HomeMy WebLinkAbout40-Planning
-I
, If. OF "SAN BERClRDINO - RI!QUI!STOOR COUNCIL ACTION
~: Larry E. Reed, Director
Jept: Planning and Building Services
Date: September 19, 1990
Su~~: Appeal of DRC Approval of
Lot Line Adjustment No. 90-23
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
October 1, 1990, 2:00 p.m.
Synopsis of Previous Council ~ion:
On July 19, 1990, the Development Review Committee approved Lot Line
Adjustment No. 90-23.
On August 20, 1990, the Council referred the appeal of Lot Line Adjust-
ment 90-23 to the Planning Commission for a recommendation.
On September 11, 1990, the Planning Commission considered the Council's
request to make a recommendation on the appeal of Lot Line Adjustment
90-23. The Commission's vote on a motion to recommend denial of the
appeal resulted in a tie vote of 4 to 4.
Recommended motion:
That the Mayor and Council deny the appeal, and approve Lot Line
Adjustment No. 90-23 subject to the findings and conditons of aEprgval
contained in the July 23, 1990 letter of approval, Attachment ~C" .i:;
c.,
(Supports DRC action.) 'r, :::
- '... ~-..
r.,
..."~
t_...
/."-
.',,"
-4 r:-kA ;:
. Signature
Larry E. Reed
Contact penon:
Larry Eo Reed
Phone:
384-5357
Supporting data attached: Stoaff Report
Ward:
1
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount: N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. DescriDtionl
Finance:
Council Notes:
75-0262
Agenda Item No
~
, F SAN BERtORDINO - REQUEST OR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
/
~
Subject: Appeal of Development Review Committee (DRC)
Approval of Lot Line Adjustment No. 90-23
Mayor and Council Meeting of
October 1, 1990, 2:00 p.m.
REOUEST
The appellant, John Lightburn, is appealing the approval of
Lot Line Adjustment No. 90-23 by the Development Review
Committee. The appellant requests that the Mayor and
Council reconsider the approval and "set aside the approval
of Lot Line Adjustment No. 90-23 until such time a thorough
environmental review is conducted in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ...". (See
Appeal Letter, Attachment "A".)
BACKGROUND
Lot Line Adjustment No. 90-23 combines 13 lots into 2 lots
consisting of a total of 3.3 acres located at the northwest
corner of Court Street and Arrowhead Avenue. Parcel No. 1
will consist of Assessor Parcel Numbers 135-151-4, 5, 10-16,
and 20. Parcel No. 2 will consist of Assessor Parcel Numbers
135-151-17, 18 and 19. (See Attachment "B", Lot Line
Adjustment Plat.)
On July 19, 1990, the Development Review Committee approved
Lot Line Adjustment No. 90-23.
On August 20, 1990; the Council referred the appeal to the
Planning Commission for a recommendation. On September 11,
1990, the Planning Commission reviewed the appeal and voted 4
to 4 on a motion to recommend denial of the appeal. This "no
recommendation" resulted because of confusion over issues
unrelated to the appeal. Lot Line Adjustments are
categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA (Section
15305), if new parcels are not created. The proposed
configuration complies with all pertinent criteria set forth
in the Municipal Code and is consistent with the General
Plan.
5-0264
-4-
o
o
Appeal of Lot Line Adjustment No. 90-23
Mayor and Council Meeting of October 1, 1990
Page 2
BASIS OF APPEAL
The main point of the appeal letter is that the Lot Line
Adjustment is an "integral" part of a development plan
related to the expansion of the Sun Company, and that, as
such, the "cumulative impacts" may have a significant effect
on the environment and "compromise long-term environmental
goals" by not taking into effect the implications of related
projects. These related projects are inferred to be illegal
or inappropriate.
ANALYSIS OF APPEAL
Lot Line Adjustments are legal instruments affecting boundar-
ies of existing parcels and have no environmental
consequences, cumulatively of individually. For this reason
they have been categorically exempted from the provisions of
CEQA. They may be important in implementing a development
project for financing or legal reasons, but they do not
produce a physical change to the environment. Thus, the
appeal has no valid basis.
The safety issues raised by his questions about related
projects are being addressed by the Department through the
appropriate legal and technical review procedures.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Mayor and Council deny the appeal
and approve Lot Line Adjustment No. 90-23.
