SR-811027-10AOCT 2 7 9989
Santa ~IOnica, California, October 27, 1981
TO: S?ayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT:. Transmittal of Development Permit Process and Neighbor-
hood Planning Task Force Recommendations
Introduction
L~7e are pleased to transmit to you the Development Permit Process
and Neighborhood Planning Citizens Task Force's recommendations
for modification of the City's permit process and the Planning
Commission's comments on those recommendations.
Background
As a result of committee r,>>ork over a two°month period, including
a Task Force level public hearing, tine Citizens Task Force
unanimously agreed upon ten recommendations for City Council
consideration. Those recommendations are in keeping with what
was charged to the Task Force by your body as well as being in
agreement with the state law that requires that each city create
a single administrative entity to revieca all permit applications
for residential development. The recommendations (Attachment I)
range from the publication of easy to use and simplified develop-
ment guidebooks and t`"tie reassessment of variance criteria to tie
creation of a staff development concept review committee.
P.evie=r~ R~sulGs
On September 21, 1981 a public hearing on the Task Force's recom-
mendations was field before ti'.e City's Planning Commission. As a
OCT 2 7 1984'
Mayor and City Council
-2- October 13, 1981
result of the public hearing, at whic?1 no members of the public
other than Task Force members came forward to speak on the
recommendations, the Planning Commission took basically the
following positions:
1. Guidebooks--support concept.
2. Publication of policy changes--do not support idea.
3. Notification of tenants within 300' of development--
support idea and add Architectural Review Board. into
concept.
4. Public member on staff Environmental Review Committee-°
do not support concept as it is in conflict with the
City Manager form of government.
5. Architectural Review Board codification of criteria--
do not support as it should be left to the Architec-
tural Review Board°s discretion.
6. Self-supporting permit services--support.
7. Future review of Permit Process--support.
8. Centralized Counter--the Commission could not reach
agreement on the cost effectiveness of the computer
aspect of the Centralized. Counter concept; therefore
no consensus on the cahole concept.
9. Staff concept review--support.
10. Project compliance--support with additions.
Recommendation
It is respectfully recommended. that the Task Force proposals be
referred to staff for a report on administrative recommendations
and implementation program
Prepared by: Joseph Eisenhut
JE : l'x
Attachments: Task Force Report
Minutes (9/21/81).
(8/27/81); Planning Commission
ATTAC;~4E~?T I
SANTA ,dONICA
DEVELOPIEIQT PER~4IT PROCESS- AND- NETGHBORHOOD PLANNING
TASK FORCE
DATE: August 27, 1981
TO: Santa Monica City Council and Planning Commission
FROP4: Task Force on Permit Process and Neighborhood Planning
SUBJECT: Report on Permit Process
The Task Force respectfully submits the attached report on the
permit process, the .first of the two tasks entrusted to it.
The purpose of this letter of transmittal is to describe our
work to date.
The task force has met eight times since it was established,
each meeting lasting approximately two and a half hours.
Attendance was very good. We decided at an early stage to
concentrate our efforts first on the permit process, both in
order to meet the mandate of state law (California Government
Code §. 65913.3) to create a "single administrative entity" to
review "all application and permits for residential development"
and in order to comply with the September l deadline set by
the City Council with respect to those matters most immediately
relevant to the moratorium.
~Ve began by familiarizing ourselves with the permit process
governing development in Santa '4onica. Staff provided us with
pertinent ordinances, regulations, and forms and prepared flow
charts. Staff also distributed materials from the American
Planning Association and ifie California Office of Planning and
Research. In addition, we heard extensive testimony from:
James Mount (architect), Ray biulokas (architect and developer),
Greg Broughton (planning consultant), Don Proehnow (Architectural
Review Board), Rex Oberbeck (Planning Department), Bill Rome
(Building Department), and Paul Silvern ~Architeetural Review Board),
Our recommendations are predicated on the existing regulations
for land use development in Santa Monica. If the proposals by
the two other task forces are implemented by the City Council
and the Planning Commission, in whole or in part, the situation
will change dramatically. ~Ve therefore urge that the permit
process be re-examined within six months after action has been
taken on the recommendations of the other task forces to see
whether further changes are necessary or desirable in order to
encourage and expedite development while ensuring that it complies
with city guidelines. That examination could be conducted by
the Planning Department or by this task force.
r- ,.' City Council and< _anning Commission __-August 27, 1981
Ne are now beginning work on our second task--neighborhood
planning. Because this issue is extremely open-ended, '
politically sensitive, and complex we expect. to take several
months to study it, 1Ve hope to be able to submit our final report
to the City Council and the Planning Commission by .the end of
the year..
