City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council receive this report on the City’s public notification
and community involvement in the development processes and direct staff as
deemed appropriate.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council has, on a number of occasions, expressed its strong interest in
ensuring the City’s public notification process provides accurate information to
interested persons on a wide variety of City subjects. Also, at its January 26, 2009
meeting, the City Council received a staff report on City processes for obtaining
public input on discretionary development projects and the requirements of other
cities related to public notification and public outreach. The Council directed staff
further research the matter to develop possible strategies that may be applied to the
City. Both matters were scheduled for discussion at this evening’s meeting in order
to provide additional input from both the City Council and the community on these
two important topics.
Meeting Date: 03/30/09 Item Number: A-2
AGENDA ITEM: Discussion of Public Notification and Community Involvement in
the Development Processes.
Contact Person/Dept.:
Martin Cole, Assistant City Manager;
Sol Blumenfeld, CD Director;
Thomas Gorham, Planning Manager
Phone Number:
(310) 253-6007
(310) 253-5702
(310) 253-5710
Fiscal Impact: Yes [] No [X] General Fund: Yes [] No [X]
Public Hearing: [ ] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Public Notification: This Town Hall meeting has been announced at City Council
Meetings, quarter-page advertisements have been placed in the Culver City Observer
and the Culver City News on March 12, 19, and 26; information signs were placed in 17
areas in Culver City Parks; the Official Notice of the Meeting was placed on City service
counters and on the City’s website; Three E-Mail notifications Utilizing the Master E-
Mail Notification List were sent between March 2 and March 26, 2009; Master E-Mail
Notification List (03/25/09); Mailed notice to all Culver City Homeowner Groups, Public
Speakers at Planning Commission and City Council Meetings regarding development
projects over the past year (03/19/09)
Department Approval:
Martin R. Cole (03/25/09)
Sol Blumenfeld (03/25/09)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker)(03/25/09)
Chief Financial Officer Review:
Jeff Muir (03/25/09)
City Manager Approval:
Jerry B. Fulwood (03/25/09) City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
Staff will be presenting this report with the aid of a PowerPoint slideshow.
To facilitate the discussion of these two related topics, staff is presenting one staff
report divided into two major themes: (I) General Public Notification and (II) Public
Notification and Involvement in the Development Process.
DISCUSSION:
I. GENERAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
The City of Culver City has been an advocate of involving the community in the
City’s decision making process. In fact, surveys of our surrounding cities show that
Culver City provides significantly more notification than the minimum legal
requirements and the practices in place in other area cities. While the City’s public
notification process has not been without some challenges, the City exceeds the
minimum requirements of State and other applicable law in reaching out to the
community and providing notice of items to be discussed by the City Council, the
Redevelopment Agency, other City Commissions, Boards, and Committees, and
staff.
On December 3, 2007, the City Council unanimously adopted the following motion:
MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER MALSIN, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER GROSS AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED, THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2007-R077
ESTABLISHING THE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION POLICY, WITH THE
FOLLOWING AMENDMENT: INCLUDE A REQUIREMENT THAT IT IS
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF RESIDENTS TO KEEP THEIR ADDRESS
CURRENT WITH THE CITY BY NOTIFYING THE CITY IF THEY MOVE
OR CHANGE THEIR EMAIL ADDRESS.
A copy of the staff report from that meeting and City Council Policy 2007-002 is
attached for the Council’s ease of reference.
Since the adoption of City Council Policy 2007-002, the City Clerk’s Office has been
adding all e-mail addresses received from Speaker Cards to the City’s Master E-Mail
Notification list. As a result, the list has grown from some 700 addresses to
approximately 920 addresses today. Even though the public notification process
has improved with the adoption of City Council Policy 2007-002, the City Council has
continued to express some concern over the reliability of the City’s Public
Notification Process.
City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
Creation of a Staff Working Group on the Public Notification Process:
To address the City Council’s concerns, the City Manager directed the Assistant City
Manager/City Clerk to form a staff working group on public notification. This working
group contains at least one representative from each City department. The working
group discussed the current processes used by departments for public notification,
and suggestions made by City Council Members, the Community and staff were
reviewed. As a result of this effort, the working group has proposed solutions to the
concerns voiced by both the City Council and the general public related to public
notification. These recommendations are presented below:
A. Format of Public Notification Items
The format for public notification items could range significantly from Department to
Department and sometimes within Divisions of the same Department. Some
examples of common public notification items include:
(1) The City Standard Postcard
(2) A larger postcard for unusual items
(3) Glossy Tri-Fold Postcard for rare items
(4) Legally Required Letter Notification
(4) Quarter Sized Newspaper Ad
(5) Half Sized Newspaper Ad
(6) Full Page Ad
(7) Culver City Living
(8) Focused E-Mail Notification
(9) Master E- Mail Notification
(10) Posting at City Hall
(11) Posting at All City Buildings
(12) Posting at City Parks
The City chooses from a “menu” of individual public notification items and, from time
to time, may order a “combination plate” that involves a number of the above items.
While this provides the City with a number of options, it was found that the
application of these items varied amongst City Departments. Therefore, one
component of the proposed enhancements to the Public Notification Process is to
provide a City-wide standard for public notification that meets the following criteria:
(1) A consistent baseline of notification;
(2) Similar topics, regardless of Department of origin, shall be noticed
in a similar fashion; and,
City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
(3) The Public Notification Process needs to be consistent, reliable,
efficient, and identifiable.
B. Consistency
At a recent Council meeting, Councilmember O’Leary mentioned a concern that the
current process may not provide consistently reliable results. To address this
concern, staff is proposing both a standard level of public notification based upon a
distribution list (either electronic or physical) that will produce consistent results.
