HomeMy WebLinkAbout44-Council Office
. li
. ~
CITPoF SAN BERNARDI to - REQUEO FOR COUNCIL ACTON
From: Councilman clack Reilly
Subject: Legislative Review Committee
Report
Dept: Counci 1 Of f ice
Date: June 28, 1988
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
Recommended motion:
That minutes of Legislative Review Committee meeting held
June 23, 1988 be received and filed.
(
" t'-^--\
"',
\-\y--..." ~,~.
flgnature,
Contect perlon:
Phil Arvizo
Phone:
883-5208
Supporting dete .u.ched:
Yes
W.rd:
N/A
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (ACCT. NO.)
(ACCT. DESCRIPTION)
Flnence:
Council Notes:
/
Agende Item No. Lj" '7'.
.
o
o
o
o
LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE
June 23, 1988
ATTENDEES:
Councilman Jack Reilly - Chairman
councilman Michael Maudsley
councilman Tom Minor
Acting City Administrator - Jim Robbins
Deputy City Admin./Development - Jim Richardson
Deputy City Attorney - John Wilson
Deputy City Attorney - Cynthia Grace
Cabletelevision Coordinator - Dean Gray
Animal Control Director - Deborah Biggs
Cemetery Superintendent - Dan ustation
Planning Director - Ann Siracusa
Principal Planner - John Montgomery
council Executive Assistant - Phil Arvizo
Mayor's Executive Assistant - Richard Bennecke
Animal Advisory Commission - Harold Chandler-Ch.
Mr. Robert Britton
Mr. Leo Amendt
1. COMCAST TRANSFER AGREEMENT - Item was continued to
first meeting in August.
2. CAT LICENSING PROGRAM - Committee members Minor and
Maudsley voted to go forward with a resolution and ordinance
as recommended by staff. These documents will be placed on
the July 18, 1988 Council Agenda.
3. REVIEW OF CEMETERY
recommended abolishment of the
is required by state statute.
ance would be August 1, 1988.
COMMISSION The Committee
Cemetery Commission unless it
Effective date of discontinu-
4. ORDINANCE TO LIMIT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS - Item was
continued.
S. ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 19.60.100, SUBSECTION A
AND B REGARDING TEMPORARY SIGNS - The Committee recommended
adoption of the proposed negative declaration. This item
will be placed on the July 18, 1988 Council Agenda.
~ Cf
o
o
o
6. AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION 88-65 ADOPTING STANDARD
REQUIREMENT NO. 11 RELATING TO UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINES
Item tabled.
7. REQUEST TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING INTERIM
POLICY DOCUMENT - Item continued to Special Meeting at 3:30
p.m., ~ 29, 1988.
M~ng adjourned.
JR:ej
/
"Respect ully SUbJ!li;tted,
, _0 j ?1//~/"" 7
, y;:~ / ~:&.,.,
9ric.tim~~ ~ack' ~il'{y
Chairman /
Legislative Revi~ Committee
cilO OF SAN BERNARDIQ) - REQUIOT FOR COUNCIL ACOON
From: Councilman Jack Reilly
Subject: Legislative Review Committee
Report
Dept: Council Office
Date: June 30, 1988
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
Recommended motion:
That minutes of Legislative Review Committee meeting held
June 29, 1988 be received and filed.
~.
\ nature
Contact parson:
Phil Arvizo
Phona:
384-5188
Supporting data IUached:
Yes
Ward:
N/A
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (ACCT. NO.)
(ACCT. DESCRIPTION)
Finance:
Council Notes:
lS.ltl.
Agenda Item No._ If 'I
.!.
o
o
o
o~
LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMI'I'TEE
June 29, 1988
A'I'TENDEES:
Councilman Jack Reilly - Chairman
Councilman Michael Maudsley
Acting city Administrator - Jim Robbins
Deputy city Admin./Deve1opment - Jim Richardson
Deputy City Attorney - Cynthia Grace
Planning Director - Ann Siracusa
Mayor's Administrative Assistant - Richard Bennecke
Principal Planner - Vince Bautista
Council Administrative Assistant - John Cole
1. REQUEST TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING INTERIM
POLICY DOCUMENT - The Committee recommended approval of the
proposed procedures (attached) at the July 5, 1988 Council
Meeting_ It was recommended that the Legislative Review
Committee would be a continuous conduit for interpreting,
clarifying and recommending actions, changes or amendments to
the Interim Policy.
