City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council receive the report on early community
involvement in the development process and direct staff as deemed appropriate.
BACKGROUND:
At its August 13, 2008 Council meeting the Council requested information about the
process for obtaining community input on discretionary development projects.
On September 22, 2008 staff provided a report to the Council in response to their
request. The staff report (Attachment No. 1) outlined the current process for review
and noticing of discretionary development projects. The Council directed staff to
continue the item to a later date and asked that staff research what other
communities do for public notification, provide information on project thresholds, and
determine what possible strategies the City might apply to the development process.
A workshop about public notification to provide different options for the City Council
was also suggested.
DISCUSSION:
Current Process
As noted in staff’s previous report to the City Council, in recognition of the
importance of community involvement throughout the application process, staff has
commenced with requirements for applicants to submit a plan for community
involvement outlining proposed outreach, meetings, and any other methods they
intend to use to solicit community input as part of their formal application submittal.
Meeting Date: 01/26/09 Item Number: A-2
AGENDA ITEM: Discussion of Community Involvement in the Development
Process and Direction to Staff.
Contact Person/Dept.: Thomas Gorham,
Planning Manager
Sol Blumenfeld, Director
Phone Number: (310) 253-5727
Fiscal Impact: Yes [] No [X] General Fund: Yes [] No [X]
Public Hearing: [ ] Action Item: [X] Attachments: []
Public Notification: Master Notification List (01/21/09); Mailed notice to all Culver City
Homeowner Groups (01/15/09) –check with Lisa
Department Approval:
Sol Blumenfeld (01/21/09)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker)(01/21/09)
Fiscal Impact Review:
Jeff Muir (by N. Kimball)(01/21/09)
City Manager Approval:
Jerry B. Fulwood (01/21/09) City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
The applicant is also required to submit a summary of the results of any community
meetings and what if any changes to the project were a result of community input.
The following summarizes the development application process in Culver City and
opportunities for community input:
1. Initial meeting with Planning Division staff to discuss proposed project at a
preliminary stage
2. Applicant solicits community input
3. Preliminary Project Review (PPR) submittal
4. Applicant meets with community
5. Formal Application submittal
6. Project First Notice Letter sent
7. Applicant meets with community
8. Public Hearing Notice sent
9. Public Hearing
10. Project Decision
Survey of Other Cities
Staff surveyed the Cities of Santa Monica, West Hollywood, Los Angeles, Beverly
Hills and Burbank to determine what type of public notification and community
involvement they require for development projects. Attachment No. 2 is a table
outlining what each of these cities require.
As indicated in the table, most of the cities surveyed have similar processes to
Culver City in terms of application requirements and public notice radius and timing.
Only Santa Monica requires pre-notice of an application prior to formal application
filing. The Cities of Los Angeles, Burbank, and Santa Monica post lists of new
applications on their web sites. The Cities of Burbank and West Hollywood require
and facilitate a community meeting prior to the official public hearing. Los Angeles is
the only city with officially recognized “neighborhood councils”. The neighborhood
councils are notified of applications and can choose to require that applicants
present the project for comment and recommendation. Alternatively, the Planning
Department may refer the matter to the neighborhood council.
Other Possible Early Notification Strategies
The Institute of Local Government’ Collaborative Governance Initiative has
published an informative article in a recent edition of Western Cities Magazine
regarding obtaining public input.|1010| The Institute points out that “each local effort to
develop a public involvement process is unique. Each issue or policy is different,
including the number or demographics of those participating, the specific means City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
through which participants generate ideas and recommendations, and the way local
officials ultimately use the results in their decision making.”
This suggests that each city must evaluate its own public information needs and
tailor the process to fit those needs. A very large city like Los Angeles, may need to
decentralize decision making by delegating some of the preliminary decision making
process to a neighborhood body like a neighborhood council whereas a smaller or
medium sized city may be able to effectively use the conventional hearing process
involving Commission and Council but supplement the decision making with
additional preliminary meetings prior to hearings.
The Institute postulates that “engaging the public in municipal planning is typically
not an easy task, and there is no one correct way to proceed. In addition to the
challenge of matching the right sort of civic participation to the particular planning
requirement at hand, these efforts may draw heavily on an agency's staff, time and
financial resources. It can be a challenge to attract a broader set of participants than
those who might normally show up, and the whole process may not always turn out
as well as hoped. However, if done strategically and well, the benefits described
above almost always outweigh the costs -- or the risks.”
