City. Daniel Minkoff, 3916 San Gabriel, stated he was looking for something that would cause him to want to continue living in San Bernardino, but felt that there had not been quality growth in the City. He felt that the City should consider more important issues, such as feeding the homeless and building shelters. Sam Catalano, 3930 Broadmoor, adjacent to Waterman Avenue, stated he had been told at the time he purchased his home that traffic would decrease in from five to ten years, but instead, it has increased. He also made it clear that he opposed any high density development along the northern Harrison corridor. He stated that he thought a specific study on Waterman was needed now in order to reduce the traffic level, and that it should be incorporated into the General Plan. He suggested that the City plan ahead for twenty years into the future. LeRoy Smoot, 3195 Broadmoor Blvd., spoke in opposition to the widening of Waterman Avenue. He stated that the use of Waterman Avenue for traffic to Route 18 was intended to be temporary and it was anticipated that the Harrison Canyon Freeway would be constructed within ten or twelve years. Waterman would then become a local street again. He requested that the City ask Cal Trans to do an environmental impact study on the Harrison Canyon Freeway, and if that is not a viable route, then some other route should be studied. Jim Mulvihill, 697 Virginia Court, a member of the CAC, and an urban planner teaching at San Bernardino State University, stated he had assisted in the General Plan revision process. He explained that the topic of the Harrison Canyon Freeway came up very briefly in the CAC meeting. The Committee voted against it. The Waterman expansion was not discussed. It was his feeling that the expansion of Waterman Avenue is not needed. He recommended that the additional north/south traffic be carried by an extension of the Crosstown Freeway. He also recommended the expansion of the Pepper-Linden Freeway. Duane Sanders, 3927 San Gabriel, stated that the proposed Harrison Canyon Freeway would destroy the neighborhoods and lower the property values. He commented that the excessive speed on Waterman Avenue is a serious problem, and recommended that the City take some positive steps to support the Pepper-Linden Freeway and expand the Crosstown Freeway. Brian Burton, 296 E. 34th Street, stated he has been fined because the vibrations from the traffic on Waterman continuously knocks down his fence. He complained that Arrowhead Water trucks travel down Waterman Avenue every ten minutes and are a tremendous nuisance to the residents in the - 6 - 5/22/89 . . . .- ~ . area. He expressed opposition towards the expansion of Waterman Avenue and encouraged the Council to consider an alternate route and to decrease the speed limit on Waterman Avenue. He suggested that the City could use the services of the Army Corps of Engineers in some of the necessary planning. Dick Ge:wig, 324 E. 39th Street, expressed concern about the expans~on of Waterman Avenue and the excessive speed limit. He recommended the speed limit be dropped to 35 m.p.h. Nathan Coffin, 359 E. 39th Street, expressed concern about the excessive speed on Waterman Avenue. He urged Council to take a look at other areas such as Orange County and not make the same mistakes they made in their traffic circulation. Mayor Wilcox presented a petition with over 200 signatures of citizens opposing the Harrison Canyon Freeway. There were also 600 signatures from citizens asking to retain the Harrison Canyon Freeway on the Master Plan. Mayor Meade, Bud Cas a Lorna Element of Wilcox entered into the record letters from Ann and Jean Price, Carol Wang, and Ricky Nelson, 3158 Drive, expressing concern over the Circulation the General Plan. City Attorney Penman explained that from a legal standpoint, the idea of widening Waterman Avenue to six lanes between the two school was ludicrous. He anticipated lawsuits would be filed against the City because of the danger to the children and stated that the City had a responsibility to safeguard its citizens against damage or injury. Mr. Penman also anticipated that the proposed Harrison Canyon Freeway would also bring about extensive litigation. He stated that there are alternatives to the proposal and recommended the City should seek an injunction to prevent the freeway from going through. He stated that more statistics are needed to go to court. Mayor Wilcox suggested that the City go back to the State and ask for a study or whatever its going to take to re-route the traffic. made a motion, seconded unanimously carried, to