C. Reliability
A reliable system of public notification will require participation by both staff and the
community. Staff’s role is to provide reliable notification to those members of the
community that either request it or are legally required to receive it. The
community’s role is to either provide to the City their contact information or to access
the general information provided by the City either in person (at the City Clerk’s
Office) or electronically (via the City’s website). Additionally, a reliable system
balances the desire of individual community members to be provided with notice and
the ability of staff to reliably manage the notification system. To address these
items, staff proposes to provide a number of topics to which individuals can
subscribe (either via e-mail or postal mail). To maintain the reliability of the system,
it is proposed the number of individual topics be no more than 20.
D. Efficiency
The City Council has been contacted by members of the community who have both
(1) not received a desired notice, or (2) received multiple notices on the same topic.
To address these concerns in a fiscally prudent way, staff proposes that rather than
employ a more costly (and potentially less effective) “blanket” noticing system, that
the focus be on increasing subscription to the City’s e-mail and postal mail
notification systems.
For the Council’s information, following are the costs associated with different kinds
of public notification:
(1) The City Standard Postcard $10,000
(2) A larger postcard for unusual items $4,000
(3) Glossy Tri-Fold Postcard for rare items $6,000
(4) Quarter Sized Newspaper Ad $230
(5) Half Sized Newspaper Ad $380
(6) Full Page Ad $1,050
(7) Focused E-Mail Notification $0 City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
(8) Master E- Mail Notification $0
(9) Posting at City Hall $50
(10) Posting at All City Buildings $100
(11) Posting at City Parks $500
In lieu of more frequent “Citywide” notifications (which cost in excess of $10,000 per
notification), staff proposes to provide a quarterly notification sign up effort. This
would involve publishing a full page ad in the local papers and to include similar
information in every edition of Culver City Living. The ads would be augmented by a
link on the City’s website and the use of flyers posted at service counters throughout
City buildings. The sign-up effort would provide the community with information on
how to sign up for the City’s notification systems. Further, a suggestion has been
made to allow an annual renewal of the sign-up notification. Staff recommends this.
Based upon the very low cost, rapidity, and environmentally friendly nature (no
paper is used, nor does the delivery of e-mail involve to consumption of fossil fuels)
associated with e-mail, staff continues to recommend that e-mail be the City’s
preferred method of courtesy public notification. For those who do not have easy
access to e-mail, staff continues to recommend the maintenance of a postal address
notification list. However, the City Council may wish to establish a modest fee to
cover postage and other related costs for this service.
Environmental sensitivity is also part of being efficient. As included in City Council
Policy 2007-002, the City encourages interested parties to sign up for electronic
notification. Electronic notification is cost and resource efficient, allows for broad-
based and rapid notification, and any duplicates can be deleted without use of paper
or impacting landfills. Staff recommends continuing this practice. This would be in
addition to the minimum legal requirements for public notification.
Duplication of notices has also been an area of concern. When the City issues its
own notices utilizing the City’s records, duplication can be minimized. However, the
City and others (developers) sometimes use third-party vendors who provide their
own mailing lists. In those cases, the City does not control the source of address
information and the incidents of duplication may be higher. When possible, the City
does use its internal notification system to produce the addresses.
E. Identifiable
There has also been a concern expressed related to the need to insure the official
notices of the City are readily identifiable as an “OFFICIAL NOTICE”. Therefore,
staff has proposed that all Official Notices of the City, whenever possible, would
include the following:
City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
• A statement signed by the City Clerk that the notice is “OFFICIAL
NOTICE.”
• The use of an identifiable symbol(s) - staff will provide an example
as part of the PowerPoint presentation
Use of the City Seal is controlled solely by the City. Unauthorized use is a violation
of the Culver City Municipal Code (CCMC). Using the Seal along with other
identifiable symbol(s) and/or statement by the City Clerk would be a quick and easy
way for members of the community to know that what they are receiving is an official
City notice.
Also, it has been mentioned that some notices can be enhanced by providing a more
descriptive comment rather than something in ‘legalees.” Sometimes, there may be
certain language that is legally required; however, staff can also add more
descriptive wording.
Sending Notice vs. Receiving Notice:
Staff also wishes to comment briefly on the difference between sending notice and
receiving notice. Using a reliable and consistent process, the City can insure that
notices are sent. However, the City cannot guarantee any individual notice is
received by the intended recipient because delivery is accomplished via cyberspace
the United States Postal Service (both of which are often reliable but not
guaranteed).
Administrative Process:
Should the City Council determine to implement these recommendations, staff will
amend its administrative processes to include an enhanced public notification
disclosure in the appropriate box on the standard staff report or to use a standard
attachment to staff reports that will very clearly indicate what address lists were used
for the notification process. Names of e-mail and postal distribution lists will be
included; however, individual email and postal addresses will not be included.
Additionally, staff will have access to lists used in the notification process during
Council meetings to allow staff to respond to comments which state that a particular
person was not sent a notice.
Use of the City’s PEG Channel
The upcoming unveiling of the new and improved Channel 35 (CCTV 35), the City’s
government channel, will include a public notification portion of the slide show which City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
will be broadcast on CCTV 35 when live or rebroadcast meetings are not being
shown.
Payment for Notices Related to Specific Projects
As part of the staff working group process, it was discovered that the City currently
bears the cost of notification for development applications. Staff recommends the
City Council direct staff to prepare a fee that would be applied to developments that
would offset the costs of staff-produced public notification. If directed, staff will
include this proposed fee in the fees and charges schedule, which is scheduled to
be heard by City Council in early May.
II. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND INVOLVEMENT IN THE DEVELOPMENT
PROCESS.
Current Process for Discretionary Permits
The City has certain statutory requirements related to public notification for public
hearings which are tied to the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Sections
65920, et seq.) and the City’s Zoning Code. The intent of the Permit Streamlining
Act is to ensure a fair and expeditious review and disposition of discretionary permit
applications. The following is the State mandated timeline for project review and
disposition:
1. 30 days from the date of application submission to review and accept a
project application as complete or the application is automatically deemed
to be complete.
2. Maximum 180 days from the date of application submission for projects
that are exempt from environmental review or require a negative
declaration.
3. Maximum of one year from the date of application submission for projects
requiring an EIR with statutory requirements for preparation and
circulation of the EIR.
All time periods are maximums and the permitting agency should approve or deny a
project in a shorter period whenever possible pursuant to Government Code Section
65953 of the Permit Streamlining Act. What this means is that the City cannot
arbitrarily decide when or how long to take in reviewing and reaching a disposition
on development permit applications. Importantly, these statutory requirements for
processing also further ensures public review and input when a project requires
environmental review, including the preparation of an environmental impact report or
other environmental document, as the statutory time limits of permit streamlining are
integrated with those for environmental review. City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
CCMC Chapter 17.630 “Public Hearings and Administrative Review” (Attachment
No. 1) outlines the City’s legal noticing and hearing requirements for discretionary
project applications. There are three types of legally required notices (See Table 6-
2): All projects require a 21 day mailed notice prior to the hearing or decision date;
for certain projects, the project site is required to be posted 21 days in advance of
the hearing date; and some projects require a 14 day published notice in advance of
the hearing date. CCMC Chapter 17.630 further outlines the procedures for mailed,
posted and published notices. Finally, the Chapter outlines provisions of various
levels of decision making from the administrative level (Community Development
Director) to the Planning Commission and City Council.
In addition to statutory requirements, staff and the City Council have instituted other
measures recently that go beyond the legal minimum requirements for conducting
public outreach. These include: (1) extending the area for mailed public notification
from a radius of 300’ to 500’ (to the end of the block) and (2) expanding the
discretionary application submittal requirements to include a Public Participation
Plan. (Please see Attachment No. 2 – Discretionary Project Review Process/
Community Involvement).
Finally, there are internal review processes and deadlines for discretionary permits.
The following outlines the internal staff review and preparation schedule from once
an application is deemed complete to the public hearing:
Step Timing
1
Application Submitted
Day 1
2 Internal Staff Review +7
3 Project First Notice Letter Mailed +10
4 Project Review Committee
(PRC) Meeting
+14
5 Application Completeness
Determination and CEQA
Determination
+30
6 Draft CEQA document (Negative
Declaration or Categorical
Exemption) due to Senior
Planner
+42
7 Draft Public Notice due to Senior
Planner
+60
8 Draft CEQA document due to
Planning Manager
+49
9 Draft Public Notice due to Senior
Planner
+56
10 Final Public Notice due to Admin. +63 City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
As outlined above, it takes approximately 90 days to get an item to a public hearing
following application submittal. If the project is not deemed complete within 30 days,
then whatever time is needed to deem the application complete is added to the 90
days. In addition, if the project requires an environmental impact report, up to 270
days can be added to the process.
The process for reaching out earlier to the public can be established as a
requirement in the application and processing of development permits as outlined in
Attachment No. 2. The public outreach can be formalized with the requirement that a
developer submit a Public Participation Plan for certain classes of projects that must
be approved prior to deeming a project application complete and commencement of
processing. The Plan can identify the number of meetings or other types of
outreach, date, time and location of meetings or other outreach method and the
number of expected participants. The Public Outreach Plan can be used by
Commission or Council as part of the review during deliberations and may ultimately
help achieve consensus on the project.
Non-Discretionary Projects
For non-discretionary projects that are not governed by the Government Code
noticing requirements and the Permit Streamlining Act, the Council may want to
consider lengthier and a more elaborate public vetting process. These may include:
• Designing a Public Outreach Process as part of the project
• Preparing a Visioning Program to identify goals, policies and objectives
• Linking public input suggestions to an action plan
Part of the decision making on what type of outreach to use turns on whether the
interest is to get a deeper sense of public values, ranked preferences and most
favorable design, or merely to obtain consensus on some or all parts of a project or
plan. The use of one method as opposed to another is therefore a function of time,
Staff
11 21 day Public Notice
Mailed/Posted/Published
+70
12 Draft Staff Report due to Senior
Planner
+70
13 Draft Staff Report Due to
Planning Manager
+75
14 Final Report for Copying to
Admin. Staff
+78
15 Packet Delivered to Planning
Commission
+81
16 Public Hearing +91 City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
budget and the desired outcome. As indicated in the January staff report on this
matter, the intent should not merely be to provide information, but to ensure that the
outreach method relates to the type of project so that it is usable. If a proposed
discretionary development comports with the Zoning Code and the General Plan, it
does not make sense from a public outreach standpoint to identify whether the
project should be constructed but rather how the project should be constructed.
Recent focus by the Planning Division to create a better fit between a project and the
neighborhood through implementation of design guidelines may help achieve this
objective.
Possible Strategies
Other methods for obtaining public comment to address larger planning issues may
include stakeholder interviews, surveys, workshops, charrettes, press releases,
blogs, speaker series, forums newsletters, public information displays and informal
kaffe klatches, block meetings and homeowner meetings. The methods for
alternative outreach for non-discretionary projects are summarized on Attachment
No. 3 comparing the outreach method with the expected outcome.
