> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # City Hall considers silencing SM to cut through red tape - URL: https://www.smdp.com/city-hall-considers-silencing-sm-to-cut-through-red-tape/ - Published: 2004-04-15T15:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-23T04:13:10.000Z - Author: Carolyn Sackariason - Tags: Government & Politics, Santa Monica, #archive-import *SM City Hall paying nearly $200,000 to consultant* COUNCIL CHAMBER — The idea of stifling public comment so developers can get their projects approved faster isn’t sitting well with local leaders or community activists. A proposal to skip review by some City Hall advisory commissions for development projects throughout Santa Monica was presented in front of the City Council Tuesday. But the plan was met with hesitancy from politicians and resistance from dozens of residents. “I am absolutely outraged that you would ever consider abandoning the public process through the residents,” said one citizen, who suggested that whoever proposed the idea should be fired. “I am outraged... that you are about to approve something that will affect this city for years, if not decades, to come.” But the City Council was only considering the proposal, which came primarily from staffers within the planning department. Council members, most of who said public comment on projects is essential to protecting the quality of life here, didn’t make any decision. The issue was put off so it can be discussed further. However, the council did direct staff to come back at a later date with a proposal that includes a public review process and a shorter time frame for approvals. The planning department, which has been understaffed in the past year, has recently been under attack by the business community and developers for being too bureaucratic and slow in processing applications, permits and approvals. “But given the breadth and intensity of that criticism, your staff would be remiss not to have had highlighted the instant opportunity in achieving a greater predictability and timelier processing that are presented by adopting design standards,” City Manager Susan McCarthy told the council. As a way to shorten the time it takes to get a project approved, staff suggested that applications be administratively approved if the project meets agreed-upon standards. If the project meets those standards, no public review would be required by the Architectural Review Board. If the developer chooses not to comply with the standards — which are yet to be approved by the City Council — then a public review process would ensue. Skipping part of the public review could shave weeks, if not months, off of the approval process for developers, and free up time for planners to focus on “bigger picture” issues facing the city. As it is currently, it can take up to 94 weeks for a developer to get approval. But City Hall staff members estimate that the process could be dwindled down to nine weeks if the developer meets required standards and there are no appeals. “This is important to us... we are going to be undergoing some very significant policy issues, and the majority of our time is spent on permit review,” said Suzanne Frick, director of the planning department. “We are spending 90 percent of our time processing permits and not planning for the future of Santa Monica, which is of great concern.” > “We are spending 90 percent of our time processing permits and not planning for the future of Santa Monica...” — — SUZANNE FRICK Director of the planning department Larger issues such as the land use plan need to be updated, and Frick’s staff does-n’t have the time to focus on them because they are dealing with minute details in development applications, brought forward either by neighbors’ concerns or advisory board feedback. And although most officials believe projects become better as a result of an extensive review process, some feel City Hall is overzealous in picking apart development applications. Councilwoman Pam O’Connor said many times projects are held hostage in City Hall because the process is so long. As a result, staff and board members spend an inordinate amount of time reviewing plans on ad hoc projects. “We have nurtured a culture of micro-managing,” she said, adding significant time needs to be spent on larger policy issues that will attract more public input. Others suggest that City Hall’s own inefficiencies, particularly in the planning department, are to blame for the lengthy time it takes to get approval. Darrell Clarke, chair of the planning commission, said his board recently approved a project at Second Street and California Avenue in one meeting. That same project was approved in one meeting by the Architectural Review Board. But the process took five months. “What took five months? Something took five months,” he said. Clarke added that if the project is good and is compatible with the neighborhood, it shouldn’t take long to get approval. “The ARB doesn’t delay good projects,” he said. “Are we talking about suppressing public input from bad projects?” Planning commissioner Jay Johnson said although his board agreed with much of the proposed design standards for residential areas, it didn’t agree with eliminating public review. “The effort was to front-end the process,” he said, adding that the public should be able to comment on the project before the developer files an application. That way, the developer can address residents’ issues before the project even goes for City Hall review. Under that scenario, there would be a 30-day period that the developer would use to tweak the project and then file for the necessary permits. “Most developers will bend over backwards to accommodate the neighbors,” Johnson said. “It would eliminate 90 percent of the contentiousness.” Design standards for both residential and downtown areas, which were created with the help of consultant Roma Design Group, went through an extensive public review that included more than a dozen meetings with residents, advisory boards and elected officials. Roma Design Group, which City Hall is paying $193,400 for its services, also designed the Third Street Promenade. The standards include issues such as the height of new buildings, how far from the street they are and how much open space is in front of them, among many other things. Part of why it takes so long to approve a project has to do with the current standards, which many feel are too complicated. “The regulations we have today are very, very difficult to administer,” Frick said. “We believe the standards should establish a good project, not the process.” The City Council unanimously voted to discuss the standards for residential areas at its May 11 meeting, and the downtown standards will be put off until an undetermined date. But whatever happens, the council appears to be fighting to keep the public process intact. “I think it was quite a victory for community activists,” said Mayor Pro Tem Kevin McKeown, who acted as mayor at Tuesday’s meeting while Mayor Richard Bloom is vacationing in Argentina. “I want to increase efficiencies within City Hall and not limit public comment.” So residents worried about a massive building possibly going up next to them most likely will still have a venue to lodge their complaints. “We consider this our birthright in Santa Monica,” said longtime Santa Monica resident Ellen Brennan. *Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on April 15, 2004.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/041504.pdf?ref=smdp.com)