Inquiring Minds.... SB 18 Revisited

I was asked again this question from anonymous -

“I am hoping that you can please post the link to your information on SB 18 as it relates to private property owners? My information shows it relating to the general plan, and not private property.

Thank you.”

The answer to the question, to me, is whether or not the general plan will require an amendment, and has nothing to do with whether or not the development is public or private.


From - http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:79OQrtdfyp0J:www.slocity.org/communitydevelopment/download/Archaeological%2520Preservation%2520Guidelines/chcreport.pdf+California+SB+18+%2B+Private+property+applicaNTS&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

To gain approval, public and private development projects must be consistent with the General Plan and with CEQA. Moreover, California State law (SB 18) now requires cities and counties to involve California Native American Tribes when adopting or amending general plans, specific plans and open space designations. The current guidelines, do not, however, reflect changes to CEQA nor address SB 18. The proposed update brings City procedures into compliance with both laws

From - http://www.opr.ca.gov/programs/docs/09_14_05%20Updated%20Guidelines%20(922).pdf

IV. Consultation: General Plan and Specific Plan Adoption or Amendment
Each time a local government considers a proposal to adopt or amend the general plan or specific plan, they are required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the NAHC. If requested by tribes, local governments must consult for the purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts to cultural places. The following section provides basic guidance to local governments on the notification and consultation requirements in Government Code §65352.3.

What Triggers Consultation?

Government Code §65352.3 requires local governments to consult with tribes prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan or specific plan proposed on or after March 1, 2005. Local governments should consider the following when determining whether a general plan or specific plan adoption or amendment is subject to notice and consultation requirements:

• In the case of an applicant-initiated plan proposal, if the local government accepts a complete application (as defined in Government Code §65943) on or after March 1, 2005, the proposal is subject to Government Code §65352.3.

• In the case of a general plan or specific plan amendment initiated by the local government, any proposal introduced for study in a public forum on or after March 1, 2005 is subject to Government Code §65352.3. A legislative body must take certain actions to initiate, or propose, a general plan or general plan amendment. These actions must be taken in a duly noticed public meeting, and may include, but are not limited to, any of the following: appropriation of funds, adoption of a work program, engaging the services of a consultant, or directing the planning staff to begin research on the activity.


If Santa Rita Land and Vine’s plans for Mattie’s do not require and amendment to the general plan then SB County would not be required to give notice to the Chumash as required by SB 18… BUT, if re-zoning the site from “highway commercial” to “general commercial”, as was reported in the Valley Journal, triggered SB 18 for the Stage Stop Plaza proposal (which is a private development),why wouldnt it also trigger SB 18 for Mattie's?

I am merely asking the question, and to you it may be a dumb one but I will ask it anyway.

Anyone with expertise in this field is most welcome to post a reply and help clarify this.