by Council close the Council Member Flores Member Pope-Ludlam, and public hearing. Michael Meyers, Traffic Consultant with OKS, answered questions regarding the Pepper-Linden Freeway. He stated that a study was conducted and it was found that route would not attract a great deal of traffic from Waterman Avenue. The figure was about 2500 vehicles per day. He stated that the - 7 - 5/22/89 . other alternative 18 and Waterman could not confirm would be to cut off the connection of Route and force the traffic to pepper-Linden. He that it would be a positive move. He stated that the Circulation Element did include Waterman Avenue as a major arterial, and the volume of traffic would increase from approximately 20,000 vehicles to 38,000 vehicles and could be accommodated by a four-lane major arterial. He stated that a study was not made regarding health and safety, only the traffic capacity element. Woodie Tescher, Consultant from Envicom, stated that the EIR is clear that such increases of traffic north of Route 130 would have an adverse impact, especially in the area of noise. He stated that the residents in the area could be exposed to a noise level which is above the State recognized compatibility standard for the single-family resident. He stated that a study of the safety of the children was not formally recognized, but generally, when traffic volume is increased, the risk for danger is increased. Traffic Consultant Meyers answered questions, stating that an access to the mountains from Route 30 doesn't need to be a freeway. It could be just a roadway. He explained that they had never considered Pepper-Linden as a freeway extension. It was included as a potential roadway. . Mr. Meyers answered questions regarding a traffic analysis, stating they had looked at what would happen if the Pepper-Linden Extension were added, but Waterman was still connected to Highway 18. Under that set of assumptions, not much of the traffic shifted to the new Pepper-Linden Extension. He felt that if Waterman were disconnected so that drivers were forced to go along an extension of Pepper-Linden to get to 1215, that approximately 30,000 vehicles would probably make that longer trip, and that would justify a four-lane roadway. It was his opinion that that route would be used only if there were no alternative. Council Member Miller made a motion, seconded by Council Member Pope-Ludlam, to rescind the motion of May 6, 1989, relative to Implementation Program 16.31, and refer the question of the necessity of the Harrison Freeway Project to the Transportation Committee for the purpose of pursuing the funding necessary for an independent and in depth study. The purpose of this study will be the impact on Health and Safety, the environment, and the neighborhood disruption on both Waterman Avenue and the Harrison Canyon Freeway Project. The study shall also determine what alternate routes may exist for the connection to SR18, other than Waterman Avenue and the Harrison Canyon Freeway Project. Further, the study shall include the participation of Cal-Trans, as well as the planning studies being prepared for the Specific Plan of Norton Air Force Base. . - 8 - 5/22/89 . The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Members Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, pope-Ludlam, Miller. Council Member Minor. Absent: Council Member Estrada. Council Noes: Council Member Maudsley made a motion, seconded Member Minor and unanimously carried, to remove the in reference to the Harrison Canyon Freeway Circulation Map of the proposed General Plan. Planning Director Kilger answered questions. City Attorney Penman answered questions and referred to Government Code Section 65302(d). He stated that relative to removing the dashed line, there has to be some basic acknowledgement of what has the State has done, without saying that the Council agrees. by Council dotted line from the . Michael Meyers, Traffic Consultant, answered questions, and explained why the Harrison Canyon Route was selected. He also answered questions regarding the possibility of extending Pepper-Linden, but stated they had not done an analysis of this. Council Member Maudsley made a motion, seconded by Council Member Miller and unanimously carried, to direct the City's Traffic Engineer to meet with Cal Trans to immediately begin a study of regulating the hours of truck traffic and the size of trucks that are permitted on Interim Highway 18 between Highway 30 and the City limits. RECESS MEETING - FIFTEEN MINUTE BREAK At 11:30 a.m., the Adjourned Regular Meeting recessed for a fifteen minute break. RECONVENE