HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-15-2015 Item 11 - Update to Notification Standards
Meeting Date: 12/15/2015
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Kyle Van Leeuwen, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: UPDATE TO NOTIFICATION STANDARDS
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) revising the development review notification requirements
and direct staff to pursue the additional enhancements to public notification and outreach
outlined in this report.
DISCUSSION
Background
The City Council reviewed and approved a Public Engagement and Noticing (PEN) manual on
August 18, 2015. During that Council meeting, public testimony was received concerning the
level of noticing that the City requires for development projects. The testimony included specific
requests to expand certain noticing requirements. The Council approved the Notification
Standards as presented on August 18 (Attachment B). However, that approval was made with the
direction to staff to evaluate potential changes in the notification standards to increase
notification timeframes and distances. Council directed staff to present this analysis at a later
date.
Noticing Standards for Development Projects
The Notification Standards are a technical document that has historically been adopted by
Council Resolution. The Standards govern when and where the Cit y distributes mailed postcards,
legal ads, and posted signs about upcoming development projects. The Notification Standards
identify who will be noticed and when the notice will happen. These Standards reflect State law
and local policy.
The Notification Standards that were adopted on August 18, 2015, included some revisions from
the 2008 standards (Attachment D). The revisions included: (1) incorporating Council direction
for Homestay application notifications, (2) expanded noticing for all actions on pro jects that
require different levels of advisory body approval, (3) providing notification around an off-site
parking location as well as the project site, and (4) postcard notification on projects that formerly
only required minimal outreach, such as secondary dwelling units and lot line adjustments.
11
Packet Pg. 69
1. Recent Council Direction
At the August 18th Council hearing, staff was directed to further explore changes to the
standards, which were requested by Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN). These
enhancements include increasing the number of days that certain projects are noticed, in
particular, extending the five day notification of smaller project (those that do not typically
require an advisory body hearing) to 10 days. RQN also requested that some projects currently
noticed to adjacent neighbors be extended to the 300 foot notification level. The suggested
enhancements aim to allow more residents to be notified about pending projects in their
neighborhood.
2. Staff Analysis of RQN Recommendations
The recommendations made by RQN were explored by staff to clearly identify impacts to
process times, resources, costs and their overall feasibility. The requested enhancements were
also analyzed for their impacts to previously established goals that were ident ified by the
Community Development Department (CDD) Organizational Assessment and the Economic
Development Strategic Plan (EDSP). After close evaluation (Attachment C), staff proposes the
following enhancements to the Notification Standards:
1. Expanding the postcard range to 100 feet for projects that are currently noticed to
adjacent owners and occupants
2. Increasing the noticing to seven days for all projects that currently have a five day
standard.
These enhancements are recommended by staff for the following reasons:
1. Expanding the postcard range sets a clearer standard for who gets noticed about smaller
projects and increases the distance of noticing. This change will allow for more residents
within a reasonable distance to be informed about proposed changes to their
neighborhood, which will increase the likelihood of public participation. The proposed
expansion will approximately double the number of notification postcards sent for these
projects.
2. Increasing the number of days these projects are noticed will ensure that interested
neighbors have a full week to inquire about a project, and arrange their schedule to
possibly attend a hearing or provide correspondence concerning a proposed project.
Therefor increasing the likelihood of public participation for these projects.
Staff will be able to make these enhancements to the standards by changing internal staff
procedures, without impacting the ability to achieve the other process goals previously set for the
department. The only increase in costs to the City will be for the increased number of postcards
mailed. This increase in cost of postage will be funded through the existing application fees, and
is estimated to be approximately $5 to $8 more per project. No increase in costs to project
applicants is currently proposed.
11
Packet Pg. 70
3. Additional Public Engagement Enhancements
In addition to the stated changes above to the Notification Standards document, the CDD has
also developed other strategies to enhance the ability of interested citizens (in addition to
neighbors within 100 or 300 feet) to be informed and consulted regarding upcoming projects.
These ideas are organized into those which can be implemented in the near future and those
which can be put into place further down the road with the development of new resources.
Implemented on a short timeframe:
1. Agenda Reports for all hearings available one week before advisory body hearing
(similar to Council Agenda Reports).
2. Posters and postcards improved to be easier to see/read.
3. Improved ease of access to contact advisory bodies. Expand the ability of the City’s
website to allow for one email to be sent to all advisory body members. These
correspondences will be posted to the website for others to see.
