HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-06-2017 Item 09 Resolution Updating the City's Development Review Notification Requirements Meeting Date: 6/6/2017
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Kyle Van Leeuwen, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION UPDATING THE CITY’S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) revising the D evelopment Review Notification
Requirements to be consistent with State Requirements.
DISCUSSION
Background
The Notification Requirements are a technical document that has historically been adopted by
Council Resolution. The Standards govern when and where the City distributes mailed postcards,
legal ads, and posted signs about upcoming development projects. The Notification Standards
identify who will be noticed and when the noticing will happen. These Standards reflect State
law and local policy. The Notification Requirements that were adopted on December 15, 2015
(Attachment B, Resolution No. 10681), included revisions from the 2008 standards and some
additional changes that were in response to public feedback requesting the expansion of noticing
for certain project types. Since that time, City staff has discovered that some of the City’s
requirements need to be updated to comply with State requirements, and call for noticing on
ministerial reviews and approvals.
Updates to Current Standards
The proposed updates to the Notification Requirements will change three items on the
established list of Development Projects. These procedure types are ministerial approvals, and no
notification is required because no hearing and/or discretionary action is taking place. The three
items are discussed further below.
1. Final Map
Currently, the Notification Requirements identify Final Maps as requiring a public notice. This is
inconsistent with State requirements because the vast majority of these approvals are ministerial
actions and require no notice to the public. The one exception to this is Final Map submittals that
include corrections or amendments to a map that has already been filed in the office of the
County Recorder (Subdivision Map Act § 66472.1). Final Map submittals that include
corrections or amendments can require a public hearing. This hearing is before the legislative
body or advisory agency that originally acted on the project, and therefore will require a public
notice of the hearing. This type of approval is very uncommon and rarely seen in the City. The
Notification Requirements Document will be amended to require no notice for Final Maps
(FMAP), with an asterisk that identifies this uncommon type of submittal as requiring a public
Packet Pg 73
9
notice.
2. Secondary Dwelling Unit (SDU)
At the time the current Notification Requirements were adopted, the City’s Secondary Dwelling
Unit (SDU) Ordinance required discretionary architectural approval to establish an SDU on any
property. As of January 1, 2017, the State of California revised its regulations in connection to
these types of units (now called Accessory Dwelling Units). These new regulations stipulate that
only a ministerial approval can be required to establish this type of unit, and no noticing is
required for ministerial approvals. While our previous ordinance included a discretionary
component, the approval of SDUs as a use on a specific property was based on code consistency
and was not considered discretionary. SDUs will be completely removed from the document
because they are no longer a submittal type, and only a building permit is required to establish an
Accessory Dwelling Unit.
3. Subdivision-Voluntary Merger
Currently, the Notification Requirements identify Voluntary Mergers as requiring a publi c
notice. This is inconsistent with State requirements because these approvals are ministerial
actions. The document will be amended to require no notice for these approvals.
Conclusion
The goal of updating the Notification Standards is to inform and involve the affected community
in discretionary 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 changes will
allow greater consistency with State requirements, without negatively affecting public
participation and other departmental goals.
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(b)3).
FISCAL IMPACT
No increase in cost is anticipated with the proposed changes because no expansion of noticing is
proposed.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Direct staff on specific changes to the Notification Requirements. Staff can return at a
later meeting to review and discuss changes.
2. Do not approve the Notification Requirements.
Packet Pg 74
9
Attachments:
a - Notification Requirements Resolution
b - Resolution No. 10681 (2015)
Packet Pg 75
9
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2017 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. 10681 (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 its notification requirements to reflect current
requirements set by the State of California 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. 10681 (2015) is superseded by this
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series).
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this ___________day of ___________ 2017.
______________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg 76
9
Resolution No. _________ (2017 Series) Page 2
R ______
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 or ______________, _________.
______________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg 77
9
Resolution No. _________ (2017 Series) Page 2
R ______
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 *
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
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
Time Extensions
Use Permit - USE
Administrative Hearing (Setback Exceptions, , Etc.) 7 7 7
High Occupancy Residential 10 10 10
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
Notification Requirements 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’
- - no notice - -
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').
- - no notice - -
* Final Maps w/ amendments submitted pursuant to § 66472.1 of the Subdivision Map Act will be noticed as required
Exhibit A
Packet Pg 78
9
Packet Pg 79
9
Packet Pg 80
9
Packet Pg 81
9
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 82
9