sr-022575-11c// C.:,
Santa Monica, Californ}a, February 18, 1975
r~
~~
T0: Mayor and Clty Council
FROMo City Manager
SUBJECTa Consolidation of Planning Related Functiams
Introduction
/`~~
(/
~;~ 1~
~; z
~"A > e"a
F~~ %5 X975
resl~ ru,'~a~ ~~
~~~v~•~~ts x~ ~~g
C1TY CS.~rcaY'~ t~~
This`report -is 'informational and transmitsthe staf#'s recommendation for
consolidation of San#a-Monica's various planning and environmentally re-
fated functions into a single department:
Background
In recent years a number of developments in land use p}arming and environmental
management have caused cities to re-examine their traditional approach to the
planning process, The continuing concern over environmenta} and economic
issues along with the recognition that land use planning must be related to
changing transportation needs, human resources,. energy conservation and the
need to strengtheh the financial base of the cities have lead to the widespread
reorganization of the planning related functions at the l,ocat level,
Discussion
Santa hlonica's planning related functipns are currently fragmented and
carried through several separate C'sty Departments, Although the Planning
Department is responsiSle for the long-range and current planning functions,
including zoning administration, the zoning enforcement is presently admin-
istered by the Building Department
The property management function of the City is currently performed 6y three
separate departments, While the Redevelopment Agency is responsib}e for
managing Agency avmed property, the Recreation and Parks. and the Admin-
istrative Services Departments manage other City owned property such as the
pier.
.. :~
Mayor and Council -2- February T8, 1975.
Both the Planning Department and the Redevelopment Agency gather and maintain
planning and building related data and both have responsibility for environ-
mental impact. reports which are presently prepared by consultants and devel-
opersa
Development project planning, which often significant7yaffects areas.
beyond the project boundaries, is currently the exclusive function of the
Redevelopment Agency. .Coordination with the city-wide planning process
is insufficient.
_ _.
In summary., the fragmentation of the planning, environmental, and development
activities of the City has resulted in overlapping of functions and duplication
of efforts which are both costly and inefficient, More importantly, this frag-
mentation tends to restrict the City's ability to achieve its overall
community improvement objectives,.
Consolidation of Planning Related Functions
In recent years numerous communities throughout the state and nation fiave
combined various planning and environmentally related functions into a single
Department of Community Development, Such departments most commonly include
planning, building and redevelopment, The table below lists 23 California
cities with populations of more than 50,-000 that have already consolidated
various planning related functions;
Mayor and Council _3_ February 18, T975
CALIFORNIA CITIES WITH A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARThIENT
CITY POPULATION
1970 CITY POPULATION
1970
1Anaheim 166,118 Richmond 78,088
Carson 71,626 Sa^ Leandro 68,688
Fremont 100,875 San Mateo 7g, 025
Fullerton 85,919 San Diego 696,566
Garden Grove 122,560 San Jose 446,509.
Huntington Beach 115,988 Salinas 58,896
Inglewood 80,014 Santa Clara 87,$73
Ontario 64,105 Simi Valley 56,676
Orange 77,92 Stockton T07;459
~Pato Alto 56,027 Sunnyvale 95,200
(Pasadena
I 113,25 4 Ventura 57,455
jPomona
~_ 87,418
i
Mayor and Council -4- February 18, 1975
Advantages. of Consolidation
Consolidation of planning related functions would result in a more efficient
administrative organization; one that is more responsive to the needs of the
.public as well as the policies of the City Counci1.. Some of the major benefifs
of consolidation include
1, Improved service effectiveness resulting from cross-utilization and
sharing of staff= resources,
2, Improved er"ficiency resulting from utilization of personnel at a.'
higher leve 1. of productivity..
3> Improved coordination which will enable the-City to take a more unified
and positive stand in shaping its future, to direct rather than react to
developer activityo
4, Improved services to citizens, and developers ,.through a '!one. step"
service for all development and property improvement permits.
5> Opportunity to develop a more systematic ordinance preparation and
enforcement through provision for routine feedback of results of planning
decisions to the planning staff.