The City has also gathered public input by establishing advisory committees. These
committees vary in purpose and can provided valuable advice.
Survey of Other Cities
Staff previously surveyed the Cities of Santa Monica, West Hollywood, Los Angeles,
Beverly Hills and Burbank regarding their methods for development related public
notification and community involvement which is summarized on Attachment No. 4.
The methods for involving the public during development hearings are very similar
among the surveyed cities, with the exception of Los Angeles which, due to that
city’s size, utilizes a Neighborhood Council system. Each Council District in Los
Angeles contains approximately 250,000 people and the neighborhood councils
serve, on the average, between 20,000 and 40,000 people, so instituting a more
decentralized form for project review was deemed essential in order to make the
process more accessible to the public.
Conclusions
In summary, the methods for encouraging public participation in the development
process vary widely depending upon the goals and desired outcomes. Encouraging
the public to attend meetings on the Housing Element or some other long-range
planning project involves a broader effort aimed as much at visioning and identifying
goals, as it does in obtaining consensus. Alternatively, development projects that
comport with the Zoning Code and General Plan require much greater focus on City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
consensus building during the hearing process and less on community visioning and
goals.
In crafting its process for community involvement in the development process, the
City should direct resources to achieving greater public input by focusing on the
desired outcomes. For development permit processing, the methods for public
outreach can range from a series of informal decentralized neighborhood meetings
to formal hearings, forums or workshops. Merely issuing more public notices or
mailings or publishing ads earlier in the project review process cannot guarantee
more public input. Further, while the design of the public notification may help make
understanding a complex development project easier and the process more
accessible to the public, it cannot ensure more participation during hearings.
The process for reaching out earlier to the public should become a requirement in
the application and processing of development permits. One model that the Council
may want to consider is to require that the developer submit a Public Participation
Plan which must be approved prior to deeming a project application complete and
commencing with processing the application. The Plan can identify the number of
meetings or other types of outreach, date, time and location of meetings or other
outreach method and the number of expected participants. The Plan can be used
by Commission or Council as part of the review during deliberations and may
ultimately help achieve consensus on a project.
The City has embraced long term sustainability and environmentally sensitive
practices. Cost efficiency of moving to an e-mail based system in public notification
can also help advance these environmental goals.
In summary, the Council should consider the following recommendations for early
public outreach and public notification:
Targeted outreach to specific entities
Evaluating outreach options relative to stated goals (consensus vs. goal
setting)
Pursuit of sustainable/green vision for notification within a specified period.
Public notification postings and placement to maximize visibility
Public Participation Plan for all major discretionary projects
Early mandatory notification for all development projects.
III. Next Steps
This evening, staff is requesting general input from the City Council and community
on the topics presented. The City Council may determine it wishes to provide City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
direction this evening. As part of that direction, the City Council may wish to
consider the following:
• Determine additional information/input is desired and direct staff to schedule a
further meeting (Vice Mayor Silbiger has suggested a workshop format to
allow for a more interactive discussion)
• Direct staff to prepare City Council Policies based upon the input/direction
received this evening and return to the City Council at a future date for
discussion and potential adoption of such policies.
• Direct staff to retain the current policies/procedures.
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. These costs could be significant
and will be presented with a future staff report and be based upon the direction the
City Council may deem appropriate to provide this evening.
In Fiscal Year 2007/2008, a total of $215,000 was expended from the primary public
notification related accounts (i.e. printing and binding; postage and delivery; and
advertising and public relations). For Fiscal Year 2008/2009, $350,000 has been
budgeted and $155,807 has been expended through February 2009 in public
notification related accounts. It should be noted that the above costs do not include
additional staff time, paper (if the notices are produced internally by the Graphics
Division), or additional maintenance costs associated with more copies being
generated by the City’s printers and copiers.
NOTES:
1. The League of Cities has reported on new efforts to initiate civic participation in Western Cities
magazine -- Civic Participation 2008, authored by Terry Amsler, Program Director for the Institute
of Local Government’ Collaborative Governance Initiative.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. CCMC Chapter 17.320
2. Discretionary Project Review Process/ Community Involvement Matrix
3. Methods for Alternative Outreach for Non-Discretionary Projects City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
4. Summary Table of Other Cities Requirements
5. Staff Report and City Council Policy 2007-002 (Public Notification)
MOTION:
That The Council:
Receive and file the report and direct staff as deemed appropriate.
MEETING DATE: 03.30.09
AGENDA ITEM: Town Hall – Discussion of Community Involvement in
the Development Process.
ATTACHMENTS
Pages
1. CCMC Chapter 17.320 1-7
2. Discretionary Project Review Process / Community
Involvement Matrix 8-10
3. Methods for Alternative Outreach for Non-Discretionary Projects 11
4. Summary Table of Other Cities Requirements 12-14
5. Staff Report and City Council Policy 2007-002
(Public Notification) 15-21 Chapter 17.630 - PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ADMINISTRATIVE
REVIEW
Sections:
17.630.005 - Purpose
17.630.010 - Notice of Public Hearings and Administrative Review
17.630.015 - Notice of Decision - Director
17.630.020 - Notice of Decision - Commission
17.630.025 - Finality of Decision by Director or Commission
17.630.030 - Recommendation by Commission
17.630.035 - Notice of Decision - Council
17.630.040 - Mailing of the Notice of Decision
17.630.005 - Purpose
This Chapter provides procedures for public hearings before the Commission and Council and for
administrative review by the Director. When a public hearing is required by this Title, public
notice shall be given and the hearing shall be conducted as provided by this Chapter.