MEETING At 11:50 a.m., the Adjourned Regular Meeting reconvened in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino, California. ROLL CALL Roll Call was taken by Deputy City Clerk Reese with the following being present: Mayor Wilcox; Council Members Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Minor, pope-Ludlam, Miller; Deputy City Attorney Empeno, Deputy City Clerk Reese, Acting City Administrator Robbins. Absent: Council Member Estrada. RECESS MEETING At 11:50 a.m., Council Member seconded by Council Member Miller and the meeting be recessed to 1:00 p.m. Flores made a motion, unanimously carried, that . - 9 - 5/22/89 , . RECONVENE At 1:18 p.m., and Common Council Hall, 300 North "D" the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Mayor reconvened in the Council Chambers of City Street, San Bernardino, California. ROLL CALL Roll Call was taken with the following being present: Mayor Wilcox; Council Members Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Minor, Pope-Ludlam, Miller; Deputy City Attorney Empeno, Deputy City Clerk Reese, Acting City Administrator Robbins. Absent: Council Member Estrada. . GENERAL PLAN - CIRCULATION ELEMENT Planning Director Kilger recommended that language in a document which was just distributed be included in the text to acknowledge the action taken earlier in the meeting relative to the dashed line on the circulation map regarding the Harrison Canyon Freeway. (2a) COUNCIL MEMBER POPE-LUDLAM EXCUSED Council Member Pope-Ludlam left the Council Meeting. Deputy City Attorney Empeno stated that if the proposed language is consistent with the feelings of the Council and the action taken this morning, he would encourage the Council to adopt this amendment to the General Plan. He explained that there has to be a reference to the Harrison Canyon Freeway in the text since such a reference has been deleted from the map. Council Member Miller made a motion, seconded by Council Member Flores and unanimously carried, to include additional language on page 318 (after the first full paragraph). The language is as follows: "Waterman Avenue, north of SR30, currently serves as an Interim Highway 18 and carries a daily traffic volume of approximately 19,000 vehicles per day. The majority of this traffic is regional traffic bound for the mountain areas north of the City. The State highway plan currently includes a potential new alignment for Highway 18 in the Harrison Canyon. The City intends to work with Cal Trans to study other potential alignments for Highway 18 which would allow the removal of the Interim Highway 18 designation from Waterman Avenue and which would minimize environmental impacts on residents in San Bernardino. Such an alternate route will be required to accommodate the growth in traffic destined for the mountain areas. Without an alternate route, the volume of traffic on Waterman Avenue could increase to 38,000 vehicles per day by the year 2010." Planning Director Kilger explained that any portion of the text can be discussed by the Mayor and Common Council. . - 10 - 5/22/89 . He stated that the Planning Department had been in communication with the Public Works Department, regarding Policy 6.1.11 in the cross out, underlined version, of the text, page 325, which as currently worded, places restrictions on growth requirements. Gene Klatt, Assistant City Engineer, and explained the proposed changes which motion which follows the discussion. provided background, are reflected in the . Mr. Klatt answered questions, stating the Traffic Systems Fee Fund, which was put into place last year, requires that development throughout the City will pay fees for traffic mitigation throughout the City. The City has been declared a transportation network. This Fee Fund will be in this year's budget. Projects will be specifically identified as to what they are and their location. Deputy City Attorney Empeno answered questions, stating that the language might create some ambiguity as the measures are not identified and there is no discussion as to whether the infrastructure is in place or actually being constructed. He did agree that a change be made. He stated he was familiar with AB1600 and explained his interpretation of that measure. Discussion ensued regarding clarification in language and the funding aspects relative to transportation fees. Council Member Reilly made a motion, seconded by Council Member Miller, to revise Chapter 2, Section 6.0 Circulation, to read as follows: 6.1.11 Correlate approvals of new development with roadway improvements that would be necessary to maintain an