Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout71-Planning CI.~ t OF SAN BERNARDrnlO - REQUbdT FOR COUNCIL AC. tON From: Michael W. Loehr Interim Director of Planning Planning Subject: Interim Policy Document Consistency Procedure Dept: Date: August 30, 1988 Mayor and Common Council September 19, 1988, 2:00 Synopsis of Previous Council action: No specific previous Council action. Adopted Interim policy Document on May 23, 1988. Recommended motion: That the Mayor and Council approve of the attached Interim Policy Document Consistency Procedure. 1tJ1JJ0dL Signature !hchael W. Loehr Contact person: !1ichael W. Loehr Phone: 5357 Supporting data attached: Staff Report wi Attachments Ward: City-wide FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N I A Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. DescriPtion) Finance : Council Notes: 7/ . CI.~ I OF SAN BERNARD....O - REQUL..-T FOR COUNCIL AC' ~ .ON STAFF REPORT Subject: Interim policy Document Consistency Procedure Mayor and Council Meeting - September 19, 1988 2:00 p.m. REQUEST Adoption of Consistency Procedure BACKGROUND On May 23, 1988 the Mayor and Common Council adopted the Interim Policy Document (IPD). The State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) approved the IPD on June 9, 1988. In OPR's approval letter (see letter), Condition No.2 states that the City cannot approve of any discretionary land use unless it is consistent with the IPD. In OPR's clarification letter of July 1, 1988, (see letter) it states that OPR assumes that the IPD "would control all stages of development, including issuance of building permits". In order to effectuate these requirements it was necessary to formu- late a coordinated consistency procedure, which the Planning De- partment has done in conjunction with the Public Works and Build- ing and Safety Departments (see procedure). This procedure was sent to the City Attorney's Office for review and approval. After some refinements, the City Attorney's Office notified the Depart- ment that formal approval of the procedure was necessary (see memo) . MAYOR AND COUNCIL OPTIONS The Mayor and Council may approve of the procedure or modify and approve of the procedure. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Mayor and Council approve the attached Interim policy Document Consistency Procedure. Prepared by: John Montgomery, AICP, Principal Planner for Michael W. Loehr, Interim Director of Planning Attachments: A - OPR's June 9, 1988 Approval Letter B - OPR's July 1, 1988 Clarification Letter C - IPD Consistency Procedure Proposal D - City Attorney's Memo JM:csj 75.0264 . ::,EN'" -;;: I~t:::...=-C.l~" ''-'' ....-" -. -- oeta: ot w.al t!C.~tt ClOVERNOR'S OFP"CE O'PIC. OF PLANNING ANO R!!IEARCH ,400 TENT.. STREE, SACRAMENTO 958'4 !II.ORG\!! Ol!UKMEJIAN oav..NCMt June 9, 1988 ATTACH~lENT "A" Mr. J8lllllS PeruMn City Att.0rn8y City of San Bernardino 300 North .0. Street s.n Bernardino, CA 92418 REI City of San Bernardino Second General Pla..f\ Extension Dear Mr. i'enlllAllI This is to inform you that I have appro....d the City of San Bernardino's request for a secooo extension of time for the adoption of the land use, circulation, conservation, open space, noise, arid safety elements of ita general plan. Thie .econd extension is granted for a one-year ~riod, beoinnino on June 10, 1988 and ending on J\.ln. 9, 1989. 'th. ext8llSion, as provided in California Government CoOe s.ction 65361 and its relevant luosections, releases the City from the requirement that it maintain a ocmplete and ade~ate general plan auring this period. The conditions iIltlOSed in this aeccmi extenllion lupercede all eonditiona previously irlped. oy the Office of Planni~ and Research. As the basis for granting this extension, ! cite the following fimings lllade by the mayor am ....-.Gn council in 1l8801ution 88-162: "Local review procedures now r.~ire an extsnded public r~11W p~s which will result in delaying the decillion by the Mayor ard carmen eounci1 on the adC9tion of the final oeneral plan. .other reasons exist that justify th~ orant1ng of a further extenllion, so that the timely preparation and adoption ot a gcwral plan is pWw'ided.' I have detertllined, based upon additional statements in the AliOl\lt;1on and the ex;llanatory ard supporting data in the application, that the city has IlI4de sublltantial progress toward the c:at91etion of it.s general plan. 'This satisfiee the requirements of Government Code Section 65361 ard its relevant subserdons. permitting lQll to grant this second extenllion. In accordance with the powers granted me by Government Code Section 65361{c), ! have detetmined that the follQWi~ conditions are necessary to eM\,ln full compliance with the Planning and 2onil"Q t.aWS. 'these conditions shall be in effect only during the period of this extilosion. t l /'';;' ....,c:.i'~. I.I.....-~ --, 'l.... ' --- .... - - - # '- - -- -2- 'I1'Ie city ehall neither accept for processing nor approve any proposal for general plan amendment, community or area plan adoption, redel1elopDent plan adOiltion, or development agreement (or other such agreement or document which vests and legally precludes ~ateral chang.. in lancluse by the c1 ty) . 