According to the Institute, it is important to ask the following questions regarding
expanding the public engagement process:
1. Do you have the necessary time and resources? Engaging in a public
involvement process when the decision (or a major part of it) is already made --
or when it is too late to integrate meaningful changes -- will probably lead to
frustration for everybody and may reinforce mistrust in local officials. Such
processes may also draw significantly on staff time and/or the use of consultants.
A full civic engagement effort must be well prepared for and well managed to
succeed. Take time to clarify responsibilities and start the process early.
2. Is local political leadership on board? Appropriate political leadership should
agree on the engagement purpose, process and how the public input will be
used. It is essential that staff and elected officials understand clearly the planned
engagement process(es) and the role of appropriate agency staff.
3. Is there history that needs attention first? In some cases, a history of mistrust or
a divisive political battle causes significant polarization in the community around
planning issues, and an "airing out" process may be needed before or as part of
a participatory planning effort. Existing divisiveness may also indicate that a civic
engagement effort would be better developed jointly with the community, not
launched by government alone. City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
4. How will talk be linked to action? It is important to establish clearly from the
outset how public officials will use the planning ideas, recommendations or
agreements that result from public participation. This should be part of a
consistent message delivered to the public by everyone involved. Confusion
here will cause trouble throughout the process.
5. Will your purpose lead your process? Too often, civic engagement planning
starts with discussion about the number of public meetings to hold and who to
invite rather than grappling with the sort of information that the agency wishes to
have from its residents as part of the planning process. Do you want a snapshot
of public opinion, a deeper sense of what the public values, collectively ranked
general preferences, the community's vision of the future, the most favored
design idea, specific and consensus-based plan language, more agreement on a
particularly controversial aspect of the plan -- or a combination of these things?
a. Seeking collective and detailed recommendations generally requires that
participants have more information, more time to address differences and
grapple with alternatives, and good facilitation. Broader participation
generally helps to provide a fuller picture of opinion and ideas and to
secure community support for the outcome. Smaller numbers typically
work better to address alternatives and trade-offs to help formulate
specific plan elements. Combining both within a common engagement
framework may be the best approach (depending on the nature of the
planning to be done), but don't expect all possible outcomes from any
single approach.
6. How will participants be selected? There are many approaches to determining
who should attend a more participatory planning process. Generally, choices
include self-selection (open to all who want to attend), invitation to either groups
or individuals, or a more rigorous random sampling (perhaps through random
address selection or phone calls). An online component may allow for greater
flexibility in any of these approaches. Each selection method has its place and
one may complement another, but each also has potential drawbacks. Random
sampling may get you a representative but transitory picture of community
opinion. Meetings open to all may produce new voices or only those who usually
participate. Inviting selected individuals or groups may encourage important
stakeholders to attend or just limit the range of voices at the table.
a. Local officials should determine whether the emphasis will be on the
participation of organized stakeholders or members of the broader
community or a combination of both. Generally, more deliberative planning
processes require more balanced participation for legitimacy and to City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
capture the full range of opinion in the community. This suggests ensuring
that participants representing various populations and views are in the
room, whether it's a large meeting or stakeholder oriented.
7. How can you achieve greater diversity in participation? Reaching beyond "the
usual" participants requires a conscious plan, systematic efforts and help from
people who already have knowledge about and relationships with the
communities and constituencies you want to include. Reach out to local media,
clergy and congregations, leadership and advocacy groups and others that serve
your less involved populations. Co-sponsor participation processes with trusted
local groups at their facilities. Provide language-accessible materials and
activities. With other groups, create a long-term plan to help develop leadership
and participation from less engaged communities.
8. Is there a communications plan? A process that engages dozens or even
hundreds of individuals in deliberative discussions may result in increased
knowledge and consensus about a plan among those individuals. However,
others will also have an opinion, and broad support may be needed for
successful implementation. Develop a communications plan, inform external
media and use agency communication vehicles to let residents and others know
about the process, how it's going and its outcomes. This amplifies the benefits of
your engagement process.
9. Will you follow up with participants and the community? Good public deliberation
efforts include telling public participants how policy-makers used the
recommendations that resulted from these processes. If some ideas weren't
used, explaining the reason why demonstrates respect for the participants.
Celebrate completion of the process with everyone who contributed.
