Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS21-City Attorney Ct-R.OF SAN BERNARDf.aO - REQU.Q,. FOR COUNCIL AC~ON From: JAMES F. PENMAN City Attorney CITY ATTORNEY Subject: Closed Session To Determine If Litigation Should be Initiated by the City Depl: Date: July 1, 1987 Synopsis of Previous Council action: None Recommended motion: CLOSED SESSION to determine if litigation should be initiated pursuant to Government Code Section S4956.9(c) - City of San Bernardino v. Certain Developers XYNn. '1 J /4h-.. --:;'. I -~ Jet F. PenmanSignature Contact person: JAl1ES F. PENMAN Phone: 384-5355 Supporting data ettached: Ward: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: (ACCr, NO.) (ACCr, DESCRIPTION) Finance: Council Notes: 01./ c~-~ XEROX TELECOPIE~ 295 ; ~ - , , -:'7; .;:46 '-:'M; :"1':>~"<::,r::"'J<;;' .. - "<+C'.':l-':I;!-' -' , - .::: '. HC{.I:;~OI'j-=,,:,( ;...- :-~... :.: ~SF'r'l ; ;16..J...661IC::6- ~t~~ of QIul~ ClI0V.RNOR'S OIl"IC. O,""lC. Oil JIIL.ANNINClI AND RBS\!!A"CM , 400 TENTH ST"'.ET SACRAM.NTO 81114 -1~606;.Jl:;J:2 Z :JEt',......, f1'r':HIEL:.Eh. _4. -.' @ ClEO_. CEUI<M-.JIAN .....- July 3, 1987 Mr. James PerIaan, City Attorney City of SIn Bernardino 300 North -De Strwt San Bernardino, CA 92418 Dear Mr. PwImIInI This letter ia written in responae to ytlUr requ..t for clarification of the general plan extension letter issued by this office on June 11, 1987. I have .xBmined the materials submitted by the City, spent additional time .dillcualling varioua po1nu with yQ\.I and other n_I~t'8 of City staff, and /Ill 'rDW prllpU'eC to iseue the following supplementary conditions designed to clarify my first letter. ~ese additional corxiitions shall have the same force and effect lIB the conditions contained in the letter of June 11, 1987. For convenience, I have grouped these conditions by thlir geowe.phic ap- plicability. In addition, I IIlI correcting an inadvertent error in \:he legal dllilCription that WlIB attached to the June 11 letter, SOt11'H OF mE I.INE (lIB described in Exhibit A of the letter of June 11 and lIB corncted herein) A. All projects within R8devel~t Area that are proposed in whole or in part within area of liquefaction hazard, as identified on !:he _t recently available mape of the U.S. Geological ~~ (File Report No. 86-562, Maps 1-51 Map 4 of 5, San Jacinto Fault; Map 3 of 5, San Andrea. Fault7 Map 5 of 5, Rancho Cucamonga Paultl all u further amplified 1n Open ~ile Report No. 86-169 entitled "Liquefaction Susceptibility in the San Bernardino Valley and Vicinity.), shall cOlllply with the nquirements of City RMolution 82-345. nus is not IIlNlIt to limit the inp:lsition of additional .tandards. However, no lesser standard !hall be all~ in this portion of the city. B. Building pemits may alao be issued for the follClfin'J cl....s of minor projects witho~t the findings otherwise required in condition 3 of CPR'. letter of JUne 11, 1987, (I) Minor a1 teratioM to ex1stinq structures such as roall aclditiOl'lll or other ~u to ed.tin; raeiclenc... (2) Utility hook-ups and certificat.. of occupancy for any of the minor \lseS lilted in this condition or in condition 3 of the OPR . ....<..''-'.~:;>-, ~ , .. .j =E'~T 3' :rl!EL,.'=E:.. HCr'3::,Cli-::,;"I: o,C' 3:....SF"..1 ; 91e.~4661ee.'" ~1...88e9wl-;.:::: : c -2- o ~"'\ ~.,I' extenlion letter of June 11, 1987. !hie shall al*> epply to p8de Or !oundatiexw in a mcbilehanll pa~k Where all work is completed ard Clnly 18euance of such pemi1:Jl ~in. C, Zone ch.anges, ccn:Sitional UIMI pemits, and variance. which have been approved rq the City prior to the effective dat. of this extension, but for lIIIhich an ~al period was IItill in effect upon JUn8 11, 1987 shall ~t be 8Ubject to the conditioi'll of this extension if the !ollowing are uu., (1) project approval has ocCl.lrr8d in calOlianee with the develQl;llltt\t ~tori\llll conditions il,,,,,: lid I7i City Ordinance Me-588, approved lIpril 6, 1987 and extended theE'Hfter. (2) ~ 1(l!jl8a1 baa been filed prior to expiration of the ~eal period or, if an ~ hee been filed, approval of the proj4lC1: hu been upheld I7i the hearing body, D. Project.. of t.h8 San Bernardi~ Camunity Develop.-nt DepaJ:tment which are part of th8 inUll hOl.lling program .hall not be subject to the condition. of thil extel'llion to the extent that aK:h prognm involv.. construction of lingle-family dwelling units on parcel. zoned It-l that were vacant or cont.ained substandard vacant dIIlellirIJ unit. lince it either in~vw. replacement of exiltin; .truct.ures or placement of additional .tructure. to diqll'O\18 and incre...w the supply ofhcua1ng affordable to lOW"" and m::xIerat.e-income hou.eholds so as to meet the req.linlllln1:Jl of the Health and Safety Code. 00R1'H r::R THE ~ (as described in Exhibit A of the letter of June 11 and as corrected herein) A. 