acceptable level of service and other performance characteristics applicable to the classification of the affected roadways or reduce the development's impact to below City established levels of significance, and that development not be authorized until measures (improvement plans, funding, inclusion in the Capital Improvement Program, or collection of impact fees) are in place to construct any necessary improvements, provided that the development is guaranteed an equitable reimbursement for improvements provided above and beyond those solely necessary to accommodate that development's traffic (I6.7, I6.8) The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Miller. Noes: Council Member Minor. Absent: Council Members Estrada, Pope-Ludlam. Planning Director Kilger answered questions regarding development of the traffic circulation system. He stated that . - 11 - 5/22/89 'c . the General Plan recognizes that there are streets that are below Level of Service "C". Gene Klatt, Assistant City Engineer, answered questions, stating traffic flow is not always measurable. At different times of the year it varies. For example, at Christmas, with more shoppers on the streets the traffic is heavier. Also peak hours of traffic are during the early evening hours. Such heavy traffic is acceptable for those hours, but may be intolerable for longer periods of time. Traffic Consultant Meyers answered questions regarding acceptable traffic levels, stating it is a policy decision. He stated that some cities have lenient standards, and others have strict standards. A discussion ensued regarding the acceptability of Level "C" traffic flow. Planning Director Kilger answered questions regarding the predicted increased traffic and the long term goal of the City in planning for Level of service "C". . Council Member Flores made a motion, seconded by Council Member Reilly and unanimously carried, to approve in concept Chapter Two, Section 6, Circulation, with the revisions adopted by the Council, subject to the Mayor and Common Council's final review of the Draft General plan and Environmental Impact Report. HAZARDOUS WASTE - CHAPTER 4, 13.0 Planning Director Kilger explained that the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan is not part of the General Plan per se, but the General Plan relies on that plan relative to implementation of some of the policies and objectives. (2b) Valerie Ross, Associate planner, presented an overview of Chapter 4, 13.0 Hazardous Materials/Uses. She stated that for two years staff has been working with the County and other cities in the County to prepare the County Hazardous Waste Management plan, and that a draft was sent to the County and was incorporated into the Plan. A final draft was distributed on May 3, 1989, which was reviewed and approved by staff. She stated that the staff is comfortable with what the plan contains. Ms. Ross referred to the Staff Report dated May 19, 1989, regarding the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, and explained the provisions. She explained that staff is recommending that the Mayor and Council do not approve the Plan, based on conversation with the Department of Environmental Health Services. Staff is also . - 12 - 5/22/89 . . . . requesting that the Council direct plan to the State. She explained that by June 1, 1989, for approval. the County to send the it must be at the State Ms. Ross opportunity County. Deputy City Attorney Empeno stated that Health & Safety Code Section 25135.6 speaks to the adoption of the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan and the process of approval. It states in Subsection (g) that the City has 90 days after the City has received this plan to review it and consider adopting it. If the City fails to act upon this plan within 90 days after receiving it, then the City shall be deemed to have approved the plan as submitted. As the City received the revised plan on April 2, 1989, the City has until July 3, 1989, to take action. pointed out concerns staff had in not having the to adequately review some revisions made by the . He stated that the document was lengthy and staff had not had adequate time to review the material. He advised that staff cannot approve the Plan without considering the Environmental Review Report. He concurred with staff and recommended that the County be directed to submit the Plan without the City's approval. Ms. Ross stated that when the State approves the Plan, the Planning Staff expects to have 180 days to either adopt the Plan, create its own City Plan, or adopt an ordinance to require all projects to be consistent