17.630.010 - Notice of Public Hearings and Administrative Review
Table 6-2 (Mandatory Public Hearings for Public Reviews Before the Commission or Council),
below, identifies the noticing requirements for public hearings or public reviews before the
Commission or Council.
ATTACHMENT 1
1Table 6-2
Mandatory Public Hearings or Public Reviews
Before the Commission or Council
Type of Notice Required
Type of Discretionary Review
Mailed Notice
Published Notice
Posted Notice
A. Deadline
21 days before the
date of the public
hearing or review
14 days before the
date of the public
hearing or review
Within 30 days after
application deemed
complete
B. Type of Discretionary Review
Applications:
1. Comprehensive Plan
¦
¦
¦
2. Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
except No. 3, below
¦
3. CUP for sale of alcoholic
beverages
¦
¦
4. General Plan Amendment:
a. Land use map change
¦
¦
b. Text amendment
¦
5. Site Plan Review
¦
¦
6. Specific Plan
¦
¦
7. Subdivision (CCMC Ch. 15.10)
¦
¦
8. Variance
¦
¦
9. Zoning Code/Map Changes
a. Map change
¦ ¦ ¦
b. Text Amendment
¦
A. Mailed Notice. Written notices for public hearings identified in Table 6-2 (Mandatory
Public Hearings or Public Reviews Before the Commission or Council) scheduled for the
Commission or Council shall be given in the following manner:
1. Notices shall be mailed, postage prepaid to the following:
a. The applicant, occupants and owner(s), or their agent, of the property being
considered;
b. The owners and occupants of all property within a radius of 300 feet of the
exterior boundaries of the property or the perimeters of the premises of the
proposed use involved in the application. This Subsection establishes the
ATTACHMENT 1
2minimum mailed notice requirements and shall not preclude the provision of
notice to a greater number of persons;
c. Each local agency expected to provide water, schools, or other essential facilities
or services to the project, whose ability to provide the facilities and services may
be significantly affected; and
d. A person who has filed a written request for notice with the Director and has paid
the fee established by the most current City Council Fee Resolution for the
notice.
2. Notices shall be mailed at least 21 days before the date scheduled for the public
hearing or review.
3. For the purposes of this notification, the last known name and address of each
property owner as identified in the records of the Los Angeles County Assessor shall
be used, unless a more current source of this information is known.
4. The address of occupants shall be determined by visual site inspection or other
reasonably accurate means. The occupant notice requirement can be met by mailing
the notice to the occupant(s).
5. At the time of filing the application, the applicant or designee shall provide a list of
property owners and occupants within the prescribed area of notification and shall
sign an affidavit verifying that the list has been prepared in compliance with the
requirements of this Section.
6. The City shall prepare the notice, which shall clearly state the following information:
a. The date, place, and time of the scheduled hearing;
b. The name of the hearing body;
c. A general explanation of the matter to be considered;
d. A general description, in text or by diagram, of the location of the subject
property;
e. The manner in which additional information may be received;
f. Any other pertinent information deemed appropriate by the Director; and
g. If a proposed Negative Declaration or final Environmental Impact Report has
been prepared for the project in compliance with the City’s use of the State
promulgated CEQA Guidelines, the hearing notice shall include a statement that
the hearing body will also consider approval of the proposed Negative
Declaration or certification of the final Environmental Impact Report.
7. The Director has the discretion on a case-by-case basis to require the applicant to
expand the mailing list beyond the minimum mailing area identified in Subsection
17.630.010. A.1.b., above, based on criteria including traffic impact, parking demand,
ATTACHMENT 1
3building shade and shadow, noise corridor, cul-de-sac street, view impact, and other
potential impact(s) and physical boundaries that could help delineate the impact area.
8. In the event a public hearing or review is opened but continued to a date certain by
the Commission or Council, further notice is not required but may be given at the
Director's discretion.
9. The failure of any person or addressee to receive a written mailed notice shall not
invalidate the public hearing or review proceedings, provided that the Commission, or
the Council, may continue the public hearing or review if deemed necessary, in
compliance with Subsection 17.630.010.A.8., above.
B. Published Notice. Published notices of public hearings or reviews identified in Table 6-2
(Mandatory Public Hearings or Public Reviews Before the Commission or Council) before
the Commission and the Council shall be given in the following manner:
1. 14-day notice. A notice shall be published at least once in a local newspaper of
general circulation in the City not less than 14 days before the date of the public
hearing or review. The Director has the discretion to publish the notice in other
newspapers; and
2. Content of notice. The content of the notice of a public hearing shall be provided in
compliance with Subsection 17.630.010.A.6.a.-g., above.
C. Posted Notice. In addition to the mailed notice and published notice identified in
Subsections 17.630.010.A. (Mailed Notice) and 17.630.010.B. (Published Notice), above,
posted notices for a public hearing or review before the Commission or Council for the
applications identified Table 6-2 (Mandatory Public Hearings or Public Reviews Before
the Commission or Council) concerning specific real property, shall be provided at the
applicant’s expense in compliance with the following provisions:
1. The sign shall be posted within 30 days after the subject application is deemed
complete by the Division. More than one sign may be required by the Director for a
large project or a project site with more than one street frontage.
2. The sign shall be located in a conspicuous place on the property abutting a public
street not less than one-foot nor more than 10 feet inside the property line. In the
event the sign is not visible at this location, the sign may be attached to a structure,
freestanding fence, or wall that has a minimal setback.
