|
Legislation Details
|
File #:
|
HIST-13183
Version:
1
|
Subject:
|
|
|
Type:
|
Historical
|
Status:
|
Action Item
|
|
On agenda:
|
1/11/2010
|
Final action:
|
1/11/2010
|
|
Title:
|
Receipt of a Report and Discussion and Approval of Recommendations from the City Manager on the Subjects of Public Notification and Public Involvement in the Development Process.
|
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive a report from the City Manager on
the subjects of public notification and public involvement in the development process
and consider and approve recommendations from the City Manager on those
subjects.
DISCUSSION:
The subjects of public notification and public involvement in the development
process were discussed at length at the City Council meeting of March 30, 2009. In
response the City Council’s direction provided at that meeting, staff has
implemented a significant number of improvements to both processes.
The City Manager’s report on this subject, including recommendations on both
subjects are included in the attachment.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Memorandum from the City Manager to the City Council regarding Public
Notification and Public Involvement in the Development Process
MOTIONS:
Meeting Date: 01/11/10 Item Number: A-1
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: Receipt of a Report and Discussion and Approval
of Recommendations from the City Manager on the Subjects of Public
Notification and Public Involvement in the Development Process.
Contact Person/Dept.: Mark Scott Phone Number: 310-253-6000
Fiscal Impact: Yes [] No [X] General Fund: Yes [] No []
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [] Attachments: [X]
Commission Action Required: Yes [] No [X] Date: ________________
Public Notification: (E-Mail) Agenda and Meetings – City Council (01/06/10)
Department Approval:
Martin R. Cole (01/06/10)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol A. Schwab (by H. Baker) (01/06/10)
City Manager Approval:
Mark Scott (01/06/10) City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
That the City Council:
(1) Receive and file the report from the City Manager; and,
(2) Consider the recommendations contained in said report; and,
(3) Approve the recommendations from the City Manager.
attiteA, CITY
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: 01/11/10
TO: Honorable City Council Members
FROM: Mark Scott, City Manager
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS RE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND PUBLIC
INVOLVEMENTIN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
Background
On January 11, per City Council direction, staff has agendized a discussion of
the Public Notification and Community Input process as it relates to development
applications. The topic was last addressed by the City Council at a Town Hall
meeting on March 30, 2009. At that meeting, Assistant City Manager Martin Cole
and Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld jointly presented a staff
recommendation for an enhanced notification/public input process. Following
staff's presentation, approximately 15 speakers added comments, followed by
numerous City Council comments. Ultimately, staff was directed to obtain input
from the new City Manager and to bring the matter back for City Council action at
a subsequent meeting. While staff acknowled ges that we have missed the
follow-up date, we are pleased to bring the matter back for City Council review at
this time.
Attachments 1 and 2 are summaries of follow-up items prepared by staff
following the March 30 Meeting:
Attachment 1 is a list of follow-up items addressed to the City Council by Martin
Cole in an email dated April 21, 2009. Most of these items have been achieved.
They include:
• Full page newspaper ads — Staff ran several full-page ads. In addition to
the full page ads in both of the local newspapers, staff has also included a
similar ad in the quarterly Culver City Living. Staff has been carefully
monitoring the telephone calls to the City Clerk's Office in response to
these ads. While interested community members may have signed
themselves up for the E-Mail notification list(s) via the City's website
(individual subscribers have risen from approximately 700 in May, 2009 to
1030 on January 7, 2010), the City Clerk's Office has received no
telephonic responses to these ads.
9770 CULVER BOULEVARD CULVER CITY, CA 90232-0507Page 2 of 5
• Sign-up lists on Service Counters — This was done immediately. There
has not been significant response to these, but staff will update the effort
and try to make it more visible.
• Channel 35 slideshow — Has been implemented. Slides of public
notification will be added by the end of February.
• Notice to current users to confirm ongoing interest in receiving notices — I
am advised that there was objection to the initial format of this message
received from Council members and it was not implemented in that format.
However, an e-mail was sent to all subscribers informing them of the
improved notification categories and the ability of subscribers to tailor their
subscription to their needs.