2. The city shall not approve any discretionary land UI. project, as defined belCM, unlell8 it makes wri tten findirJ;lS, based upon sub8tantial evidence 1n the record. that said project ia conaistent with the preferred land use alternative approved by the mayor and common c:ounc:il. For the ~. of this extension, the term "dilcretionary land use project" includes: amendments to the zoning ordinance text or map:l, tentative subdivision maps (inclUding parcel maps), specific plan adoption or amendment. conditional use per:mita. variances, projects requiring a rev;~ of plane, redevelo;roent activities, and city capital improvement/public works projects (except aa necellary for the maintenance of existing public '~rks and project. necesaitated by an immediate health and safety risk). For the purposes of this extension. "city" is deHned to include the mayor and common council and any commillsion, committee, board or individual delegated adminilltrative t'esponsibil1tiea under city ordinances arx1 policies. For the purposes of this extension, "preferrac1 land use a1ternative~ is defined as the preferred land use alternative map an(1 interim policy document t.~at went COli)leted at the e~ of Task 3 of the city's \jeneral plan work proqram and sub'nitted to the Office of Planning and Research as part of the second extension application. 3. The preferred land use alternative is an intermediate step in ~ preparation of the city's generi11 plan. Reliance on the preferred lanc1 use alternative as the basis for decision makil'Q 1s intemad to reduce the prObability that land use approvals made during the extension period will be aublltantially detrimental to or interfere with the future adopted g.neral plan. In order that the preferred land use al ternati v. may reflect cl'Iarges that occur duril'll;l the general plannil'll;l proceu, the 1IlIIyOt' and cctm"", council may r....ise the preferred land use alternative from time to t:lnle. Revi.ions may only occur at requJ.arly scheduled ~l1e meetings of the mayor and .......00 cc:uncil. No approval is required from the Offic. of plannina and Research prior to such a revision. 'lhe city shall S\Ioot a copy of the revised preferred land us. alternative to the Office of Plannin;l and Ruearch within 10 days of approving any revisions. 4. 'Ihe city is not empowered to rev i.. atrJ of the conditions l...-,posed by this letter. In the event t.~t a conflict exists between the preferred land use alternative (or any other city policy, regulation or ordinance) and the conditions contained in this letter (or any subsequent letter issued by tl'.e Office of planning and Ruearch). the extension conditions shall control. , ~ I i r I i r _.:2'..,"'E=r :.:.r'E= ="- -;- ~-- ~: "';':.F~' ; -. . . . -.. ..- ':'.::--'="=-'-"=~ -. .-- ._~- .--'="'~';,-: -3- 6. The city shall comply with the requirements of the California Environmental QJality Act during the review, ~essing, O'Jnsideration, am approval/denial of aiscretionary land WI. projects. 'Ihia extension shall expire upon t!'\e adoption of the final gel1llral plan by resolution of the mayor and common council or one year after the effective date of this extension, whichever comes first. s. If you have any questions pertainin;, to either the utension or yOJr general plan, please contact Antero ~vasplata at (916) 445-4831. ~r rtinez\~ ""l '. J ./" a...... .:- .-" . , : ,. , , , '".l,....... ~t. .:.e of ([alif . mta GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OFFICE OF p!-ANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO 95814 GEORGE OEUKMEJIAN GOv..."'O... ATTACHMENT "B" July 1, 1988 11r. James Penman 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. Penman: This is written in response to your letter of June 28, 1988 seeking clarification regarding the issuance of building permits under the above referenced general plan extension. The Office of Planning and Research granted a second extension of tine to the City of San Bernardino after determining that the city had made substantial progress toward completion of its revised general plan. The city held numerous public hearings in which the public was given the opportunity to assist in the formation of the city's preferred Umd use alternative. The 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 develo~nt of the city until the revised general plan is adopted. Condition 2 of the Office of planning and Research I s second 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. The conditions of the second extension are designed to incorporate the ~licies of the city's preferred land use alternative. Those ~licies require that certain conditions be met before development may oc= within the city. Since develo~nt cannot take place until a building permit has been issued, the Office of Plaming and Research has assumed that the policies of the preferred land use alternative would control all stages of developnent, including issuance of building permits. l , l r , ~ -2- The city, by means of a lengthy public hearing process, has established policies by which to evaluate developnent proposals. Since all stages of development must be found consistent with the preferred land use alternative, this office has foun::! 