10. How will you learn from the experience? Using input from process participants,
staff and others, take the time to review what worked and didn't work. Use this
information the next time you begin a public participation process.
CONCLUSION
As outlined above, most cities surveyed have similar public participation processes
to Culver City which involves one or more public hearings by Commission and
Council. The standardized methods for involving the community in those hearings
can be enhanced by supplementing the hearings with preliminary community
meetings. There are practical benefits for public involvement. These include:
City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
Improved plans that are more likely to remain intact over time if they have
been developed by supportive public constituencies generated through
direct participation;
Reduced potential for ongoing disputes among stakeholders and contentious
battles before city councils and planning commissions;
Strong community buy-in through public engagement strategies may
ultimately facilitate development and reduce project slowdowns and
associated costs; and
Meaningful public involvement can produce an enhanced sense of
community and a more general trust in government.
Staff recommends that the City Council review the information provided herein and
provide direction to staff on any possible changes to the City’s processes.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Discussion of this topic does not create a fiscal impact. However, based upon any
modifications the City Council may deem necessary, additional notification and staff
coordination efforts would have an associated cost. Consequently, the cost
recovery level of any fee based activities that requires additional staff time to
complete additional public involvement (e.g. Site Plan Review, Variances,
Conditional Use Permits, etc.) will be impacted. If the City Council wishes to
maintain current cost recovery levels, there will be an associated increase in the
fee. Depending on the level of public involvement and the resulting impact on staff
time, the increase may be significant. Alternatively, the City Council may decide to
subsidize the public involvement costs.
Since the actual impact on staff time will not be known until any new process is
implemented and utilized, the fees may not be adjusted to capture the actual cost for
a few fiscal years. As a best management practice, the City plans on having an
outside consultant conduct another comprehensive fee study within the next 2 or 3
years. At that time, a more accurate accounting of costs will be determined.
NOTES:
1. Series from Western Cities Magazine, 2008, Terry Amsler, Program Director, The
Institute of Local Government’ Collaborative Governance Initiative
City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
ATTACHMENTS:
1) September 22, 2008 City Council Staff Report
2) Summary Table of Other Cities Requirements
MOTION:
That The Council:
Receive and file the report and direct staff as deemed appropriate.
MEETING DATE: 01/26109
AGENDA ITEM:
Discussion of Community Involvement in the
Development Process
ATTACHMENTS
Paces
1.September 22, 2008 City Council Staff Report
1-4
2. Summary Table of Other Cities Requirements
5-7A-rre-H-tarrii
City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
Meeting Date: 09/22/2008 Item Number: A-3
AGENDA ITEM: Discussion of Community Input on Discretionary Development
Projects
Contact Person/Dept.: Thomas Gorham, Phone Number: (310) 253-5727
Planning Manager ,
Fiscal Impact: Yes [] No [X]
General Fund: Yes [] No [X]
Public Hearing: [j Action Item: [X] Attachments: ]
Public Notification: Master .EMaiI Notification List (09/17/08)
Department Approval:
Sol Blumenfeld (09/11/08)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker)(09/16/08)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Jeff Muir (by M. Noller) (09/17/08)
City Manager Approval:
Jerry B. Fulwood (09/17/08)
RECOMMENDATION:
and file the report on community input on
staff as deemed appropriate.
Council requested information about the
discretionary development projects.
reviewed by the Planning Commission and
conditional use permits, tentative tract
plan and zoning code amendments also
Commission and the City Council have
these entitlements based on required
starts with the applicant meeting with
project at a preliminary stage. At
standards the project will be subject to as
conditional use permit, tentative tract
review process through which the project
staff encourages the applicant to meet with
to the project to obtain early input on the
Staff provides the applicant with
Homeowners Association (HOA) or other
of the proposed project.
Staff recommends the City Council receive
discretionary development projects and direct
BACKGROUND:
At its August 13, 2008 Council meeting the
process for obtaining community input on
Typical development projects which are
the City Council include site plan reviews,
maps (subdivisions), variances, and general
referred to as "entitlements". The Planning
discretionary authority to approve or deny
findings.