Implemented on a longer timeframe:
1. Notification sign-up by geographic area. Citizens can sign up to be notified by email
about projects in a particular area. (Further development of this program could allow
citizen’s to set their own notification boundary).
2. On-site Neighborhood Meeting Days. For large projects with neighborhood interest, a
planner would be available on-site to answer questions and present aspects of the project.
These above strategies to improve public participation are in addition to other approaches
currently in place. For example, staff maintains and updates an email list of interested parties and
stakeholder groups to be notified of hearings via email. The Community Development CDD
website now offers a monthly update of “Current Development Projects” to provide the public
with a slide show of larger projects currently in review, approved, and under construction. For
large Special Focus areas, such as San Luis Ranch and Avila Ranch, staff is maintaining and
updating links on the website to keep the public apprised on progress of these major proj ects.
Pre-applications and Conceptual Reviews are other methods that introduce larger projects to
decision-makers and the public early in the process. Each of these is an example of ways the City
works to improve awareness and opportunities to provide meaningful input regarding
discretionary project approvals.
4. Consistency with Zoning Regulations and State Laws
The proposed changes to the Notification Standards are in some cases different than what is
required by the Zoning Regulations. Language in the Zoning Regulations, for example, may call
for an advertisement to appear in the paper at least five days before a hearing. The Notification
Standards now require an ad appear at least seven days before a hearing. In every instance where
a difference presents itself, the proposed Notification Standards require more time than the
Zoning Regulations requirement.
11
Packet Pg. 71
In addition to exceeding some standards of the City’s Zoning Regulations, the proposed
Notification Standards in all instances meet or exceed the notification requirements under State
law.
Conclusion
The goal of updating the Notification Standards is to inform and involve the affected community
in governmental decisions. If local residents are directly involved in the process they will be able
to identify with the reasons behind the decisions. The proposed enhancements have the potential
to increase public participation without negatively affecting other departmental goals or
unreasonably increasing costs and staff time.
CONCURRENCES
The proposed changes to the City’s notification standards were reviewed by City Departments
with responsibility for development review and no impacts to staff resources were identified with
the proposed changes. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(Section 15061.b3).
FISCAL IMPACT
The increase in cost of postage for the proposed enhancements will be funded through the
existing application fees, and is estimated to be approximately $5 to $8 more per project. No
increase in costs to project applicants is currently proposed. Any need for incremental
adjustments to application fees will be evaluated as part of the City’s normal financial planning
process.
The City departments may need to identify ongoing resources for new technologies t hat can
enhance participation and citizen engagement. As additional tools become available, their merits
will be evaluated and proposals will be made for funding, consistent with the City’s normal
budget augmentation process.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Direct staff on specific changes to the Notification Standards. Staff can return at a later
meeting to review and discuss changes.
2. Do not approve the Notification Standards.
Attachments:
a a - Notification Standards Resolution
b b - Previously Adopted Notification Standards
c c - Staff Analysis of Requested Notification Enhancements
d d - 2008 Resolution - notification requirements
11
Packet Pg. 72
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2015 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING REVISED DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) follows specific notification
requirements for projects requiring development review;
WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted Resolution No. 10660 (2015 Series)
establishing development review notification requirements;
WHEREAS, the City’s current notification practice meets or exceeds the minimum state
law requirements; and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to revise the notification requirement to further expand
public noticing for projects requiring development review.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo that the Notification Standards for Development Projects are hereby amended as shown
in Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Resolution No. 10660 (2015) is superseded by this
Resolution No. _____ (2015 Series).
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2015.
