Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout48-City Attorney - - - - ~<:~~';::.:::, ~:--..... .,.'; ',.to, ~ '. . ..- ~~ -""0'" ~ C f 'IT I"fO " ~tnte 0 \!.l-a t onttn ~ :J r ' v GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH '400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO 95814 GEORGE OEUKMEJIAN ~OVERNOR June 11, 1987 Mr. James Penman, City Attorney City of San Bernardino 300 North "0" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 RE: City of San Bernardino General Plan Extension Letter Dear Mr. Penman: This is to inform you that I have approved the City of San Bernardino's request for an extension of time for the adoption of the land use, circula- tion, conservation, open space, noise, and safety elements of its general plan. This extension is granted for a one year period, beginning on June 11, 1987 and ending on June 10, 1988. The extension, as provided in California Government Code Section 65361 and its relevant subsections, releases the City from the requirement that it maintain a complete and adequate general plan during said extension period. Please note that this extension is subject to the conditions imposed. Government Code Section 6536l(b) requires the submittal of, among other items, a "detailed budget and schedule for preparation of the general plan" and a "set of proposed policies and procedures." These are required so that we may determine that the applicant is making the request in good faith, intends to complete the revision process within the requested time, and that land uses proposed during the period of the extension will be consistent with the purpose of the updated general plan provisions. The granting of an extension does not bind the applicant to utilize absolutely the exact work program process proposed in the application, although substantial variation may leave the applicant open to exposure if the general plan revision is not completed within the extension period. The extension does not purport to pass judgment over the details of the work program, nor does it overrule the stipulated agreement discussed in the following paragraph. In our opinion, this extension is not retroactive and does not affect law- suits filed prior to its effective date. Case No. 236836 in San Bernardino County Superior Court (Saldecke and Sky v. City of San Bernardino, et at.) is currently in litigation. This letter is subject to the terms of the Stipulation for Continuance entered into by the City and approved by the Court on April 7, 1987. Any change in the terms of that Stipulation is a matter for the courts and consequently, the Office of Planning and Research c c -2- ,-""'I "-wI ,:) (OPR) cannot interfere with that process. The conditions of this extension do not supersede said Stipulation. As the basis for granting this extension, I cite the following findings made by the city council in Resolution 87-135: "Cata required for the general plan shall be provided by another agency and it has not yet been provided." "Other reasons exist which justify the granting of an extension, so that the timely preparation and adoption of a complete and adequate General Plan is praroted." I have determined that, based upon the additional statements in the resolu- tion and the explanatory and supporting data in the application, this satisfies the requirements of Government Code Section 65361 and its relevant subsections permitting me to grant this extension. In accordance with the powers granted me by Government Code Section 6536l(c). I have determined that the following conditions are necessary to ensure full compliance with the Planning and Zoning Laws. These conditions shall be in effect only during the period of this extension. 1. Except as provided in condition 7, during the effective period of this extension the city shall neither accept for processing nor approve any proposal for general plan amendment; cannunity or area plan adoption or amendment; specific plan adoption; zone change; redevelopment plan adoption or amendment; or developnent rights agreement (or other such agreement or document which vests and legally precludes unilateral changes in land use by the city). 2. During the effective period of this extension no discretionary land use projects, as defined in this condition, shall be approved for any of that portion of the city lying northerly of the line described in the attached Exhibit A. This shall include any projects within Redevelopnent Plan Areas north of said line. For the purposes of this condi tion, the term "discretionary land use project" includes: tentative subdivision maps (including parcel maps), conditional use permits, variances, projects requiring a review of plans, redevelopnent activities, city capital improvement/public works projects, and building permits. The restrictions imposed by the second condition shall not apply to the following: only that scope or portion of the Highland Hills Project located within the Highland Hills Specific Plan which was intended to be funded by the proceeds from the sale of the $29 million specifiC bond issue designated as 1985 Series A involving tax-exempt rental housing mortgage revenue bonds. Specifically, said scope or portion which is exempted from said restrictions contained in said second condition is limited to 581 residential rental property units as set forth in Exhibit C to the Regulatory Agreement entered into as of June (: o -3- o J 1, 1985 between Highland Hills Properties and Housing Authority of the County of San Bernardino. Any units of any nature exceeding said 581 residential rental property units and the remaining, if any, area within the Highland Hills Project and the remaining area within the Highland Hills Specific Plan are subject to said restrictions contained in said second condition. 3. (a) Within that portion of the city lying southerly of said line described in Exhibit A and except as provided in condition 4, the city shall be limited to consideration of only those types of discretionary land use projects as defined in this condition and shall grant project approval only when the city makes written findings, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the project: (1) is consistent with the goals, policies, and programs of the city's preferred land use alternative and (2) is consistent with the December 1983, Foothill Communities Protective "Greenbelt" Program, if the project is within Foothill Fire Zones A, B, or C as defined in that document. This requirement shall not apply to commercial and industrial development. (b) Within this area, the City shall require that all discretionary land use projects proposed wi thin Foothill Fire Zones A, B, or C, as identified in the December 1983 Foothill Communities Protective "Greenbelt" Program, meet the standards contained in the Verderwnt Area Plan. The City shall also