Commission Questions Proposed Downtown Design Standards, Review Process

By Olin Ericksen

March 22 -- Members of the Planning Commission will meet behind closed doors Monday to discuss a contentious staff proposal that would not only cast a mold for future residential buildings Downtown, but also shape who will review and approve those projects.

In an effort to streamline the development process – which city planners say can take up to nine months – the City worked closely with the architectural firm of Roma Design on a prototype for courtyard-style buildings, some as tall as six stories, that could effectively bypass any public review.

Last Wednesday, planning commissioners balked at recommending either plan to the City Council, and many expressed particular misgivings about transferring review power for Downtown residential projects up to 30,000 square feet -- roughly the size of a 50-unit building -- to planning staff.

Currently, anything larger than 7,500 square feet is reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and can be appealed to the planning commission. Both steps require public imput.

“My main concern is you have developed a prototype, and any building that meets that prototype can escape discretionary reviews,” said Commissioner Barbara Brown at last Wednesday’s planning meeting.

“I’m trying to imagine a street full of those courtyard buildings," she said. "We don’t want a street full of cookie cutters.”

Commissioner Jay Johnson agreed with staff, saying the “democratic process needs some streamlining” to avoid unnecessary delays, but noted they also have to balance the rights of the ARB, the planning commission, and the public.

Johnson suggested a change in the process that would “frontload” a lot of the more serious design issues, yet keep the oversight to allow public input on projects.

The most outspoken critic on the loss of oversight was Commission Chair Darrell Clarke

In an interview with The Lookout after the meeting, Clarke hinted that divisions between staff and the commission could run deeper than they appeared at Wednesday’s meeting.

“There is always a tension between the commission and staff,” he said. “It’s the nature of the process.”

The plan as drawn, Clarke said, “certainly would change the balance of power between the staff and the board… by giving more power to the staff. In effect, if a project met the design specifications, it would eliminate public review on any projects, except those that are very large.

“The proposal would potentially increase the property tax base, which the City council wouldn’t mind. Developers like it, City staff like it. Very few besides us and the ARB are questioning” the loss of oversight.

Clarke pointed out that both the ARB and the planning commission is made up exclusively of volunteers whose job it is to help ensure a sustainable and livable Santa Monica.

Nina Fresco, who chairs the Landmarks Commission, said she too had problems with the change because it could endanger the “mere 55 buildings Downtown that make up its historic fabric.

“From my landmarks perspective,” Fresco said, “I see (the new planning process) taking away the public process when evaluating compatibility with adjacent landmarks and (historic) inventory structures.

“Public review is definitely urgently needed for historic buildings as our city does not have a proven track record” of preserving such buildings, she added.

This is not the first time tension has risen between staff and the planning commission.

After the City Council failed to reappoint former commissioner Kelly Olsen last November, the “slow-growth” proponent accused the planning staff and Director Susanne Frick in particular with corruption and with influencing a key vote to remove him from the board.

Frick adamantly denied the accusations in an open letter she read to the planning commission later that month.

Commissioners Hopkins, Johnson and Pugh will meet as a subcommittee Monday afternoon to work through some of the issues raised at last week’s meeting.

The entire planning board will again consider the plan on Wednesday. In addition to the loss of review power, commissioners will try and work out some of the problems with the design features they faced last week.

Commissioners Gwynne Pugh and Arlene Hopkins -- who are both architects -- said that many courtyard-style buildings they have seen in San Francisco, Istanbul, Paris and Amsterdam are dark, cramped and noisy.

“I have issues with solar access in these buildings and the fact that the rhythm going down the street won’t be broken up,” Pugh said. “You could end up with these gashes developed in between buildings that are courtyards.”

But Boris Dramov of Roma Design group-- whose firm was hired by the City to design such prototypes -- said the buildings will in fact provide 20 to 30 percent more sunlight.

Others on the dais expressed concern over the height limits, some of which would reach 65 feet, up from the current standard of 50 feet.

“Can you show me any examples of what a 65 foot shear wall would look like?” asked Commissioner Clarke. “I mean I need to actually see it to get a feel of its size.”

Planning Director Frick said it was too much of an experimental design and that no examples could sufficiently demonstrate the building.

That led to a passionate debate between Clarke and Frick about the design, with Clarke exclaiming that he “can’t make this type of decision on graphs and charts.”

Others on the board expressed similar concerns. Commissioners were also concerned about the proposed setback and stepback requirements; how constricting streets from four lanes to two lanes would affect traffic and the amount of parking spaces allotted in the design.

Despite these problems, many on the board said the details could probably be worked out.