Community Development Organizational Structure
.The consolidation plan for Santa Monica would include the present depart-
. ments of Planning;.. Building and Redevelopment. The departments
will become divisions and the Community Development Director will assume
coordination responsibility over the three divisions. Except for the addition
of an Environmental Impact Review Section, consisting of ttito staff positions
s
to the Planning Division, no internal organizational changes are contemplated,
The Environmental Impact Review Section is needed to prepare EfRS for a)1
public and private projects. EIRS are current}y prepared by outside con-
Mayor and Council _5_ February 18, 1975
sultants and developers, The use of consultants has proven quite costly,
and the developer-prepared EIRS have generally been biased, requiring
substantial staff. review and correction, ,With the addition of the pro-
posed Environmental impact Section, the developers would be required to'
pay for the services of the City Staff rather than the gene rat public,
Costs of Consolidation
The proposed consolidation will generate no additional costs and will
probably result in cost reductions by sharing of staff rzsources now
scattered in three separate departments, Additionat savings will also
result from reduced use of outside consultants,
Implemzntation
Functional implementation will occur immediately. with budgetary modifications
to occur inthe 1975-7o budget. -
JDbl;JJ:gh
a
r ~>
~/~~°'~"r_-X11-"~' ~~ ~.
:aIayor Clo Hoover $ i4iembers of the Council
City Hall
Santa !~?onica
Dear Clo and Council lembers,
859 23rd. Street
Santa Monica 9Q4~3
February 25, 197;75
Y.~-.~'~
~.
r. ~~ ~s 1
~~ t~
I am writing to ask you to put item 11C an tonight's a~?enda over
for further public discussion and input prior to your consid.er-
atior.. The proposal, as it comes before you, has received no
public airing. Private meetings were held for the Planning
Commissioners - at one of those meetings four Planning Commissioners
Caere present with the City Manager at one time. You certainly
must recognize that planning matters generate a hid degree of rublie
interest in our city. It would seem reasonable that the public
have some opportunity to digest this recommendatior, and to comment
upon it.
:~4y main concern is that the level of public involvement in the
planning process will be downgraded if this proposed re-orgar.i.zation
goes into effect. I have an additional concern that the city
bureaucracy is growing by leaps and bounds while the income necessary
to support the bureaucracy is not growing accordingly. The hand-
writing is on the wall - if we increase the responsibilities of the
Community Development Director it uron't be long before he needs an
assistant and then they will need another secretary, Presently both
the City Planning Department and the Building Department are very
accessible to the public. I have never had any reason to criticize
the level of service from either of these departments.
On the of}ier hand the history of the Community Development ~1Rency
(formerly Redevelopment) has not been all that. terrific in term of
public input, etc. It is all very well, on paper, to say that this
consolidation will enable the City to direct development rather than
react to development. However should we have the direction of develo?+-
ment under a department which is set up to serve developers when in
fact many of the people in our city are against development?
Certainly the democratic process does not lend itself to efficient
systems of management. I evould be very reluctant to endorse a.nv
departmental reorganization in the area of Planning which would tend
to lessencthe impact of the public on the Planning process. Public
involvement in planning requires additional time, eauses frustrations
for many, but on balance it is a good system, one which the nubli.c
relates cve1l to, and one which has served this eity fairly well.
The last example of '°directed development" which we had was the
island plan - a clear example of what happens i~.hen the public is
not involved in the planning process.
Before accepting this proposal I would urge you to get some answers
to the following questions.
1. 6uhat will the additional costs be to the City?
2. Doss Gity i-7anagement forsee the need for additional personnel?
3. Itihat will be the relationship of the Planning Commission to
the Community Development Director?
4. Since Planning is the more important function doesn't it make
sense to place Community Development under manning, rather
than the reverse?
5. I3y placing another level of bureaucracy over the manning
Department are not the citizens axial being denied. full access
to the decision-making process?
I urge you to give this matter full consideration, I hope that
my questions, and those of other citizens, will receive a full
public airing. I am fully aware that my bassc quarrel is with
the City Manager - I am reluctent to endorse the manner in. which
he wants to run the city, As a citizen I can only express my
canEern to you and urge you to provide for a full, Public
discussion o£ this Host important management decision.
's°ith regards,
Christine E, Reed