PURPOSE:

At the November 4, 2003 City Council meeting, Councilmember Todd Campbell asked that the first step of a �one-step � two step� discussion of the pros and cons of a design review committee be placed on the council agenda.  A �first step� discussion consists of a brief introduction to the topic, followed by Council deliberation, and determination of whether the Council desires staff to initiate a more complete investigation of the topic.

DISCUSSION:

What is Design Review:

Design review or architectural review as it is know in some jurisdictions is generally understood as processes and procedures for discretionary review of the aesthetic aspects of physical development such as style, color, appearance, etc. as differentiated from simple enforcement of objective, quantitative zoning standards such as height limits, setbacks, and unit density.  Kevin Lynch defined the purpose of design review as �safeguarding environmental quality as a city changes.[1]� 

Historically, design review first came into use on a significant scale in the early 1970s, when a number of cities frustrated by the inability of traditional zoning regulations to ensure visually pleasing development began to experiment with controlling not just the location, height, density, mass, etc. of new development uses, but also their appearance.  Santa Monica, which has required design review since 1971, is an early local example.   

Design Review in Burbank:

It should be noted that there is not a clear bright line between traditional zoning code standards as this term is usually understood and design review.  Burbank already conducts some elements of what, many jurisdictions, would call design or architectural review through application of Burbank Municipal Code (BMC) �31-1113 �Multiple Family Design Standards� particularly subsection (t) �General Design Principles� (see Exhibit A pg. 7).  For multi-family projects located within 500 ft. of R-1 zoned areas, BMC 31-1908.5 also allows staff discretion through the Development Review process to determine a project�s effect on nearby single-family neighborhoods.  However, no �discretionary review� in the usual sense this term is used, is involved, and the degree of latitude involved is not comparable to that found in most design review guidelines. 

The Rancho Master Plan, adopted in 1992, envisioned a Rancho Design Review Board for that part of the city, and includes guidelines for urban design, but these guidelines were subsequently codified in BMC Ch. 31, Art. 24.  The board did not have formal procedures or conduct public hearings, and primarily operated as a means of reviewing projects for compliance with the codified design standards.  As it happens, there has not been a great deal of new physical development in the Rancho area, and the Rancho Design Review Board has not met for several years.

Prior to implementation of the current Development Review process (BMC �31-1908 - �31-1914) in the 1980s, the Zoning Ordinance included a process for �site plan review� which provided staff more discretion in reviewing proposed projects, and allowed staff to impose some design related requirements on projects.  Site design, however, primarily related to the layout of the project including such features as vehicular and pedestrian access, and had little focus on the aesthetic or visual components of development which are considered the main emphasis of design or architectural review.

In 1996, then Councilmember Ted McConkey requested a discussion of design review be agendized.  Staff produced the memo attached as Exhibit B.  In this instance, the rest of the council voted to �note and file� this memo (Exhibit C) and no more apparently came of it.  The subject of design or architectural review was also brought up before the City Council on a number of occasions previous to 1996.

Administrative vs. Discretionary Design Review:

Staff does not intend this report to be an exhaustive study of all the different possible variations of processes and procedures for design review, which are legion, but did want to include certain variations because a discussion of them can help understand some of the potential pros and cons of design review committees.

There are a variety of different approaches to design review and to a large extent the pros and cons of design review will depend on what approach is being used.  Urban planner and architect, Hamid Shirvani identifies two basic approaches to design review which he identifies as �self-administering� and �discretionary�[2].  Self administering controls involve the use of detailed design guidelines to explain the criteria that the review body will use to judge the proposed design, whereas discretionary controls give the power of interpretation and judgment to the reviewers. 

Some cities have very detailed standards written so precisely that specific architectural styles, colors and materials are prescribed.  San Marino and West Hollywood are local examples; San Marino�s design guidelines run to 68 pages for single-family homes alone.  This approach obviously has certain advantages and disadvantages.  It gives the architect unmistakably clear direction as to what is wanted.  On the other hand, others complain that this approach limits flexibility in project design which can stifle creativity and produce monotonous uniformity.  It is probably not coincidental that the two local examples are fairly small cities with a widely shared community consensus about what is desired in their community.  Some larger cities only use design review in localized areas where community design consensus is also evident.  Pasadena, where design review is only required in certain districts (e.g. Old Pasadena) is a local example.