This letter would not be complete without an acknowledgement
of the invaluable assistance the task force received from its
two staff members: .Dennis :~uilliam and Joseph Eisenhut of the.
Planning Department. They guided us in the selection of witnesses,.
provided a great deal of essential documentation, answered our
endless questions, prepared each meeting (complete with agenda
ar.d minutes), and in many other ways ensured the smooth running
of our work. Their contribution to this report is incalculable.
__
-2-
„~
RE COP,4r,~ENDATIONS
o f ,..
CITI7ENS TASK FORCE
DEVELOPbSENT PERP.4IT PROCESS &.NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING
ADOPTED AUGUST 20. 1981 ,
The Santa Pdonica City Council created the Task Force on Development
Permit Process and Neighborhood Planning to:
a) Review permit process in the City, with the objectives
of maintaining efficient internal review while streamlining the
process to the extent feasible.
b) Develop'proposals for a planning process for individual
neighborhoods and areas.
The following recommendations have been prepared by the Task Foree
and pertain only to streamlining the permit process. Recommendations
on neighborhood planning will be formulated at a later date.
1) It is recommended that Guidebooks on Development Permits
Procedures be prepared;
A. Purpose: Up-to-date written materials provide clear
explanations of the permit process and city requirements,
thereby. reducing uncertainty and confusion regarding
specific design criteria, time frames, departmental
responsibilities, and zoning and other requirements.
B. Develop guide books for each permit procedure:-
1. Residential development: A guidebook for residential
.development, possibly divided into two parts, one for
multiple residential units, single residential develop-
ment and condominium conversion; and the other for
alterations, would assist applicants in assembling the
necessary plans, documents and approvals in order to
process a relatively simple permit application.
2. PZixed-use development;
3. Commercial development;.
4. Industrial development:
P4ixed-use, commercial, and industrial development guides
would assist professionals by putting into practical
terms local development criteria as established by city
ordinance. These guides should be well illustrated, and
organized according to zoning requirements. ;
-1-
_' i
5. Architectural Review Board
uidelines for suns.
6. Environmental Impact Report: Summarize EIR process with
flow eh art. This guide is a low priority, as there
was only ane EIR required in Santa Monica last year,
Both the AFB and EIR permit processes would be
referenced in outline form in the other permit
process guides, with special attention to the
particular impact of EIR and ARB requirements
on each of those procedures.
C. Guides should include the following information where
appropriate:.
1. Simple explanations of procedures with flow charts;
2. Selected ordinance sections, including applicable
zoning requirements;
3. Appropriate sample forms;
4. Complete list of all permits needed with checklists of
information requirements for each;
5. Official time frames and deadlines with typical or
average processing times;
6. Directories of elected and appointed officials which
`include descriptions of rep=few agencies, names and
phone numbers of responsible personnel, and the
organizational structure of departments;
7. 'Fee schedules;
8. :Parking design standards;
9. Glossary.
-10. A summari~ of precedents established in past ARB decisions,
which describe design criteria applicable to .each
permit procedure;
11. Landseaoing criteria, including those developed by
.the ARB; __
12. Public safety requirements, e.g.: exterior lighting,
double tumbler locks, smoke detectors;
13. Energy conservation measures:
- _2_
D. Guidebooks should be formulated with i,put from local
homeowners' associations, neighborhood organizations,
local architects, engineers, developers, city departments
and commissions, including the ARB and others affected.
