HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinances_2412_CCv0001.pdf ORDINANCE NO, 2412
AN INNITIATIVE ORDINANCE Ole THE: PEOPLE OF "Hl CITY OIC RE DLANDS ANIENDING THE
GROWTH NIANAGENIENT, DESIGN, LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENTS OF THE
REDLANDS GENERAL PLAN RELATING TO BUILDING PERMIT AND UTILITY
CONNECTION LIMITATIONS'. DENSITY LIMITATIONS, SCENIC DRIVES, HISTORIC
PROPERTIES, AND CIRCULATION PATT ERNS IN SOUITHEAST REDLANDS
Section 1. Section 2.0 of the Growth Management Element of the Redlands General Plan
relating to "Growth Rate Limitation" is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Growth Rate Limitation. Permits for a maximum of 400 residential dwelling units may be,
issued in the City for each calendar year. To encourage construction of individual, single family.,
custom housing, 50 of the authorized permits shall be reserved for lots not subject to the City's
Residential Development Allocation process, If permits are issued for less than 400 dwelling units in
any given year, the unused number of authorized permits shall,not be carried forward to any future year.
Section 2. Section 2.0 of the Growth Management Element of tile Redlands General Plan
relating to "Gro-wth Rate Limitation" is hereby amended to read as follows-.
Wflie City shall not make, sewer or water service connections to more than 150 dv,,elling units
located within the City's sphere of influence in any calendar year. if less than 150 sewer or water
connections are made to such dwelling units in any given year, the unused number of connections shall
not be carried forward to any future year."
Section 3. Section 2.0 of the Growth Managertient Element of the Redlands General Plan
relating to "Density Limitation" is hereby amended to readas follows:
"Density Limitation. Except as provided in Section 4,40s of this General Plan, all property
undeveloped as of the effective date of the ordinance establishing this section and designated in whole
or in part as "Urban Reserve" or "Urban Reserve (Agricultural)" by the Redlands General Plan in eftect
on June 1, 1987, and/or any property that was in active agricultural production on November''3, 1986 and
which is zoned for residential use, shall not be re-designated to a new residential land use classification
or re-zoned to permit a greater density than that permitted by the Estate Residential R-E classification,as
that classification existed on June 1, 1987, In the Redlands City Zoning Ordinance, except by a four-
fifths vote of the City Council and based upon the following six findings:
L There are, substantial and overriding economic or social benefits to the City and its residents
and taxpayers resulting from the proposed new land use designation or zone.
2 The proposed new land use designation or zone will not cause adverse environmental
impacts, either individually or cumulatively. directly or indirectly.
3, The proposed new land use designation or zone will not, convert viable agricultural land to
non-agricultural uses.
4 'The proposed new land use designation or zone, will not have as growth-ind Lie]ng efl`ect on
other property,
5, The proposed new land use designation or zone will be compatible with uses existing on
adjacent lands.
6. The proposed land use designation or zone will not require substantial expansion of public
infrastructure,, facilities or set-vices, or,except upon a four-fifths vote of the City Council and
based upon the following sole finding:
If the City Council finds that to portion of the net site acreage is,permanently preserved as
either (1) active citrus cultivated in a manner recommended by the City Citrus Commission,
(2) developed as a public or private park in a manner recommended by the City Parks
Commission or (3) developed as a child care center as recommended by the City Council, a
maximum of three units per acre shall be permitted if a. minimum of twenty percent of the
net side area is preserved, increasing proportionally to four units per acre if thirty percent of
the net site area is preserved."
Section 4, Section 2.0 of the Growth Management Element Redlands General Plan relating to
"Density Limitation" is hereby amended to read as follous.-
,"City policy permits a maximum density on slopes of 15 to 30 percent of one unit per two and
one-half acres and, on slopes exceeding 40 percent, of one unit per 10 acres, On slopes between 30 and
40 percent, required site area is approximately proportionally frorn five acres to 10 acres per unit
depending on slope-and soil type."