The typical path for a discretionary project
Planning Division staff to discuss their proposed
this time staff goes over the development
well as the entitlements (i.e. site plan review,
map, etc.) the project will need, and the
must proceed. At this preliminary stage
the community or neighborhood adjacent
proposed project prior to submitting an application.
the name and contact information for any
citizen group and any businesses in the vicinityCity of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
The first step in the application process is Preliminary Project Review (PPR). At this
stage preliminary plans (typically a site plan and elevations) are submitted by the
applicant. The plans are routed to the various City departments for internal review
and comment. Approximately two weeks following PPR submittal, the applicant
meets with the City's Project Review Committee (PRC) which is made up of
representatives of the various City departments (Public Works/Engineering, Building
Safety, Fire, Transportation, Police, City Attorney, and Redevelopment) that review
the plans and provide comments and direction to the applicant. This is a staff only
meeting where the various departments go over their comments on the proposed
project with the applicant. The PPR process is intended to help streamline the
application process by providing the applicant with early input on entitlement and
code requirements, design recommendations, environmental issues, neighborhood
issues, noticing requirements, fees, and identification of any necessary technical
studies to which the project may be subject. The applicant can then decide if they
want to continue in the application process and, if so, proceed to prepare refined
plans and any necessary technical studies (i.e. traffic study, noise study,
geotechnical study, etc) that may be required for the project prior to formal
application submittal.
Following the PPR stage, an applicant then submits a formal application which
includes a formal written project description, detailed project plans addressing any
issues identified at the PPR stage, any necessary technical studies and reports, and
payment of all applicable fees. Submittal of the formal application can take up to six
months following the initial PPR review. Once a formal application is submitted, a
Project First Notice Letter is sent to all properties owners and occupants within a 500
foot radius (extended to the end of the block if mid block) of the subject site and to
all HOA's within the vicinity of the project. The First Notice Letter describes the
proposed project, provides the applicant information, and contains information on the
availability of the plans for review. The letter also notes that once a hearing date for
the proposed project is determined, an official public hearing notice will be mailed
out at least 21 days in advance of the hearing. At the formal application stage, staff
again encourages the applicant to meet with the community for comment and input
on the proposed project prior to the public hearing.
Following submittal of the formal application, the project plans are routed again to
the various City departments and a second PRC meeting is held where staff
provides the applicant with final comments and recommended conditions for the
project. Following the PRC meeting, the planning staff makes a determination on
whether or not the application can be deemed complete. If deemed complete, the
project is then scheduled for a public hearing which typically occurs within 60 days.
If staff cannot deem the application complete, the applicant is informed of what
additional information is required before the application can be deemed complete
and scheduled for public hearing.City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
Once a public hearing date is established, a formal public hearing notice is mailed to
all owners and occupants of property within a 500 foot radius (extended to the end of
the block if mid block), all HOA's within the vicinity of the project, any interested
party, and the master e-mail notification list at least 21 days prior to the public
hearing. In addition, a sign is posted along each project street frontage with
information about the project and the date of the public hearing.
DISCUSSION:
As outlined above, the pubic input and participation occurs at various stages of the
application process. First, the applicant is encouraged to meet with the community
prior to fully developing project plans and formal application submittal to identify and
address any neighborhood concerns early on. Second, once a formal application
has been submitted, a project First Notice Letter is sent out and the applicant is
again encouraged by staff to meet with the community. Finally, once a public hearing
date has been set, an official public hearing notice is mailed and the project site is
posted with a sign at least 21 days in advance of the hearing date inviting the public
to participate in the hearing process.
The City Council has made it clear that public participation in the development
process is important to the Council and to the community. In recognition of the
importance of community involvement throughout the application process, staff
recently commenced with requirements for applicants to submit a plan for
community involvement outlining proposed outreach, meetings, and any other
methods they intend to use or have used to adequately present the project to the
community and to solicit community input outside of the public hearing process.
This Public Participation Plan must be submitted as part of their formal application
submittal. The applicant is also required to submit a summary of the results of any
community meetings and outreach and how the applicant addressed the public
concerns and what if any changes to the project were a result of community input.
