SR-400-05
PCD:SF:JT:AS:JL:TK:f:\plan\share\council\strpt\2003\ARB Notification.doc
Council Mtg: July 8, 2003 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Introduction And First Reading Of An Ordinance Amending Santa Monica
Municipal Code Section 9.32 To Require Public Notification And Property
Posting Requirements For Projects Subject To Architectural Review.
Alternatively, The City Council May Consider Introduction And First
Reading Of An Ordinance Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code
Section 9.32 To Require Site Posting And Mailed Notification
Requirements For Projects Subject To Architectural Review.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading an ordinance
modifying the Architectural Review subchapter of the Municipal Code to expand
property posting requirements for certain Architectural Review Board applications. The
staff-proposed ordinance is contained in Attachment A. The ARB-proposed changes,
which staff does not recommend, are contained in Attachment B.
BACKGROUND
The Architectural Review Board and the City Council have sought to improve public
noticing procedures for design review in order to expand the public’s opportunity to
comment on pending projects. In some cases, Architectural Review Board meetings
provide the only opportunity for the public to review and comment on a development
project. Some members of the public have cited the lack of public notification as the
primary reason for their appeals of Architectural Review Board decisions to the Planning
Commission.
1
In October, 2001, the Architectural Review Board sent a letter to the City Council
requesting a modification of current public noticing requirements for Architectural
Review Board applications in order to increase the public’s awareness of pending
applications. Mailed public notices are currently not required for most Architectural
Review Board applications, and sign posting of properties is only required for new
projects in excess of 15,000 square feet.
In February, 2002, the City Council, as part of its review of the Planning and Community
Development Department workload and priorities, supported the Architectural Review
Board’s request for increased public notification and directed staff to further examine
and refine potential noticing modifications with the Board. Due to resource impacts
(staff and budgetary) associated with additional noticing requirements and increased
application processing time, the City Council directed the Board to examine notification
requirements in relation to other existing permits that require public notice, including
Variances, Conditional Use Permits, and Development Review Permits.
Pursuant to the City Council’s direction, the Architectural Review Board discussed the
text amendment modifications in January 2003. The Board refined the scope and
details of the proposed amendment in accordance with City Council direction.
ANALYSIS
2
Current ARB Notification and Site Posting Requirements
Most Architectural Review Board applications do not currently require any mailed public
notification to residents or property owners or any site postings. The only type of
application that requires mailed notice is a development standards modification request
within the R1 (Single Family Residential) District. This permit requires the applicant to
provide certification of notice to all owners and commercial and residential tenants of
property within a 300-foot radius from the project site as prescribed in Santa Monica
Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 9.04.08.02.080. Only major projects in excess of
15,000 square feet are required to have the site posted per SMMC Section 9.32.180.
In addition to the existing ARB public noticing requirements specified by the Municipal
Code, Board agendas are published in the California section of the Los Angeles Times
newspaper on the Saturday preceding an ARB meeting. Further, agendas and staff
reports are posted on the City’s website no later than Wednesday preceding an ARB
meeting.
ARB Proposed Modifications to Current Notification and Site Posting Requirements
The Architectural Review Board proposed amendments are outlined below:
1) All ARB projects shall be noticed with a sign posted on the subject
property. The sign shall measure 30-inches by 40-inches in size and shall
be posted near the site’s address on the street facing elevation.
2) Landscape projects involving the removal of trees with trunk diameters
greater than eight inches shall require mailed notification to owners and
residential and commercial tenants of property within a 300-foot radius of
the project site.
3) New building projects or additions over 1,000 square feet shall require
mailed notification to owners and residential and commercial tenants of
property within a 300-foot radius of the project site.
3
4) Projects requiring mailed notification shall not require re-notification for
continued projects, or for projects that had mailed notification sent for a
prior related Planning entitlement.
Analysis of ARB-Proposed Ordinance
The ARB-proposed changes are contained in the draft ordinance in Attachment B. Staff
does not recommend adoption of this ordinance due to the financial and opportunity
costs to the City and applicants and increased processing times for applicants.
The City processed 484 Architectural Review Board applications in calendar year 2002.
Seventy-one percent, or 345, of the applications submitted were administratively
approved and would be exempt from the Board proposed notifications requirements.
The remaining 139 applications would each require a 30-inch by 40-inch sign posted on
the site.