with that Plan. Prior to the 180 days that the State has to adopt this, when the EIR is received, staff planned to come back to the Mayor and Common Council. Sandra Alacon Lopez, Consultant to the Department of Environmental Health Services, explained they had previously received an extension of the deadline for the County submittal of the Plan to the State, but it is now mandatory for the County to submit the plan to the Department of Health Services by June 1. That is why they are asking the cities to give approval as soon as possible. Planning Director Kilger stated that they are in agreement with the concept of the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, which was reviewed by the City some time ago. However, staff is not in a position at this time to ask the Council to approve or adopt it at this time, as they have not reviewed the plan in full detail, and have not received the EIR. He recommended that the action would be to merely agree that the County may submit the plan to the State to meet their time frame, and that the City be allowed to deliberate on the specifics of the document. . - 13 - 5/22/89 . . . Deputy City Attorney Empeno answered questions regarding a proposed motion, stating that an appropriate motion would not approve or disapprove the document, as he felt the Council hasn't had adequate time to review it. It merely directs that they submit it to the State. He stated that the City has until July 3, 1989, to take action. Ms. Lopez stated they are trying to approval as possible by June 1, and will June 1, 1989, as that is their deadline. get as many cities' be submitting it by Ms. Lopez answered questions relative to the County's intentions of notifying the State of the City's direction. She stated that the County would not submit the document with the indication that the City of San Bernardino has approved it, but will state that the City has in fact directed the County to send it without an approval or disapproval. City Attorney Penman recommended that the City send a letter to the State Department of Health Services indicating the City's position, and agreed that his office would write the letter. Jim Mulvihill, member of the CAC, commented that the State has mandated that the decision be made basically on a risk assessment. He stated that there are numerous areas in the document that should be reviewed by the Council and Planning Department. Council Member Maudsley made a motion, seconded by Council Member Minor and unanimously carried, to direct the City Attorney to draft a letter to the County and the appropriate department with the State, to advise that the City of San Bernardino understands that the County is submitting the Hazardous Waste Management Plan prior to June 1, 1989, but the City of San Bernardino is by no means approving or disapproving it as it has not had a chance to review it. ADDITIONAL LETTERS FOR CIRCULATION ELEMENT Mayor Wilcox stated that there are some letters that apply to Circulation that were not entered into the record. There was a letter from Cal Trans asking that those letters be made part of the record. Deputy City Attorney Empeno stated that any correspondence that the City has received regarding the General Plan, including the Department of Transportation letters, and distributed to the Council, would be part of the record of this General Plan hearing process. COUNCIL MEMBER POPE-LUDLAM RETURNED At 2:35 p.m., Council Member Pope-Ludlam returned to the Council Meeting and took her place at the Council Table. - 14 - 5/22/89 . . . CHAPTER 4, 13 - HAZARDOUS MATERIAL AND USES Planning Director Kilger referred to a Staff Report dated May 19, 1989, regarding Chapter 4, Hazardous Materials/uses, and gave the background of the report. (2b) Valerie Ross, Associate Planner, gave an overview of the Hazardous Materials/ Uses Section of the proposed General Plan. She referred to page 543 of the strike-out, underlined version in which the suggested changes are indicated, most of which are deletions, and to the Staff Report dated May 19, 1989, which lists the proposed new measures. Ms. Ross explained how the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan would affect the City, primarily regarding the citing of specified hazardous waste facilities, which is not going to be an every day occurrence. She stated that staff prefers to go back to referencing the County Hazardous Waste Plan and work with the County and let the County do what it is supposed to do. Planning Director Kilger answered questions regarding the City's responsibility. He stated that the hazardous waste issue is