After a discretionary project is approved, the applicant may need to request minor revisions, usually as the result of a plan check or new requirement. Minor changes may be approved by the City Planner if found to be in "substantial conformance" with the original project description, findings, and conditions.
The purpose of this section is to provide a process that determines if a post-entitlement permit or ministerial permit application is substantially consistent and in conformance with a previously approved discretionary action when changes to the previous approval are proposed. This includes a review of the post-entitlement permit or ministerial permit application against approved exhibits, permit conditions, and environmental documentation associated with the authorizing discretionary permit, and applicable land-use policies and standards.
(Ord. CS-474, 8/20/2024)
Unless otherwise stated as a permit condition or as required by the municipal code, substantial conformance review is an optional service available to applicants who are proposing to modify their project after an authorizing discretionary permit has been approved by the city.
(Ord. CS-474, 8/20/2024)
The City Planner may determine changes are immaterial, do not require substantial conformance review, and may be approved as part of the ministerial application. Immaterial changes are very minor changes to the project and incidental in nature, are consistent with all development standards, and are of no substantial consequence to the project approval, including its exhibits, conditions, and environmental documentation. The city documents the approval of immaterial changes in the post-entitlement permit or ministerial permit application. Examples of immaterial changes may include but are not limited to:
A. 
Floor plan revisions that do not increase parking demand or modify the building footprint.
B. 
Modification of the length, height and location of garden, perimeter, and retaining walls.
C. 
Reconfiguration or addition of parking lot planters.
D. 
Resizing of a minor feature, such as a window, that does not exceed a 10% change from the original dimensions.
E. 
Repainting a structure or appurtenance in a hue that is substantially similar to the approved project.
(Ord. CS-474, 8/20/2024)
An application for a substantial conformance review shall be on a form provided by the City Planner, which shall require that information necessary to make the findings specified within this chapter.
(Ord. CS-474, 8/20/2024)
The City Council may impose by resolution a nonrefundable fee to reimburse the city for its reasonable and necessary costs in receiving, processing, and reviewing applications for a substantial conformance review.
(Ord. CS-474, 8/20/2024)
A. 
A request for substantial conformance review may be approved by the City Planner and shall be processed independently of any other required development permits.
B. 
The filing of an application for request for substantial conformance review shall not require public notice.
C. 
If necessary to reach a determination on the request for substantial conformance review, the City Planner may request:
1. 
Further information from the applicant, specifying in detail the information that is required.
2. 
Information from other city departments and divisions or other agencies.
D. 
Conditions of approval cannot be removed or revised as a substantial conformance request.
E. 
Within 30 days after receipt of a complete substantial conformance review application, the City Planner shall notify the applicant of the decision to approve or deny the request, with the reasons for denial stated according to the findings contained in Section 21.89.070.
F. 
If the City Planner denies the request, the applicant may pursue the request to change the project by filing an amendment to the authorizing discretionary permit(s) pursuant to Section 21.54.125 of this title.
(Ord. CS-474, 8/20/2024)
A project revision may be determined to be consistent with the approved discretionary action if the following findings can be made:
A. 
That the proposed revision provides an architectural style of development that is substantially consistent with the building forms, building colors, and building materials that were approved as part of the authorizing discretionary action.
B. 
That the proposed revision complies with all relevant development standards and design criteria and will not result in any health, safety, or welfare impacts.
C. 
That the proposed revision is consistent with the density, intensity, or use from what was approved as part of the authorizing discretionary action.
D. 
That the proposed revision is minor and authorizes a deviation or deviations of no more than 10%, provided that it is consistent with the authorizing discretionary action and maintains compliance with all relevant development standards. Examples of deviations that may be granted include but are not limited to:
1. 
On an individual lot or structure basis: yards, setbacks, lot coverage and building height (height reductions of greater than 10% are permitted).
2. 
On an aggregate project basis: parking, open space, common area, or landscaping, including planting area, quantity and size.
3. 
A deviation permitted under this section does not increase the intensity of the project or have a potentially detrimental effect.
E. 
That the proposed revision maintains, in their entirety, all of the project conditions required as part of the authorizing discretionary action.
F. 
That the proposed revision is consistent with the previously evaluated environmental findings and will not result in any significant environmental impact, and/or require further environmental review.
G. 
That the proposed revision is consistent with the standards set forth in the Village and Barrio Objective Design Standards or the Citywide Objective Design Standards, as applicable.
(Ord. CS-474, 8/20/2024)
The effective date of the City Planner's decision and method for appeal of such decision shall be governed by Chapter 21.54.140 of this title.
(Ord. CS-474, 8/20/2024)
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this chapter is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, the decision will not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this chapter. The City Council declares that it would have passed the ordinance codified in this chapter and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase contained in it irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases are declared invalid or unconstitutional.
(Ord. CS-474, 8/20/2024)