The Planning Department should have primary responsibility
for preparation of the guidebooks; consultants, who
specialize in such guidebooks, may be utilized to assist in
their preparation, to the extent warranted by conditions
in the Planning Department such as heavy workloads. The
Permit Task Force should be designated as the advisory
body to oversee the preparation of the guidebooks.
Guidebooks should be updated periodically, with recent
additions published in the local paper. Separate guidebooks
are advisable as each is directed towards disparate
constituencies in varying numbers. Guidebooks should be
developed as cheaply and practically as possible, tvithout
sacrificing quality, and should be sold at cost.
2)
3)
4)
It is recommended that departmental and City Council policy
changes, including potential policy changes, where feasible,
regarding development of private property, shall be published
at a set time every month, as needed, e.g.: the 1st FL 3rd
Friday of each month, in accordance with normal city procedures.
Sueh policy changes are to be cleared through the City ?~4anager
before being published.
[Vherever a developer is presently regained to give notice to
all owners within 300' of parcel, developer should be required
to give notice to all tenants within 300'- as well. laany
tenants are as significantly affected by development,
especially where the owner is absentee. Mechanisms for
notification will be formulated wheh neighborhood planning
procedures are considered by the task force.
It is recommended that a lay person, with interest `and experience
in environmental matters be appointed to the Environmental
Quality Review Committee to review EIA's. To the extent-
feasible, it is d=sirable to have some type of representation
of neighborhocds being affected by a proposal. The Task Force...
will develop more specific recommendations on this representation
at a later date.
5) The 9RB should attempt to codify or restate its criteria on the
.basis of prior decisions, and to summarize important decisions _..____ _
which help to clarify those criteria. The ARB should also
examine the possibility of allowing staff counter approval of
selected permit applications and should identify the types of
development and signs, or establish criteria, for which such
ministerial approval would be appropriate.
_3_
:, ,~ '
6) The City Corm cil has many times reaffirmed the principle that
cit functions ou ht to be self-su
Y g pporting. This is certainly
true for .the permit process (both approving plans and enforcing
compliance). Each city department involved in the process
ought to calculate the costs of its involvement, broken down
by type of permit and city function performed. These should
be aggregated to determine cost of each permit. Sucli calcu-
lations should be made periodically since city functions
change. If the recommendations of this and other task forces
are accepted, the city may have to devote more resources to the
permit process; that should be taken into account in fixing fees.
7) Future revievi of the permit process.
A. It is recommended that further review of the current
planning department permit process occur within 6 months
of the City Council adoption of recommendations, of the
Residential and Commercial Task Forces,. which change the
overall planning procedure. The intent of this review, to
be conducted by staff and/or the Permit Task Force, will
be to respond to these changes by formulating recommendations
to streamline the permit process..
B. It is also recommended that subsequent review in elude
consideration of the criteria .for Planning j~epartmeht/
Commission .approval of special conditions such as adjust-
ments and variances. The Planning Department%Commission,
in conjunction with irinut from the community of developers, '
should compile a list of unnecessary adjustments and
variances,-such as those routinely granted, with the
intent of amending the Zoning Ordinance by eliminating
unwarranted requirements. The following are examples of
potential areas of chance:
1. Eliminate need for adjustment for. greenhouse windows in '
sidefback yards;. _ `:
2. Eliminate need for variance for greenhouse windows in
front yards;
3. Eliminate need far adjustment for up to 2` chimney
projections in side/back yards if yards are ~ 5 feet;
4. Eliminate need for variance for up to 2` chimney
projections in front yards if yards are ~ 15 feet;
5. Eliminate need for adjustment if detached garage is
10` to 3` away from main building; and
6. Eliminate need for adjustment for solid platform fences
__
that are no more than 6 1/2' above grade. iu
_ _
8) & 9) Recommendations on creating (8) a centralized counter service
and (9) a staff concept review conference for major projects.
Purpose: Provide the means to make application procedure
simpler and smoother by eliminating multiple stops at the
entry stage and by staff knowledge of large projects at the
entry stage.
.Although bottlenecks in the Santa it4onica permit process are
considered. minor in comparison to other municipalities, the
development permit process may still be streamlined as
outlined by state law by providing a central-point of contact
and by establishing a staff concept review. conference process.
