Item 11-D

Planning Commission Meeting: February 1, 2006 Santa Monica, California

TO: The Honorable Planning Commission

FROM: City Planning Staff

SUBJECT: Planning Commission Request for Information Regarding Options for Preliminary Project Review Prior to Formal Hearing

Background

The Planning Commission expressed interest in considering the merits of initiating a process to allow some project applicants to obtain early preliminary feedback on projects that will ultimately be decided by the Commission. An applicant requested that the Commission engage in this preliminary review before deciding whether to invest time and resources in a project that would include a bridge over the public right-of-way.

Discussion

Staff has considered a variety of issues involved in establishing a preliminary review process and has talked to the Planning Departments in a variety of cities, including those cities suggested by the applicant.

From these discussions, it appears that this process is helpful in some jurisdictions, but has not always been a positive experience. In one city where the opportunity was made generally available and a fee was charged to cover noticing and staff time, some applicants for residential projects told city staff that the expense of the process was not worth it, and that essentially it just doubled the hearing process. Another city reported that when they first allowed the process, there was no public noticing and as a result, when a project came forward for hearing, new issues were raised leading to an erosion of the Commission’s earlier support to the disappointment of the applicant. Since requiring noticing, this has happened less. Although early comments provided by Commissioners are not binding, applicants are likely frustrated when Commissioners change their opinion after receiving more information during the review process. Summaries of the issues and survey are attached herein.

Planners in several cities contacted in the Los Angeles region noted that the most utilized and appreciated feedback that they provide for their applicants is through inter-departmental review committees, such as the one that Santa Monica now offers involving review by Planning, Building & Safety, Fire Department, Engineering, Transportation Management and Open Space Management. This process helps coordinate the concerns of all of these departments, which helps applicants understand issues that await them in the process and how these issues would affect the recommendation staff might make. However, this group cannot predict whether unusual requests will be embraced by the Planning Commission.

If the Commission wishes to pursue this process, it is advisable to limit it to those situations that involve an unusual and/or controversial request. The threshold should be set in consideration of the Commission’s need to manage its time and the public’s time effectively so that these reviews do not become burdensome or delay the Commission’s other activities. Additionally, in order to minimize expense and avoid compromising staff’s full analysis of the application, the process should involve minimal staff preparation time and should not require staff analysis and a written report. Any cost for noticing and staff time should be borne by the applicant.

Implementation Process

This proposal raises legal concerns, including potential issues of improper prejudgment. Any land use decision that involves the application of general standards to specific parcels of property is adjudicatory in nature and therefore must satisfy due process requirements. Due process rights are not accorded only to a project applicant but may also be afforded to adjacent property owners where the impact of the project is substantial or significant. A basic due process tenet is that the decision-maker must be unbiased and not have actually prejudged the specific issues to be adjudicated. Early, preliminary review of projects may lead to due process challenges. Given this, and other concerns about the proposal, should this Commission recommend and the City Council ultimately determine to establish a process for preliminary project review, it would be preferable to codify this process, carefully defining its purpose and scope.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Planning Commission receive this report and discuss.

Attachments:

Summary Table: Planning Commission Early Development Review Policy Discussion

Planning Commission Early Development Review Policy Discussion

Components	Alternatives
Timing	Pre-application Post-application: Following CEQA level determination To consider: If a project has not yet been applied for, there may not be many details and discussion may be less useful; if an application is in process, the discussion must focus narrowly on unusual issues and circumstances so as not to constitute a decision before the hearing is held.
Process Ideas	Full Commission discussion or study session Commission sub-committee To consider: Full Commission discussion must not compromise the Commission’s role as the decision-maker; sub-committee may not be effective in providing direction on all matters.
Project threshold	Unusual feature, unprecedented request Size (sq. ft.)-based: § >7,500 (DR) § Larger projects only EIR requirement as threshold Not exempt from CEQA as threshold Project that is particularly controversial To consider: The threshold should limit the range of projects so as to manage time effectively so that these reviews do not become burdensome or delay the Commission’s other activities.
Other factors	Voluntary for applicant Noticing to Neighbors (500 ft.?); applicant’s responsibility Public comment allowed No staff report or recommendation other than basic description of proposal and CEQA status To consider: If a process is established, the review protocol should ensure equal treatment and public awareness. Additionally, staff recommendation should be reserved for hearing on the application after all information has been gathered and analyzed.
Fees	Charge for noticing Charge for noticing and staff time No charge To consider: Any process should use minimal staff time in order to avoid requiring high fees; any expenses incurred, such as for noticing should be borne by the applicant.

Review of other Cities

City	Preliminary Review Process
Concord	PC/ Design Review Board Sub-committee § For larger projects § Sometimes Council members participate Never brought to full PC before formal hearing.
Walnut Creek	Design Review Commission Sometimes holds discussions on project concepts before the plans are fully developed, providing general directions and design comments. Timing: After application; usually during the environmental review phase. Planning Commission Study session: For controversial or large projects if requested by the applicant or staff. No specific thresholds. Timing: After application has been filed. Staff report: Brief description without recommendation. General comments provided; no decisions or determinations.
Sebastopol	Planning Commission or Design Review Committee Timing: Prior to application submittal, applicant may opt to go to either review body for early input. Preliminary review application submitted with a fee that covers noticing and staff time. PC gives individual opinions & brings up issues. Staff cautions them not to say too much or indicate how they would vote. Noticing: 600’ mailing radius and posting. Mixed review from applicants- some thought it wasn’t worthwhile, particularly if only a month or two before the hearing (i.e., no EIR).
Beverly Hills	Planning Commission or Design Review Board Timing: Prior to application “Preview” Agenda section at regular meeting, open to all applicants. Staff report: Brief descriptive report Fee: none. Commissioners’ comments must be broad, relating to the general parameters of issues they would be concerned with. Staff may initiate review as part of the inter-departmental “Concept Review” process, which has a fee ($2,000/$4,000). Noticing: Agenda only; No mailed notice.
West Hollywood	PC Design Review Sub-committee Timing: Soon after application Discuss only design aspects of the project. Per PC request, all projects go to the this sub-committee. Noticing: Agenda posted; no mailed notice. Fee: None
Culver City	The full Commission never discusses projects prior to hearing. General Design Review Committee Two Planning Commissioners and two Redevelopment Commissioners (Council members). Review only large redevelopment projects going to both bodies. Informal discussion and suggestions for improving the project; Timing: Either prior to or after submittal of an application. . Noticing Agenda posted; no mailed notice. Note: Used very infrequently
South Pasadena	No process at Commission level.
Glendale	Planning Commission No early review Design Review Board Preliminary review process offered Fee: $319, same as regular application Noticing: radius mailing. Application: Fairly detailed; similar to regular application.