Section S. Section 3.23 of the "City Design and Preservation" Element of the Redlands General
Plan is hereby amended by the addition of a new Section 3.23j which shall read as follows:
"3,23j To encourage preservation of City cultural and historic resources, the City Council shall
waive all processing fees for those projects which serve to preserve or enhance cultural and historic
structures in conformance with the guidelines and restrictions of the applicable historic resources,
historic landmark, or properties in as locally designated historic district and other cultural and historic
resources as recommended by the Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission,"
Section 6. Section 4.40s of the Land Use Element of the Redlands General Plan is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"4.40s Except for all property located west of California Street and north of the 1-10 FreeNvay
which may be designated and zoned for a density greater than R-E without findings, if approved by four-
fifths vote of the total aUthorized membership of the City Council, no land undeveloped, and not
having any Subdivision Map, Conditional Llse Permit or Commission Review and Approval approved for
such land, as of the effective date of the ordinance enacting this section and designated in, whole or in
part as "Urban Reserve" or "Urban Reserve (Agricultural)" in the Redlands General Plan in effect on
June 1. 1987, an&or any land parcel that was in active agricultural production on November 3, 1986,
regardless of zoning, shall be redesignated or re-zoned to pern-rit a residential density greater than the
Estate Residential (R-E) classification, as the same existed on June 1, 1987, in the Redlands City Zoning
Ordinance, unless the following mandatory findings are made and the redesignation or rezoning is
approved by four-fifths(415) vote of the total authorized membership of the City Council.
1. 1-here are substantial and overriding economic or social benefits to the City and its residents
and taxpayers resulting from the proposed new latid use designation or zone.
2 The proposed new land use designation or zone will not cause adverse environmental
impacts, either individually or cumulatively, directly or indirectly,
3The proposed new land use designation or zone will not convert viable agricultural land to
non-a(YriCUltural uses.
4, The proposed new land use designation or zone will not have a growth-inducing effect on
other property.
5. The proposed new land use designation or zone will be compatible with uses existing on
adjjacent lands.
Ordinance No. 3412 2
6. The proposed land use designation or zone will not require substantial expansion of public
infrastructure, facilities or services, or, except upon a four-fifths vote of the City Council and
based upon the following sole finding:
If the City Council finds that a portion of the net site acreage is permanently preserved as
either(1) active citrus cultivated in a manner recommended by the City Citrus (.70formSSiOn.
(2) developed as a public or private park in a manner recommended by the City Parks
Commission or(3) developed as a child care center as recommended by the City Council, a
maximum of three units per acre shall be permitted of a minimum of twenty percent of the
net side area is preserved, increasing proportionally to four units per acre if thirty percent of
the net site area is preserved."
Section 7. Section 5.30 of the Circulation Element of the Redlands General Plan is herebv
amended to read as follows:
"Scenic Drives, Scenic drive is the designation of the route along the Santa Ana Wash blufftop
between Texas Street and Judson Street, When completed, it will serve as a neighborhood connector as
well as a recreational route for drivers and bike riders. In addition, the City Council has designated a
number cat streets within the City as scenic highways, drives, and historic streets.
The following list of streets are hereby designated as Scenic Drives. Certain development
standards are hereby established for these streets to assure that they will be retained as Scenic Drives.
Full and careful consideration shall be given to assure the preservation and retention of the present
general configuration, widths, vistas, cut stone curbs and rock walls that may be located along of each of
these streets. However, notvvithstanding the foregoing., improvements and modifications may be made to
the streets which possibly conflict with the criteria set forth herein if determined necessary for the
protection of the general health, safety and welfare of the public.
The streets and the specific development standards are:
• Brookside Avenue,from Lakeside Avenue to Eureka Street,
The existing right-of-way and roadway widths, including the median island shall be
retained, The oak trees, shall be retained as the primary street tree.;
• Olive Avenue, from Lakeside Avenue to Cajon Street.
The existing riglit-of-way and roadway widths shall be retained. The oak trees- shall be
retained as the primary street tree;
• Center Street, from Brookside Avenue to Henrietta Street,
The existing right-of-way. roadway widths and parkways shall be retained.