-for major projects.
8) A Centralized Counter:`
A streamlined permit processing system with a central counter
as a single point of intake for permit applications will be
staffed by cross-trained personnel from all involved departments
who will handle everything but the technical review of submitted
projects. This will still be performed by professionals in
the different departments. Counter staff will ansii~er ques-
tions about application procedures, collect applications and
fees, route plans for review, and issue final permits. The
central counter will be the place where first time, users ahd
established businesspeople will go for general information.
The central counter is not meant to hinder any other procedures
that quicken the permit process system. Guidebooks on different
permit procedures will be available at this counter along with
other pertinent materials.
The central counter personnel would be greatly aided by a
computer console with printout capabilities with a program to
hold application and land use information. This program will
help developers discover where in the permit process or
construction process a project is, what items or information
are missing to allow the continued processing of reviews,
approvals, and inspections, and what legal issues might be
associated with a property. To overcome software expense,
it might be more feasible to phase the information into two
parts--information for the Planning Department and information
for the Building.Department. ~ __-
Establishing a central information and permit process counter
will require some reorganization within the city government
structure, a process already under way. It is recommended that
the existing Building Department be in charge of developing
the centralized information counter concept with computer
_ capabilities as an integral part of its existing counter set-up
and that a six month report be prepared with recommendations for
future changes and phasing of computer capabilities. The
Building Department should be assisted by other departments,
including Data Processing, as well as outside consultants for
computer software, where required.
-5-
__
9) A Staff Concept Review Conference (see attached flowchart):.
A staff concept review conference can provide the applicant
with a timely review of the development plans and a
preliminary screening to assess the probability of approval,
Benefits include reducing the number of applications with
errors and omn?issions, alleviating difficulties between
review staff and the applicant before expensive technical
materials are prepared, alerting developers to potential
obstacles ahead, and providing staff with extra lead time
to do ho::iework when a project requires special studies,.
legaa opinions, etc.
Many large projects are often well into the permit process
before that' have been reviewed by all the interested
agencies and departments. Unfortunately major projects
often meet with departmental; commission, or .citizen.
reaction after large expenditures for designer time
and various fees have. been made. At this point, adversary
relationships often develop between applicants, city
officials, and city residents.
It is recommended that all projects of new construction be
reviewed. Remodels which result in 300 additional square
feet, or more, or 20io or greater increase in square footage
of the existing structure, will require review; remodels less
than these limits would be reviewed at the request of the "
prospective applicant. Trese limits are intended~to tentatively
establish initial guidelines, subject to adjustment after further
consideration and experience with re:-iewing these projects.
The staff concept review conference is a preliminary review _'
step. The. plans and ideas subreitted should be sketch plans and
ideas regarding land use, street and lot arrangement and size,
general building layout and choice of materials and design.
Discussion about minor issues that can be approved early is
-- .'encouraged but. no formal signatures a?-e to be expected
at this review.
-The staff concept review conference process will be headed
by the Planning Director. The review committee shall
consist of the planning director and an assistant, a building
official, a fire .official, and a general services official. /"
It is recommended that a six month report be prepared by the
revievr committee, detailing more specifically the appropriate
role of the conceit review process, including the question of
whether the process is overly inclusive or under inclusive.
The review committee shall meet a minimum of every other week
at an appointed time. P4inutes shall be kept as a record of
what has transpired. Its findings shall be advisory only, __
` '.for the applicant may wish to pursue through the full permit
-- ~ _
process concepts that are .not familiar to the city.
_g_ ~
ti -_
The staff concept review conference .will help streamline the
permit process by giving the developers a preliminary staff
opinion of proposed major projects. Too many projects area
into the commission review stage before being looked at
closely and end up causing delay by having to reappear at
various commission hearings, thereby wasting the time of
staff, commissioners, other applicants, and themselves.
10) Recommendations on project compliance with approved plans.
Purpose: To provide the city with the means to insure that
the completed project is in conformance with the approved
plans.
A. It is recommended-that the city staff assign personnel:
to review completed projects and to review their
compliance with the approved packtcge concerning'site
and building layout, choice and use of materials, and
landscape installation.