____________________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Jon Ansolabehere
Interim City Clerk
11.a
Packet Pg. 73
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
N
o
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
(
1
1
9
7
:
N
o
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
)
Resolution No. _________ (2015 Series) Page 2
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
______________________________
Jon Ansolabehere Interim City Clerk
11.a
Packet Pg. 74
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
N
o
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
(
1
1
9
7
:
N
o
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
)
Resolution No. _________ (2015 Series) Page 2
Address Change 7
Annexation - ANNX 10 10 10
Appeal - APPL
Architectural Review - ARCH
ARC 10 10 10
Minor/Incidental 7 7 7
Condo Conversion - CNDO 10 10 10
Cultural Heritage Projects
Projects/Demolitions in Historic District 10 10 10
Change in Historical District Boundaries 10 10 10
Directors Approval - DIR
Daycare (7-12 Adults or 9-14 Children)10 10 10
All others (Special Events, Nightwork, etc..)7
Environmental Review a
Fence Height Exception - FNCE 7 7 7
Final Map - FMAP 10
General Plan - GENP
Map Amendment (incl. Rezoning) - PC and CC 10 10 10
Text Amendment - PC and CC 10
Guest Quarters - GUST 7 7 7
Historic Review - HIST 10 10 10
Homestay - HOME
Homestay 7 7 7
Homestay with Exceptions (Administrative Hearing)7 7 7
Occupancy - OCC
Home Occupation 7
Administrative Hearing for Home Occupation 7 7 7
Planned Development - PDEV
Plan Amendment 10 10 10
Rezoning (Final Plan)
Rezoning (Preliminary)10 10 10
School Tenant Permits
Allowed use 7
Approved by Use Permit 7 7 7
Secondary Dwelling Unit - SDU 7 7 7
Sign Permits
Specific Plan - SPEC - Amendment 10 10
Street Abandonment - STAB (Noticed for each step in Process)10 10 10 c
Street Name Change - STNE 10 10 10 b
Subdivision - SBDV
Tentative Lot Line Adjustment 7 7 7
Tentative Parcel Map (4 or less lots)10 10 10
Tentative Tract map (5 or more lots)10 10 10
Voluntary Merger 7 7 7
Time Extensions
Use Permit - USE
Administrative Hearing (Setback Exception, High Occupancy, Etc.) 7 7 7
Offsite Parking 7 d 7 d 7 d
Downtown Housing Conversion 10 10 10
Planning Commission or City Council 10 10 10
Variance - VAR 7 7 7
The above noted procedures meet or exceed the requirements of other sections of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code or applicable state law. While it is
city policy to provide additional notice beyond these requirements, failure to provide such notice shall not be construed in any way as invalidating otherwise proper
actions or decisions.
Posters
(on-site
notification)
- - no notice - -
- - use requirement for body being appealed to - -
- - no notice - -
- - no notice - -
4) For projects with multiple entitlements, each notification for the project will be noticed at the highest level required
for any entitlement of the project. Example: an Administrative Use Permit which also requires ARC review will be
noticed at the distance required for ARC (owners and occupants within 300' instead of 100').
Notification Standards for Development Projects
3) All projects will be noticed to interested parties as requested.
Notes:
1) The Community Development Director can increase these notification standards for any project, at any time.
2) Distances for notification shall be measured from the edge of property lines.
a) No specific date or time limit
b) Minimum 3 signs
c) Signs must be 300' apart or less, minimum of 3 signs
d) Offsite parking address must also be used for noticing (2 posters)
Days of notification required before hearing or final decision
Procedures Legal Ad Legal Ad
with Map
Postcards to Owners and
Occupants within 100'
Postcards to Owners and
Occupants within 300’
Exhibit A
11.a
Packet Pg. 75
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
N
o
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
(
1
1
9
7
:
N
o
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
)
Notification Standards for Development Projects
Changes Highlighted
a) No specific date or time limit
b) Signs must be 300’ apart or less, minimum of 3 signs
c) Minimum 3 signs
NOTE: All projects will be noticed to interested parties as requested.
For projects with multiple entitlements, each step in the process will be noticed at the highest
level required for any entitlement of the project. Example: an Administrative Use Permit that
also requires ARC review, will be noticed at the ARC level (owners and occupants within 300'
instead of adjacent owners and tenants).