a joint effort between the County and the City. He stated they have tried not to duplicate any of the County's responsibility, but would be sure to maintain the City's local authority. Discussion ensued regarding the City's authority in regulating and citing hazardous material usage. The joint efforts of the City, County and State were addressed. Council Member Flores made a motion, seconded by Council Member Maudsley, to approve in concept Chapter 4, subsection 13.0, as recommended by the Planning Commission with the recommendations outlined in the Planning Department's letter dated May 19, 1989, subject to the Mayor and Council's final review of the Draft General Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report. The Members Council Council Abstain: Estrada. motion carried with the following vote: Ayes: Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Minor, Miller. Member Pope-Ludlam. Absent: Council Member COUNCIL MEMBER MILLER EXCUSED Council Member Miller left the Council Meeting. RECESS MEETING - TEN-MINUTE BREAK At 3:05 p.m., Mayor Wilcox declared a ten-minute break. RECONVENE At 3:25 p.m., the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Common Council reconvened in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. - 15 - 5/22/89 . . . . ROLL CALL Roll Call was taken by Deputy City Clerk Reese with the following being present: Mayor Wilcox; Council Members Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Minor, pope-Ludlam, Miller; Deputy City Attorney Empeno, Deputy City Clerk Reese, Acting City Administrator Robbins. Absent: Council Member Estrada. MOTION TO RECONVENE MEETING - MAY 23, 1989 - CONTINUE DELIBERATIONS OF GENERAL PLAN DRAFT - BEGIN LAND USE ELEMENT Council Member Reilly made a motion, seconded by Council Member Minor, to reconvene the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Council to May 23, 1989, at 9:00 a.m. to continue deliberations of the General Plan Draft and begin the Land Use Element. The motion carried Members Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Pope-Ludlam. by the following vote: Ayes: Council Minor, Miller. Noes: Council Members Absent: Council Member Estrada. CHAPTER 4, 12.0 - GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC Associate Planner Valerie Ross explained that this issue was put on the agenda to indicate what had been done at a prior meeting. She referred to page 519, in the strike-out, underlined version, 112.3, which was changed to read as follows: 112.3 Zoning regulations Critical Facilities from being Special Study Zone of an active shall be located in fault. amended to prevent the Alquist-Priolo Ms. Ross stated that the following policy was added: I.12.3a No single family residences shall be constructed within 50 feet of either side of an active fault. No formal action was taken. CHAPTER 4, 10.OB - MINERAL RESOURCES Associate Planner Valerie Ross referred to page 462 of the strike-out, underlined version and page 28 of the Staff Report dated May 16, 1989, and gave the background of that Staff Report. She stated that a letter had been received from the State Mining and Geology Board, dated April 20, 1989, which was included in the Staff Report. The letter included four points, which the City referred to in the Staff Report. Ms. Ross recommended, by the State stated that the following two new policies were as staff feels they address the concerns expressed Mining and Geology Board. 10.7.8 Permit extraction of mineral resources in areas designated IE, Industrial Extractive, on the Land Use Plan - 16 - 5/22/89 . . consistent with 45. the aggregate sectors shown on Figure 10.7.9 Permit interim uses such as outdoor storage, lumber yards, plant nurseries, recreation, etc. that don't preclude future extractive uses. Council Member Miller made a motion, seconded by Council Member Reilly and unanimously carried, to approve in concept Chapter 3, Subsection 10.OB Mineral Resources, as recommended by the Planning Commission with the recommended changes outlined in the Planning Department's letter of May 16, 1989, subject to final review of the Draft General Plan and Draft Environmental Report. OTHER CHAPTERS AND SUBSECTIONS OF THE DRAFT GENERAL PLAN Associate Planner Ross referred to a letter from Southern California Edison Company dated May 12, 1989, in which it presented suggested changes to the City's Draft General plan, and to the Staff Report dated May 20, 1989, in response to that letter. (2e) . The comments addressed related to (1) a noise Control Ordinance, included in Appendix A of the Draft General Plan; (2) Urban Design for Public Open