B. It is recommended that all agencies and city departments
stamp and sign off a final set of plans, including, where
appropriate, but not limited to, the Architectural Review
Board, the Planning Cammission, Traffic & Parking, and
Parks 8: Recreation (Landscaping); where a Certificate
of Occupancy is required, all sign offs are to be obtained
before the Certificate is issued; where a performance bond
is required, for any purpose, all sign offs :rust be obtained
- ~ before the bond can be released by the Building Officer, -*
upon completion of the project; the City shall use its
normal enforcement powers in all remaining situations.
~~~ - G"
~~ ~
~~T
G~ CENTRAL ~ ^-
~_ ,~ CONCEPT ~~ Staff Concept
COUNTER PAf.KIaGF o~,,;...., r,._r..,_..___
:;
E
~~ I ~ ! i PACf:AGE ~ ! "'flProcess
~Landsmarks,
'Rent Control
Coastal Com.
etc.
FIfJAL APPROVAL: 'Compliance with approved ~L!_/~Ll/`7~~ /
packages of layout, materials, landscaping. /'~
.Y'L~.+L
----
~ I~, ~~
~ ~ .
~., _ .
u_._~~ _
~1:TT~CFI~IENT zZ
REGU°LAR MEETtPdG OF THE CITY PLANNIIVG COMMISSIOfd
MOfdDAY, SEP7Eh96ER 2I, lgsYo AT 7e30 PoM.
ICd THE COUPdCIL CHAMBER
I. The meeting was palled to order at ~~35 p.mo by Chairman Pro Tempore Kleffe7.
2. ROLL CALLe Presento Robert Kleffel, Chairman Pro Tempore
Susan Cloke
Frank Notohkiss
T•isa McKee
Derek Shearer
Robert Sullivan
Absents 4derbert Katzv Or., Chairman
Also Pr^esento 4ettylou BorrsVay, Deputy City Attorney
James Lansford, Director of Planning
Lyn Kuhl, Secretary, Planning Department
~0 The Pledge of Allegiance was lied by ,Comsrei,ssioner Notchkisso
~. The August 25, 1g8i minutes were approved nn a motion by Commissioner Hotchkiss,
seconded by Commissioner S~iearer, subject to correction of the first vote to change
Commissioner McKee°s vote from Aye to Nay.. The vote was unanimously favorable.
The August 3Y, 198I minutes were unanimously approved on a motion by Commis
sinner Sullivan and a seca~nd by Commissioner SYiaarer.
5o PUBLIC HEARINGS;
Ao 'f ask Force Recommendations
The Commission began review of the recommendatEons of tl~e Permit Processing
and Neighborfronod Planning Task Force. Director Lunsfard suggested `that the staff
report be given by either Joseph Eisenhut or .Dennis ()uilliam, Planning staff members
who had worked as staff liaisons 'r"or this task force Mr, Eisenhut spoke first
and introduced the acting chairpeo^son, Sara F'aulds> She noted two separate goals
osf this task force. to develop a stream7ihed permit process and to develop a
process for neighborhood planning, She noted all ®f the members were unanimously
in approval of the resulting recommendations.and in their appreciation of the aid
given by staff liaisons Esennut and Quilliam< She then introduced Curt Ullman
and Ralph Mechur°, Task Force members9 who reviewed the Permit Process and responded
to questions from the Commissioo7a ,Commissioner McKee requesteef that the Commissiarr.
reced•ve minutes of future Task Force meetingso Commissioner Sullivan questioned
the advisory capacity+ noted in the Permit Process: Ce~mmissioner Cloke noted the
value of the guidebook proposal, Chairman Pro '~empore Kleffel closed the hearing,
there being. no one else from the audienee wishing to comment, and waved the Commis-
sion to dispassion of the recommendations presented Icy the Development Permit Pracesso
Sectaon I)o Commissioner Cloke waved to support t{7e concept of guide books and send
it to the Council with Commission'suppor°ty adding Carnmissioher McKee's suggestion..