Prepared by: John E. Montgomery, AICP
Principal Planner
Attachments: A - Letter of Appeal to Mayor and Common
Council
B - Lot Line Adjustment Plot
C - DRC Letter of Approval, July 23, 1990
/ke:7/27/90
M&CCAGENDA:
LLA9023APPEAL
o ATTACmmNT h
Mayor ane!. Common Council
~~~ ~~~~nDB;t~e:tno RECE"!Cf'..~T' rI.ER"
SCln BemClnlino, Ca. 92401 . 25 P2 '01
90 JUL .
Subject: Appeal of Lot Line Adjustment 90-23,
Sun Company
Reference: Review of Plans 87-28 &. 86-47
o
July 25, 1990
DeClr Mayor and Members of the Council,
I am aware that the Development Review Committee approved Lot Line
Adjustment 90-23 on July 19, 1990.
By way of this letter, lam appeClling the ORC decision of C1pproval and
request that this matter be set for a heClring before the Mayor C1nd Common
Council.
The grounds for appeal are as follows:
1. The lot line adjustment is integral part of a multi-phase, mUlti-step
development plCln relClted to the expClnsion of the Sun CompClny/USA TodClY
manufacturing plant which began in 1961 and continues today.
2. The environmental review and evaluation of the total project,
specifically Review of Plans 67-26 &. 86-47 and the previous 1961
expansion, was inCldeQuClte and should be evaluated as required by law.
(Ref: JL ltr. to S. Edwins, 7-9-90 C1nd Rpt. to Planning Commission
4-17-90)
3. Due to the .cumulative impacts. of past and future phases of the /
expansion prOject, Lot Line Adjustment 90-23 is not exempt from the
Californifl Environmental Quality Act or Title 14 of the California
AdministrCltive Code. (CAC, Title 14, Sections 15130 and 15355 (b), llnd
Public Resources Code, Section 21083 (b))
4. These projects mClY have a significant effect on the environment and
hClve the potentiCll to degrade the Quality of the environment and
compromise long-term environmental goals. Those significant effects
that should be considered include:
a) Conflict with C1dopted environmental plans and goals of the City;
b) Substantial, demonstrCltive negCltive aesthetic effect;
c) Substantial degradation of water supply;
d) Contamination of publiC water supply;
Pllge Two. - APpelll9 Lot Line Adjustment 90..23 0
,
e) Substllntilll degrlldlltion of or depletion of ground wllter resources;
f) Substllntilll interference of ground wllter rechllrge;
g) Adyerse llffect on II property llnd structure of historicol ond culturol
significonce;
h) Adyerse offect on trllffic, circulotion ond porking requirements;
i) Substllntilll increllse of ombient noise leYels;
k) Expose people llnd structures to mlljor geo/seismic hllzllrds;
1) Disruption of the physicol orrongement of the centrol city oreo;
m) Adyerse llffect on the ombient oir Quolity.
5. Lot Line Adjustment 90-23 did not toke into considerotion the
development ond enYironmentol impliclltions of ReYiew of PIllns 67-26 &.
66-47 ond the circumstonces surrounding the previous iIIegollot line
odjustments, ond the inYolid Lot Line Adjustments 63-01 ond 62-12.
(Ref: JL ltr. to L. Reed, 5-9-90)
Bosed on the foregoing, I om requesting thot the Moyor ond Common Council
set oside the llpprOYlll of Lot Line Adjustment 90-23 until such time 0
thorough enYirOnmentlll review is conducted in occordonce with the
Colifornio EnYironmentol Quolity Act, Title 14 of the Colifornio
AdministlltiYe Code ond other Opplicllble provisions of the municipllll:ode.
.
0-
~
~
_.
...,
\
,:
..) ,
..)) !
"1'
'!IJII
....."/fd
tIlCl ~ \.1)-\ ~ ~J\
~~ ~ t:5" ~~
:s ....
" 2:\SI !!,C'\> _
~~~~!i~
..~ ~ ~ !!~. i
..... "IS' ~ g! ~
~ If I~ii~
~ t ~~@~@
~ i!ii!
,,~ "1!:@~
~. ~:... ii
~. j' -~.
~ C'\ .:
. ,. ~
- - i
~ i -
2 -
..,,". - .', .
i
..
,
,
o
,
o
.
o
o
,
.
,
1"'-"-,11--
,
III
'"
Slat- b.~
: ~
I '
I
I
,
,
,
,
, .
,
,
.
o
o
I
I
-;'il"..
.. .,
i t.
",
.,. \
, I
.~J.'._....'~ ,: .-
,
I "; /
<t ,l
....6~~" " " " " ,,:1
..
