HomeMy WebLinkAbout50-Planning & Building
cAy OF SAN BERNAR&O ~1t~EQ~T FOR COUNCIL AC~ON
..rom:
~ePt:
Larry E. Reed, Director
Subject:
General Plan
options
(To be presented at
Amendment
Planning and Building and Safety
council Luncheon)
Date:
December 7, 1989
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
None
r."., ;::::r
''',;'.,'',- fl",
(;.t,' C:'
~ t.:)
,-,.,
,-,.,
, ::.,",
--I tee,
...."
./....
::r:..
(.r.) C}
...." "
-,
,n
Recommended motion:
That the Mayor and Common Council adopt options A,B and E of the at-
tached staff report pertaining to general plan amendment applications.
.
Larry E. Reed
Contact person:
Staff Report
Supporting data attached:
384-5281
Phone:
Ward:
All Wards
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
#
Source: IAcct. No.)
N/A
(Acct. Description)
Finance:
.p>uncil Notes:
... COUNCIL:CA.REQUEST-12
75-0262
Agenda Item No sa
cAy OF SAN BERNAR&O - REQuAT FOR COUNCIL ACttON
.
STAFF REPORT
I.
BACKGROUND:
The Land Use Plan was developed as a long term plan for land use to
reflect how the City wants to grow in the future. From the beginning
of the General Plan revision process the Land Use Plan was developed by
a "clean slate" approach reflecting long term growth plans. Existing
and future quality of life, concerns for public health and safety and a
desire to achieve the highest and best use for the community were some
of the various factors considered when developing the Land Use Plan. It
was not intended to merely be a representation of existing land use or
zoning. In many instances it was the intent of the Mayor and Common
Council to change the land use designations on vacant and developed
land. The Mayor and Common council, however, did not intend to totally
preclude development on privately-owned land.
Since the General Plan was adopted, it has come to our attention that
some property owners are dissatisfied with the designation assigned to
their properties. In some cases the designation has created a legal
nonconforming use and in other cases the designation differs from the
previous zoning. other types of cases are identified in section II of
this report.
.
The urgency Ordinance precluded general plan amendments for a period of
six (6) months after adoption of the General Plan, with the exception.
of Council-initiated amendments. That condition expired on December 2,
1989, after which anyone could submit an amendment application subject
to all submittal requirements and payment of all fees.
II. LAND USE PLAN CONCERNS:
Staff has identified several areas of concern regarding the Land Use
Plan.
1. Privately owned parcels that have been given a public
designation. Staff has identified some of these parcels.
2. Parcels that are developed and the land use designation has
created a nonconforming use. Staff has not identified these
parcels. Some have come to our attention from phone/counter
calls and meetings with property owners.
3. Interpretation questions. Staff has been interpreting the 1000
scale Land Use Plan onto parcel specific maps. In doing so, we
have identified concerns such as where a parcel is split by two
designations. Depending on how an interpretation is made, the
land use designation could change.
4. Areas where property owners do not like their designations.
.
CA.STAFF-12
Page 1
15-0264
.
.
.
,.. .
.
.
.
a. Vacant parcels where the land use designation differs from
the previous zoning.
b. Vacant parcels where there is no substantial change from
the previous zoning.
These parcels
concerns from
owners.
have not been identified. staff is aware of some
phone/counter calls and meetings with property
5. Areas where the city may wish to reconsider the designation.
Individual Council members have identified a few areas that may
merit reconsideration. This could be on the basis of No. 1-4
or for other parcels not included there.
III. WHEN A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT IS NECESSARY:
It should be noted that, by law, any change in the adopted land use
designations requires a general plan amendment. This includes all of
the concerns listed above with the partial exception of item 3. If a
parcel is split by a designation, the planning commission and/or staff
can interpret where the designation boundary should actually be drawn
as per Policies 1.7.3 and 1.7.4 of the General Plan. If a change in
designation is being considered, a general plan amendment is required.