'there are three tlI)rtgzu;Je revenue bond project.l which are north of laid line. 'l'My are (I) CUtl~k ApartIlIenu (CUtlebK, Inc.), (2!) Shadcw Hills Apartlllen1:Jl (Cltllllna, SL), and (3) eni vera i ty Park Apartme"1:JI (Cal Shell/Carou.el), Thill office v.. unavare of,th..e three =ortgage revenue Ixx'd projects at 1:M tillle it issued it. June 11 General Plan Extension l.tter. To date, this office does not have sufficient documentation to demonstrate that if the.. three proj.cts cannot proc* thAt the original ~ for which ..id ~ were iuued will be stymied, thus resultill9 in a default on tha bord.. Accord1nQly, the city ill hereby authorized and 8Iq;lOoIIIred to seek . court determination through a validation action or sane other approp~iate legal proceeding that enable. tnese previously identil!ied three lllCrtOage revenue l:lOl'ld projects to proceed if the coUrt determine. that aent such permission the QondII in que.tic:Jn will be in default. Q1ch legal ~-.lIdy ..,ill allow those who CWO" the prtljects It forum in which to qu.stion the accuracy of such alleged default. B. '!he developnent l:'eatrictioll8 ~Ied by ccndition 2 of the OPR letter of June 11, 1987 shell not apply to iae\Ianc:e of pemie. necessary to initiate and <:m91ete the follMrrol 01..... of projects: C' "..'__,_"_,, ',".) ... (io.j.>:,..,=,,===,~ i.,; . . 4 ~Er~T 3'r': rHEL3Er~. HOr'I:;'3[:11-:,~': . - ~,-,=, :: .J6F'\ ; ='1 6....J66 1 €l6- ~1.J88~-;.;1:;tt ... ,'" . c -3- o :) \ . '"."., ~ (1) Public works projec:ta nBCe..ary for the maintenance ~ the PJblic health and safety. To the extent. th.t "cvenidno" of such projects is done by the city to poseibly accomodat.. ~jected future c!eYelopnent, nc reliance may later be placed on that cver- .idng in order to "bootstrap. the general plan reviaion into projected derwiti.. or developnent. (2) The in.tallat10n of an individual mobil.home in an existing l\d)ilehane park when the ailehalle owner 11M purc:hued or le..ed the individual lIlObilehome spllce prior to 3: 13 p.m. on June 11, 1987 (ttm. and ~ the city received the first extension letter) or where the pads or foundat.ion. of the mobilehome ~ ..re CCl'8t.J:\1c:ted prior t:o 3:13 p.m. on June 11, 1987. (3) Construction of . single-flllllily hCIIIIe by an individual on a single lot ~ich wu ;w'chased or placed in eecrow by that individual for the pw:pclM of ;w'cha1Ml prior to 3: 13 on June 11, 1987. '1his will ltill preclude COrIlItNCtion of neue.. in IIW.ti-lot developlMnts. It i. intended only to provide relief for individuals caught fI'Ql\ a timin; point of view beblMn purchaM IUd Q;JnStr1.ICtion of their "~ heme.. (4) Re1;lllc.-nt of uilting IttUctur.., including IlIObiJ.ehom.., where laid structure confol:lllS to the city ~oning ordinance, the 1'MIW IItruct\.lre will be located on the ~ sit., and th8 rww structure will have thlI AlIl8 purpoee and capacity lIS the old. (5) Minor alterations to uisting CXIIIMrc:ial, industrial II\d residen- tial structure., .uch .. interior III terat1ofll, rtlCIlI mdlt:ions or other such mditiorw to .aid existing .tructures, and demol1 t.ion of structures d.eecribed in aubdivisions (1), (2), (3), am (4) of this c:cndition. (6) Accesllory structures and improvements t.o existing struc:t\IrU, includinO garages, carports, and awinlni.ng pools. (7) co.ercial or industrial projects that are located within a red~lcpnent area, when such projeet.a are the ~jec:t of an CMlIlr participation agreement (OPA) or a dispoSition agreenent (~) with thlI ReclevelO!;1Ml't Agency provided that such agreement was entered int:o prior to 3:13 p.m. on June 11, 1987 and provided that arrj such projects are c:cnsistllnt with the redevelopment plan that ..,as adapted prior to June 11, 1987. CInWIIE A. Issuance of minor permits (Le. utility meten, encroac:hm1int permits, etc.) necuaary for the cal'lPletion of a project. for which II building permit has been validly iSllued and physically ~eived prior to 3:13 p.m. on June 11, 1987 shall not be .ubject to the restrictions of the extension. :'S'"JT. E', :rlIE:"'::,Er.. ....,;:;>~:,:I,-:;.: :: ~"'C:'1 ; =:6..l...E.;;.12~,- ~1....E6~;:';::;::t :: ""!f" ~ o -4- o ,..''"'''' ! B. 