Address Change 5
Annexation - ANNX 10 10 10
Appeal - APPL
Architectural Review - ARCH
ARC 10 10 10
Minor/Incidental 5 5 5
Condo Conversion - CNDO 10 10 10
Cultural Heritage Projects
Projects/Demolitions in Historic District 10 10 10
Change in Historical District Boundaries 10 10 10
Directors Approval - DIR (Special Events, Nightwork, ect.)5
Environmental Review a
Fence Height Exception - FNCE 5 5 5
Final Map - FMAP 10
General Plan - GENP
Map Amendment (incl. Rezoning) - PC and CC 10 10 10
Text Amendment - PC and CC 10
Guest Quarters - GUST 5 5 5
Historic Review - HIST 10 10 10
Homestay - HOME
Homestay 5 5 5
Homestay with Exceptions (Administrative Hearing)5 5 5
Occupancy - OCC
Home Occupation 5
Administrative Hearing for Home Occupation 5 5 5
Planned Development - PDEV
Plan Amendment 10 10 10
Rezoning (Final Plan)
Rezoning (Preliminary)10 10 10
School Tenant Permits
Allowed use a
Approved by Use Permit 5 5 5
Secondary Dwelling Unit - SDU 5 5 5
Sign Permits
Specific Plan - SPEC - Amendment 10 10
Street Abandonment - STAB (Noticed for each step in Process)10 10 10 b
Street Name Change - STNE 10 10 10 c
Subdivision - SBDV
Tentative Lot Line Adjustment 5 5 5
Tentative Parcel Map (4 or less lots)10 10 10
Tentative Tract map (5 or more lots)10 10 10
Voluntary Merger 5 5 5
Time Extensions
Use Permit - USE
Administrative Hearing 5 5 5
Offsite Parking (Project Site and Offsite Parking Site)5 5 5
Downtown Housing Conversion 10 10 10
Planning Commission or City Council 10 10 10
Variance - VAR 5 5 5
Days of notification required before hearing or final decision
Procedures Legal Ad Legal Ad
with Map
Postcards to Adjacent Owners
and Occupants
(including all abutting properties
and those across the street)
Postcards to Owners and
Occupants within 300’
Signs
(on-site
notification)
- - no notice - -
- - use requirement for body being appealed to - -
- - no notice - -
- - no notice - -
Exhibit A
11.b
Packet Pg. 76
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
b
-
P
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
A
d
o
p
t
e
d
N
o
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
(
1
1
9
7
:
N
o
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
)
Staff Analysis of Requested Notification Enhancements
REQUEST:
Increase the number of days that projects are noticed to neighbors, increasing a 5 day
notification to 10 days
ANALYSIS:
Current notification timeframes have been established, in part, to correlate with other timing
factors. These factors include; the day of the week that hearings are held and decisions are made,
days of the week City staff are available (weekdays), and the day of the week that legal ads
appear in the newspaper (Saturday).
The last factor, timing for newspaper ads, carries with it a deadline for getting those ads to the
paper. This deadline is something that the City cannot change, so any proposed increase is
constrained by this factor. Increasing, even slightly, the number of days of required notification
would require that the ad to go to paper an entire week earlier. This would either cut the
available time to review a project down to an amount that is not feasible, or extend the overall
project timeline to exceed established process timeframes.
The other factor in this timing, which city staff does have control over, is the day that decisions
are made (Director’s approvals or administrative hearings). Currently, those decisions are
scheduled for Fridays. Through much evaluation, staff has determined that moving the scheduled
decision day from Friday to the following Monday is a reasonable and appropriate change that
could be made. This adjustment, for example, would extend the time between when a neighbor
receives a postcard, and the date of the decision, from less than a week to at least 7 days.
If the hearing date were to change, the impact to established timeframes would be minimal (only
extending the process time one business day), and would work well with other established timing
factors that cannot be changed.
RESPONSE:
Projects that currently require a 5 day notification will be increased to 7 days. This will be
accomplished by changing the decision date for these projects from Friday to Monday.
REQUEST:
Increase the noticing distance for projects that currently require postcards sent to only adjacent
and across the street neighbors to a 300 foot notification radius.
ANALYSIS:
Projects that are currently noticed to property owners and tenants who are adjacent and across
the street are generally smaller scale projects. These projects often generate little or no response
from those persons who receive a noticing. It has been determined that increasing the notification
standards to 300 feet would not be cost efficient (often tripling the cost of notification).
However, staff has determined that increasing the notification radius to 100 feet is an appropriate
enhancement. This would clarify any ambiguity in the language currently used for this level of
11.c
Packet Pg. 77
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
S
t
a
f
f
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
o
f
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
N
o
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
1
9
7
:
N
o
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
)
noticing, and will slightly expand noticing so that neighbors who may be affected, but lie just
beyond the “adjacent property” standard, will be noticed.
RESPONSE:
Language that currently reads on the noticing standards, “postcards to adjacent owners and
occupants (including all abutting properties and those across the street), will be changed to read
“postcards to owners and occupants within 100 feet”. This will be accomplished by changing
staff procedure, and would not unreasonably increase costs.