Of the 484 Architectural Review Board applications submitted in calendar year 2002, an
estimated 65 applications would have required mailed notification sent to all residents
and property owners within a 300-foot radius. A typical 300-foot radius notice includes
approximately 400 notices. The total number of notices involved with processing these
applications would have been approximately 26,000. (The actual number of notices can
vary significantly depending on the location, nearby uses, density, and other factors.) In
comparison, in calendar year 2002 staff processed approximately 45 projects and
27,000 notices associated with Planning Commission development projects such as
Development Review Permits and Conditional Use Permits, which require a 500-foot
radius notification. During the same period, staff processed approximately 52 projects
4
and 20,800 notices associated with Zoning Administrator public hearings. Projects
reviewed by the Zoning Administrator require a 300-foot mailed radius.
The average cost to the City for printing and postage of one mailed notice is $.58.
Based on this average, the fiscal impact of the proposed Architectural Review Board
mailed notification requirement would be approximately $15,080. In addition to the cost
of printing and postage, the proposed notification requirement would have a workload
impact, though such impact is somewhat difficult to estimate precisely. Based on
experience with noticing for other Boards and Commissions, staff estimates the
proposed notification requirements would require 0.1 Staff Assistant and 0.1 Associate
Planner, the dollar value of whose time would be $10,650 ($4,313 and $6,377,
respectively) for salary and benefits. While these costs are factored into existing
salaries and would not result in any additional costs to the City, the staff time devoted to
mailed notification would result in reprioritizing and subsequent delays to other assigned
tasks, such as retrieving files and copying materials for the public, preparing packets,
and posting staff reports and documents on the City’s website.
If the Council were to adopt the notification changes requested by the ARB, the annual
cost to the City for the increased public notification, should the City assume these costs,
would be the costs to prepare the notices, or approximately $15,080. Rather than
absorb these costs, the City Council could increase application fees. Current ARB
application fees are $612 for signs and landscaping and $902 for building review. To
illustrate cost recovery fee increases associated with the ARB proposed amendment,
5
staff studied the number of applications submitted in 2002. Based on this analysis, there
would be a negligible increase in application fees for projects that require site posting
and that are not subject to mailed notification. However, application fees for projects
that require mailed notification would increase by approximately $230. In addition to
these fees, other expenses borne by the applicant include costs associated with
preparing the application materials and in cases of mailed notification, approximately
$550 to prepare necessary mailing materials.
In addition to the fiscal and staffing implications associated with the proposed
notification requirement, the amount of time to process an Architectural Review Board
application requiring mailed notification would increase by approximately two to three
weeks. Processing time increases are attributed to the amount of staff time it takes to
prepare a notice and the standard ten-day notice period. Meeting schedules and the
date a notice is mailed would dictate the extent to which processing times were
extended.
Staff Proposed Ordinance
Based upon this analysis, an alternative amendment is proposed that staff believes will
enhance public awareness and not significantly increase costs or processing time. The
alternative provides for additional notification of ARB applications by expanding site
posting requirements, but does not require mailed notification. As proposed by staff, all
projects subject to review by the Architectural Review Board will require site posting,
except for applications being reviewed for sign or landscape approval. The
6
recommended site posting standard would be a 30" x 40" poster board, consistent with
the Board’s recommendation. Staff envisions that the City would provide the preprinted
signs to an applicant at the planning counter upon application submittal. The bulk-
printing cost to prepare each sign is estimated to be approximately four dollars. Given
the nominal cost to prepare the signs, staff proposes to absorb this amount within the
existing division budget.
The benefits of this ordinance include increasing the public’s awareness of pending
projects and minimizing staff costs as compared to the ARB recommended mailed
notification provision. Regarding processing times, the recommended sign posting
provision would require site posting within ten days after submitting an application.
Since notice preparation and associated staff time will not be necessary, the
recommended alternative would slightly reduce application processing times as
compared to mailed noticing. While staff anticipates site posting will increase focused
community awareness, mailed notification of ARB projects may unreasonably raise
community expectations regarding the design review process and issues that the Board
may address. Typically mailed notification is associated with more complex land use
entitlements. Additionally, staff believes that due to the reduced Development Review
thresholds, there is now broader notification of development projects at an earlier point
in the development process.
The table on the following page summarizes existing, ARB proposed, and staff
recommended notification alternatives.