• Highland Avenue. from Serpentine Drive to Cajon Street.
The existing right-of-way, roadway widths and parkways shall be retained.
• Sunset Drive, from Serpentine Drive to Ford Street.
Sunset Drive is hereby retained as a collector street. Dedication of 64 feet of right-of-
way shall be required. Existing cut stone curbs, rock walls, alignment, vistas and width
shall be retained,
• Cajon Street.
The existing right-of-way and roadway widths shall be retained. The existing palms
shall be retained as the primary street tree.
• Mariposa Drive,between Halsey Drive and Sunset Drive.
The existing right-of-way, roadway widths and cut stone curbs and walls shall be
retained.
Ordinance No. 2412 3
• Dwight Street,between Pepper Street and Mariposa Drive,
The existing right-of-way and roadw=ay widths shall be retained.
• Garden Street, betw=een Cajon Street and Mariposa Drive:.
Dedications and constrUCtion of street improvements shall be prepared with full and
careful consideration to the preservation and retention of the existing drainage features
and bridle trails.
• Garden Hill Drive,
The existing right-of-way=and roadway widths and entry monuments shall be retained.
* Live Oak Canyon Road, within the. Redlands city"limits
The general roadway alignment shall be retained with consideration given to future
development in accordance with rural roadw=ay{ standards."
Section S. Section 5.301 of the Circulation Element of the Redlands General Plan relating to
"Circulation Design" is Hereby amended by the addition of Section 5.301 which shall read as follows:
"5.301 Street and traffic circulation design shall discourage commuter traffic originating
from outside the City from passing through residential neighborhoods and the: City's
downtown business district."
Section 9 Section 5.32 of the Circulation Element of the Redlands General Plan relating to
"Collector and Local Streets" is hereby amended by the addition of paragraphs 5.321 and 5.32j which
shall mead as follows,
"5.32i Street desi�mand traffic management in the downtown area shall be guided by the
concept that do�vntowri is the destination of the network."
"5.32j Residential streets shall be designed and constructed to "traffic calming" standards as
defined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers,"
Section 10. The fifth paragraph of Section 5.71 of the circulation Elementof the Redlands
General flan relating to "Southeast Area Circulation Issues and Policies," on Page 21 of Section 5.0 of
the General Plan is hereby amended to read as follows:
"If level of Service C is acceptable and anything lower is not, then additional loading of Sunset
Drive shall be controlled to keep the level of service from going below LOS C. Policy= 5.71a provides
specific:.guidance for future traffic access to Sunset Drive.""
Section 11. The sixth paragraph contained in ,Section 5.71 of the Circulation Element of the
Redlands General Plan on Page 21 of Section 5.0 relating to ""Alessandro Road" is hereby deleted.
Section 12 The ninth paragraph contained in Section 5.71 of the Circulation Element of the
Redlands General Plan on:Page. 21 of Section 5;0 relating to "Alessandro Road" is hereby deleted:
Section 13: The ,last sentence on page 21 of Section 5.0 of the Circulation Element of the
Redlands General Plan is hereby= amended to read as follows;
"Policy 5.71b addresses the future use of Alessandro load."
Section 14. The second Paragraph under Policy 5.71-c; on page 23 of Section 5.0 (Circulation) of
the general Plan is hereby amended to read as follows:
Ordinance No. 2412 4
"Alessandro Road: The Southeast Area, Plan attempts to absolutely minimize additional traffic
demands on Alessandro Road by upgrading alternative routes for regional traffic around Alessandro
Road."
Section 15. The fourth paragraph under Policy 5.71c on page 23 of Section 5.0 (Circulation)
M
of the General Plan is hereby deleted.
Section 16, The last sentence on page 23 of Section 5,0 of the Circulation Element of the
Redlands General Plan is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Policy 5.71d addresses the future of Alessandro Road."
Section 17, The sixth paragraph under Policy 5,71c on page 23 of Section 5.0 (Circulation)
of the General Plan is hereby amended to read as follows.