11.c
Packet Pg. 78
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
S
t
a
f
f
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
o
f
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
N
o
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
1
9
7
:
N
o
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
)
RESOLUTION NO . 9976 (2008 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADOPTIN G
REVISED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT S
WHEREAS,the City follows specific notification requirements for planning entitlement s
requiring development review ; an d
WHEREAS,the City Council previously adopted Resolution 6779 (1990 Series) establishin g
development review notification requirements ; and
WHEREAS,the City's current practice exceeds the current requirements ; and
WHEREAS,the Council desires to revise the requirements to reflect current lega l
requirements and City practice in excess of those requirements .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obisp o
that Resolution No . 6779 (1990 Series) is superseded and a new Notification Requirements table i s
hereby adopted, as shown as Exhibit "A", attached and incorporated herein .
Upon motion of Council Member Settle, seconded by Vice Mayor Brown, and on the followin g
AYES :
Council Members Carter, Mulholland, and Settle, Vice Mayor Brown an d
Mayor Romero
NOES :
Non e
ABSENT : Non e
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 15 th day of April 2008 .
Mayor David F . Romer o
ATTEST :
APPROVED AS TO FORM :
n~a t_l
°. Lowel l
City Attorne y
vote :
R 9976
11.d
Packet Pg. 79
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
d
-
2
0
0
8
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
n
o
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
1
9
7
:
N
o
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
)
Exhibit A
NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT S
Procedures
AD A d
Map
POSTCARD S
TO ADJACENT
OWNERS
POSTCARD S
TO OWNER S
WITHIN 300 'Signs
Address Change 5
Administrative Actions (SDU, DA, M, LLA)5
Appeals - -Same as original a plication --
Architectural (ARC) Review 10 10 g 10
Minor or Incidental 5 e 5 a 5 e
Non-Residential adjacent to Residential Zones 10 10 10
Determination of Significant Structure 10 10 10
Demolition of Significant Structure h h 10 10
Condominium Conversions 10 10 10 g 10 1 0
Cultural Heritage -Projects on Residential Sites 5
Projects in Historical Districts b 5
Demolition on Historic Resources Sites 5
Demolition in Historic Districts b 5
Changing Master List: Resources 5
Changing Historical District Boundaries 10 10 10 1 0
Downtown Housing Conversion Permits -City Council 10 10 a g 1 0
Environmental Review h
Fence Height Exception -FH 5 e 5 a 5 e
General Plan Amendment -Map - PC and CC 10 10 10
Text - PC and CC 1 0
Home Occupation Permits 5
Home Occupation with Admin Hearing 5 5 a 5
Parcel Maps (except Plan . Dev) -Tentative Map -Director - MS 10 10 10 10
Final Map - Director 10 1 0
Planned Development Rezoning -Preliminary - PC & CC 10 10 10 1 0
Final Development Plan - Director - -no notice --
Amendments (preliminary or final) - PC 10 10 10 1 0
Rezoning /Annexation -Map - PC and CC 10 10 10 1 0
Text - PC and CC 1 0
School Tenant Permits h
School Tenant Permit with STP 5 e 5 a 5 e
School Tenant with Administrative Use Permit 5 5 a 5
Sidewalk Sales Permits - -no notice --
Sign Permits - -no notice --
Specific Plan Amendments -PC and CC 10 10 1 0
Street Abandonments -Planning Commission 10 10 10 1 0
Resolution of Intent - City Council - -no notice --
Resolution Ordering - City Council 10 10 10 c
Street Name Change -Planning Commission 10 10 10 g 10 d
Time Extensions - - no notice --
Tract Maps and Parcel Maps with PD (tentative) -PC 10 10 10 a 1 0
Use Permits -Administrative Hearing 5 a 5
PC and CC 10 10 a 1 0
Variances -Administrative Hearing 5 5 a 5
a)Notice to adjacent tenants, including those across stree t
b)Notice may be required to adjacent or any othe r
property owners at the discretion of the CDD Directo r
c)Signs must be 300' apart or less, minimum of 3 sign s
d)Minimum of 3 signs
e)Notice at least 5 days before final decisio n
f)Letters sent to persons of organizations that hav e
requested notice of demolition of significant structure s
g)Notice to tenant s
h)No specific date or time limi t
11.d
Packet Pg. 80
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
d
-
2
0
0
8
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
n
o
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
1
9
7
:
N
o
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
)
THENewspaper of the Central Coast
MBU..NE
3825 South Higuera • Post Office Box 112 • San Luis Obispo, California 93406 -0112 • (805) 781 -7800
In The Superior Court of The State of California
In and for the County of San Luis Obispo
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
AD # 2134294
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ss.
