Measure Could Allow More Design Changes After Final Approval

By Olin Ericksen
Staff Writer

July 22 -- If you think building designs given final approval by the City’s design board are what actually end up being built in Santa Monica, think again.

For almost a decade, projects approved by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) have been altered during construction by developers using a resolution so obscure, even the board's chair -- who's served eight years -- was unaware of its main provision until Monday.

Now staff and some board members want the measure retooled to give developers even more room to make changes to a building’s design after it has been given final ARB approval -- further increasing staff's power to sign off on those changes without public input.

First enacted in 1995, resolution 95-001 grants developers the right to have planning staff approve "minor changes" in design, colors and materials up to "25 percent of the total building facade" during construction, after the project has left the purview of the ARB.

Staff, however, acknowledge that not only have developers commonly exceeded the 25 percent threshold for years, but that short-handed planning staff -- who only review the projects upon their completion -- have little time to make sure developers are complying.

"I would say more often than not that developers exceed the (staff review) threshold," said associate planner and ARB staff liaison Marika Modugno in an interview Tuesday. "It would be just too much of a financial burden on developers to ask them to go back and make changes after the project is completed."

Despite the routine violations, some board members see expanding the staff review threshold -- possibly to as high as 40 percent -- as an opportunity to shorten and simplify the City's development process.

The move comes in the wake of a recent audit report that criticizes the department and its permit process as overly burdensome, lengthy and expensive for developers, compared to other California cities of equal size.

"The reexamination of the resolution was a result of the input by (consultants) as to how to streamline the approval process, so staff can take on more power and free up the ARB from the smaller details of projects," said ARB Chair Sergio Zeballos.

Zeballos -- who backed Board member Howard Laks’ suggestion to place the item on the agenda weeks ago -- acknowledged that he did not know much about the resolution's details, despite his eight years on the board.

"Monday was the first time I heard of the (staff review) threshold," said Zeballos.

Board member Laks did not return several phone calls from The Lookout seeking comment.

But other board members had mixed feelings about the proposal.

William Adams, one of the architects on the board, was “reasonably concerned” that the public could lose input and the ARB’s role could be reduced.

However, Adams added that he was “reasonably confident that staff will know what’s best when it comes to minor changes.”

Board member Iris Oliveras was the most vocal critic of the provision and its proposed change.

“If the projects are being changed significantly without the knowledge of the board or a system of enforcement, what is the purpose of the board?” said Oliveras, who is a principal of surfsantamonica.com.

“What sense does it make to review all these projects?” she said. “Why even have a board?”

Staff contends that the higher threshold will encourage developers who might significantly change a design without staff’s knowledge to come forward.

"The concern was that the (current threshold) may not provide large enough incentives for developers to let planners know about what changes they made during construction," said Stephanie Reich, the City's urban planner.

"The threshold is so low, that we find developers won't come back and submit what changes they've made because they're worried they may have to go through an entire hearing process again," she said.

Reich and Modugno would continue to monitor any of the changes made to a building's facade during its construction phase, according to City staff.

"Enforcement will be a concern regardless of the staff review threshold," said Reich. "We're starting now to try to intermittently monitor larger developments... but we just don't have the staff right now to do multiple walk-throughs on these projects."

Reich argues that raising the staff review threshold would not add to her department's duties, but rather streamline their workload.