to include mixed use development in-the Commercial and Industrial Development
segments of the guidebaaksi and that guidebooks be reviewed by the Planning Commism
sion while in process as~d in final rtraft, Commissioner Hotchkiss seeanded the
motiono Commissioner McKee suggested phanging C-IO':an page ? to cover only the
description of design criteria, eliminating the '`summary of precedents established
in past ARB decisions.°` °Che motion v°ras restated by the maker to recommend that
Section I} on Guidebooks be forwarded to the City Council w%th Corca>fission support
and the following pomments~ that.. the Commission feels %hat under. Item I}B; mixed
use development should be considered as part of Items I}B-I, ~-~ and ~4, as opposed
to being a separate item; that under Section I}CuIO, fhe Commission`s poncern is
that the Architectural Review Board have more jurisdicf€nn over how to present
itS des lqn pri tPr'I a: ~nr~ ~a nrlar 91n i4 ~~ +h ~. Fw.,,n,ry ^..: ,. ,. r,. ...z_u ~.~_,. ,. o__ .._-_ ~. ...
Planning Commission Minutes -2- September 21, 1981
Section 2): Ms. Faulds and Mr. Eisenhut were called upon to give an explanation
of the section. Commissioner Cloke moved that while making the maximum possible.
information available to the public is a City goal, this section is felt to be
unnecessary, adding at Commissioner Sul7ivan's request that all changes be
channeled through cne offioe. ldith Commissioner Sullivan°s second, the motion
carried as noted:
AYE: Cloke, Hotchkissy Mcl.ee, 5ullivan9 Kleffel
?iAY: Shearer
ASSENT: Katz
Section 3): Curing discussion Commissioner McKee noted Program 37 in the draft
Housing Element, which also concerned the matter of public notification. She moved
;that a flexible notification radius be addpted to correspond to the scale of develop-
ment, with tenants as well as owners being notifieds and that notice be given when
the Architectural Review Board is considering large scale projects, and including
the recommendations made in Section 8. .Commissioner Cloke seconded the motion, add-
ing that the developer be required to provide the notice. Comanissioner Hotchkiss
requested that the developer be provided with. a clear notification procedure whi'chA
if adequately complied uaithywould relieve him of liability. 3oth amendments were
accepted and .the motion carried by the following vote:
AYE: Cloke, Hotchkiss, McKee; Shearer, Kleffel
NAY: Sullivan
ABSENT: Katz
Section 4 : Commissioner Sullivan moved that the Commission recommend against
this proposal for reasons of conflict with the City E1anager form of government.
Seconded by Commissioner Notch kiss, the motion received unanimous vote of the six
members present.
Section 5): The Commission studied a memdrandum from the Architectural Revievr
Board. Commissioner Cloke moved that 'the Commission support the idea that the
Architectural Review Board continue to participate in establishing ahd presenting
its criteria :iin a clear fashion and that the Commission suggest that the decision
as to the presentation be determined by the Architectural Review board. Seconded
by Commissioner McKee, the motion carried by unanimous vote of the sir. members
present.
Section 6): Commissioner Hotchkiss moved to forward this section to the City
Council with the Commission's support. Seconded by Commissioner Sullivan, the
motion carried by unanimous vote of the six members present.
Section 7 Commissioner Hotchkiss moved to forward this section to the Gity
Council with the corrment that the recommendations appear to merit further cansid~
eration o-Jith the third line changed to now read.° "of the City Council action on
the recommendations, of the°°. Seconded by Commissioner Su"Ilivan the motian passed
with a unanimous vote of the six members present.