The following summarizes the development application process and opportunities for
community input:
1. Initial meeting with Planning Division staff to discuss proposed
project at a preliminary stage
2. Applicant solicits community input
3. Preliminary Project Review (P PR) submittal
4. Applicant meets with community
5. Formal Application submittal
6. Project First Notice Letter sent
7. Applicant meets with communityCity of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
8. Public Hearing Notice sent
9. Public Hearing
10. Project Decision
Based upon the City Council's direction, staff has prepared this report to both
provide the City Council with information on the City's current process and allow the
City Council an opportunity to provide comment and direction on this subject. The
City Council may determine that the current process meets the City Council's goals
or the Council may determine to provide additional measures related to public
participation in the development process.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Discussion of this topic does not create a fiscal impact. However, based upon any
modifications the City Council may deem necessary, additional notification efforts
would have an associated cost.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
MOTION:
That the City Council:
Receive and file this report and direct staff as deemed appropriate. Ui 1
Pre Notice Early Notice Application
Requirements/
Other Required
Community
Meetings
Thresholds for
Community Outreach
Extent of notice
(Radius)
Official Notice Standard
Meetings
Other Advisory
Meetings
CITY
Is there a
requirement for
pre-notification of
neighbors/ the
community prior to
submittal
Is the public
notified of the
application filing?
When? How?
Requirements for filing?
Labels, envelopes, radius
map? Anything else related
to public notification?
Is there a
requirement for
meeting with
community/neighbo
rs prior to public
hearings?
Is there a threshold (project
size, application type) which
would trigger a requirement
for meeting with the
community?
What are the general
notification radius
requirements?
What is notification lead
time prior to public
hearing?
What notification is
done for regularly
held meetings (i.e.
CPC)?
What notification is done for
other hearings (i.e. Design
Review, Neighborhood
Council, etc.)?
Culver City
Upon first contact
with applicant,
staff identifies
neighborhood
groups in vicinity
of project and
encourages
applicants to meet
with them
Project first notice
letter sent out
within one week
following formal
application to all
owners/occupant
within 500 ft.
radius of the site
• Radius map
• Mailing labels
• Certified list of
property owners and
tenant within
required radius
Staff encourages
applicant to meet
with identified
neighborhood
groups.
City will facilitate
meeting if
requested
None
Staff encourages applicants to
meet with the community on
all projects
500 foot radius extend to
the end of City block
At Planning Managers
discretion the radius is
sometimes extended to
potential affected
properties beyond the
standard radius
Mailed notice 21 days prior
to public hearing to all on
500 ft. radius mailing list,
interested parties, and
always list.
Site posted 21 days prior to
hearing
Notice published 14 days
prior to hearing
Agendas are
published on the City
web site and posted
at City Hall
ACOR as needed
leverly Hills
None None
• Radius Map
• Mailing Labels
• Affidavit and photo
evidence that subject
property was posted
with notice of
request.
• Fee charged for
publication of notice
in the newspaper.
The City will
facilitate
community
meetings between
the applicant and
the public for "large
projects" they feel
will be
controversial,
No requirement
However, applicants are
encouraged to meet with the
community for large projects.
500 feet (for planning Public notice is mailed 10
days before the scheduled
public hearing.
For some cases, a notice of
Notice of hearing
published in
newspaper.
Agendas published
on City web site.
Appeal Hearing: Notice to
applicant and appellant
Design Review in R-1 Zone:
Notice of hearing is mailed
10 days prior to hearing to
100-foot radius.
commission meetings):
Notification sent to each
owner of a single family
residentially zoned
property.
300 feet (for planning
decision is mailed 10 days
prior to any decision
rendered .
Subject property is posted
10 days prior to hearing.
Notice of hearing is also
published in the local
newspaper 10 days prior to
public hearing.
commission meetings)!
To each owner and
residential tenant of all
other zoned properties.
100 feet (projects not
requiring commission
review): Property
owners and residential
occupantsPre Notice Early Notice Application
Requirements/ Extra
Submittal Materials
Other Required
Community
Meetings
Thresholds for
Community Outreach
Extent of notice
(Radius)
Official Notice Standard
Meetings (CPC)
Other Advisory
Meetings
None • Lists of • Radius Map The Applicant is Required for Development Notification of owners Public notice is mailed 10 Notice of the hearing Appeal Hearing: Notice to
new/existing • Mailing Labels
required to have an Review projects (requiring a and occupants by mail. days before the scheduled is published in the applicant, appellant and
applications
are posted
online
informal community
meeting, prior to
the official public
change of use & increased
parking requirements); is also
recommended for
1,000 feet: Development public hearing,
The subject property is
local newspaper.