Meeting adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
JR:ej
Attch.
.
"
o A'1"1'ACHMBII'1' A 0
o
AMENDMENT AND GRANDFA'1'BBRING PROVISIONS
FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROJBC'1'S
Under the provisions of the Interim Policy Document as
approved by the State Office of Planning and Research, all
projects which are consistent with the IPD may be processed.
This policy addresses commercial and industrial projects
which are NOT consistent with the IPD as approved on June 9,
1988 .
I. GRANDFATBERING PROVISIONS
The following commercial and industrial
projects shall be grandfathered and may be
subject to applicable conditions of approval,
requirements, rules, ordinances, resolutions,
restrictions in effect on May 23, 1988:
development
processed
standard
and OPR
a. Commercial and industrial development projects
which received approval of a conditional use permit
or review of plans prior to May 23, 1988, and which
are still within the time period of activation of
those planning permits; or
b. Commercial and industrial development projects for
which applications for conditional use permit or
review of plans were submitted and deemed complete
pursuant to Section 65943 of the Government Code
prior to May 23, 1988.
The planning permit must be activated by the issuance of
a Building Permit within the time specified in the
Conditional Use Permit or Review of Plans in order to be
grandfathered under these rules. No Extensions of Time
will be permitted for projects grandfatbered under this
provision.
II. AMENDMENT PROVISIONS
Amendments to the Interim Policy Document to accommodate
commercial and industrial development projects which are
not "consistent with the adopted IPD and whicb are not
grandfatbered may be considered by the City on a case by
case basis pursuant to the following procedure:
A. PREAPPL~J_Qt'- ~.Q.liU~J<lig:
It is required
proposal with a
Division of the
that the
member of
Planning
applicant discuss his
the Future Planning
Department prior to
-
o
o
o
o
AMENDMENT AND GRANDFATBERIHG 'ROVISIONS
INDUSTRIAL 'ROJECTS
Attachment A
'age ,2
FOR COMMERCIAL AND
filing. This discussion should
applicant's request and tbe
required.
B. ~1~lXG REOUIREMENTS
cover in detail the
procedural steps
1. A99lication Form
Two copies of the application for Amendment to
the Interim Policy Document shall be filled
out and signed by the &&Cord 1ADd owner are to
be submitted. All applications shall
contain the signature of the legal property
owner(s' or a notarized letter signed by the
legal owner(s' authorizing a third party to
represent vested interests. This applies even
tbough specific property is in a contingency
escrow to be sold on agreement between
involved parties.
2. K.p.p_{_~~operty
If a change or clarification is proposed in
the Preferred Land Use Alternative, a map of
tbe area proposed for the change is to
accompany the application, and is to include
enough of the surrounding area as is
appropriate to adequately study the impact of
the proposal. The size of the study area and
scale of the map shall be determined at tbe
preapplication conference. An 8 1/2- z 11-
transparency of the study area sball be
provided.
3. Pro9osed r_x~_ChAnsA
If a change ia proposed in the tezt of the
Interim Policy Document, an exact wording
proposal is to accompany the application. This
proposal shall reference the existing document
change by location, page, and item number.
4. Mailing ~A14
Three sets of mailing labels including all
property owners within 500 feet will be
required.
4-
o
o
o
o
AMENDMEN'l' AND GRANDFA'l'BBRING PROVISIOIIS FOR COJOIERCIAL AND
INDOS'l'RIAL PROJBC'l'S'
Attachment A
Page 3
5. Ootional Da~
Any other data which might be helpful in
understanding and evaluating the application.
Other data required will be determined at the
preapplication conference.
C. PROCESSING
Applications for Amendments to the Interim Policy
Document will be analyzed by Planning staff and a
staff report with recommendation prepared.