• Organization of Master Email list into more recognizable categories —
Implemented.
• Determine interest of local newspapers in running (at no charge) tentative
lists of upcoming agenda items — This has not been implemented. First
response from newspapers was not favorable, and staff is concerned
about reliability of tentative lists of future agenda items.
• Improved speaker card format — The speaker card was amended to
clearly provide for a space for community members to provide their e-mail
address. All e-mail addresses provided have been entered into the public
notification system in the broadest notification category. Staff prepared a
draft format of a further improved speaker's card concurrently with the
agenda format updates, but could do this sooner.
• Enhanced Public Notification section on staff agenda reports — Achieved
using the improved notification categories presented to the City Council on
March 30, 2009.
Attachment 2 is a copy of a May 5, 2009 memorandum to the City Council. The
memorandum summarizes the comments and recommendations made at the
March 30 meeting, enhancing or exceeding those recommended by staff during
their presentation. Since the memo was done, staff believes it has implemented
Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 13. That leaves the following items that staff
has not addressed:
• Item 8 — Use Notification process/involvement from other cities
• Item 11 — If developer meets with staff, community should have equal
meetings
• Item 12 Set up advisory committee to review notification details
FILE NAME' CITY COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEES - FINALDOC PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPERPage 3 of 5
• Item 14 = Set up computer in back of City Council Chamber to allow
notification sign-ups
• Item 15 Provide tentative agenda to The Wave newspaper. (My guess
is that this should have said all local newspapers?)
With respect to Item 8, as presented to the City Council on March 30, 2009,
Culver City's notification process generally exceeds the processes used by other
cities. Based upon a comment made at the March 30, 2009 meeting, staff
reviewed the websites of the cities of Santa Barbara and Santa Monica. While
the information available from those two cities is in a different format, similar
information for Culver City projects is available on the City's website.
It is a challenging goal to achieve a one for one parity of the number of meetings
between staff and the developer and between staff and the public. The improved
procedure has significantly increased the number of required opportunities for
public involvement and input. Staff will provide further details on this subject at
the City Council meeting.
In regard to an advisory committee, staff is always happy to address the interests
of local citizens. We feel it is unnecessary to appoint a formal group to help staff
implement notification process. From my own experience as both a Community
Development Director and a City Manager, I know that there are times, especially
on potentially controversial projects, that staff needs to facilitate active
community and interest group participation from start-to-finish on development
review process. As the City Council is aware, I am anxious to address ongoing,
active community participation through neighborhood associations, neighborhood
watch groups and, especially, through a General Plan Update process. I do not
feel there is a one-size-fits-all solution to project processing. I think it has to be
tailored and it has to rely on an open, reliable relationship between staff and any
affected neighborhood. We are not a large City. I believe our time will be best
spent opening up that dialogue and trust relationship.
Item 14 calls for installation of a computer in the back of the City Council
Chamber so that members of the community can personally input their own
request for public notices through our email notification process. This has clearly
taken longer than desirable. However, I am advised by staff that this will be
-achieved this month. I have had the installation described to me. It is a
somewhat more complicated process than meets the eye, but it is achievable
and should be done very shortly.
In regard to the concept of "tentative agendas" in local newspapers, we are not
opposed to the concept. We do believe, however, that it is challenging to predict
meeting dates. Publishing an incorrect meeting date runs the risk of attracting
the public for the wrong date and potentially confusing the public about the
difference between a tentative agenda and the officially published and posted
FILE NAME: CM( COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEES - FiNALDOC
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPERPage 4 of 5
agenda. We continue to believe it is preferable to educate the public on how to
find the most current agenda information on the City website.
City Manager Comments and Recommendations:
I regret that this report was not brought back to the City Council at an earlier
date. I think with some justification, staff felt that it received direction from the
City Council on March 30 to implement most of the recommendations. Staff has
also acted in good faith to do so. For the most part, staff does not feel it is
necessary to take more than "minute action" to direct the action.