Section 8}: MP^. Quilliam responded to questions concerning the computer processing
and ;centralized data base proposals. Commissioner Hotchkiss moved to forward this
item with support for the centralized counter concept, sta?wing the Commission
believed the computer system proposal merited consideration but urged caution on the
cost effectiveness and feasibility of implementation. Seconded by Commissioner
Sullivan, the motian was withdrawn fora motion by Commissioner Cloke recommending
a ;central point-of-intake counter to the Council with the Commission's strong sup_
port, noting that the Commission felt tl7e addition of putting City data onto a
computer farm would be very desirable.,and urging Council support. Seconded by
Commissioner Shearer, the motion failed to .carry as noted:
AYE: Cloke, McKee, Shearer
NAY: Hotchkiss, Sullivan, Kleffel
ABSENT: Katz
Planning Commission Minutes -3d September 21, 1981
Section 9 : Follovring a review by Planning Director Lunsford, Commissioner
Sullivan moved to forward this item with no consensus. Commissioner Hotchkiss
seconded; however, Corr¢nissioner Cloke made a substitute motion to send this sec-
tion to the Council with the recommendation that the Commission supports the con-
cept and suggests that specifics be wos~ked out in concert with staff. Commissioner
McKee seconded the motion with her amendment accepted to,note the Commission`s con-
tern for the delay g~assibil.ity and to request that minutes of the conference
always-be forwarded with the next agenda packet for the Commission's information.
Following further discussions the substitute motion parried as follokvs:
AYE: Clokes Hotchkiss, McKee, Shearers lCleffel
PLAY: 5~17ivan
Section 10): Commissioner Sullivan moved to forward this proposal to the City
Council with a further recommendation that the Certificate of Occupancy not be
granted until the developer had met all criteria set forth by the Architectural
Review Board and Planning Commission and that it be the responsibility of the
building officer doing the final irASpect~lon to determine this; He later added...
a further cirndition--that in the absence of a Certificate of Occupancy, such
inspection should be done at the direction of the p'9anning officer. Seconded bsr
Commissioner Shearer, the motion s°eceived six unanimously favorable votes.
Prior to moving on, Commissioner Cloke moved that a letter of commendation be
forwarded to the members of the Task Force.. Seconded by Commissioner Sullivans
this motion received unanimous approval.
B. Z. A. Case Na. 4438--Y
The staff report concerned an appeal by Rosarro Perry ,from the
Acting Zoning-Administrator°s denial of his request for a variance of parking
regulations at 1333 Ocean Avenue in the C3 District. Mr. Lunsford noted that
a continuance had beeoB requested by the appellant in order to prepare adequate
photographs and plans for his presentation before the Corranission. The :audience
was asked if there were anyone present to speak on the matter, There being none,
Commissioner Sullivan moved to continue the public hearing to October 19, 1481.
Seconded by Commissioner C1oke, the motion carried unanimously.
C. ARB Case No. 1614.
The staff report ooncerned an appeal of the Architectural Review Board's
denial of a sign permit for Lynch Lincoln Mercury bFfices at 1224 Santa Monica
Boulevard. Bab Gordon, of Local Neons spoke for the appeal as did Robert Kramer,
part-owner of the company, both responding to questions from the Commission.
There being no on present from the Architectural Review Board and no one else
wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed..!. Discussion follovred and Commis-
sioner Sullivan moved to support the appeal and grant the installation of the Subaru
sign oh the east wall ~+ith the following conditions: that the Capri sign and
the two pro,iecting lease signs be removed from the strUC'tU{^e. Seconder Commis-
sionen Hotchkiss'asked far modification of the motion to suate that location of
the Subaru sign would be at the customer°s discretion. This was accepted by the
maker who then added to his motion that this action did not constitute approval
of the whole sign program for that property. The motion earried as follows:
AYE: Hotchkiss McKee, Sullivans Kleffel
NAY: Cloke
ABSTAIN: Shearer
D, ARB Case No. 1606
T{'1P C~'a'~•'F D^csnnb"E' rnnrunnorE nn >nnr~7Y nF' 4hn flv.nFi+nn+.~,..~1 D.. ••.'..... O..-. ....l 1•.