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. (~~zr: . ~ ~ _~iOO 0 Director r- .-.... / ATTACHMENT "c" INTERIM POLICY DOCUMENT CONSISTENCY PROCEDURE This procedure is a follow-up outline of the conclusions reached at the meeting held July 7, 1988, between representatives of the Engineering Department, Building & Safety Department, City Attorney's Office, Planning Department and Jim Richardson, the Deputy City Administrator. All Building Permits, Grading Permits and Plan Check (Fee Receipts) Applications will be routed to the Counter Planner for a check of land use consistency with the Preferred Land Use Alternative and the Interim Policy Document. If the proposed use is consistent, the Counter Planner will stamp the application and authorize the stamp with a dated signature. Building Permits are not to be issued unless the Application bears the authorized stamp of consistency. Written findings substantiating consistency are not required according to the July 1, 1988, Office of Planning and Research's letter to the City. . ~ All Certificates of Occupancy Applications for Change of Useior Additional Occupancy will be routed to the Planning Department for a check of land use consistency with the Preferred Land Use Alternative and the Interim POlicy Document. If the proposed land use is consistent, the Planner in charge of Certificates of Occupancy will stamp all copies of the Application and authorize all stamped copies with a dated signature. Certificates of occupancy are not to be issued unless the Application bears this authorized stamp of consistency. Written findings substantiating consistency are not required. Standard Comment for Building Permit and Certificate of Occupancy Application shall read as follows: "The proposed use identified in this application is consistent with the approved Interim POlicy Document and the Preferred Land Use Alternative, as amended. This consistency determination does not constitute a statement of approval for any other City requirements. By Dated " HE:ss July 29, 1988 1 , r. ---- INTERIM POLICY DOCUMENT CONSISTENCY PROCEDURE PAGE 2 All of the Planning Department's discretionary land use projects, (Amendments to the ZOning Ordinance Texts or Maps, Tentative Subdivision Maps, Parcel Maps, Specific Plan Adoption or Amendments, Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Review of Plans and Public Works Projects) shall inClude written findings in the case file staff report or approval letter that said project is consistent with the Interim POlicy Document. The Planning Department will investigate whether the proposed project is consistent with the POlicies contained in the Interim POlicy Document and the land use designation(s) of the Preferred Land Use Alternative. The approving body, which will either be the Development Review Committee, the Planning Commission or the Mayor and Cornmon CounCil, depending on the project type, shall adopt written consistency findings included either in the stqtf report or approval letter. Projects will be checked f9r consistency prior to determining if the project application is complete. If the project is not consistent, the Application shall be deemed incomplete, and a written statement of what action was taken to determine its inconsistency and an identification of which aspect of the proposed project is inconsistent shall be made in the incomplete letter by the Case Planner. City Attorney's Approval of Above Procedure: By Dated HE:ss July 29, 1988 2 l INTERIM POLICY DOCUMENT CONSISTENCY FINDING ACTIONS The Planning Department has investigated whether the land use proj ect identified in ________ No. ___ Application is consistent with the land use designationS-and policies in the Preferred Land Use Alternative Map and the Interim POlicy Document. FINDING The proposed land use project is consistent with the Interim POlicy Document adopted by the Mayor and Common Council on May 23, 1988, amended on June 6, 1988, and approved by the State Office of Planning and Research on June 9, 1988. -! HE:ss July 29, 1988 3 .'_h ATTACHMENT "D" . - C I T Y o F SAN B ERN A R DIN 0 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Michael Loehr Interim Planning Director From: JAMES F. PENMAN City Attorney Subject: INTERIM POLICY DOCUMENT PROCEDURE Date: August 23, 1988 I have reviewed the Interim Policy Document Consistency Procedure bearing the date in the lower left hand corner of July 29, 1988. This document requests the approval of the City Attorney for the above procedure. ~ [. After careful review of the letters from the Governor's Office of Planning and Research dated June 9, 1988 and July 1, 1988, it appears that it will be necessary for the Mayor and Council to determine whether or not they wish to delegate the task of making consistency findings to the Planning Department. I recommend that you put this matter on the agenda at the earliest opportunity. cere1y, /J 7/~ ES F. PENMAN ity Attorney JFP:dd Encl: One (1) cc: Mayor Wilcox City Administrator