02-23-1988 CC MINUTES (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CITY OF RIVERSIDE COUNCI LMEMBERS %,,,, Febr..rz 23, 19S8 WARDS read or discussed. The comunication from the City Planning Commission stated Chat the Commission, by a vote of 7 ayes Co 0 noes and i abstention, approved the proposed Code amendment, as stated in fuZZ in the attachment to the communication. The communication from the Environmental Protection Commission stated that the Commission, by a vote of 9 ayes to 0 noes, determined chat the proposed Code amendment would not have a cant adverse effect on the environment. The Planning Director presented departmental recommendations. No one was present wishinS to speak on the matter. No ~rrit:ten pro- tests were presented. The hearing yes officially closed. Zt yes determined that the proposed Code amendment would not have a significant adverse environmental effect; and the staff report and the environmental assessment were adopted as findings. The Munici- Hotion pal Code amendment was approved as presented; and the City Attorney was requested to pre- Second :X~ pare the appropriate ordi~nce for introduction. All Ayes PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO i'~_E LAND USE ELEMENT AND RIVERSIDE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN OF THE GENERAL PLAN - CASE GP-16-878 - BOUNDED BY RUNWAY 16/34 (EXTENDED), CENTRAL AND ROHR SPUR RAILROAD LINE - CONTINUED 3 P.M.--~learing was called on the proposal by the City of Riverside, Case GP-16-878, to amend the Land Use Element and the Riverside Municipal Airport Master Plan of the City of Riverside General Plan to allow for the development of airplane hangars on approxi- mately 4.4 vacant acres of land bounded by Runway 16/34 (extended) to the east, Central Avenue to the north, and the Rohr Spur railroad line to the west. As heretofore direct- ed by the City Council, the minutes of the City Planning Commission and the Environmen- tal Protection Commission pertaining to this case are on file and are a part of the evidence submitted aC this hearing, whether or not any portion thereof is read or dis- cussed. The communication from the Environmental Protection Commission stated that the Commission, by a vote of 9 ayes to 0 noes, determined that the amendment would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment, subject to the mitigating measures stat- ed in full in the attachment to the communication, including provisions thac no metal buildings shall be permitted, the use of two or more structures shall be encouraged in lieu of a single, large hangar structure, and a minimum 20-foot-wide landscape setback along Central Avenue. The communication from the City Planning Commission stated that the Commission, by a vote of 7 ayes to I no and 1 abstention, approved the proposed Gen- eral Plan amendment subject to the development standards stated in full in the attach- ment to the communication, deleting the provision for no metal buildings and reducing the landscaping along Central Avenue to 15 feet. The Planning Director presented depart- mental recommendations. The Airport Director spoke in support of the City Planning Com- mission action. Following a brief discussion, the matter was referred to the City Manag- e= for resolution; and the hearing was continued to March 8, 1988, at 1:30 p.m. FURTHER HEARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN BY ADDING THE HUNTER BUSINESS PARK SPECIFIC PLAN - CASE GP-14-878 - EASTERLY OF STATE ROUTE 91/I-215 (RIVERSIDE FREE- WAY) NORTHERLY OF SPRUCE TO CITY LIMITS - CONTINUED 3 P.M.--Further hearin8 was called to consider amending the City of Riverside General Plan by addfn~ the Hunter Business Park Specific Plan, Case GP-14-878. This Plan pro- vides various goals, objectives and policies for the development of a 1,300-acre area with industrial and industrial support uses. This industrial area is located generally easterly of State Route 91/I-215 (Riverside Freeway) northerly of Spruce Street and ex- tends to the Riverside City limits, generally to the Sprin~brook Arroyo and to the Box Springs Mountain Regional Park. As heretofore directed by the City Council, the minutes of the City Planning Commission and the Environmental Protection Commission pertaining to this case are on file and are a part of the evidence submitted at this hearing, whether or not any portion thereof is read or discussed. The coummunication from the City Planning Commission stated that the Commission, by a vote of 7 ayes to 0 noes, ap- proved the proposed General Plan amendment with the modifications 1laCed in the communi- cation. The communication from the Environmental Protection Commission advised that the Commission, by a vote of 10 ayes to 0 noes and 1 abstention, determined that the amend- ment would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. The hearing before the City Council had been continued from Februar7 9, 1988, at the request of the Plan- ning and Legal Departments. A written report was submitted from the City Mana8er and the Plannin~ Dfrector~ concurred in by the City Attorney and the Assistant City Manag- er-Development, presenting certain recommendations with reZard to the Plan. A supplemen- tal report ~as submitted from the City Manager and the Planning Director, concurred in by the Assistant City Manager-Development and the City Attorney, presenting three possi- ble courses of action to the City Council, and recommending that the City Council consid- er an amendment to the Specific Plan to reflect an agricultural designation f6r those properties defined as agricultural lands in Measure C and direct the Planning and Legal Departments to prepare appropriate revisions to the Plan for consideration on March 15, ~Motion Second ;All Ayes 73-347