'the conditions contained in the Office of Plannning and ,...arch letter of June 11, 1987 are not intended to prevent recordation only of a final BUbdivis10n map for wich a tentative map had been validly ap- prov<<l priClr to the effective date of the extension. c. Palative to th8 three housing rehlloilitation prograIM financed frOll\ proceeds of the Ccmmunity Develcpll8nt Block Grant (crsG), the R8ntal Rehat>llitation Program (RllPl <;nnt and the Section 312 program, these three hOUling rehabilitation programs are pe~tted since all three progr_ focus primarily on abating heal th and safety violations and bring existing dwelling units into compliance with the applicable previsions of the Cniform Building COde. ~ The last area to be clarified in thil letter is perllape the lIlC>>t dif- L:J ficult ot Illl beCause it ~oes net involve planning issues or queatiorw, out rather revolves around legal issues and ltIether or rot rights have vested in certain projects so that those projects uy legally proceed to completion regardless of what conditione are ;~o'ed in !:hi. letter or the one dated June 11, 1987. 'lbi. ofHce is mindful that a Court Order has been issued in Case No. 236836 ~ich ratifi.. and Idcpts as part of that Order the letter of June 11 "and Ilny clarifications, amplifications, exemptions which may be issued by the Office of Planning and RHearch." 'this office has received l"IIJIllerOUS rlQUe.ts to have developnent projects - both large and small - exEmpted frail the c:onditions ~aad to date on the grounds that either the project developer had filed an applica- tion for a l:l1ilding peIillit and m~ybe even paid permit fees, or had su.tained some other costs incurred with the project which should permit the project to proceed. '!be reason. for requ..tad exemption. sub1'llitted to this office on all euch projects are not planning reMonS but are rather legal reasons, that is that certain-actions have occured which should permit the project to proc.ed.~." legal iaIua. can only be resolved in a CQUrt of law and if in fact legal rights have vested given the actions of the developers in question, then the88 particular projects may Droceed to ~letion9 Accordingly, similar to the action ~ich the city may take on the t:hr.ee- mortgage revenue bond projects north of said line, the city is lim- powered to seek a court determination relative to vested rights of CCJlt)letion for those pttljects which are not per !Ill permitted to proceed by the conditione imposed herein and in t.'\e letter of June 11 if the project in question at least ,reached the stage of (ll receiving an utilizing a demolition permit, (2) receiving II!'ld utilizing a grading permit or other permits usociated with a grading permit which l.".suH in expenditure of funds for inilrovementa identified with the ~roval of a project, (3) submitting a l:l1ilding pel.'lllit application with payment of fees and permission to start physical construction of a project prior to ever receiving !l l:l1ilding permit, or (4) receiving a builcUnq permit for an increment of a project and the developer wish,. to proceed with the remainder of the project but it requires additional building permits. If a court determines that any or all such projact:. have reached a stage which legally vests rights of completion in the =,Elji B', :rnE_=,E!.. HOr'3':,CoIj-=.~,: - -~- , ,', '3: ...e;F',' ; ;i6......661J6- -1~~,~,~;~1 '3;::t '5 ..-"'~ . c -5- o \ . '" ,~" . 4evelo~r of that project, then tho.e court determined projects may proceed to ~letionl otherwi.., such projects may not pc-oceed until thlt QOn;litioM ~..d in this lettec- and the ora of June 11 are met. Nothwithatandin;l the iIlrnediate prior paragraph, it a project which would otherwi.. be permitted to seek CClUl"t de~rminatiOl'\ to proceed i. Ilt that stage becllulIe it receivec1 action in violation of ordinance No. Me-S88, which becallI effective April 6, then such project 18 precluded from ...king ..id CXM:t. determination and DIllY not proceed unt.il the ccnHtioM 1.1""-..... in this let~r and thlI one of June 11 are 1IIIt. .aa:NDI\ - PRIOR rmICE If the city initiate. any court determination pursuant to the condi- tions contained in this lett.er, it Ihall give notice to the pUblic at large in t)w agenda of its imIlediate next. ClQUI'lCil lIIIltting. It there 11 any court hearing or appearMCe befor. the first ClCWlCil mMting Ilfter said initiation, the city 18 &180 required to give prior notice of said hearing or appearance t:o the public at. large thrcugh Aid illJenda. Finally, the legal description contained in !xhibit. A of thlI CPR let.ter of June 11, 1987 is hereby corre<:ted to substitute "Boulder Avenue" for the final two referenees to "Mountain Avenue". '1M changM read all !ollCWB: .. ..continuing elon; an im8ginary line projecting Qrl:hid Drive due !Jast to the intersection of an imaginary line projecting Iculder Avenue due North: thence South, along said imag1nary line projecting ii:iIdir Avenue dlJe North, to Highland Avenue..." I. "