"The Alessandro bridge over the watercourse is inadequate in width to handle the projected
traffic of even the lowest density scenarios developed for the Southeast Area, Consideration should be
given to realignment of the roadway in connection with the widening of the bridge, and possibly the
need for a relocated bridge."
Section 18. Section 5.71a of the "Guiding Policies: Southeast Area" of the Circulation Element
of the Redlands General Plan is hereby amended to read as follows:
"5.71a Sunset Drive is at or near capacity. Therefore, significant additional traffic loads should
not be placed on this roadway. With the exception of Southeast Ai ea Sectors 2 and 10 and the one street
connection proposed to Sunset Drive as a "private drive" cul-de-sac and identified on the map known as
Sunset Hills Specific Plan No. 431, as referenced in the General Plan, Section 4.0, no new street shall be
connected, or existing street extended, which will allow normal, non-emergency traffic flow between the
planning sectors defined in GP Figure 4.3 and Sunset Drive. No new street or combination of streets
shall be permitted which will allow normal, non-ernergency traffic to flora between Live Oak Canyon
Road and Sunset Drive. If required for public safety, emergency access ways with physical barriers to
public use may be pen-nitted on a case by case basis."
Section 19. Section 5.71b of the "Guiding Policies-, Southeast Area" of the Circulation Element
of the Redlands General Plan ishereby amended to read as follows:
"5.71b. Alessandro Road is designated a Residential Collector street and the historical
character of its intersection with Sunset Drive shall be retained,"
Section 20. Section 5.71 d of the "Guiding Policies: Southeast Area" of the Circulation Element
of the Redlands General Plan relating to Alessandro Road is hereby deleted.
Section 21. The "Guiding Policies: Southeast Area" of the Circulation Element of the Redlands
General Plan are hereby amended by the addition of the following paragraph:
"5,71d, The "Rossmont Drive Traffic Study" (October 1989) confirined that the trafficway
network in the area between Sunset Drive and Highland Avenue lacks the potential for accepting
a significant increase in trips generated in the Southeast Area."
Section 22, No UnconstitUtional "Faking
A. This initiative ordinance is not intended, and shall not be applied or construed to authorize
the City to exercise its powers in a marmer which will take, private property for public use without the
Ordinance No.2412 5
payment of just compensation, but shall be interpreted., applied and implemented so as to accomplish its
purposes to the maximum, constitutionally permissible extent without requiring payment of
compensation.
B. if application of this initiative ordinance to a specific property of record as of the Effective
date would create a taking, then the City Council may., upon application by the landowner, allow
additional density or uses on such property, upon findings that the level of additional development
pennitted is the minimum necessary to avoid a taking, and no lesser level of development would be
sufficient to avoid a taking.
Section 23, Severabiiity
A. In interpreting this initiative ordinance or resolving any ambiguity thereof, the City Council
and all other city entities charged with implementing or enforcing this initiative ordinance or any part of
it, as well as any reviewing court, shall interpret this initiative ordinance in the manner which most
vigorously and effectiNcly accomplishes its purposes and operative provisions,
B. If any portion of this initiative ordinance is hereafter determined to be invalid by a court of
competent jurisdiction, all remaining portions of this initiative ordinance shall remain in full force and
effect. Each section, subsection, sentence- phrase, part or portion of this initiative ordinance would have
been adopted and passed irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences,
phrases,parts or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 24, Amendment and Repeal
This initiative ordinance and all of its provisions may be amended or repealed only by a majority
voteof the electorate.
Ordinance No, 2412 6
ORDINANCE NO. 2412
Initiative Measure to be Submitted Directly
to Voters
The City Attorney Has Prepared the Following Title and Summary
of the ChiefPurpose and.Paints of the Proposed Measure.