Agendas are
property owners and
occupants within 300 feet 10
days prior to hearing;
review, CUP, Variance,
AUP, Tract Maps
lurbank (alphabetical'
y, by type, by
zone, in an
interactive
map).
hearing, when filing
for a Development
Review. The
meeting is
facilitated by City
controversial projects. 300 feet: Accessory posted on each street
frontage 10 days prior to
hearing.
published on the City
web site.
publication in newspaper
structure permit, Second
Dwelling Unit, Special
Dev. Permit
150 feet: Minor fence
• Established
neighborhood
groups
occasionally
receive
project plans
for review by
email, sent by
staff. Residents
within 1,000 foot
radius are notified
of the meeting
exception, Home
Occupation
8 Blocks: Downtown
restaurant
administrative use
permit
City Staff.
Applicants are • List of new • Radius map The City has When implementing "big Notification of owners Public notice is mailed 10 Subject property is Architectural Review Board:
encouraged, but applications is • Mailing labels
facilitated projects", the City has and occupants by mail. days before the scheduled posted, with Case The site must be posted
not required, to
contact and
posted online. • Certified list of
property owners and
community
meetings between
facilitated community
meetings
500 feet: CUPs, public hearing. Notice of
hearing is also published in
Number and Hearing
Date listed 8 weeks
within 10 days of filing an
application for projects of Development Review
prior to hearing, and
describe the
application to
tenant units within
required radius
the Applicant and
the public for "big
Permits, General Plan
Amendment, site specific
the local newspaper and on
the City web site.
over 15,000 sf of floor area.
through 14-day
;anta
adjacent property
projects". This has Zoning Ordinances. Hearing notice is posted on appeal period. If Landmarks Commission:
Aonica
owners and
applicable
neighborhood
groups.
For CUP and
become increasingly
more common over
the past two years
300 feet: Variances, Yard the subject property 8
weeks prior to the hearing,
Appealed, the notice
must remain with
updated information
on Appeal Hearing,
Site must be posted prior to
filing of application. Updated
with hearing info 10 days
Modifications, Tentative
Map
prior to hearing. Mailing
required to 300 foot radius
or to the historic district.
Development
Review Permits,
sites must be
posted prior to
submittal of the
application.Eight
(81 weeks prior to
hearing, the
posting must be
updated to include
the case number
and hearing date.Pre Notice Early Notice Application
Requirements/ Extra
Submittal Materials
Other Required
Community
Meetings
Thresholds for
Community Outreach
Extent of notice
(Radius)
Official Notice Standard
Meetings (CPC)
Other Advisory
Meetings
Vest
loIlywood
None None • Fee charged for City
to prepare radius
map and mailing
labels
• Applicants pay for
postage and provide
envelopes,
For Development
Permit Projects
that will Planning
Commission: Within
60 days of filing
application the
developer must
host a meeting with
community.
Notification is
mailed to a
owners/occupants
within a 500 foot
radius.
Post Approval
requirement to
meet with
community to
resolve issues.
Community meeting required
for projects requiring a
Development Permit that will
go on to the Planning
Commission (usually a
threshold requiring a project
of 10,000 sf or greater)
Notification is sent by
mail to each owner of a
single family residentially
zoned property within
Public notice is mailed 10
days before the hearing,
Notice of hearing is also
published in the local
newspaper and City web
site.
Hearing notice is posted
on the subject property
one month before the
hearing.
Notice of hearing is
published in the
newspaper.
Design Review Committee:
No notice sent out. Agenda
is posted on the City web
site 72 hours prior to
hearing. 500-feet of the subject
property.
. os Angeles
None • List of new
Applications
are pocted
online, bi-
monthly.
• Neighborhood
Councils are
informed of
new planning
applications
for all projects
in their area
by email, sent
out every two
weeks.
• Radius Map
• Mailing Labels
•F ses invrdv ing a
It is at the Planner's
discretion to
require the
No requirement.
However, applicants are
Abutting owners only : Public Notice is mailed 15-
24 days before the
scheduled public hearing,
The notice is also mailed to
the Neighborhood Council.
The subject property is also
posted.
Agendas are
published on the City
web site.
Members of the
public who attended
the public hearing or
who requested to be
kept informed of the
case are notified of
additional hearings.
Neighborhood Councils
publish their agendas on
individual web sites.
Plan Approvals, Zoning
Admin. Adjustments,
Modifications
500 feet, for owners and
public hearing,
Applicants are
required to post a
public hearing notice
on the subject
property.
Applicant to meet
with the
Neighborhood
Council (or a
community group)
prior to the
issuance of the
determination
letter.
encouraged to meet with the
community for large projects.
occupants: CUPs,
variances, Zone Change