HomeMy WebLinkAboutNB01-City Clerk
-- -----
ci-::;, OF SAN BERNARDI:O - REQUl:JT FOR COUNCIL AC~ON
From:
SHAUNA CLARK
Subject: Amend Minutes of October 20, 1986,
For Clarification on Item 62 -
Single Family Developments in the
Foothills
Dept:
CITY CLERK
Date:
November 6, 1986
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
November 3, 1986: Minutes of October 20, 1986, amended and continued to November 7, 1986,
for clarification on Item 62 pertaining to single family developments in the Foothills.
Recommended motion:
That the minutes of October 20, 1986, be approved with the amendments set forth
on November 3, 1986.
- Or -
That the minutes of October 20, 1986, be approved as amended on November 3, 1986,
and as amended this date as follows.
~71ak~
,.. Signature
Contact person:
Shauna Clark
Phone: 5109
Supporting data attached: Staff Report & Transcript
Ward:
4
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount: None
Sou rce:
None
Finance:
None
Council Notes:
None
75-0262
Agenda Item No, I..
,ci,(:, OF SAN BERNARDICo> - REQU(~T FOR COUNCIL Ac'2oN
STAFF REPORT
On November 3, 1986, Council Member Marks questioned the minutes of
October 20, 1986, concerning his motion to direct the City Attorney to
prepare an ordinance concerning rebuilding of single family homes destroyed
by an act of God. It was Council Member Marks recollection that the motion
had carried.
Please refer to the verbatim transcript of that meeting and take action on
the October 20, 1986, minutes which were continued to this date.
75-0264
,
,
<-
-
-
''''
-
......
~
Verbatim on Item 62
October 20, 1986
Marks:
Quiel:
Marks:
Quiel:
Marks:
Hernandez:
Marks:
Strickler:
Marks:
Strickler:
Hernandez:
Mayor:
Strickler:
Hernandez:
Strickler:
Mayor:
Marks:
Quiel:
I'm going to make a motion, Mr. Wilson, to direct the City Attorney to
prepare an ordinance, or incorporate it in this one for our review,
which would cover the scenario whereby there is a foundation on a
single-family lot in the foothills substantially surrounded by existing
single-family homes and the house is destroyed by an act of God,
and the property owner or new property owner comes forward to
request to build, that the ordinance be constructed in such a manner
to require that the home to be built be in the vicinity of the
existing. . .
footprint
existing what?
footprint
footprint.
You know I canlt support that Steve.
I think this will cover that.
It won't cover that.
You've got them under the Development Review Process. They are going
to cover all these things.
You see, there's a difference here, though. There's a nuance here
because people have already bought around it, they knew what to expect;
and if, in fact, we had this ordinance in place, we wouldn't have
this kind of situation which has incurred right now.
If we had had this ordinance in place, wouldn't the guy have brought
in the plans for review by the Development Review Committee?
That's right.
Then why do you need another one?
Then why try to make it so complicated because...
You don't have the support...
There could be so many situations - it just gets so technical that
I don't see how you're going to enforce it.
Can we leave that and go on to Item 63 - we had a hearing to happen
at 2:30 and my question is...
You mean you're not even going to second that after you suggested it?
We won't get the vote.
Mayor: We've left that - can we move on?