.,
~ ~ ...
", n~
. I ..
I - 7.Z/1: N" ii
t!S".t!~
i
AvrNur ~ r
~.
ATTA~~
>> , ~
.
.
:---l
t
.
.
,
$Tftt(T ~
~ 0
~.".t!"
I
:
-'.
,
(I
",
I I "I
II I.I\I~I\IO ,
I I ~ I
I I' ~ I .
I I ~ I
.~ .1 ~_ L ....,..____...\.__.
::'\..~~, , .
l" ....j W.
~" )C
.- \II -.
~ "'\ ~
.., t'\ I -.
1'''~ I , J
~~':~.:~.::.. "" "'
. '-I I '\J"
j-I ~.",
~-~:>..~~~ - :.._.t-...._._~:,:. ~
------ ,. _......-@:!.
. r-~.J.' .,
I I ~ !\:~'\."""0. \~
.:.- f)~.S(JI' -i~ II:' ...~~ ~'
~ ~ ~ ,
\I .... "
~...a il'"l'-i'(-.JlU'_- ,
. ~~ 1I I !'\ \i
.~ ~: =: ~",\..-\----- '
\I
.
:.- ~J.'''' -:
""- 1(/;/'
@
, ,
'-
: AftftDWKUD
.
iI:;LA 90-28
L...
!i
'~""ffI'.
.,,'
.
J
f""
a
-t
C-
_.
:3
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
i
,~t
111_
- .. - I~
~,.:
c......~ .. d
! ~ 01
Oo~~ 1-
-~~ "
:"~i
~~-
~--.
o
ATTACHMENT C
o
,.-
CITY OF
,.
San Bernardino
DaPARTMENT 0' 'LANNING AND aUILDING ,.RVIC.'
LARR Y E. REED
DIRECTOR
July 23, 1990
Charles Schultz
Reid & Hellyer
P.O. Box 1300
Riverside, CA 92509
RE: Lot Line Adjustment No. 90-23
Dear Mr. Shultz:
At their meeting of July 19, 1990, the . Development Review
Committee took the following action:
That the application for Lot Line Adjustment No. 90-23, to
consolidate thirteen parcels into two was approved.
Said approval is subject to compliance with the conditions
listed below.
In accordance with San
18.64 and Resolution No.
Line Adjustments.
The Development Review Committee shall deny the application
for a lot line adjustment unless it finds that:
Bernardino Municipal Code Section
MC-521, the following applies to Lot
A.
The proposed configuration complies
pertinent criteria set forth in Titles 18
the San Bernardino Municipal Code.
B. The proposed configuration is consistent with the
General Plan.
with all
and 19 of/
Any person adversely affected by the decision of the
Development Review Committee may appeal, in writing, to the
Planning Commission in accordance with the provisions of the
Municipal Code.
300 NOt:tTH D. STREET. SAN BERNARDINO.
C A L I F 0 t:t N I A 9 2 .. 1 8 . 0 0 0' 11 1 4 ) S' 4 . ..11 II' . 1
iss
o
o
Charles Schultz
July 23, 1990
Lot Line Adjustment No. 90-23
Page 2
If no appeal is made within 10 days of the date of the
decision, the action of the Committee shall be final.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. A certificate of compliance shall be recorded prior to
issuance of building permits.
Respectfully,
OL~'
&fohn Montg~ery~AICP
Principal Planner
jke
Enclosures
cc: Mike Grubbs
Engineering Division
Don Jackson
Building Division
LLA90-23
/
...,.. . V"'- .....,"11II .....--......... .......,.,. r ........_......, .......,. ..'~I _... _._ ..
STANDARB REQUlREMENTi ;;~I1i~
Project Description: ~ ,I,A. SLJ-..z3,
e:.o"'.A~N.G ~3 .&lrJ" /Nrp Z ~p;rs :
...v/..v. ~RN~ bF Ct!1VLY fro ~ /hr/i!p41g~.
Date: ~vL..Y. /9. /~.9&1
Prepared by: ~,H.~. Reviewed By:
Page / of / pages
App 11 cant:
~.s.-..o AN.o HE-~~~
~ A Certificate of Compliance in a form acceptable to the City Engineer shall
be recorded for the lot line adjustment.
~ Applicable Engineering Fees*
a) Checking Fee - $100.00
b) Recording Fee - Per County Recorder's Fee Schedule
*All fees are subject to change without notice.