1 From: Steve Welton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2022 11:51 AM
To: City Clerk Group
Cc: Heidi Jones; Laurel Fisher Perez
Subject: May 3 City Council Hearing
Attachments: LTR - CITY COUNCIL - COG Title 17 Amendments - 2MAY2022.pdf Hello,
Please accept this letter for tomorrow’s City Council hearing.
Thank you,
Steve
Steve Welton, AICP
Principal Planner
1625 STATE STREET, SUITE 1
SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101
PH: 805-966-2758 x 111
www.sepps.com
2 May 2022
Mayor Perotte & Councilmembers
City of Goleta
630 Cremona Drive
Goleta, CA 93117
RE: City Council Review of Proposed Title 17 Amendments
Mayor Perotte & Councilmembers,
On behalf of Suzanne Elledge Planning & Permitting Services (SEPPS), we appreciate the opp ortunity to provide input on the proposed T itle 17 Z oning Ordinance Amendments (Case No. 22-001-ORD). With 28 years of professional planning experience in Santa Barbara County, we feel our knowledge of the public review and entitlement processes lends value to the feedback we provide.
SEPPS suppo rts the proposed Title 17 Amendments as outlined in the staff recommendations and we off er the following additional comments that we also believe deserve consideration:
Story Poles & Signage – Public Noticing Requirements (§17.52.050 3,5
We understand that the intent of the on-site posted Notice and Story Pole requirements is to elevate public awareness and involvement in the public review process. However, the unintended conseque nces of these recently adopted regulations leads to unmanageable conflicts with existing land uses, excessive noticing costs, and unsigh tly conditions, as described in greater detail below:
Story Pol es: The required duration for s tory pole installations is excessive, impractical, and unnecessary. Story poles indicating a proposed devel opment’s footprint and height typically involves hiring a contractor to erect multiple wood poles with string lines of flag s to demarcate the proposed development . In most cases, development projects are proposed on developed property with existing use s. Title 17 requires t hat the story poles be maintained at the project sit e a minimum of fourteen (14) days prior to the first public hearing date (usually DRB early in the process) and that the poles must remain in place until the expiration of the project’s local appeal period (at the end of a discretionary review decision and appeal period). This means the poles must remain in place and be maintained for sometimes 1-2 years or even longer, depending on the timeframe for a project’s discretionary review and approval process.
Mayor Perotte & Councilmembers
2 May 2022
This timeframe often isn’t feasible or practical in the situation where there is an existing operating business on sit e. Story poles can create impediments for existing developed project sites by limit ing vehicular access, maneuverability, and impairing existing and ongoing use of the site.
It would be more practical and effec tive to require story poles during a certain phase of the design review process. Photos of the story poles could be used at future decision maker hearings, or the anticipated decision mak ers could be invite d to view the story poles during the design review process. This procedure is used in other jurisdictions. If necessary, in certain circumstances, story poles could be reinstalled at the time of a decision maker hearing. While still inefficient, that is more desirable than leaving poles in place for several years and would reduce conflicts on site, maintenance, litter, and visual blight.
Noticing Signage: Similar to the requirements for story pole installation and duration, Title 17 requires excessively large signs (similar to billboards) be posted on-site to notice the public of a pending discretionary project. The goal seems to have been to make the larger signs legible as viewed from an automobile , and w e question whet her this is reasonable or safe. The size of the required not icing signs (4-feet tall by 8-feet long or 32 square feet in size) rival or are larger than on -site business signs. Due to the required size, noticing signs need to b e manufactured out of wood in order to withstand wind load and to provide the durability necessary for the long posting timeframe also required, resulting in a hu ge cost; it can cost nearly $1,000 for a single woo d noticing sign.
The costs for manufacturing and installing the signage and the required maintenance are burdensome and onerou s, but could be reduced by e nabling reasonable discretion. In our experience, the noticing p lacards required by the County of Santa Barbara, t he City of Santa Barbara, and the majority of other l ocal jurisdictions, are sufficient in providing adequate on-site notice to the surrounding nei ghbors and others that pass the site.
In addition to the excessive si ze, Title 17 re quires a separate noticing sign for e ach parcel (APN) involved in a proposed development. We often work on projects that involve multiple parcels, and the current code requires installing multiple, large 4 -foot by 8-foot signs. Ideally, staff would have the discretion to determine the reasonable number and location(s) of the signs, reducing waste and visual blight.
We recommend that your Council revisit and address the large site signage requirements to reduce th e si ze of the si gns required and to allow staff discretion in determining the total number and loc ation of the required signs by balancing the impacts of the duration, cost and visual impacts with the opportunity for reasonable public notice.
Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions or require additional informat ion, please contact our office at 966 -2758.
Mayor Perotte & Councilmembers
2 May 2022
Sincerely,
SUZANNE EL LEDGE
PLANNI NG & PERMITT ING SERVICES, INC.
Laurel Perez, AICP
Principal Planner