Planning Commission Minutes ~4- September 21, 1931
6. OLD BUSINESSo
A. Housing Element
Director Lansford noted that a joint study session with the Citizens
Advisory Cammittee for the Housing Element to be held October 5, 1981 at 6:60 p.m.
in tha Council Chamber. He sled stated that a Request for proposal for bidding -
on .the Housing Element environmental and fiscal impact reports had been issuede
7. PEEN BUSICIESSo
A. Extension: Tentative Tract No. 37926
The staff report was for a new twelve-unit condominium proposed for 1855e
1.859 Ninth Street by Luis Villalobos, noting that under the moratorium the request
for extension must be denied. ComrnissiorFer Shearer, seconded by Commissioner
McKee, moved to deny the requested extension. The motiars failed as noted:
AYE:. Cloke, McKee, Shearer
ABSTAINS Hotchkiss, Sullivaro, Kleffel
ABSENTS Katz
B. Modification, Tentative Tract No. 40221
The staff report concerned a request for modification of the approved plans
for a new six~unit condominium at 1013 Tenth Street. by Jesse Aptaker; eFice president.
of Fireside Builders Inc. Commissioner Sullivan moved that the Commission approve
the requested modification. Seconded by Commissioner Hatch kiss, the motion carried
by the following vote
AYf: C1o;ke; Hotchkiss, McKee, 5ullivah, Kleffel
ABSTAIN: Shearev~
ABSENT: Kota
8. COMMUWICATIONSa
None.
9. COMMISSION AGENDAo
None.
10. ADJOURNMENTo
The meeting was adjourned at 10020 p.m. on a mat9on by Commissioner Sullivan
which was seconded by Commissioner Cloke and agreed to unanimously by the six
members present.
CITY OF SANTA MONICA'S
DEVELOPMENT PERP4IT PROCESS AND NEIGHBORHOOD
PLANNING TASK FORCE
M E M G R A N D U P-1
DATE: November 3, 1981
~~ ~~
/V
NOV ;; 1931
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Task Force on Permit Process and Neighborhood Planning
SUBJECT: Response to Comments by Planning Commission on
Task Force Proposals of August 27, 1981.
On September 21, 1981, the Planning Commission held a
hearing at which it considered the proposals of our task
force and members of the task force made brief presentations.
The Task Force now wishes to respond to some of the comments
and motions of the Planning Commission. The following
responses are keyed to the original section numbers of our
proposals.
2) The Planning Commission may have been influenced by the
fact that in recent months, and in the near future,
there have been and will be a substantial number of
significant changes in the planning and Hermit process.
Although this ma_y make it more difficult to produce
bi-monthly notices, it is all the more important to do
so. The love! of the production of notices will
undoubte3ly d<cline in the future. The requirement of
notice should not be unduly burdensome, and will not
result in the }::oduction of unnecessary regulations.
3) Our primary intent was to ensure that whenever property
owners are entitled to notice, tenants are notified as
well. We feel that a 300' radius is sufficient for minor
projects (less than 20,000 sq.ft.) but that major
developments (more than 20,000 sq. ft.) should give
notice to all residents within a 500' radius.
4) Our reason for recommending participation by a layperson
in the EQRC was to ensure that affected neighborhoods be
given adequate advance notice of projects so that they
could participate in the environmental review process.
However, we now feel that the proposed method is
inappropriate. A single layperson cannot adequately
perform that function for every neighborhood in the city,
and lay participation might render the environmental
review process less efficient. We understand that the
EQRC has broadened the notice it gives of pending matters.
We think this is exactly the right dircetion in which to
go, and therefore recommend that the EQRC agenda be sent
to any neighborhood group or resident of Santa Monica /1 /J i1/
who indicated an interest in receiving it. ~ JG~-(~`-
Od '~~
NOVA
fG
'9r
City Council -2- November 3, 1981
9) The Planning Commission expressed fear that the Staff
Concept Review Conference might slow down the permit
process. Our object is just the reverse--to speed up
that process by clarifying and resolving potential problems
as early as possible. If delays do occur this should
be noted in the review of the proposed innovations
which we suggest should occur after six months, and
changes made at that time.
10) We have two objectives here: to ensure that all the
requirements of all city departments are fully communicated
to the developer; and to ensure that compliance with
those requirements is verified before the certificate
of occupancy is issued. We therefore recommend that
a single set of plans be signed off by every city
department involved,. indicating that the plans contain
the requirements imposed by that department, and that a
single building inspector have ultimate responsibility
for verifying that those rquirements have been met
during the periodic inspection that occur while the
development is in progress.
Prepared by: Rick Abel, Task Force Chairman