The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12/06/1988, C-6 - NOTICING REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW I�ih��►►I��IIIIIIIII Al r MEETING DATE: ► �l��l city or san lues oBispo 12-6-88 V COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITE UM From: Michael Multari, Community Development Director Subject: Noticing requirements for development review CAO Recommendation: Adopt resolution establishing policy for noticing various planning reviews BACKGROUND: Discussion: Recently, the City Council asked staff to consider changes to the city's noticing policies for certain types of projects; specifically, increasing notice for minor and incidental architectural review, providing individual notice to nearby property-owners in the case of use permits, and providing individual notice to nearby residents for ARC projects involving a commercial project adjacent to a residential zone, were highlighted as needing attention. Attached to the draft resolution is a table that summarizes the suggested noticing procedures for each type of development review. The principal changes include: ARC projects will now involve individual notice to adjacent property-owners in all cases and individual notice to all property-owners within 300 feet when the case involves a commercial project adjacent to a residential zone. Planning Commission use permits will involve noticing property-owners within 300 feet of the site. Minor and incidental architectural review will be noticed now through posting and legal ads. There are several other minor changes of a "clean-up" nature. The proposed changes have been reviewed by the ARC and Planning Commission who recommend their adoption. Staff has already implemented these changes as administrative policy. Attached is a resolution which would establish these noticing procedures as City Council policy. This is the easiest and quickest way of formally putting them into effect. At some future date, we may wish to make these changes part of the Municipal Code, but such an ordinance involves amendments to more than a dozen sections of the code. Staff would recommend postponing that effort until we have experience with the new procedures and until other more pressing projects (notably the general plan update) are farther along. r 11N°��i�llplll►��u�i��lU city of so lues OBISPO A COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 2 Significant Imoacts: These changes require significantly more staff time. The preparation of the additional mailings and the posting of minor and incidental items has typically taken about six to eight staff-hours more a week. Most of this work is performed by interns and clerical staff; the estimated cost is approximately $5000/year. Further, additional notice is likely to result in more continuances and appeals. While greater neighborhood participation is clearly a benefit to project review, staff, commission and council time devoted to handling these items will increase, too. We estimate that conservatively, this will cost approximately $5000/year. The impact is not so important in terms of the budget as it is in terms of staff time that will not be available for other projects. In some cases, there will be additional complications in the application process. For example, in the case of use permit notice, applicants will be required to prepare property-owner lists as part of their application packets. This involves looking up owners through the assessors parcel maps and tax rolls. While this practice is not unusual, it has not been required in San Luis Obispo until now. Overall, however, it seems that the benefits of increasing neighborhood awareness of the development review process is worth these additional costs. Conseauences of Not Taking the Recommended Action: As noted above, staff has already implemented the changes. If the Council does not want these procedures followed, the somewhat more restricted noticing procedures of the recent past will be resumed. The kinds of problems that have resulted from lack of notice will likely continue at about the same frequency as in the past. Attachments: Draft Resolution I I - CIG -� RESOLUTION NO. (1988 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ESTABLISHING A POLICY FOR NOTICING VARIOUS TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WHEREAS, the Council finds that it is in the community's best interest to provide extensive public notice of development proposals in order to solicit neighborhood participation in the review of new projects; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby adopt the noticing schedule as set forth in the attached table labeled "Notification Requirements", which are incorporated hereby by reference. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 1988. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Resolution No. (1988 Series) Page 2 APPROVED: City Administrative•Officer City Att#rney Community Development Director NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS LETTERS TO LETTERS TO PROCEDURE AD AD MAP ADJACENT PROPERTY SIGNS PROPERTY OWNERS OWNERS WITHIN 300' ADDRESS CHANGE 1 1 5 APPEALS SAME AS ORIGINAL APPLICATION ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW-A.R.C. 2 5 5 Minor or Incidental 5e 5e Non-Residential Adjacent to Residential Zone 2 5 a 5 Determination of Significant Structure 2 5 5 Demolition of Significant Structure h h 5 f g 5 CONDOMINIIUM CONVERSIONS 10 10 log 10 10 CULTURAL HERITAGE-Projects on Residential Sites 5 Projects in Historical Districts b Demolition on Historical Resource Sites 5 Demolition in Historical Districts b Changing Master List:Resources 5 Changing Historical District Boundaries 10 10 10 10 DOWNTOWN HOUSING CONVERSION PERMITS-City Council 10 loag 10 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW-Community Development Department h GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT-Map-Planning Commission and C.C. 10 10 10 Text-Planning Commission and City Council 10 HOME OCCUPATION PERMITS 5 Home Occupation with Administrative Hearing 5 5a 5 PARCEL MAPS(all except Planned Devel.)-Tentative map-Director 10 10 10 10 Final ma -Director 10 10 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING-Preliminary-P.C.and C.C. 10 10 10 10 Final Development Plan-Director NO NOTICE Amendments(preliminary or final)-Planning Commission 10 10 10 10 REZONING-Map-Planning Commission and City Council 10 10 10 10 Text-Planning Commission and City Council 10 SCHOOL TENANT PERMITS h School Tenant with Administrative Hearing 5 10b 5 SIDEWALK SALES PERMITS NO NOTICE SIGN PERMITS NO NOTICE SPECIFIC PLAN AMANDMENT-Planning Commission and C.C. 10 10 10 STREET ABANDONMENTS-Planning Commission 10 10 10 ' 10 Resolution of Intent-City Council NO NOTICE Resolution Ordering-City Council 10 10 100 STREET NAME CHANGE-Planning Commission 10 10 10 g 10 d TIME EXTENSIONS b TRACT MAPS AND PARCEL MAPS WITH P.D.(tentative)-P.C. 10 10 10 a 10 USE PERMITS-Administrative 5 5 a 5 Planning Commission and City Council 10 10a 10 VARIANCES-Administrative 5 5 a 5 *NUMBERS IN COLUMNS INDICATE THE NUMBER OF DAYS PRIOR TO HEARING THAT ACTION(LEGAL AD,LETTER,POST SIGN...)IS TO OCCUR a Notice to adjacent tenants,Including those across the street e. Notice at least five days before final action. b.Notice may be required to adjacent or any other property owners at f. Letters sent to persons or organizations that have requested notice the discretion of the Community Development Department's of demolition of significant structures. Director or his representative. g.Notice to tenants. c. Signs must be 300'apart or less,minimum three signs. h.No specific date or time limit d.Minimum of three signs. 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 invali- dating otherwise proper actions or decisions �_� _� n.M