CATEGORY EXISTING ARB STAFF
7
REQUIREMENTS PROPOSAL RECOMMENDATION
Site Posting*
X
All projects
All projects except
X
sign and landscape
plans
Projects over 15,000
X
square feet
Mailed Notification
R1 modifications
(100-foot radius,
X X X
prepared by
applicant)
Landscape projects
that include removal
X
of 8-inch diameter or
greater trees (300-
foot radius)
New projects or
additions over 1,000
square feet (300-foot
X
radius) – Not
required for previous
noticed projects
* No administratively reviewed ARB applications are subject to site posting.
Conclusion
Staff recommends amending Chapter 9.32 to require site posting for many ARB
applications. This amendment would serve to expand public awareness of the
development review process without creating a financial burden to the City or
applicants. Further, the proposed amendment would not significantly increase the
application processing timeframe. To implement these changes, staff recommends the
City Council introduce for first reading the proposed ordinance.
CEQA STATUS
8
The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3), of the State Implementation
Guidelines in that CEQA applies only to projects having the potential to cause a
significant effect on the environment. The proposed ordinance does not have this
potential and seeks merely to provide increased public notification and site posting for
pending projects requiring Architectural Review. Architectural Review Board
applications made pursuant to the proposed ordinance are still individually subject to
review for CEQA compliance.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Pursuant to Municipal Code Sections 9.04.20.22.050, notice of the public hearing was
published in the California section of the Los Angeles Times newspaper at least ten
consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing. Notice of the hearing was also sent to
all neighborhood organizations, the Architectural Review Board, and posted on the
City’s web site. A copy of the notice is contained in Attachment C.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report has no budget or fiscal impacts. However,
should the City Council adopt the ARB recommended modifications, a subsequent
resolution would be required to increase the ARB application fee.
RECOMMENDATION
9
It is recommended that the City Council introduce for first reading the staff-proposed
ordinance (Attachment A). The Council could alternately introduce for first reading the
ARB-proposed ordinance (Attachment B).
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director
Jay M. Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager
Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner
Jonathan Lait, AICP, Senior Planner
Tony Kim, Associate Planner
City Planning Division
Planning and Community Development Department
ATTACHMENTS: A. Staff Proposed Ordinance
B. ARB Proposed Ordinance
C. Public Notice
D. Letter from Architectural Review Board to City Council dated
October 1, 2001
10
ATTACHMENT A
Staff Proposed Ordinance
(SEE ADOPTED ORDINANCE)
11
ATTACHMENT B
ARB Proposed Ordinance
12
f:\plan\share\council\strpt\ARB Notification Attachment B.doc
City Council Meeting 7-8-03 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
AMENDING THE CITY’S ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE
SITE POSTING AND MAILING NOTIFICATIONS REQUIREMENTS FOR PROJECTS
SUBJECT TO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
WHEREAS, under current law, the vast majority of Architectural Review Board
applications do not require either mailed public notification to residents or property
owners or site postings; and
WHEREAS, mailed public notice is required in the limited circumstance of a
development standards modification request in the R1 (Single Family Residential
District) and sign posting is only required new projects in excess of 15,000 square feet,
and
WHEREAS, for certain development projects, Architectural Board meetings
provide the only opportunity for the public to review and comment on the development
proposal, and
WHEREAS, members of the public stated that the limited public notification is a
reason that a significant number of Architectural Review Board decisions are appealed
to the Planning Commission, and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Board requested that the City Council
consider modifying the current public noticing requirements for Architectural Review
13
Board applications to increase public awareness of pending applications, and
WHEREAS, in February 2002, the City Council supported the Architectural
Review Board’s request for increased public notification, and
WHEREAS, the City Council directed the Architectural Review Board to examine
notification requirements in relation to the notification requirements that are imposed for
other planning approvals, and
WHEREAS, in January 2003, the Architectural Review Board developed
proposals for expanding the notification requirements in accordance with City Council
direction, and
WHEREAS, this proposed ordinance reflects the Architectural Review Board’s
recommendations, and
WHEREAS, this proposed ordinance will increase the public awareness of
pending projects and the public’s participation in the review process,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.32.180 is hereby amended
to read as follows:
9.32.180 Posting of Property
.