require that all projects, includ- ing all commercial and industrial projects, proposed in whole or in part wi thin areas of liquefaction hazard, as identified on the roost recently available maps of the U.S. Geological Survey (File Report No. 86-562, Maps 1-5; Map 4 of 5, San Jacinto Fault; Map 3 of 5, San Andreas Fault; Map 5 of 5, Rancho Cucamonga Fault; all as further amplified in Open File Report No. 86-169 entitled "Liquefaction Susceptibility in the San Bernardino Valley and Vicini ty"), comply with the requirements of City Resolution 82- 345. This is not meant to limit the imposition of additional standards. However, no lesser standard shall be allowed in this portion of the city. (c) For the purposes of this condition, the term "discretionary land use project" includes: tentative subdivision maps (including parcel maps), conditional use permits, variances, city capital improvement/public works projects (other than maintenance of existing works and public works projects which are needed for health and safety reasons), and residential building permits (except as noted in condition 5). 4. The terms and conditions of this time extension shall not apply to the Redevelopment Agency except as may occur in connection with condition 2. Furthennore, it shall not apply to discretionary land use projects located within redevelopment areas lying southerly of the line described in Exhibit A when the project is consistent with a redevelop- ment plan that was adopted prior to the effective date of this extension and when the project is approved by the Redevelopment Agency. c o -4- ,:) J 5. BUilding permits may be issued for the following classes of minor projects without the findings otherwise required in condition 3, but only for said projects south of said line described in Exhibit A. (a) single-family residences when not in conjunction with the con- struction of 4 or more units; (b) apartments, duplexes, and similar structures designed for not more than six units when not in conjunction with the construction of two or more such structures; (c) accessory structures, including garages, carports, and swillmi.ng pools; (d) replacement of existing structures where said structure conforms to the city zoning ordinance, the new structure will be located on the same site, and the new structure will have the swne purpose and capacity as the old; and, (e) minor alterations to existing structures involving no expansion of use beyond that previously existing, such as interior alterations and demolition of structures described in subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) of this condition. (f) conditional use pennits for changes of use of existing structures when floor area is not increased by more than 10%. 6. The terms and conditions of this extension shall not apply to land use approvals and related permits directly related to the relocation and/or construction of a new branch Post Office or to the acquisition and/or developnent of an elementary school site by the San Bernardino Unified School District in the vicinity of Belmont Street and Little League Drive. 7. General plan amendment requests which have been accepted as complete for processing prior to the effective date of this extension may con- tinue to be processed by the city, but shall be approved only when the findings if so required under condition 3 are made. If a zone change is required in order to effectuate such a general plan wnendment, it may be approved subject to the same findings. 8. For the purposes of this extension, "city" is defined to include the mayor and common council and any commission, committee, board or in- dividual delegated administrative or legislative responsibilities under city ordinances and policies. For the purposes of this extension, "preferred land use alternative" is defined as the draft of the revised general plan to be completed by the end of Phase 3 of the work program submitted to the Office of Planning and Research. This draft is to be used by the City as the policy basis for land use decisions made during the interim prior to adoption by the Mayor and Common Council of the revised general plan in Phase 5 of the submitted work program. c o -5- :--- '..,..) :> For the purposes of this extension "zone change" is defined to mean reclassification of property fran one zoning district to another on the zoning map. Districts are defined at San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.06.010. 9. This extension shall expire upon the adoption of all of the above named revised elements by resolution of the mayor and common councilor one year after the effective date of this extension, whichever comes first. 10. A copy of the preferred land use alternative shall be submitted to OPR within 5 days of its approval by the mayor and common council as an interim policy document. All environmental documents shall be sub- mitted to OPR for review and comment not less than 30 days prior to their consideration by the Planning Commission. If you have any questions pertaining to either the extension or your general plan, please contact Antero Rivasplata at (916) 445-4831. 'I , Jr. attachment c o ,~ :) Exhibit A IEGM. IESCRIPl'1ON Beginning at a point where Grandview Avenue intersects with the City Limits; thence continuing in a Southeasterly direction along the City Limits line to the point where the 1-215 Freeway crosses the City Limits; thence continuing in a Southeasterly direction along the centerline of the 215 Freeway to the intersection of the 215 Freeway and Highland Avenue; thence north along the eastern boundary of the State College Redevelopment area until it intersects 40th Street; thence East along 40th Street to Mountain Avenue; thence South along Mountain Avenue to 39th Street; thence East along 39th Street to El Camino; thence South along El Camino to Foothill Drive; thence East along Foothill Drive to Sterling Avenue; thence South along Sterling Avenue to Marshall Boulevard; thence East along Marshall Boulevard to Arden Avenue; thence South along Arden Avenue to Lynwood Drive; thence East along Lynwood Drive to Victoria Avenue; thence North along Victoria Avenue to Piedmont Drive; thence Southeasterly along Piedmont Drive to Peacock Avenue; thence South alor.g Peacock Avenue to Orchid Drive; thence East along Orchid Drive and continuing along an imaginary line projecting Orchid Drive due East to the intersection of an ~aginary line projecting Mountain Avenue due North; thence South, along said imaginary line projecting Mountain Avenue due North, to Highland Avenue; thence East alcng Highland Avenue and Southeasterly along Highland Avenue and thence due East along Highland Avenue to its intersection with Church Street; thence due East along an imaginary line projecting Highland Avenue to the Eastern City Limits of the City to the point of ending.