Opponents Fight Proposal to Eliminate Public Input

By Olin Ericksen
Staff Writer

April 13 -- Calling it a “resident’s nightmare” and “a developer’s dream,” a handful of neighborhood activists and public officials are mounting a last-ditch campaign against a staff proposal to eliminate public input for many new developments Downtown.

Opponents are circulating flyers and mounting a lobbying campaign in the hopes of urging the City Council Tuesday night to reject a staff proposal that would allow planning staff to review projects of up to 30,000 square feet if they meet prescribed design guidelines.

The threshold -- which was lowered to 7,500 square feet a year ago -- would be nearly doubled to close to 60,000 square feet if the projects are primarily residential.

The proposal, which has generated little or no public testimony, has been opposed by both the Architectural Review Board, which currently reviews the projects, and the Planning Commission, which hears them on appeal.

“This is the most critical issue of my five years on the Planning Commission,” said Chair Darrell Clarke. “Instead of solving Santa Monica’s current Downtown design issues, it would create taller, cookie-cutter buildings that will be with us forever.

“More ominously, it would revoke Santa Monica’s tradition of public process, allowing no one, whether neighbors, commissions or the City Council, to object to fast-track administrative approvals,” Clarke said.

“These changes will eliminate all public review in Downtown,” said Ellen Brennan, a concerned resident who heads the South Beach Neighborhood Association. “That’s extremely disturbing to me."

Brennan's flyer states: “To rid itself of public opposition, the City will eliminate all public review of development projects and will approve projects behind closed doors. Insiders are pushing for approval before the community knows what’s going on.”

Those “insiders,” Brennan said, are the planning staff and developers, who “high-jacked” a series of informal meetings held months ago to find ways to streamline the development process by establishing basic design guidelines.

Developers seized the opportunity to introduce their own agenda, which include bigger buildings and lower parking requirements, she said.

“I was at the first public meeting almost a year ago, and it was totally dominated by developer Craig Jones,” said Brennan, referring to Downtown’s biggest residential developer. “Craig would hold up his hand and just silence people when anyone tried to speak.

“I was, in effect, driven from the meeting and the developers got exactly what they were looking for from planning staff and the design consultants hired by the City,” Brennan said.

The part of the plan giving oversight to staff in an effort to expedite the review process was not introduced until March of this year, Brennan said.

Giving staff oversight does not guarantee a swift process, Clarke contends, adding that the length of time it takes to approve a project is entirely dependent on how well the project is handled by the applicant and planning department, which is currently short staffed.

“The public review process approves good projects quickly,” said Clarke. “For example, the ARB approved a condominium project at 219 California Avenue in one evening last Monday. However, the Planning Commission had approved it last November, and it wasn’t the public review that took almost five months between those two meetings.”

While opponents are mounting their campaign, at least one prominent land-use expert said he finds “nothing wrong” with administrative approval of projects in general.

“It’s just my personal input, but I think it’s generally a good thing to allow staff to be in charge of the details and free up planners to allow them to work on the general plan,” said lawyer Daniel Curtin, who is the author of several books on California land-use and planning law.

Curtin has been active in land-use law since the 1950’s, when he worked for the San Francisco Planning and Housing Association (now known as the San Francisco Department of Planning and Urban Renewal.)

“As long as there has been a place for public input, it doesn’t matter on what level it’s received,” said Curtin “Whether it’s through a board, a commission or a staff person doesn’t matter.”

In fact, Curtin said he believes cities throughout California are streamlining their public process, and turning more and more to administrative oversight.

Curtin said each community must decide what is acceptable. What would be “right” for Santa Monica, he said, should be left up to the public and the City Council.