sr-110381-10a add-toA ~
C ~. LCtr ~` _~.
CITY OF SANTA MONICA'S
DEVELOPMENT PERPRIT PROCESS AND NEIGHBORHOOD
PLANNING TASK FORCE
PQ E M O R A N D U M
DATE:
T0:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
November 3, 1981
Honorable City Council
~~~ ~a
/V
N~V 181
Task Force on Permit Process and Neighborhood Planning
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,
them have been and will be a substantial number of
significant changes in the planning and Hermit process.
Although this ma:~ make it more difficult to produce
bi-monthly notices, it is all the more important to do
so. The leve' of the production of notices will
undoubte3ly c'°cline in the future. The requirement of
notice snoulu 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.
LVe 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 /~~~ fL
who indicated an interest in receiving it. / l CC~~--
la-,~
~aov~ ,~,
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. bVe 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