City of Loma Linda

The meeting commenced with roll call, confirming a quorum, and proceeded with the invocation and pledge of allegiance, as there were no closed session items. Public participation included a notification regarding a special presentation on land development scheduled for the following week. The main agenda item involved discussions and actions regarding an initiative petition titled the Loma Linda Essential City Services Measure, which proposed a 1% transaction and use tax. Staff recommended accepting the certification from the Registrar of Voters confirming sufficient signatures and adopting a resolution to submit the measure to voters in the consolidated municipal election scheduled for June 2nd, 2026. The council was also asked to consider submitting an argument against the ballot initiative and was advised on the potential for litigation if the measure, which was argued by a public speaker to be fatally flawed due to violations of Elections Code sections concerning the placement and format of the title and summary on signature pages, proceeds to the ballot. Finally, the council considered the first reading of an ordinance to enact the 1-cent sales tax pending voter approval and the approval of a $50,000 supplemental appropriation from general fund reserves to fund the election costs associated with placing the measure on the ballot.

The meeting was a jointly noticed informational meeting between the Planning Commission and the City Council regarding the proposed University Village mixed-use project by Loma Linda University Health. The project involves the construction of a six-story, 455,914 square foot building with 381 residential units and 10,000 square feet of retail/campus support uses. Key discussion points included the site plan, which utilizes a wrap-style design around a central parking structure, and the significant grade changes across the 7-acre parcel, influencing the building's perceived height (up to six stories along Mound Street and five along Prospect Avenue). The applicant requested a Development Code Amendment, Certificate of Appropriateness, and a Tentative Parcel Map, seeking variances for minimum unit area and private patio/balcony space. The proposal also requires the demolition of two institutional commercial buildings and 24 residential buildings located within the Mound City historical landmark. Parking details, including an average of 1.85 spaces per unit and different site access points from Mound and Prospect Avenues, were reviewed. A placeholder mural was discussed for the east elevation.

The meeting commenced with a report from the city attorney regarding a closed session meeting concerning one case of potential litigation, where no action was taken. Following roll call and invocation, the council moved to public participation where a speaker discussed upcoming holiday events, including a Christmas mixer and the City Community Awards/Chamber Installation Dinner. The Mayor then moved Item 7A, concerning the possibility of increasing the general transaction and sales tax, forward for initial discussion due to community interest. The City Manager presented data indicating a worsening budget deficit, projected at $1.2 million without intervention, and requested council guidance on placing a measure on the June 2026 ballot to increase the sales tax by one cent (estimated to generate $6.4 million annually) or by a smaller percentage. Discussions also touched upon the current strain on city services due to unfunded positions, including a recently completed but unstaffed fire station, and the financial impact of operating under deficit budgets for several years.

The meeting addressed public participation, where a resident inquired about the reduction of City Council meetings from two to one per month, citing smaller agendas as the reason provided. Another resident discussed consent calendar items 4D, 4E, and 4F, specifically advocating for the inclusion of additional funding (10% to 30% increase) in Community Development Block Grants to incentivize ADA compliance using universal design. The main public hearing involved an appeal (202500002) against a Planning Commission decision that denied preliminary development review for a five-unit attached multifamily development on Park Avenue due to lack of legal access to a public street. Staff recommended denying the appeal and upholding the director's determination, noting the proposed alley access did not meet municipal standards (60 ft right-of-way, 36 ft curb-to-curb width) and fire access concerns existed. Alternatives for compliant access were proposed, including securing private access agreements. The applicant countered that their road access was public, established in 1972, met California Fire Code minimums (20 ft width), and was identical to several previously approved developments, arguing the Planning Commission's decision was arbitrary.

The meeting commenced following a closed session where direction was provided to staff. During non-agendaized public participation, residents addressed concerns regarding traffic speeds on Lton, suggesting a stop sign be reinstated on Hillrest and Lton, and requesting a reduction in the speed limit from 35 MPH to 25 MPH due to safety concerns involving children, pets, and elderly residents. Another resident discussed issues related to trash accumulation in various areas and requested a more consistent cleanup program, citing personal efforts to clean up public spaces. The main agenda item involved a public hearing and first reading of a council bill to amend the Municipal Code to change Planning Commission term periods from three years to four years, aligning them with City Council terms and establishing a stable staggering structure following disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Planning Commission had unanimously recommended approval for this amendment.