The general plan amendment process does not differ significantly from
one concern to the next or from small, relatively simple amendments to
large, complicated or controversial amendments. All proposed
amendments to the General Plan require notification to surrounding or
adjacent cities, the county and affected agencies. substantial
amendments (whether in size or number) require notification to the
state Clearinghouse and LAFCO.
All amendments must go through the same process as far as environmental
review, public review and comment periods and public hearings.
IV. AVAILABLE OPTIONS:
The following options are available for addressing Land Use Plan
concerns:
A. Privately owned/Publicly Designated General Plan Amendments. The
property owner would submit a letter to the Planning Department
explaining the concern and specifically identifying the parcel(s).
Planning would then initiate a general plan amendment with no fees
charged to the property owner.
This option would address concern 1.
B. Nonconforming Use General Plan Amendments.
Property owners would
CA.STAFF-12
Page 2
.
.
.
..'
C.
.
.
.
submit a complete application for an amendment and processing fees
would be waived if the use is nonconforming*. (This could also
apply to privately owned parcels with public designations). The
City can accept applications for all nonconforming uses or only
those that were legally conforming at the time of Plan adoption.
The City could establish a window or time period for accepting
these applications. Some property owners may not be aware that
their use is now nonconforming and could miss out on this process.
This option would address concerns 1 and 2.
City-Initiated General Plan Amendments. The Planning Department
would review land use designations in the City on an area by area
basis. This. review could include a comparison of the existing land
use versus the land use designation (for identifying nonconforming
uses), a comparison of the land use designation versus the previous
zoning and identification of the interpretation concerns and a
recommendation for resolution.
If the Mayor and Common Council wish to reconsider many land use
designations, this would be the most comprehensive way to do so for
addressing items 2 and 4. However, the time to complete this
process would be substantial. An optimistic estimate would be a
minimum of 2-3 people full time for six (6) months to complete the
required tasks. This doesn't include time for required public
hearings. Some people may not be satisfied with the length of time
it takes to address their specific concerns if review and public
hearings are on an area by area basis.
This option would reopen the land use hearings and would probably
result in the need for an environmental impact report (EIR)
depending on the extent of the proposed amendments. An EIR could
further lengthen the process since it would need to address any
changes and the changes couldn't be made until the EIR is
certified.
Notification
although the
newspaper.
of individual property owners would be quite
City could notice through a display ad
costly,
in the
If this option were selected, it would severely impact Staff's
ability to complete other key projects.
D. Limited Fees General Plan Amendments. The property owner would
submit a complete application and fees would be reduced**.
This option would address concerns 1,2 and 4.
E.
Standard General Plan Amendment Process. The property owner
submit a complete application and pay all processing fees.
process is in effect now.
would
This
CA.STAFF-12
Page 3
.
.
.
. ,.,-
.
.
.
This option would address concerns 1-4.
V. RECOHMENDATl:ON:
staff recommends that the Mayor and Common council select options A, B
and E. option A is self explanatory and should be in effect regardless
of which other options are selected.
option B allows the Mayor and Common council to reconsider the
designations that have created nonconforming uses. Staff recommends
that this option only include uses that were legally conforming prior
to adoption of the General Plan.
remain in effect even if option C
the least amount of impact on the
option E is in effect now and should
is selected. option E would have
city and staff.
The Mayor and Common Council may still initiate general plan amendments
as they so determine.
*
An application for a general plan amendment includes maps of the
proposed amendment area, mailing labels for all parcels within 500
feet of the proposed amendment area, the environmental review form
and any required studies. (Other submittals are required as
outlined on the amendment application.)
** CUrrent fees for processing a general plan amendment are $1,405
including the environmental review fee. As per Resolution 89-471,
fees for processing a general plan amendment will be + $1,350 after
January 21, 1990. Both of these costs assume that an-environmental
impact report will not be required.
CA.STAFF-12
Page 4