Such applications will be considered at a noticed
public hearing by the Planning Commission at its
second regular meeting every other month, beginning
in August 19Se and including August, October and
December of 1988, and February, April and June
1989. The Planning Commission will make
recommendations to the Mayor and Common Council.
Property owners within 500 feet will be noticed.
The recommendations of the P~anning Commission will
be considered at a noticed public hearing by the
Mayor and Common Council at their second regular
meeting every other month, beginning in September
1988 and including September, November, 1988, and
January, March, May, and July of 1989. Property
owners within 500 feet will be noticed.
Members of the General Plan Citizens Advisory
Committee will be notified of the applications for
Amendments to the Interim Policy Document to be
considered by the Planning Commission and by the
Mayor and Common Council.
A cumulative listing of any amendments to the
Interim Policy Document approved by the Mayor and
Common Council will be available within ten working
days of the second Council meeting of the month.
A request for an amendment to the Interim Policy
Document which has been considered by the Council
and denied shall not be refiled prior to the
adoption of the General Plan.
o
o
o
AMENDMEN'1' ANJ) GRANDFA'1'BERIIIG PROVISIONS FOR COMMBRCIAL UD
INDUS'l'RIAL PROJBC'1'S
Attachment A
Page 4
D. PILING FEE
The filing tee for an application for Amendment to
the Interim Policy Document shall be $300.
o
. . 0
o
o
o
ATTACBMBlI'I .
POLICY REGARDING MULTI-FAMILY HOOSING
OF A LESSER DENSITY IN AREAS DESIGNATED FOR
BIGH DENSITY MOLTI-FAMILY PROJECTS
Add to the Interim Policy Document the following policy:
Multi-family housing projects of a lesser density, but no
less than 4.6 dwelling units per net acre, may be permitted
in the RH, RMB, and RM land use designations subject to the
standards of the underlying zone district (either PRO or R-3
standards).
csj/6-27-88
DOC:M&CCAGENDA
IPD
.'
o
~
~t~~ .f tIarifRma
o
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO 95814
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN
GOVI!RNOR
July l, 1988
Mr. James Perunan
City Attorney
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
RE: City of San Bernardino Second General Plan Extension
Dear Mr. Perunan:
This is written in response to your letter of June 28, 1988 seeking
clarification regarding the issuance of building permits umer the above
referenced general plan extension.
The Office of Planning and Research granted a second extension of tiIte to
the City of San Bernardino after determining that the city had made
substantial progress toward completion of its revised general plan. '!he
city held numerous public hearings in which the public was given the
opportunity to assist in the formation of the city's preferred land use
alternative. '!he preferred land use alternative is an intermediate step in
the preparation of the city's general plan and, as provided in the June 9,
1988 extension letter issued by this office, is intended to guide the
develoJ;lllent of the city until the revised general plan is adopted.
Condition 2 of the Office of Planning and Research's seoond extension letter
requires the city to make certain written findings when approving
discretionary land use projects. As defined in that condition, the term
"discretionary land use projects" does not include building permits.
Therefore, it is not necessary for the city to make specific written
findings prior to issuing building permits.
Nevertheless, it has not been, nor is it now the intent of the Office of
Planning and Research that building permits be issued in disregard to the
preferred land use alternative. '!he conditions of the secord extension are
designed to incorporate the policies of the city's preferred land use
alternative. "nlose policies require that certain conditions be met before
development may occur within the city. Since deve1oJ;lllent cannot take place
until a building permit has been issued, the Office of Planning and Research
has assumed that the policies of the preferred land use alternative would
oontrol all stages of developnent, including issuance of building permits.
~~ a~6'dl&Rd
..?~~ 7/.y/&9
P1f fVh ri;Q~
-
.> 0
o
-2-
o
o
The city, by means of a lengthy public hearing process, has established
policies by which to evaluate develoIJll6llt proposals. Since all stages of
development must be found consistent with the preferred land use
alternative, this office has fourxl it unnecessary to require that written
findings be made prior building permit issuance. Although written findings
are 00 longer required, it is our intent that building permits be issued
when consistent with the preferred land use alternative.
---..
Director