Ideas aim to reduce design ire

Cindy Frazier

The design review task force on Aug. 2 gave the City Council its

long-awaited proposals for reducing contentiousness in the design

review process.

The council had asked the seven-member task force to take a broad

look at how the design review board operates and how the

development-review process could be improved.

The task force will present its findings and proposals to the

community over the next several months. There is no timeline for when

the proposals could be brought to the council for formal

consideration.

Among the proposals are a code of civil conduct; increased

education for design board members and the public; televising of

meetings; altering the basic nature of appeals; longer noticing times

for hearings; and a significant increase in city staff members to

assist in the process, including a new city architect and liaisons

between neighbors and developers.

The proposals could cost more than a quarter of a million dollars

to implement, and would be paid for by doubling developer fees.

The task force spent a year on its mission and looked at the

design-review process for a number of cities -- including Del Mar,

Carmel, Monterey and Rancho Palos Verdes -- finding that Laguna Beach

had the highest level of contentiousness of all the cities studied,

said Leslie LeBon, a task force member.

“We visited the cities, and talked to people. Other cities’

hearings are civil, and [participants] treat each other with

respect,” LeBon said.

The five-member design review board meets four times a month to

assess development proposals. Some of these meetings generate heated

discussion and disagreements among participants, which the council is

seeking to quell.

If the task force recommendations are followed, task force

chairman Matt Lawson said, “The result will be a design-review

process that fosters neighborhood cooperation as well as great

architecture.”

Chief among the reasons for contentiousness is the lack of

predictability of decisions and a perception that board decisions are

subjective, said Marion Jacobs, a psychologist on the task force.

“People try to follow the rules but the outcome can’t be

predicted, because there is no requirement for specific findings

based on the zoning code,” Jacobs said. “The criteria are not

delineated, and there is a lack of understanding of the city’s

requirements.”

Gene Gratz, a land-use attorney on the task force, said that the

review process could be improved if city staffers acted as liaisons

to neighbors, serving as intermediaries to gather neighborhood

reaction to development proposals.

“This would eliminate emotionally charged confrontations,” he

said.

One key proposal would fundamentally change the way the City

Council handles appeals of decisions. Instead of the current system

of o7de novo f7appeals -- in which decisions are reviewed anew in

their totality and the council essentially redecides the issue -- the

task force wants appeals to focus on specific issues.

Architect Lance Polster, another task force member, told the

council that early involvement by city staff members could save time

and money by identifying problem areas in development projects before

architectural review.

“The developer would meet with staff and identify issues, and the

staff would be the liaison between the developer and neighbors, so

the outcome will be easier to understand,” Polster said. “There will

be fewer hearings, which will be a big savings for applicants. We

will see happier applicants and more understanding neighbors.”

Ilse Lenchow, the design review board member on the task force,

said that more focus on allowances and neighborhood standards would

make the process more predictable.

Neighborhood-specific plans, standards on view equity and

neighborhood compatibility, and “tailoring the building envelope” are

among the specific proposals to make the review process more

objective and transparent.

The task force also wants to lengthen noticing periods to 30 days

and to stake development projects 15 days before a hearing.

The design review board will review the proposals at its Sept. 8

meeting. Copies of the 36-page report -- and a 500-page addendum --

are available at the City Clerk’s office and in the library.

Most council members were impressed by the presentation and the

proposals.

“This is really quality work, and design review will be stronger

because of it,” said Councilwoman Toni Iseman.

“When I ran for reelection, the main problem was design review,”

said Councilwoman Cheryl Kinsman. “People have said we’ve done this

before, but this [report] is really wonderful.”

Kinsman was referring to a similar effort to reform the design

review process undertaken in 1993. Some of the proposals in the

current report were also made then but weren’t acted on.

During public testimony, former design board member Arnold Hano

lauded the task force, saying that the design board “spends more time

on contentiousness than approval” of projects, but added, “I hope we

are not moving toward the end of denial of projects.”

Gene Felder said the report should have included a proposal to

limit the size of homes to avoid “mansionization,” the construction

of new homes that are far larger than existing ones.

“Homes are being built larger than necessary,” Felder said.

In an interview later, Steve Kawaratani, a five-year design review

board member, said that while he supports the overall findings of the

task force, “The only way to reduce contention is to eliminate greed

on both sides.”

Kawaratani also defended the design board against the accusation

that it’s decisions are too subjective.

“I thank the task force for their service and thoughtful findings,

but I disagree that we don’t give clear direction” to applicants

about their projects, Kawaratani said. “The design review process is

always going to be contentious, and if this brings it

[contentiousness] down by 1%, that is useful.”

The City Council is planning to review the report at its Oct. 22

meeting, which begins at 9 a.m.

QUESTION

Is design review too contentious in Laguna? Write us at P.O. Box

248, Laguna Beach, CA, 92652, e-mail us at o7coastlinepilot@

latimes.com f7or fax us at 494-8979. Please give your name and tell

us your home address and phone number for verification purposes only.