San Bernardino County has adopted a policy that calls for the county to assume more control over land use in unincorporated areas within incorporated cities' spheres of influence. The policy concerns leaders of many cities in San Bernardino County who fear the county may compete with cities for desirable development and approve substandard projects that cities eventually must serve. The policy, which the Board of Supervisors adopted as a general plan amendment in June, is the latest in a series of conflicts between San Bernardino and at least some of its 24 incorporated cities. Although the new policy appears to have arisen from a flight in the San Bernardino metropolitan area, the change could have major impacts in high desert communities, northeast of San Bernardino, that have giant spheres of influence. But Jim Goss, the county's interim development services director, contended cities are overreacting. The general plan amendment replaces a previous policy that called for the county to rubber stamp whatever a city wanted within a city's sphere of influence, he said. "Basically, it did not reflect at all the rights of the county under state law," Goss said. By changing its stance toward development, the county "was clarifying its policy so that people in unincorporated areas can go to their elected representatives and get some land use changes," Goss said. Relations between the county and cities have been poor for some time, noted Barstow City Planner Scott Priester. "This appeared to just be a punitive response to the Redlands lawsuit," he said of the county's new policy. The lawsuit to which he referred was filed by the City of Redlands against the county after the county approved a shopping mall for an unincorporated island inside of Redlands. The city contended the project violated a specific plan. Conflicts between Redlands and the county have continued as competing mall proposals have arisen, with some developers playing the city against the county. (See CP&DR November 1998, November 1997.) Goss conceded developers have enticed different jurisdictions to bid against one another for desirable projects. But he dismissed the argument that the county's new policy came arose strictly because of the Redlands mall dispute. The issues are much bigger, Goss said. Cities that want to control areas outside their boundaries should annex those areas, Goss said. The county will not stand in the way of large annexations proposed by Ontario and Chino, he pointed out. James Roddy, executive officer of the San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission, an independent agency, said the new policy is likely to have little practical impact on annexations. Although the county's previous policy appeared to encourage annexation, the county usually was neutral. Roddy is unsure how the new policy will shake out. There has been talk of some cities annexing their entire spheres of influence, but Roddy doubts that will happen. Desert cities such as Hesperia, Victorville, Barstow and Needles have adopted giant spheres of influence, which, under the county's old policy, extended city's land-use influence far and wide. Indeed, Barstow's sphere of influence stretches for 150 miles — clear to the spheres of towns that realistically are 30 miles away. Priester conceded Barstow, a town of 24,000 people, has plenty of room to grow within its city limits, which themselves cover 35 square miles. Although the county is exerting more say over so much land near Barstow, Priester said, "It does not really affect how Barstow does business." The city will still comment on nearby development proposals, but growth is not a major issue in the area. But urban growth is more of an issue in high desert communities closer to San Bernardino and in the San Bernardino metropolitan area, where job growth is rapid and houses remain relatively affordable. "My biggest concern," Roddy said, "is that it might spark new interagency competition for certain types of urban development. ... It could bring about some level of shopping for land-use entitlements." San Bernardino County is unusual in that it has a county-wide community services area authorized to provide the full range of urban services, Roddy explained. Developers dissatisfied with a city may ask the county to form an assessment zone within the CSA to provide infrastructure and services to a project, he said. Raising the fiscalization of land use argument, city officials fear the county will try to lure sales tax generators to unincorporated territory, or prevent cities from annexing commercial areas near their borders. Fontana, for example, is interested in annexing a 19-square-mile island inside the city, where California Speedway, a large recycling facility and other business enterprises have been erected on the former Kaiser steel mill. The county has also approved a warehousing center, giant truck stop and retail development for the same area. (See CP&DR July 1999.) Fontana City Manager Ken Hunt told the San Bernardino Sun, "The city is very concerned (with the general plan amendment) because it takes a long-standing policy that recognizes city concerns and takes away these rights. We want to clean up our city boundaries. And this is a wake up call." Rancho Cucamonga City Councilman Paul Baine also expressed frustration. "They're saying ‘We can do what we want, and to hell with you,'" Baine told the Ontario Daily Bulletin. Goss, a retired Chula Vista city manager, said he understands the cities' fears. He said there is not a history of the county treating the cities well, and the new policy was introduced earlier this year with little input from cities, he said. But it's a two-way street. "I think the cities also have a responsibility to ensure that communication occurs early on," Goss said. "At the staff level, I think there's definitely room for improvement in how we communicate." However, LAFCO's Roddy said the new policy "clearly does soften the language" calling for cooperation of cities and counties regarding urban development within cities' spheres. Ultimately, the upshot of the new policy will be seen on a case-by-case basis, he said. "All our cities are concerned about it, but I think it's more a matter of perception that it is of fundamental changes in relationships," Roddy said. Relationships clearly would sour if cities band together in a lawsuit against the county, which has been hinted at. Contacts: Jim Goss, San Bernardino County Land Use Services Department, (909) 387-4131. James Roddy, San Bernardino County LAFCO, (909) 387-5866. Scott Priester, City of Barstow, (760) 256-3531.