County of San Luis Obispo
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the
County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen and not
interested in the above entitled matter; I am now, and at
all times embraced in the publication herein mentioned
was, the principal clerk of the printers and publishers of
THE TRIBUNE, a newspaper of general Circulation,
printed and published daily at the City of San Luis
Obispo in the above named county and state; that notice
at which the annexed clippings is a true copy, was
published in the above -named newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof — on the following dates to wit;
DECEMBER 4, 2015 that said newspaper was duly and
regularly ascertained and established a newspaper of
general circulation by Decree entered in the Superior
Court of San Luis Obispo County, State of California, on
June 9, 1952, Case #19139 under the Government Code
of the State of California.
I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Si na re of Principal Clerk
( g p )
DATED: DECEMBER 4, 2015
AD COST: $140.80
CI'I"'Y 0:F
tif'Eti T1(US tiMPO
SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The San Luis Obispo City Council inviles
all interested persons to attend a public
hearing on Tuesday, December 15, 2015,
at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council
Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obi-
spo, California, relative to the following:
1. UPDATE TO NOTIFICATION STAND -
ARDS
A public hearing to consider a Resolu-
tion revising the development review no-
tification requirements and direct staff
to pursue the additional enhancements
to public notification and outreach.
For more information, you are invited to
contact Kyle Van Leeuwen of the City's
Community Development Department
at (805) 781 -7091 or by small at kvan
leeuwen @ slcclty.oa:
The City Council may also discuss olhor
hearings or business items before or arl;.er
the Items listed above. If you challenge the
proposed projecl in court, you may be lima•
ed to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice, or In written corre-
spondence delivered to the City Council at,
or prior to, the public hearing.
Reports for this meeting will be available
for review In the City Clerk's Office and on-
Ilne atwwwalocily._M on Wednesday, De-
cember 9, 20'15. Please call the City
Clerk's Office at (805) 781 -7100 for more
Information. The City Council meeting will
be televised live on Charter Cable Channel
20 and live streaming on www.slocity.org.
Jon Ansolabehere
Interim City Clerk
C4 of San Luis Obispo
Oecember4.2015 2134294
Updates to Notification
Standards
Community Development Department
Recommendation:
Adopt a Resolution revising the development review
notification requirements
Direct staff to pursue additional enhancements to
outreach as outlined in the report
Background:
August 2015, the Public Engagement and Noticing
(PEN) Manual was approved including some updates
to the Notification Standards:
Smaller development projects added to poster and
postcard notifications
New Homestay program applications added to
notification standards
Expansion of offsite parking noticing
Projects with multiple reviews noticed at highest
distance for all stages
Background:
Public testimony was received at that time, which
included requests to further expand certain noticing
requirements
Council directed staff to evaluate the requested
enhancements and present this analysis at a later
date
Additional Enhancements
Requested:
Expand all five-day notification requirements
(Administrative Use Permits) to a 10-day standard
Increase the distance of notification to 300 feet for
projects currently noticed to adjacent properties and
neighbors across the street (Administrative Hearings
and Director’s Actions).
Additional Enhancements Requested:
10-Day Notification Request
Analysis
A fixed timeframe for newspaper notifications restricts
how adjustments in staff process can be made
Previously established process time goals would be
negatively impacted in most cases
Recommendation
However, staff can change decision/hearing days from
Friday to Monday; increasing days noticed with little
other change to processing needed
Staff recommends adjusting to a minimum of 7 days
for notification on these minor projects
Additional Enhancements Requested:
Increasing Noticing to 300 Feet
Analysis
Overkill for smaller projects that historically have not
generated much concern.
Increasing the noticing distance to 300 feet would
more than quadruple mailing costs.
Recommendation
Staff recommends expanding the noticing for these
projects to 100 feet to ensure all immediate neighbors
are notified
Additional Enhancements
for Public Engagement:
Agenda Reports for all PC, ARC, and CHC
hearings available one week before meeting
Improve look for posters and postcards to
increase readability
Improve ease of access to contact advisory
body members via e-mail
All correspondence available for review on
website
Additional Enhancements
for Public Engagement:
Notification sign-up by geographic area
On-site neighborhood meeting days for large
projects
Conclusion:
Projects with a 5-day minimum for notification can be
increased to 7-day notification.
Noticing distance for smaller projects increased to 100
foot radius.
The impact for these changes are manageable in
terms of cost and staff time.
These changes, in combination with other proposed
enhancements, can increase public participation in
the development review process.
Recommendation:
Adopt a Resolution revising the development review
notification requirements
Direct staff to pursue additional enhancements to
outreach as outlined in the report