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS
AN INITIATIVE ORDINANCE ANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF l EDLANDS AMENDING THE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT, DESIGN, LAND USE ANIS CIRCULATION
ELEMENTS OF THE REDLANDS' GENERAL PLAID RELATING TO BUILDING
PERMIT AND UTILITY CONNECTION LIMITATIONS, DENSITY LIMITATIONS,
SCENIC DRIVES, HISTORIC PROPERTIES, AND CIRCULATION PATTERNS IN
SOUTHEAST REDLANDS
State law calls a city's General Plan the "constitution for all future developments." The
Redlands General Plan is a long terns.., comprehensive plan for the physical development
of Redlands and consists of a statement of development policies, standards and goals.
The proposed initiative measure would amend. the Growth Management, Design, Land
Use and Circulation Elements of Redlands" General Plan. A summary of the
amendments is as follows:
The Growth I'viana ement Element is amended to:
• Limit issuance of permits for residential development in the City to a maxiitium o
=100 dwelling units each year, and set aside 50 of those permits for lots not subject to
the C'ite's Residential development Allocation process.
• Limit water and sewer connections within the City's sphere of influence area to a
maximum of 150 dwelling units each year.
• prohibit properties in the City that are undeveloped and were designated "Urban
Reserve" in the General Plans in lune, 1987, or which were zoned residential and in
active agricultural production in March, 1986, from beim, redesignated or rezoned to
a density greater than that allowed in the 1987 "R-E" zoning designation, except upon
a 4,15ths vote of`'the {pity Council, with specified findings.
• Establish density limitations for properties based upon slopecategories.
• The Design and Preservation Element is attended to:
• Require waiver of all City processing foes for projects which preserve or enhance'
cultural or historic resources.
The Circulation Element is amended to:
• Designate portions of Brookside Avenue, Olive Avenue, Center Street, Highland
Avenue, Sunset Drive, Cajon Street, Mariposa Drive, Dwight Street and Garden
Street as scenic in character and protect certain specified attributes of those streets.
• Ensure residential streets are designed with "traffic calming" standards.
• Discourage commuter traffic fi-om passing through residential neighborhoods and the
downtown business area
• Minimize additional traffic demands on Alessandro Road.
• Establish "C" as the minimum acceptable Level of Service for Sunset Drive.
The Policies relating to the City's Southeast Area are amended to:
• Limit additional street connections to Sunset Drive to discourage additional traffic.
• Maintain the present design of Alessandro Road as a "collector" street.
• Reference an October, 1989 "Rossmont Drive Traffic Study" for confirming that
Sunset Drive should not accept additional traffic.
The Land Use Element is amended to:
Exempt property located west of California Street and north of the 1-10 freeway from
certain density limitations.
No fiscal analysis of the effects of the amendments has been performed by the City,
State law provides that, if approved, the amendments may not be changed except upon
subsequent approval by the voters of Redlands.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION
OF THE PROPOSED LAWS
ARE THE OPINION OF THE AUTHORS
ORDINANCE NO. 2412
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
Twenty years of managed growth— the direct result of citizen initiative measures like this
one -- has proven that growth management works. Today, Redlands is the most
prosperous city in the region. Despite a more than ten, percent increase in city staff, we
have a balanced budget without reduction in services--without a, utility tax.
The appeal of Redlands as a place to live has sustained residential property values while
property values collapsed in ether cities. We remain a city rich in cultural amenities and
have made great strides toward preserving our citrus heritage and the rural character of
our canyons. We have retained the finest school district in the valley. Interest in
commercial growth has never been greater.
This measure will::
• Recognize the will of the people by restoring provisions of Measure lwl
• Restore Measure N's residential growth rate limitations Restrict the conversion of
citrus to high density housing. However, developers of single family homes are
offered small density bonuses, on a graduated scale, for permanently preserving
higher percentages of the project area as citrus, a park or a child care center
• Encourage preservation of cultural;or historic resources'
• Guarantee standards for the preservation of scenic drives and historic streets
• Add provisions to reduce through traffic in residential neighborhoods and the
downtown area
• Protect south Redlands residential areas from through traffic from the planned
massive development of adjoining Riverside County
Redlands was blessed by the foresight and energy of its founders. It has remained a city
of quality because of the continued participation of its citizens in planning its future.