Having reviewed the material now at some length, I wish to make the following
comments and recommendations to the City Council on January 11:
• Culver City has achieved a FAR more elaborate public outreach and
notification process than exists in the vast majority of cities in the State. I
would guess it is among the premier processes. I believe all involved in
this process deserve credit. I believe the staff team involved deserves
recognition, and I believe the process may be worthy of nomination for
awards in the municipal government world. This City has spent a great
deal of time and resource developing processes, software and internal
systems to enact such an elaborate system.
• Having made the preceding point, please let me acknowledge that there
will still be a learning curve associated with the process for several
reasons:
o We have had very few development projects move forward in
recent months. We are not yet practiced or proficient in this new
process. Lists of rules are no substitute for experience and learned
judgment. We need to leave room for learning curve and good
intentions. Staff will provide additional details on the process used
for one of the most recent development proposals at the City
Council meeting.
O While the improvements made have incorporated "plain English,"
sometimes the concepts and proposals staff is attempting to
convey are complex. Writing plain English is not everyone's skill.
[Evidence, perhaps, this report.] We will need to discipline
ourselves in doing this as well as we can and continue to make
further improvements.
o I would observe that we may have reached the point that we have
overloaded some people with e-mail notifications. Almost every
professional conference I attend includes sessions on "what to do
about information overload." I suspect there are other methods that
FILE NAME: CITY COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEES - FINALDOC PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPERPage 5 of 5
we have not yet tapped, and I believe we have not yet solved the
dilemma of how best to involve a community.
o Cost IS an issue with this process. Cost has to matter to us. We
should evaluate our processes over time to make sure we only
invest in those with reasonable payback. Staff will present some
cost related information at the City Council meeting.
o In listening to the meeting tape, I was tweaked by suggestions that
the bulk of cost should be borne by developer fees. Clearly,
developers pay most of the bills on applications filed in any of the
Westside cities. I endorse it up to the point that what we are
requiring is effective and reasonable. I do think we need to address
such pass-thrus as reasonably and respecffully as we can.
• Whenever we adopt this process, we should take proactive steps to
introduce it to the community, thru neighborhood associations,
neighborhood watch meetings, civic associations, etc. It should be noted
that as part of the efforts staff undertook as a result of the March 30, 2009
Council Meeting, staff sent a request to 60 identifiable "homeowners
groups" requesting their e-mail and other contact information for
notification purposes. Approximately 20 responses were received. I have
asked Sol Blumenfeld to prepare a brief presentation of the process for
delivery to the City Council on January 11, 2010. We can also tape a
topic-specific cable TV show on this subject for replay on Channel 35 and
on DVD for other interested parties.
• I do recommend that the City Council take minute action to express the
City Council's intent that this notification process be used by staff. I do not
believe it requires more formal adoption. If you prefer more formal
adoption, we can bring it back on a future agenda.
• I feel very strongly, however, that we should not adopt this process as the
City's required "minimum notification standard." This is an extensive,
sophisticated process. I am concerned that we could risk future decision
actions for failure to meet an unclear notification standard. Courts have
overturned City Council or Planning Commission decisions on very small
omissions on much simpler notification standards. I would defer to the
City Attorney for further thoughts on this subject.
Staff is proud of the work of the City Council and community on this subject. We
are prepared to discuss the matter in further detail on January 11. Both Mr. Cole
and Mr. Blumenfeld will be available to reprise a shortened version of their
presentation from March 30, if it is the City Council desire to have them do so.
FILE NAME: CITY COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEES - FINAL 000
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPERArc fik.c4-kitYlEssi-
From: "Cole, Martin"
To: "Armenta, Christopher" , "Malsin, Scott"
, O'Leary, Micheal ,
"Silbiger, Gary" , "Weissman, Andrew"
Cc: EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT , "Baker, Heather"
, "Valladares, Ela"
Subject: Public Notification
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:49:40 -0700
Good afternoon, Honorable Council Members:
I understand at last evening's meeting, the City Council had some questions related to Public
Notification. I wanted to share with you the process currently being undertaken by staff.
Pursuant to your general direction provided at the March 30, 2009 City Council meeting, staff is
preparing the following:
(1) A full page advertisement in both local newspapers inviting all interested parties to sign up
for the City's u pd ated public notification processes (e-mail, ITSPS address, or both). The first
of these ads will run in May (May 7 will be the first publication date).