Within ten days after an application for architectural review for a
major project has been filed, the applicant shall post the property in a
manner set forth by the Zoning Administrator with a preprinted sign
14
prepared by the City measuring 30 inches by 40 inches in size located
near the property’s address on the street facing elevation. Except as set
forth in this section, the posting shall be in accordance with the
requirements as to content, height, lettering, and posting as established by
the Zoning Administrator to ensure adequate notice. For purposes of this
Section, a major project is defined to include any project in excess of
fifteen thousand square feet. The application shall not be considered
complete unless the site has been posted pursuant to this Section.
Applications subject to administrative approval are exempt from the
requirements of this Section.
SECTION 2. Section 9.32.190 is hereby added to the Santa Monica Municipal
Code to read as follows:
9.32.190. Notice of Hearings.
(a) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this Section, notice of
public hearings shall be required for the following projects, to be provided
by mailing, postage prepaid, not less than 10 consecutive calendar days
prior to the public hearing, to all owners and residential and commercial
tenants of property within a radius of 300 feet from the exterior boundaries
of the property involved in an application and to residential and
commercial tenants of the involved property:
(1) New development or additions exceeding 1,000 square feet to
existing development.
15
(2) Landscape projects involving the removal of trees with trunk
diameters greater than eight inches.
(b) The notice required by subsection (a) of this Section shall state
the nature of the request, the location of the property, the time and place
of the scheduled hearing, and the manner in which additional information
may be received. The last known name and address of each property
owner as contained in the records of the Los Angeles County Assessor
shall be used. The address of the residential and commercial tenants shall
be determined by visual site inspection or other reasonably accurate
means. The applicant shall provide a list of property owners and tenants
within the prescribed area of notification and shall sign an affidavit
verifying that the list has been prepared in accordance with the procedure
outlined in this Section.
(c) The notification requirements of this Section shall not apply if
the public hearing constitutes a continuation of a previous public hearing
which was duly noticed in accordance with this Section or if the project
was subject to prior City review and mailed notification was provided
consistent with the requirements of this Section.
SECTION 3. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices
thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such
inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary
to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
16
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any
court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would
have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause,
or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion
of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 5. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage
of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the
official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall be effective
thirty (30) days from adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
MARSHA JONES MOUTRIE
City Attorney
17
ATTACHMENT C
Public Notice
18
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Ordinance for Introduction and First Reading to Amend Santa
Monica Municipal Code Section 9.32
APPLICANT: City of Santa Monica
A public hearing will be held by the City Council to consider the following request:
Introduction and first reading of an ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code
Section 9.32 to require public notification and property posting requirements for projects
subject to Architectural Review. Alternatively, the City Council may consider introduction
and first reading of an ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.32
to require site posting and mailed notification requirements for projects subject to
Architectural Review.
DATE/TIME: TUESDAY, JULY 8, AT 6:45 p.m.
LOCATION: City Council Chambers, Second Floor, Santa Monica City
Hall
1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California
HOW TO COMMENT
The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment. You may comment at the City
Council public hearing, or by writing a letter. Written information will be given to the City
Council at the meeting.
Address your letters to: City Clerk
Re: Architectural Review Board Notification
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
MORE INFORMATION
If you want more information about this project, please contact Tony Kim, Associate
Planner, at (310) 458-8341, or by e-mail at tony-kim@santa-monica.org. The Zoning
Ordinance is available at the Planning Counter during business hours and on the City’s
web site at www.santa-monica.org.
The meeting facility is wheelchair accessible. For disability-related accommodations,
please contact (310) 458-8341 or (310) 458-8696 TTY at least 72 hours in advance. All
written materials are available in alternate format upon request. Santa Monica Big Blue
Bus Lines numbered 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 serve City Hall.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if this matter is
subsequently challenged in Court, the challenge may be limited to only those issues
19
raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence
delivered to the City of Santa Monica at, or prior to, the public hearing.
ESPAÑOL
Esto es una noticia de una audiencia pública para revisar applicaciónes proponiendo
desarrollo en Santa Monica. Si deseas más información, favor de llamar a Carmen
Gutierrez en la División de Planificación al número (310) 458-8341.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
JAY M. TREVINO, AICP
Planning Manager
F:\PLAN\SHARE\COUNCIL\NOTICES\ARB Notification.2003.doc
20
ATTACHMENT D
Letter from Architectural Review Board to City Council dated October 1, 2001
Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for
review at the City Clerk’s Office.
21