3. The sign shall be in compliance with the following requirements:
a. The size of the sign shall be twelve square feet in sign area, generally measuring
3 feet by 4 feet;
b. The sign shall not exceed eight feet in height from the ground level, however, if
the property is surrounded by fences, walls, or hedges at or near the property
lines, additional height shall be provided as necessary to ensure visibility of the
sign from the public right-of-way;
c. The sign shall not be illuminated;
ATTACHMENT 1
4
d. The sign shall include factual information about the title of the pending
development, project case number, brief description of the request, name and
telephone number of project proponent, location of property, and the Division
telephone number. In addition, the date, location, and time of the scheduled
public hearing or review shall be shown on the sign as soon as that information is
confirmed by the City, but no later than 21 days before the scheduled public
hearing or review;
e. The size, style, and color of the sign’s lettering shall meet the specifications
approved by the Director;
f. A Building Permit shall not be required for the posting of a sign, installed in
compliance with this Section.
4. The sign shall remain in place until the expiration of the appeal period following a
decision by the review authority. If the application requires the Council's final
approval or if an appeal is filed, the sign shall remain in place with the new hearing
date noted until the final decision by the Council. The sign shall be removed within
10 days of either the end of the appeal period or the final decision by the Council,
whichever applies.
5. The applicant shall submit to the Director an affidavit verifying that the sign was
posted on the site in a timely manner in compliance with this Section.
6. Failure to post the sign, to include required information, or to comply with applicable
placement or graphic standards and requirements may result in a delay in the required
public hearing or review.
D. Notice of Administrative Use Permits, Administrative Site Plan Review and
Administrative Modification Applications.
Table 6-3 (Mailed Notification Requirements for Administrative Discretionary Review
Applications) identifies the noticing requirements for administrative actions by the
Director.
Table 6-3
Mailed Notification Requirements For Administrative
Discretionary Review Applications
Notice Requirement
Type of Administrative Review
See Chapter
Mailed Notice
Mailing Deadline
A. Administrative Use Permits.
17.530
All property owners
and occupants within
a 300-foot radius
15 days before the
anticipated date of
decision by Director
B. Administrative Modifications.
17.550
All adjacent property
owners and
occupants
15 days before the
anticipated date of
decision by Director
ATTACHMENT 1
5
Notice Requirement
Type of Administrative Review
See Chapter
Mailed Notice
Mailing Deadline
C. Administrative Site Plan Reviews.
17.540
All adjacent property
owners and
occupants
15 days before the
anticipated date of
decision by Director
1. In addition to all persons notified in compliance with Table 6-3 (Mailed Notification
Requirements for Administrative Discretionary Review Applications) above, a notice
of decision on the Administrative Site Plan Review, Administrative Modification and
Administrative Use Permit applications shall be mailed to the applicant and other
parties directly involved with the application, in compliance with Section 17.630.040
(Mailing of the Notice of Decision), below.
E. Additional Notice. In addition to the types of notice required by Subsections
17.630.010.A. (Mailed Notice) through Subsection 17.630.010.D. (Notice of
Administrative Use Permits, Administrative Site Plan Review and Administrative
Modification Applications), above, the Director may provide additional notice with content
or using a distribution method as the Director determines is necessary or desirable (e.g., on
the Internet).
F. Effect of Notification Requirements. Nothing in the public notification requirements
identified in this Section is intended to supersede the procedures established in this Chapter
for other discretionary reviews.
17.630.015 - Notice of Decision - Director
The Director may record the decision, refer the matter to the Commission for determination, or
defer action and record the decision at a later date. The decision shall contain applicable findings,
any conditions of approval, and the reporting/monitoring requirements deemed necessary to
mitigate any impacts and protect the public health, safety, and general welfare of the City.
17.630.020 - Notice of Decision - Commission
The Commission may announce and record the decision at the conclusion of a scheduled hearing
or defer action, take specified items under advisement, and announce and record the decision at a
later date. The decision shall contain applicable findings, any conditions of approval, and the
reporting/ monitoring requirements deemed necessary to mitigate any impacts and protect the
public health, safety, and general welfare of the City.
17.630.025 - Finality of Decision by Director or Commission
The decision of the Director or Commission is final unless appealed in compliance Chapter
17.640 (Appeals).
17.630.030 - Recommendation by Commission
ATTACHMENT 1
6At the conclusion of a public hearing on a Comprehensive Plan, Development Agreement,
Specific Plan, prezoning, or a proposed amendment to the General Plan or Zoning Map/Code, the
Commission shall forward a recommendation, including all required findings, to the Council for
final action.
17.630.035 - Notice of Decision - Council
For an application requiring Council approval, the Council shall announce and record its decision
at the conclusion of the public hearing. The decision shall contain the findings of the Council,
any conditions of approval, and the reporting/monitoring requirements deemed necessary to
mitigate impacts and protect the public health, safety, and general welfare of the City.
17.630.040 - Mailing of the Notice of Decision
Within 10 working days after the final decision or recommendation is rendered by the appropriate
review authority, a notice of the decision, recommendation, any applicable conditions of
approval, and any reporting/monitoring requirements shall be mailed to the applicant at the
address shown on the application. A copy of the notice shall also be sent to the property owner, if
different from the applicant and to all other persons who have filed a written request for notice.
ATTACHMENT 1
7DISCRETIONARY PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS/ COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Review Process Description Purpose Outcome
Initial Meeting
(Preliminary stage)
Applicant meets with staff
member(s) at the Planning
Counter.
Applicant will identify the proposed
project. Staff will determine
conformance of the proposed use with
zoning code and the general plan, and
requirements for filing of an
application, including community
outreach requirements
Applicant will know if the proposed project is in
conformance with the City’s zoning and general
plan. The Applicant will be provided with a
checklist of materials required before a formal
submittal can take place. Early community
outreach plan.