Other cities have relatively few design guidelines, or guidelines written so broadly that the urban design review process itself replaces their use.  Glendale is a local example.  In practice, virtually every community has some design review guidelines, because courts have repeatedly ruled that while discretionary design review committees, commissions, boards etc. are permissible, they must have guidance from the legislative authority.  But compared to other cities, Glendale has historically had few design guidelines and what they have are fairly general.  One advantage of this approach is that design recommendations can be more easily tailored to individual circumstances and contexts.  One disadvantage is that if guidelines are too broad or general, they run the risk of being declared unconstitutionally vague by a court, and this has happened to a number of jurisdictions.[3]   Glendale planners state that, to their knowledge, no-one has ever legally challenged their guidelines.  In practice most cites fall somewhere between these two models into what could be called �semi-administrative� i.e. guidelines fairly narrowly interpreted but with some discretion, or �semi-discretionary�, i.e. broad guidelines with substantial discretion on the part of the reviewers.

Design Review without a Design Review Committee:

One of the most frequent and most undeniable complaints with design review or architectural review committees is that they add considerably to the time required to process and approve project applications.  Glendale, for example, operates two Design Review Boards appointed by the City Council.  Each board must have one licensed architect on it, and other members must be �qualified to analyze and interpret architectural and site planning information� through their training, experience or attainment. A Glendale planner reports that while in theory it is possible to get design review approval in their city within one month, in practice, 2� months is a more realistic minimum, and the process can take longer, depending on how many problems the Board has with the initial and subsequent submissions.[4]  Note that while Glendale uses two boards in an attempt to relieve their backlog, once a project is assigned to one of them it remains with that board for the sake of familiarity with the case, but this means that second or subsequent hearings (needed in all but a few cases) are still sometimes delayed.  Each board meets every other week (alternating weeks).  This is in addition to the time required for other land use approvals (e.g. variances, CUPs, etc.) by the Planning Commission, if the project requires such.

This problem is not unique to Glendale.  Representatives of all contacted cities that use a design review board or committee, even from fairly small jurisdictions such as South Pasadena, admitted the process added substantially to approval times.  In part this is due to the public noticing and other requirements of the �Brown Act�.  Originally, Glendale Design Review Board hearings were only publicized by posting an agenda at the city hall.  But one Glendale planner admits that it is also due to �creeping bureaucratization�, the tendency over time for such procedures to become more routinized and formalized.  At one time they only prepared written staff reports for the Design Review Board for very large projects; now they do so for all projects.  Glendale was unable to say exactly how much staff time goes to support design review, but one staff member estimates that between 40 to 60 percent of the staff time of nine planners goes to support the design review boards.

Also, even in jurisdictions with the most detailed design guidelines, design review is necessarily a highly subjective process and differences in taste can lead to different and occasionally conflicting recommendations from the committee and the Planning Board or City Council, even, in the case of Glendale, disagreements between the two review boards which can lead to disparate approval standards. While a design review committee can provide a forum for public input, disagreement between the committee and neighborhood property owners is still unavoidable in many cases. 

Professional Design Review Staff

In some jurisdictions project design is reviewed by professional design staff.  The City of West Hollywood is a local example.  The West Hollywood Community Development staff includes a position known as the Urban Designer which is staffed by a licensed professional architect.  All construction projects in West Hollywood are reviewed by the Urban Designer, who submits architectural and other comments on them; informally in the case of ministerial approvals or formally in the staff report to their Planning Commission in the case of discretionary approvals.  The major advantage of this approach lies not so much in the fact that design review is conducted by a professional (after all there is at least one professional architect on each of Glendale�s boards), but in that it provides for much faster turn around of design approvals than is likely with a committee, there being no need to convene or notice a separate board or committee meeting.  Conflicts between boards and commissions may also be avoided since staff recommendations are forwarded directly to the Planning Commission when required for a particular project.

From an interview with West Hollywood planner John Keho, it appears their process works much like Burbank�s Development Review process.  In West Hollywood, the development review process is augmented by the Urban Designer submitting architectural or other comments in much the same manner as say Burbank�s Public Works Dept., Fire Dept. etc. do, or including comments in a staff report to Planning Board for discretionary approvals.  An obvious disadvantage of this approach is that there is little opportunity for public input unless the project goes (or is appealed) to their Planning Commission.  Another is that absent very specific guidance from the legislative authority, the professional staff is open to charges of implementing their personal preferences in design review, as opposed to community preferences or �objective� standards.  While the same charge could be laid to a design review committee, committee review at least takes place in the public view at a hearing as opposed to internal staff review.  As was noted above, West Hollywood has some of the more detailed and extensive design review guidelines among local jurisdictions.  Shirvani observes generally that if a city expects to practice �administrative� rather than �discretionary� design review, it should expect to have to invest a good deal of up front time in preparing detailed guidelines.

At its worst, the delays involved in requiring design review as part of permit processing can result in failure to meet the permit processing deadlines contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the Permit Streamlining Act, and possibly in legal liability therefore.  Planners in some cities interviewed admitted - off the record � that they frequently fail to meet these deadlines.  Burbank city staff with experience in jurisdictions exercising design review have also stated that meeting permit processing deadlines is frequently difficult, even impossible, for projects requiring design review in addition to other discretionary approvals.  Staff notes that the City of San Gabriel recently consolidated its Planning Commission and design review body in an attempt to expedite approvals.  San Gabriel, however, is a very small jurisdiction.  It is unclear that this expedience would work in Burbank, given the volume of projects already reviewed by the Planning Board.

Qualified Staff/Review Board:

Having professional staff conduct design review, of course assumes that qualified professionals are available.  Shirvani warns against expecting �general� planners to be able to understand the technical aspects of architectural review and development without extensive training. On the other hand, conventionally trained architects are rarely conversant with the procedural and policy/political aspects of design or zoning review.  There is, of course, a growing body of professionals trained and experienced in both aspects available, but their services are costly.  Using a commission or committee of community volunteers is one way around this limitation, but finding persons qualified and willing to serve on such a body is difficult.  South Pasadena, whose design review committee consists entirely of professionals (e.g. architects, landscape architects, engineers, etc.) admits they have a great deal of difficulty keeping their committee fully staffed, and such a committee still has to be supported by city staff.

Another aspect of staffing is enforcement.  Hinshaw observes that nothing substitutes for field inspection during construction.  Carefully approved plans can be sabotaged by careless construction.  Glendale, for example, employs design review inspectors in addition to and distinct from other construction inspectors (e.g. electrical, mechanical, plumbing, etc.).  Technical inspectors are rarely aware of design review practices, and in some cases there may be conflicts between the requirements of good design and standard construction practices.

Fiscal Impacts

For many of the reasons noted above, the fiscal impact of implementing design review is difficult to estimate and will depend on how the process is implemented.  Obvious variables include whether review will be done by professional staff or a citizen committee, whether design review will apply citywide, as Glendale does, or only to selected areas as in Pasadena.

Recurring Costs

Last year, Community Development Department (CDD) staff produced an estimate, based on a study of discretionary planning approvals in FY 2002, that the average cost of processing a discretionary review (to the Planning Board) is approximately $5,500.  The average cost of processing an administrative approval is $1,900.  Therefore, we can reasonably assume the difference, $3,600, represents the additional cost of taking an item through a discretionary process as opposed to administrative approval.  In FY 2002, the CDD processed 40 discretionary approvals, and 89 administrative approvals.  If we assume that each of these 129 projects then had to go through another discretionary review process before a design review committee, the cost could conceivably be as high as (129 x $3,600=) $464,400 per year.  Arguably, the cost of taking a project to a design review committee might be somewhat lower since its scope of review would be less than the Planning Board, i.e. limited to only design issues rather than the full range of issues considered by the Board.  Therefore, for example, staff reports and presentations might be shorter and involve less research, etc.  On the other hand, the figure above only represents costs to the CDD, and does not include costs to other departments such as producing and mailing public notices.

The above estimate also assumes that the scope of a design review committee would be more or less the same as the Planning Board�s.  Currently, fairly few projects in single-family areas go to the Planning Board, but if design review addressed single-family projects (as Glendale does) the number of projects processed, and therefore costs, could be much higher.  On the other hand, if design review were restricted to selected areas of the City, as in Pasadena, then the number of applications requiring design review might be considerably fewer.

Another approach could be to estimate the number of additional staff positions required to support a design review committee.  The Glendale Planning Department, like most, does not assign any of their staff exclusively to support their Design Review Board, but estimates that total staff time devoted to design review related functions is the equivalent of 4.5 planners.  This figure does not include the time senior staff (the Planning Director and Zoning Administrator) spend on design review or clerical/support staff time. 

Burbank is a smaller city than Glendale, and as noted the scope of Glendale�s design review is exceptionally wide (including single-family developments), but if we conservatively assume it might take two additional staff planners to support a design review committee in Burbank while  maintaining the current turn-around time for processing applications, then the cost of employing the additional planners would be in the range of $130,000 to $160,000 per year depending on the level at which such staff were hired (i.e. Assistant, Associate or Senior planner).  The actual cost will probably be somewhere between $160,000 and $464,000.  The estimate based on planner salaries does not include the time senior staff (City Planner, Deputy City Planner, etc.) spend reviewing the staff work, or clerical/support staff time and miscellaneous department overhead.  However, if design review in Burbank were limited to specific areas then conceivably only one additional planner might be needed, and other costs would also be reduced.  Staff notes that Burbank currently has five planners who work more or less full-time on current planning applications. 

Initial Costs

The above represents the continuing or ongoing costs of design review.  There will also be implementation and start up costs in initiating a design review procedure.  Hamid Shirvani also refers to his dichotomy of �self-administering� vs. �discretionary� design review, discussed above as, respectively, �capital intensive� and �labor intensive�, not strictly because of the amount of money involved - although money is a factor - but because the one involves making an up front investment in developing a fairly extensive and detailed set of design review, guidelines, whereas the other involves extensive case by case investigation, consideration and decision making by the design review body at the time of the application.  The more the City is willing to invest up front in thorough, well thought out guidelines, the less time and effort it will likely have to expend on case by case review.  If nothing else, the developer�s architects know exactly what is desired, and will likely produce it. 

As was explained above, �general� planners are not usually qualified to perform the more technical aspects of design review, and this goes for developing design review guidelines as well.  The City should expect to have to hire experienced urban design personnel or a qualified consultant to develop guidelines.  The cost will depend on how specific and detailed the regulations are to be, and again on whether such guidelines will be for the whole city or only for specific subareas.  Estimates of consultant fees for preparing design review guidelines can again only be rough, but the City of Redondo Beach had the design guidelines, attached as Exhibit D, produced last year.  The consultant fees to produce these guidelines were $48,300.  This does not include City staff time or costs which included GIS and mapping support and writing staff reports.

Redondo Beach is smaller than Burbank in population (63,000), number of housing units (27,700) and area (6.3 sq. mi.) so producing similar guidelines for Burbank might be slightly more expensive, but the main costs depend more on the detail of the guidelines and the number of community meetings, hearings, etc. held, than on geographical extent or population.  Note however, that Redondo�s guidelines apply only to residential areas (single and multi-family).  If Burbank desires guidelines for commercial and/or industrial development, it would be reasonable to expect to have to do the equivalent of a complete separate study and doubling this cost.  On the other hand if Burbank only addressed design review in a limited area, or only certain types of development, costs could be somewhat lower.

The Impact of Design Controls on Property Values:

Setting aside the cost, in both dollars and time, to the local jurisdiction to review, approve and enforce design controls, there is also the question of whether and how much design review adds to the cost of the final product.  This is a worthwhile question, but one for which a definitive answer is beyond the scope of staff�s research for this report.  It is really an extension of a long-standing debate over the cost of land use regulation generally.  Many developers will argue that any extra costs they face, be it in the form of delays in approval, or more or more expensive building materials, landscaping, etc. will inevitably be passed on to consumers in the form of higher housing prices, higher rents etc.  Because of this, some cities have exempted designated low income projects or made exceptions to design review guidelines.  As an aside, staff notes that if pending Assembly Bill 1160 (Steinberg) is enacted, such exemptions may become state law.  Other observers have argued that the cost of housing, office space, etc. is set by broad market factors which are little affected by things such as design controls, and point to studies that find little or no difference in rents and housing prices in otherwise similarly situated cities with and without design controls, especially in California, where the increase in the cost of land tends to overshadow all other causes of increased housing and building costs[5]. 

Summary: 

The following table summarizes some basic arguments in favor of and against design review committees.

RECOMMENDATION:

If the City Council wishes to agendize further discussion of a potential design review committee, the Council should direct staff to bring a report back to the Council with full research backed findings and recommendations.  Staff estimates this would take about four to six months.

List of Exhibits

Exhibit A:         BMC Section 31-1113 �Multiple Family Design Standards�

Exhibit B:          Memo from City Planner, Rick Preutz to City Council, July 28, 1996

Exhibit C:         Minutes of City Council Meeting, July 28, 1996

Exhibit D:         City of Redondo Beach � Residential Design Guidelines, October 7, 2003

go to the top