1983 REG MTG MIN SEP 6 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

377 prove Resolution No. 4368. Unanimous vote. RESOLUTION NO. 4368 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLTON, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR AND THE FORMATION OF CITY OF COLTON LAND- SCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1. CORRESPONDENCE: City Attorney Edwards referred to a letter dated August 28, 1983, together with Petition from residents within the 1200 block of North Rancho Avenue and Valencia Street, complaining about the flooding problem which exists in that area during heavy rains, and requested the City consider a solution to this problem. Mr. Edwards reported that Staff is studying this matter and that the City will take care of this as soon as possible. Mayor Huntoon then referred to letters from Mrs. Geri Farris, Mrs. Kay L. Bruno, and Mr. Gene McMeans regarding proposed rezoning and development in the Reche Canyon area. Mayor Huntoon stated that al- though this was not a public hearing, he would allow one spokesman from the group, and also would allow Mr. Bonadiman to respond if he (V cared to. Mr. Gene McMeans, 12004 Glenwood, Colton, referred to his letter and Q Petitions containing approximately 118 signatures of residents in the Reche Canyon area, expressing their opposition to the rezoning of Q certain areas of Reche Canyon. Mr. McMeans read his letter in full, outlining four specific reasons for the residents' opposition and also referred to the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Mr. McMeans concluded by urging the City Council to either deny or return to Staff for further study and review the proposed zone change in Reche Canyon. Mayor Huntoon asked the City Attorney if he thinks this PC zoning con- forms to the General Plan. City Attorney Edwards answered that basically Mr. McMeans facts are accurate and he has no quarrel with his representations as to what is true as being true. Mr. Edwards continued that he thinks the differ- ence between Mr. McMeans and the City Staff is one of interpretation rather than the factual content of the documents. Mr. Edwards stated the view of Staff is that the proposal we are talking about, the 142 - acre parcel, is consistent with the General Plan for the area; with regard to the 5 -acre parcel proposed for the mouth of the Canyon, that is a different matter but was processed as a General Plan Amendment. Mr. Edwards concluded the view of Staff is that the zoning amendment, A-5-83, is a PC overlay over the Residential Estates zoning and, ac- cordingly, it does not effect the density and, therefore, in the view of Staff, since the density is the same before as after, the adoption of the zone change is consistent with the General Plan. Mr. Joseph E. Bonadiman, 606 East Mill Street, San Bernardino, stated his firm will be doing the engineering for these proposed develop- ments, and expressed his gratitude to the City Council for allowing public input again on this matter. Mr. Bonadiman stated we are deal- ing with a General Plan, not a Specific Plan, and the General Plan does allow the densities to vary. Mr. Bonadiman said whatever plan is presented or developed would have to be approved by Staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council, and would also have to com- ply with City codes and regulations. Mr. Bonadiman said the health and welfare of the residents and the community would be preserved, and the developments would not adversely effect the area or its residents. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Ordinance Nos. 1649, 1650 and 1651 Second Reading City Attorney Edwards stated that Ordinance Nos. 1649, 1650 and 1651 all pertained to the proposed zone changes in Reche Canyon and Second Reading could be handled by one motion for all of them, if the Council so desired. SEP 6 1983