This measure is yet another opportunity for its citizens to ensurethat Redlands will
remain the best place in which to live, work and raise our families.
VOTE"YES"ON MEASURE
gee?r A. S. panda
John Freedman
Cary George
William Cunningharn
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF ORDINANCE NO. 2412
The argument in favor claims that Redlands is a prosperous city,
Regrettably, this is a myth.
A short time ago, our city government through good fiscal planning, boasted annual
budget reserves of $3 million. Barely $500,000 could be scrapped together this year.
Our separate capital funds, for projects like replacing aging water and server lines, fare no
better with over $I million spent, to-date, by this council to defend lawsuits triggered by
bad land-use decisions, like this initiative.
Today, a city's prosperity hinges on its ability to increase sales tax revenue. To do this,
we must attract shoppers from outside the community. Provisions in this measure,
however, would.make it difficult for them to reach our downtown businesses.
This initiative forces both visitors and residents to use freeways instead of surface streets.
Not only does it discourage people from frequenting downtown and neighborhood
businesses, it spurs new development along the freeway corridor because that's where the
shoppers will be,
Such unintended consequences kill downtown and lead to the sprawl that has consumed
much of Southern California.
Redlands cannot afford another land-use plan that has not been carefully studied before
being put into place. Protect Redlands from bad planning—VOTE NO,
Kevin B. Correia
ORDINANCE, NO. 2412=
ARGUMENT AGAINST
The grab bay of changes to the general plan in this initiative are confusing and have not
been analyzed to identity the hidden "gotchas," The changes seem to focus on traffic in
south Redlands and our downtown. Our downtown struggles to compete with regional
growth already. Routing commuter traffic away from downtown only serves to tip the
scales further against our local businesses, VOTE NO.
California lave stipulates the land use planning process must include tall and active public
involvement. Also, complete environmental analyses must be performed, These
mandates ensure all points of view are considered during plan preparation all issues are
thoroughly analyzed, and unintended and undesirable consequences are avoided. The
plan can then be adapted through legislation or put to the voters.
This proposed initiative pre-empty this process, blurring the line between good planning
and the adoption process.
Initiatives represent only one group's point of view. They are not the result of
community wide input or thorough planning, and are not required to undergo`
environmental analysis. Undesirable consequences always result,
For example, Redlands'' most recent initiative included 'very restrictive signage
requirements to block Pharaoh's Lost Kingdom from having a large electric freeway sign.
As a result,, local automobile dealerships are now prohibited from having such signs.:
Redlands now faces the prospect of lasing these businesses and their sales tax revenue— a
loss Redlands cannot withstand--to a neighboring town more sensitive to business needs.
The future of Redlands mast be based on good planning. If these changes make sense, let
it be proven by following the planning and environmental analysis procedures defined by
state law. Then they can be submitted to the public for a v=ote.
OT NO bre this initiative and send a message that we do not wank politicians playing
Russian Roulette with our city's future.-
Kevin B. Correia
Steveuggisberg
:Michael T, Gallagher
3UTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST ORDINANCE NO 2412
The chairman of the Downtown Redlands business Association (DRBA)
approved the
section on downtown traffic. A member of the DRBA board signed the"for" argument.
There were more public hearings on this measure that any other land use decision made
by the council. Although it could have been adopted without the people's vote, it was
decided drat they should have the;right to directly express their will.
The council proposed for vote a measure to allow electronic freeway signs. No one,
including, Mssrs. CoiTeia, Guggisberg and Gallagher, publicly supported the proposal. As:
a result it was dropped.
The process used to place this measure on the ballot was in strict conformance with state
lay..
This measure ensures that our town will grove but at a pace that protects its small town
character, moderates the growth of our school population, preserves our citrus heritage
stimulates downtown business and preserves our historic streets and assets.
Shall Redlands abandon our growth management which has served us so well and race to
row as"Fontana and others have done? Or shall we continue to r ana e our future to
preserve our quality of life and our property values`'
Vote YES for Redlands" future:
William E. Cunningham
John L. Freedman
ieni A. S. Banda: