Council Deadlocks on Proposal to Eliminate Public Input

By Olin Ericksen
Staff Writer

April 15 -- With the Mayor absent, the City Council on Tuesday deadlocked on a controversial proposal that would jettison public input for most new multifamily developments throughout the city and transfer review power directly to staff.

Although the meeting addressed only residential districts, the council's 3 to 3 vote provided insight into where each member might stand on eliminating public input for future mixed-use residential projects Downtown, thus impacting even more potential developments.

Under the proposal presented Tuesday, the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board would lose their power to decide the fate of multifamily projects larger than 7,500 square feet that meet a check list of design guidelines.

Proponents of transferring all decision-making to staff argued that it would expedite a costly and lengthy process that can drag on for months, if not years.

"By setting the review threshold at 7,500 square feet, we have nurtured a culture of micromanaging," Council member Pam O'Conner said.

The current process, O'Conner argued, holds many projects "hostage" to the vague notions of a few people who serve on the ARB and the Planning Commission, as well as the public.

Council members Herb Katz and Michael Feinstein agreed.

"I don't think we are eliminating the public process,” said Katz, a partner in an architecture firm that has constructed projects in the City. “I think we are setting standards to help people get their projects built."

Under the staff proposal, if a project meets those standards -- which contain such details as height and setback requirements -- it would be reviewed administratively behind closed doors.

Planning Department Director Suzanne Frick said the new process would dramatically cut back -- from months to weeks -- the amount of time it takes for projects to be approved and the "hundreds of hours" her department has to work on plan details. This, she argued, would free up the ARB and Planning Commission to focus on larger policy concerns.

But some two dozen appointed officials and community activists, as well as some council members, disagreed.

"How much time in your analysis is actually related to putting these projects before the ARB and the Planning Commission?" asked Council member Ken Genser, who with Council member Kevin McKeown, was the most outspoken against limiting public review.

Genser seemed to point the finger at the Planning Department, which is understaffed and which he seemed to suggest may be responsible for some of the delays.

Genser argued that the public process enhances design and that he would rather have volunteer bodies made up of several appointed officials continue to steer the future direction of development in Santa Monica.

"I would not feel comfortable having one person making these types of decisions behind closed doors," Genser said.

Under the proposal, the City’s new urban planner, Stephanie Reich, would replace the Planning Commission and ARB. All public input would be individually directed to Reich.

Members of the Planning Commission and the ARB agreed with Genser and argued that the guidelines would result in “cookie-cutter” designs.

“Why constrain architects’ creativity?” said Planning Commissioner Arlene Hopkins.

Opponents also questioned why staff and consultants hired by the City tied the public process issue into what originally began as a request by the council to improve upon design standards or what he called "compatibility issues."

"I really feel this process has essentially been hijacked," said Genser. "The public review process is being scapegoated."

Asked after the meeting who was hijacking the process, Genser replied, "My comment speaks for itself."

Members of the Planning Commission and the ARB, echoed Genser’s concerns, with several wondering aloud what had happened to a proposal conceived earlier this month by staff and the Planning Commission.

Under that proposal, developers would host a meeting at the beginning of the process with members of the public to "front-load" any problems neighbors might have. Any project could then still be reviewed by the ARB, and appealed to the Planning Commission.

Frick said staff rejected that plan, which they helped craft, for "legal concerns" and because it "took away authority from the municipal government."

"You are actually setting up another layer of bureaucracy,” Katz said. “That's all I think you've done."

The item was continued until a later meeting, when Mayor Richard Bloom returns from Argentina. At that meeting staff is expected to come back with several options that include different models that allow for public input.