Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Bernardino council hears hang-gliding concerns near hillside development; staff says SB 330 limits council's options
Summary
Public commenters and council members raised safety and cultural concerns about hang gliding near a proposed hillside housing project. City staff explained an old municipal ban on hang gliding exists but is unevenly enforced and said the application was filed under SB 330, which constrains the council’s ability to deny or substantially redesign the housing project without specific objective health or safety findings.
Residents and council members on Thursday raised safety concerns about hang gliders landing near an approved hillside housing project and asked whether the city can require the developer to reduce units or modify the plan to protect the air park.
An anonymous resident told the council that while most houses are far from the landing approach, homes closest to the corner and lot 327 could be at higher risk on certain wind days, and recounted the air park’s relocation tied to the Devil’s Canyon hydroelectric project. The developer’s representative said the project has been reduced from an approved baseline—staff cited an approved entitlement for 980 units that the representative said had been substantially reduced, and noted an earlier site plan version proposed roughly 427 units before later reductions.
City staff and the city attorney advised that municipal code Chapter 12.88 makes hang gliding unlawful in city limits except where the parks director and council have approved a site, but historically pilots have operated on adjacent county or state land, complicating enforcement. Staff also explained the project was processed under SB 330 (the Housing Accountability Act), which limits the city’s ability to deny or reduce housing density unless the council can make objective, written findings tied to health or safety; staff warned that denying the project on subjective grounds could invite state legal remedies and that developers could pursue the state builder’s‑remedy provisions.
Council members proposed continued discussions among staff, the developer and the hang‑gliding community to find a middle ground, research historical approvals (including whether any local proclamation authorized the activity), and hold a neighborhood meeting. Council did not take a final formal action on the housing entitlements at this meeting.
Quotes from the meeting include the developer’s representation that "we are taking a project that is approved for 980 units and we have eliminated two‑thirds of that unit count," and a legal warning that "they could bypass us completely and go to the state," attributed in the transcript to city counsel/staff. Staff also read the code language for Chapter 12.88 aloud for the council.
Next steps: staff will research historical records related to prior approvals and annexations, help facilitate a community meeting among the developer and hang‑gliding stakeholders, and return to council with findings and options for addressing safety, cultural concerns and legal constraints.