Spaces, policy 5.2.2 on page 300 of the Draft General Plan; and (3) Utilities, Implementation 7.33, page 371 of the Draft General Plan. Ms. Ross recommended that no action be taken on Southern California Edison's comments at this time. Council Member Miller made a motion, seconded ~y Council Member Flores and unanimously carried, to approve ~n concept revisions as recommended by the Planning Department as referenced in its letter of May 20, 1989, regarding Section 5.0 and 7.0 of the strike-out underline version, subject to final review by the Mayor and Council of the Draft General Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report. RECESS MEETING - FIFTEEN MINUTE BREAK At 3:45 p.m., Mayor Wilcox declared a fifteen minute break. RECONVENE MEETING At 4:00 p.m., the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Common Council reconvened in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino, California. ROLL CALL Roll Call was taken by Deputy City Clerk Reese with the following being present: Mayor Wilcox; Council Members Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Minor, Miller; Deputy City Attorney Empeno, Deputy City Clerk Reese, Acting City Administrator Robbins. Absent: Council Members Estrada, Pope-Ludlam. . - 17 - 5/22/89 . AUDIT TRAIL II Audit Trail II - Area 3 - Item 107 - 1200 Block of Stoddard Ann Jimenez requested a zone change from C-l and RM to RS. Council Member Reilly made a motion, seconded by Council Member Maudsley and unanimously carried, to designate both sides of Stoddard, from 13th Street south to the Commercial Zoning designation on Baseline, as RS. COUNCIL MEMBER POPE-LUDLAM RETURNED At 4:13 p.m., Council Member Pope-Ludlam returned to the Council Meeting and took her place at the Council Table. Audit Trail II - Area 4 - Item 21 - Southwest corner Medical Center Drive and 9th Street Russell Merwin requested a zone change from RU to CG. The Planning Commission recommended retaining RU, single-family, multiple family, nine units per acre. . Council Member pope-Ludlam made a motion, Council Member Flores and unanimously carried, all seven lots to CG-l. Audit Trail II - Area 4 - Item 29 - 906 to 916 - 8th Street, adiacent to Freeway Martin Manrique requested a zone change from IL to IH. seconded by to designated The Planning Commission recommended designation remain IL (Light Industrial). Council Member Maudsley made a motion, seconded by Member Minor, to accept the recommendation of the Commission and retain the IL designation. that the zone Council Planning The Members Council motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Minor, Miller. Noes: Member Pope-Ludlam. Absent: Council Member Estrada. Audit Trail II - Area 4 - Item 30 - 272 S. Pico John Lightburn requested a zone change from RU to IL. The Planning Commission recommended an IL designation. Council Member Member Maudsley recommendation of property at IL. COUNCIL MEMBER MILLER EXCUSED Council Member Miller left the Council Meeting. Flores made a motion, seconded by Council and unanimously carried, to accept the the Planning Commission and designate the . - 18 - 5/22/89 . . . . Audit Trail II - Area 4 - Item 37 - Northwest corner of Fifth and Ramona Diana Williams requested a zone change from RU to CN. The Planning Commission's motion 86 failed, and the zoning remained RU. Council Member Member Pope-Ludlam area as CN. Maudsley made a motion, seconded by Council and unanimously carried, to designate the Audit Trail II - Area 4 - Item 69 - southwest corner of Mill and Bunkerhill Council Member Flores requested a zone change from RS to CG-l. The Planning Commission recommended CG-l. a motion, seconded by Council carried, that the area be Council Member Maudsley made Member Reilly and unanimously designated CG-l. Audit Trail II - Area 4 - Item 71 - west side of Mt. Vernon south of Rialto council Member Flores requested a zone change from IH to CG-l. The Planning Commission recommended CG-l for this area. Council Member Pope-Ludlam made a motion, seconded by Council Member Maudsley and unanimously carried, that the area be designated CG-l. Audit Trail II - Area 4 - Item 75 - Alonq 5th Street from Mt. Vernon to Nunez Park Council Member Estrada requested a zone change from RU to RS. The Planning Commission recommended an RU designation for this area. COUNCIL MEMBER MILLER RETURNED Council Member Miller returned to the Council Meeting and took her place at the Council Table. Council Member Maudsley made a motion, seconded by Council Member Flores and unanimously carried, to designate the area as RU. Audit Trail II - Area 4 - Item 63 -Northeast corner of Mt. Vernon and Grant Staff requested a zone change of PF to CG-l. - 19 - 5/22/89 --- .,.....,-,--- ----.------,r--~---.---- . The Planning Commission recommended a CG-l designation for this area. Council Member Maudsley made a motion, seconded by Council Member Reilly and unanimously carried, to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation and designate this area as CG-l. Audit Trail II - Area 5 - Item 34 - East side of Macy, north of Chestnut Alice Stiel requested a zone change of RS to RU. The Planning Commission recommended an RU designation for this area. Council Member Flores made Member Maudsley and unanimously Commission's recommendation and a motion, seconded by Council carried, to accept the Planning designate the area as RU. Audit Trail II - Area 5 - Item 46 - North side of Foothill between Dallas and Macy - 2470 Foothill David Lee requested a zone change from RM to CG-l. The Planning Commission recommended a CG-l designation for this area. . Council Member Flores made a motion, seconded by Council Member Maudsley and unanimously carried, to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation and designate the area as CG-l. Audit Trail II - Area 5 - Item 49 - North side of Foothill west of Macy Street Ted Sirkin requested a zone change from RM to CG or RMH. The Planning Commission recommended a CG-l designation for this area. Council Member Flores made a Member Maudsley and unanimously designated at CG-l. Audit Trail II - Area 5 - Item 47 - South of Baseline, west of Pennsylvania, east of Flood Control Jack Sinder requested a change of zone for CG on the front of the property, and IL on the rear. motion, seconded by Council carried, that the area be The Planning Commission recommended an OIP designation for this property. Council Member Pope-Ludlam made a motion, seconded by Council Member Maudsley and unanimously carried, to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and designate the area as OIP. . - 20 - 5/22/89 ~ . Audit Trail II - Area 6 - Item 15 - West side of Macy, south of Washinqton Ben Sheldon requested a zone change of RS to IL. The Planning Commission recommended that an RS designation be retained. Planning Director Kilger answered questions. Council Member Pope-Ludlam made a motion, seconded by Council Member Miller and unanimously carried, that the area be designated as RS. Audit Trail II - Area 6 - Item 42 - North side of 19th Street, east of California J. Gordon requested a zone change of RS to RM. The Planning Commission designation. recommended retaining the RS Principal Planner Bautista answered questions regarding the existing uses in the area. . Council Member Maudsley made member Reilly and unanimously designated RU. Audit Trail II - Area 6 - Item 43 - North side of 19th Street, east of California J. Gordon requested a zone change from RS to CG-l. a motion, seconded by Council carried, that the area be The Planning Commission recommended that the area be designated as CG-l. Council Member Maudsley made a motion, seconded by Council Member Flores and unanimously carried, to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission that the area be zoned CG-l. Audit Trail II - Area 6 - Item 88 - North side of Baseline, west of Medical Center Drive Jim Summers requested a zone change from RS to CG-2 for the rear of the parcel. The Planning Commission recommended a designation of CG-2. Council Member Pope-Ludlam made a motion, seconded by Council Member Flores and unanimously carried, that the area be designated at CG-2. COUNCIL MEMBER MILLER EXCUSED Council Member Miller left the Council Meeting. . - 21 - 5/22/89 . . . Audit Trail II - Area 6 - Item 95 - 29 acres at the southwest corner of University Parkway and Hallmark Lee Redmond requested a zone change from IL to alP. The Planning Commission recommended an alP designation. Council Member pope-Ludlam made a motion, seconded by Council Member Flores and unanimously carried, that the area be designated as alP. COUNCIL MEMBER MILLER RETURNED Council Member Miller returned to the Council Meeting and took her place at the Council Table. COUNCIL MEMBER POPE-LUDLAM EXCUSED Council Member pope-Ludlam left the Council Meeting. ADJOURNMENT At 4:50 p.m., Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Flores, that the meeting be adjourned to 9:00 a.m., May 23, 1989, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members Reilly, Flores, Minor, Miller. Noes: Council Member Maudsley. Absent: Council Members Estrada, pope-Ludlam. SHAUNA CLARK City Clerk ~ II~~ ~~ Deputy ct y Clerk No. of Items: 5 No. of Hours: 7 - 22 - 5/22/89