(2) Staff will have a new sign up list for interested parties available at Council/Agency meetings
and on all City service counters. These will be available beginning on May 4, 2009.
(3)
Culver City TV Channel 35 is scheduled to begin airing local programming and a slideshow
of City information beginning on May 4, 2009. Slides will be dedicated to the public
notification process and include "plain language" synopses of current public notification
items. This "pre-launch" date is still tentative pending resolution of certain technical issues.
(4) A notice will be sent to all current subscribers to all e-mail lists currently on file with the City
(once item 5 below is completed) asking them if they still wish to continue to be on the
notification list or if they wish to make any changes to their notification categories.
(5) Prior to these being implemented, staff will reorganize what has been known as the Master E-
Mail Notification List into more easily recognizable categories. A LISPS notification list will
follow the same process.
(6) Staff has already contacted the local newspapers to see if there is interest in including (free of
charge to the City) a list of tentative items on upcoming City Council and Agency agendas.
Initial interest has been expressed by the local papers. Staff will continue to work with the
two papers to agree upon a format and deadlines for such entries. If the newspapers provide
final agreement, this is expected to begin publication no later than the first edition of the
newspapers following July 1, 2009.(7) Beginning with City Council/Agency meetings after July 1, 2009, an improved speaker's
card will be available to assist persons in signing up for the City's notification process.
(8) Beginning with staff reports presented at meetings after July 1, 2009, the Public Notification
section of the staff report will be enhanced (or replaced with a separate attachment if the list
of notified parties is extensive)
Should you have any questions, please feel free to call or e-mail. Have a good Tuesday.
Nare?;( Col&
Martin R. Cole, MPA
Assistant City Manager/City Clerk
City of Culver City
Post Office Box 507
9770 Culver Boulevard
Culver City, California 90232-0507
(310) 253-6007it‘ect-ktYloar
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
May 5, 2009
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
JERRY FULWOOD, CITY MANAGER
MARTIN COLE, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
SOL BLUMENFELD, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
THOMAS GORHAM, PLANNING MANAGER
SUBJECT: PUBLIC OUTREACH RECOMMENDATIONS
On March 30, 2009 the City Council considered proposed amendments to the Municipal Code
relative to community outreach and provide comments on items to follow up immediately and
those that required further consideration. The following summarizes the recommendations
presented at the meeting.
Public Outreach Recommendation
1. Notices — Use plain English, less legalize
2. Find regular location for news ads in papers
3. Mandatory preliminary development meetings
4. Post card font is too small
5. Notice title must be larger and more readable
6. Fix subject line / understandable & describe development stage
7. Development applications online
8. Use notification process / involvement from other cities
9. Broaden notification for larger projects >500'
10. Pass extra notification costs on to developer
11. If developer meets with staff, community should have equal meetings
12. Set up committee advisory to review details
13. Post redevelopment property for sale on the website
14. Computer at back of Council Chambers
15. Provide tentative agenda to Wave
16. Always notify residential abutting commercial projects
2frk%.
9770 CULVER BOULEVARD CULVER CITY, CA 90232-0507
TEL 310.253.5700 FAX 310.253.5779Items for Implementation:
Items 1, 3, 4, 5, 13, and 14 can be implemented immediately without further direction. Staff has
commenced with rewriting the public notices using plain English with less legal jargon, larger
title headings, in a more user friendly format (See Attached Sample). A new detailed
discretionary project application schedule has been prepared for meetings (including mandatory
preliminary development meetings) and public hearings (See Attached Sample). Staff has
posted all redevelopment properties on the City's website noting the address and contact
information. The listing will be updated as any property is made available for sale. Finally, a
computer will be installed in the Council Chambers that will facilitate receipt of public comment
and review of on-line staff reports and attachments during Council meetings.
Items for Consideration:
Items 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 15 will be discussed in more detail during the follow-up meeting
on public outreach scheduled for June 29, 2009.
Conclusion:
(Staff is in the process of completing Item 7. Staff does implement Item 16.)
211|1013|
|