Community input
meeting (Required)
Applicant conducts
outreach to
neighbors/stakeholders of
the proposed project by
holding a meeting with
stakeholders (300’ to 1000’
radius) and identified
neighborhood group(s).
Applicant will receive feedback on the
proposed project scheme as well as
general concerns of the community
that may influence project
development (e.g., shortage of parking,
lack of open space, crime, traffic,
needed community amenities)
Applicant will utilize feedback provided by
stakeholders to modify plan and/or move forward
with development.
PPR submittal Applicant meets with City
staff from multiple
departments to receive
technical feedback on
revised plans.
Applicant is provided with feedback on
his/her revised plans by multiple
departments, including Engineering,
Fire, Police, Building & Safety and
Planning. Potential problems with
design or layout are identified.
Applicant is able to further revise the project plans
in order to conform to additional comments and
technical requirements identified by City staff.
Community input
meeting (Required)
Applicant conducts second
outreach meeting with
neighbors/stakeholders of
the proposed project. (Staff
facilitated)
Applicant will be able to identify
specific changes made to the original
plans that incorporate the feedback
provided during the first community
meeting and by City staff. The
Applicant should be able to answer why
certain suggestions were incorporated
and why others were rejected.
Applicant receives additional comments from
community members that may be used to further
revise the project plans. If the Applicant
encounters strong opposition from community
members, further outreach may be necessary/
required. Applicant will use feedback to finalize
project plans before submittal.
ATTACHMENT 2
8Discretionary Project Review & Community Involvement
March 19, 2009
Page 2 of 3
Formal Application
Submittal
Applicant meets with staff
member(s) at Planning
Counter to submit the
project application and
required fees.
Filing of formal application process
starts the formal review period.
Planning staff will review the submittal
application for completeness.
A determination of application completeness will
be made within 30 days. Once complete the
project will be scheduled for public hearing.
Project First Notice
Letter sent
Planning Division mails
notice to neighboring
owners and occupants of
the proposed project (300’
to 500’), informing them of
the application submittal.
Neighbors of the project, who may not
be aware of the project, are advised
that the application has been
submitted, what the project is
requesting, and how to find out more
information.
Neighbors will be informed of the project and will
be provided with contact information for the
Planning staff member working on the project, in
order to get additional information.
Applicant Community
Meeting (Optional)
The Applicant with the
assistance of planning staff
will hold a community
meeting to discuss issues.
If outstanding community issues are
identified following the project first
notice letter and/or if the project
results in public controversy or interest
from neighborhood the Applicant may
wish to hold additional community
meetings.
Applicant will have the opportunity to meet with
the public to discuss the project, answer questions
and clarify rumors or misinformation that may
have arisen. The Applicant will also have another
opportunity to refine the project prior to the
public hearing.
Public Hearing Notice
sent: Planning
Commission
Planning Division mails the
21 day Notice of Public
Hearing to neighboring
owners and occupants of
the proposed project (500’)
of the date, time and place
of the Public Hearing for
the proposed project.
The Notice of Public Hearing identifies
the Applicant, the address of the
project and the request. In addition,
the Notice identifies the Case
Manager’s contact information in order
to submit written comments prior to
the Public Hearing. Recipients are also
informed of where they will be able to
review the application and
environmental documents.
The Notice of Public Hearing provides the public
with advanced notice of the hearing, or should
they be unable to attend, provides them with an
outlet with which to comment on the application.
Written comments received will assist in the
decision making process of the Planning
Commission or City Council.
ATTACHMENT 2
9Discretionary Project Review & Community Involvement
March 19, 2009
Page 3 of 3
Public Hearing(s):
Planning Commission
The Planning Commission
holds a formal meeting to
take testimony on the
proposed project from the
Applicant, Planning Staff
and members of the public.
The Planning Commission will utilize
information gathered at the Public
Hearing and staff report in its review of
the proposed project.
The Planning Commission will make a
determination to approve or deny the proposed
project based on the testimony received at the
Public Hearing, and the project’s compliance with
the zoning code and General Plan.
Public Hearing Notice
sent: City Council
(if PC decision
appealed)
Planning Division mails the
Notice of Public Hearing to
neighboring owners and
occupants of the proposed
project (500’) of the date,
time and place of the City
Council Hearing for the
proposed project.
The Notice of Public Hearing identifies
the Applicant, the address of the
project and the request. In addition,
the Notice identifies the Case
Manager’s contact information in order
to submit written comments prior to
the Public Hearing. Recipients are also
informed of where they will be able to
review the application and
environmental documents.
The Notice of Public Hearing provides the public
with advanced notice of the hearing, or should
they be unable to attend, provides them with an
outlet with which to comment on the application.
Written comments received will assist in the
decision making process of the City Council.
Applicant /Appellant
Meeting (Optional)
The Applicant and
Appellant with the
assistance of planning staff
will hold a meeting to
discuss issues.
If the project results in public
controversy or interest from
neighborhood the Applicant may wish
to hold additional community
meetings.
Applicant will have the opportunity to meet with
the appellant to discuss the appeal issues and
have opportunity to refine modify the project as
applicable prior to the public hearing.
Public Hearing(s): City
Council (Appeal)
If the Planning
Commission’s
determination is appealed,
the City Council will hear
the appeal. The City
Council holds a formal
meeting to take testimony
on the proposed project
from the Applicant,
Planning Staff and
members of the public.
The City Council will utilize information
gathered at the Public Hearing (and
previous public hearings) in its review
of the proposed project.
