DATE:
February 21, 2023
TO:
Mayor and Council Members
FROM:
Nils Bentsen, City Manager
BY:
Rachel Molina Assistant City Manager
Ryan Leonard, Senior Planner
SUBJECT:
Appeal to the City Council (APP22-00006); Applicant: Trio Grande, LLC; APN: 3057-051-09
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2023-07, denying appeal APP22-00006 and upholding the Planning Commission and Development Review Committee (DRC) denial of a fourth extension of time for Tentative Tract No. 17681 (TTE22-00008).
BACKGROUND
Proposal: On December 8, 2022, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 (Commissioner Bartz was absent) to uphold the DRC’s denial for a fourth extension of time for TT-17681. The Planning Commission denied the extension of time for the reasons that are listed below in this staff report. Although the applicant is requesting that the City Council grant this appeal to overturn the Planning Commission’s denial, the City Council is precluded from granting a discretionary extension of time.
Current General Plan, Zoning and Land Uses: The project is located on the northwest corner of Hollister Street and Afton Avenue. The site is within the Single Family Residential (R1-4500) zone. The surrounding land is designated as noted on Attachment 1. The subject property and all adjacent properties are currently vacant (Attachment 2).
Project Approval Timelines:
On March 15, 2006, the City Council approved TT-17681 to subdivide 5 gross acres into 20 single-family residential lots and a zone change to change the zone from RR 2 1/2 to R-1. The Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance requires a minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet. The smallest lot within the subdivision is 5,727 square feet, the average lot size is 6,797 square feet, and the largest lot is 9,812 square feet in area. Approximately 10% of the lots are over 7,200 square feet. TT-17681 was approved for 3 years and was set to expire on April 15, 2009.
From 2008 through 2013 the California Legislature passed assembly bills automatically extending the expiration dates of tentative maps. These automatic extensions amounted to 7 years of automatic State extensions for TT-17681. The automatic extensions are in addition to multiple City discretionary extensions that are allowed by the Subdivision Map Act. The Subdivision Map Act allows the City to extend a tentative tract map for a maximum of 6 total years. The 6 years is a cumulative total, and the extensions of time may be broken up into multiple increments.
On May 4, 2016, the DRC approved the first extension of time for TT-17681 that extended the tract for an additional 1 year.
On May 31, 2017, the DRC approved a second extension of time for TT-17681 that extended the tract for an additional 3 years.
On April 8, 2020, the DRC approved a third extension of time for TT-17681 that extended the tract for an additional 1 year.
In 2020 the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill AB-1561 that granted an 18-month extension to residential entitlements that were otherwise due to expire before the end of 2021. AB-1561 was enacted as a result of the ongoing economic and administrative challenges created by the Covid-19 pandemic. Table 1 provides the chronological order of the entitlements for this project.
Table 1: Timeline of the Project Entitlement
Land Use Entitlement Activity
Approval Date
Effective Date
Denial Date
Expiration Date
Length of Extension
Tentative Tract No. 17681
03/15/2006
04/15/2006
04/15/2009
-
Senate Bill 1185 Assembly Bill 333; 208 & 116
7 years of automatic State extensions
04/15/16
7 years
TTE16-00005
05/04/2016
05/17/2016
04/15/2017
1 year
TTE17-00009
05/31/2017
06/06/2017
04/15/2020
3 years
TTE20-00006
04/08/2020
04/28/2020
04/15/2021
1 year
Assembly Bill 1561
18-month automatic State extension
10/15/2022
18 months
ISSUES/ANALYSIS
In April of 2019, the applicant submitted improvement plans and a final map to the Engineering Division for plan check. The improvement plans were reviewed and returned to the applicant on 5 separate occasions and the final map was reviewed and returned to the applicant on 3 separate occasions, with each plan check containing various corrections. In May of 2022 the 3rd plan check for the final map was returned to the applicant without any further corrections. However, the improvement plans still contained corrections. In October of 2022 the 5th plan check for the improvement plans was returned to the applicant without any further corrections. However, consistent with the conditions of approval, the applicant was required to provide bonds and a subdivision improvement agreement to the City prior to the October 15, 2022 expiration date. The applicant did not submit the required bonds to the City and staff subsequently informed the applicant that TT-17681 was determined to have officially expired.
On October 13, 2022, the applicant submitted an application for an extension of time. On November 2, 2022, the Development Review Committee denied the extension (Attachment 3) on the basis that the request was in conflict with Measure N. Ballot Measure N was approved by City voters in November 2020. Measure N made changes to the City General Plan, Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan, and City Municipal Code. Among other things, Measure N modified City Municipal Code Section 17.08.040 (E) to state that “no extensions of time are allowed for residential subdivisions.” Measure N was approved by a majority of voters and therefore may only be amended by a subsequent ballot measure. As a result, there is no mechanism in the Development Code that authorizes an approval process for any extensions of time. Furthermore, the Development Code may not be modified to allow for such an approval process.
It’s important to point out that while the City Council does not have the authority to approve a discretionary extension of time, the City Council is authorized under Government Code Section 65864 to enter into a development agreement that could extend the life of the tract. However, the applicant has not submitted an application for a development agreement. Furthermore, development agreements are customarily considered as part of the land use entitlement application at the time when the project is initially approved, not 13 years after the original approval. In addition, approving a development agreement for this purpose would set a questionable precedent and would be inconsistent with Measure N.
CONCLUSION
The City Council does not have the authority to approve a discretionary extension of time. The City Council must uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of a fourth extension of time for Tentative Tract No. 17681.
ALTERNATIVE(S)
Provide alternative direction to staff.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution No. 2023-07
Planning Commission Staff Report with Attachment
City of Hesperia STAFF REPORT City of Hesperia STAFF REPORT City of Hesperia
STAFF REPORT
City of Hesperia
STAFF REPORT
Staff Report to the City Council
APP22-00006
February 21, 2023