The City Council will make a determination to
approve or deny the proposed project based on
the testimony received at the Public Hearing, and
the project’s compliance with the zoning code and
General Plan.
ATTACHMENT 2
10Expected
Outcomes
Educational
Public Interaction
Estimated Public
Values
Goals and Objectives
Preferences
Favored Design
Takes Less Time
Takes More Time
More Costly
Less Costly
Simple Consensus
Strong Consensus
More Community
Involvement
Defined Staff Roles
Defined Public Roles
Joint Decision Making
Citizens Advise,
Officials Decide
TYPES OF PARTICIPATION Outreach Method
Standard Public Notice
Kiosks/Public Displays
Pamphlets
Posters
Newsletter
Informational Website
INFORMING
Email Listserv
Press Release
Blog
Student Programs
Speakers Bureau
Opinion Survey
Walk Abouts
Kaffe Klatch
Phone Calls
Stakeholder Interviews
Informal Stakeholder Meetings
Visioning
Workshops
DIALOGUE/FEEDBACK
INTERACTIVE
Charrettes
Technical Advisory Committee
Community Advisory Committee
Neighborhood Organizations
Joint Policy Board
FORMAL DECISION
MAKING
Public Hearings
DECENTRALIZED DECISION
MAKING
FORMAL PARTNERSHIP
ATTACHMENT 3
11 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
Beverly 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
commission meetings):
Notification sent to each
owner of a single family
residentially zoned
property.
300 feet (for planning
commission meetings):
To each owner and
residential tenant of all
other zoned properties.
100 feet (projects not
requiring commission
review): Property
owners and residential
occupants
Public notice is mailed 10
days before the scheduled
public hearing.
For some cases, a notice of
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.
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.
ATTACHMENT 4
12 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
Burbank
None • Lists of
new/existing
applications
are posted
online
(alphabeticall
y, by type, by
zone, in an
interactive
map).
• Established
neighborhood
groups
occasionally
receive
project plans
for review by
email, sent by
City Staff.
• Radius Map
• Mailing Labels
The Applicant is
required to have an
informal community
meeting, prior to
the official public
hearing, when filing
for a Development
Review. The
meeting is
facilitated by City
staff. Residents
within 1,000 foot
radius are notified
of the meeting
Required for Development
Review projects (requiring a
change of use & increased
parking requirements); is also
recommended for
controversial projects.
Notification of owners
and occupants by mail.
1,000 feet: Development
review, CUP, Variance,
AUP, Tract Maps
300 feet: Accessory
structure permit, Second
Dwelling Unit, Special
Dev. Permit
150 feet: Minor fence
exception, Home
Occupation
8 Blocks: Downtown
restaurant
administrative use
permit
Public notice is mailed 10
days before the scheduled
public hearing.
The subject property is
posted on each street
frontage 10 days prior to
hearing.
Notice of the hearing
is published in the
local newspaper.
Agendas are
published on the City
web site.
Appeal Hearing: Notice to
applicant, appellant and
property owners and
occupants within 300 feet 10
days prior to hearing;
publication in newspaper
Santa
Monica
Applicants are
encouraged, but
not required, to
contact and
describe the
application to
adjacent property
owners and
applicable
neighborhood
groups.
For CUP and
Development
Review Permits,
sites must be
posted prior to
submittal of the
application.Eight
(8) weeks prior to
hearing, the
posting must be
updated to include
the case number
and hearing date.
• List of new
applications is
posted online.
• Radius map
• Mailing labels
• Certified list of
property owners and
tenant units within
required radius
The City has
facilitated
community
meetings between
the Applicant and
the public for “big
projects”. This has
become increasingly
more common over
the past two years
When implementing “big
projects”, the City has
facilitated community
meetings
Notification of owners
and occupants by mail.
500 feet: CUPs,
Development Review
Permits, General Plan
Amendment, site specific
Zoning Ordinances.
300 feet: Variances, Yard
Modifications, Tentative
Map
Public notice is mailed 10
days before the scheduled
public hearing. Notice of
hearing is also published in
the local newspaper and on
the City web site.
Hearing notice is posted on
the subject property 8
weeks prior to the hearing.
Subject property is
posted, with Case
Number and Hearing
Date listed 8 weeks
prior to hearing, and
through 14-day
appeal period. If
Appealed, the notice
must remain with
updated information
on Appeal Hearing.
Architectural Review Board:
The site must be posted
within 10 days of filing an
application for projects of
over 15,000 sf of floor area.
Landmarks Commission:
Site must be posted prior to
filing of application. Updated
with hearing info 10 days
prior to hearing. Mailing
required to 300 foot radius
or to the historic district.
ATTACHMENT 4
13 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
West
Hollywood
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
500-feet of the subject
property.
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.
Los Angeles
None • List of new
Applications
are posted
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
• For cases involving a
public hearing,
Applicants are
required to post a
public hearing notice
on the subject
property.
It is at the Planner's
discretion to
require the
Applicant to meet
with the
Neighborhood
Council (or a
community group)
prior to the
issuance of the
determination
letter.
No requirement.
However, applicants are
encouraged to meet with the
community for large projects.
Abutting owners only:
Plan Approvals, Zoning
Admin. Adjustments,
Modifications
500 feet, for owners and
occupants: CUPs,
Variances, Zone Change
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.
ATTACHMENT 4
14ATTACHMENT 5
15ATTACHMENT 5
16ATTACHMENT 5
17ATTACHMENT 5
18ATTACHMENT 5
19ATTACHMENT 5
20ATTACHMENT 5
21