|
M I N U
T E S REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2007 CITY
COUNCIL CHAMBER 7:00 P.M. ROOM
213, CITY HALL |
1.
CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at
7:11 p.m.
2.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Davis led the Pledge
of Allegiance.
3. ROLL
CALL: Present: Julie Lopez Dad
Gleam
Jay
P. Johnson
Hank
Koning, FAIA
Gwynne
Pugh, AIA, ASCE, Chairperson
Jim
Ries
Absent:
Terry O’Day
Also Present: Liz Bar-El, AICP Senior Planner
Kyle
Ferstead, Commission Secretary
Eileen
Fogarty, Director of Planning / PCD
Jon
Lait, AICP, Principle Planner
Kevin
McKeown, City Council Liaison
Amanda
Schachter, Planning Manager
4.
PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT:
Forthcoming Commission meeting dates
were announced as follows: November 14 (development review), December 5 (policy
discussion), December 12, 2007 (development review) and January 9, 2008 (policy
discussion).
5.
PLANNING COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS:
None.
6.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None
7.
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION: None
8.
FUTURE COMMISSION AGENDA ITEMS
Commissioner Ries asked for a future
discussion on “congestion pricing,” a term he would like to understand better.
Ms. Fogarty stated that the Transportation Workshop in December and another
workshop early next year will cover this topic.
9. PUBLIC HEARING: Consent Calendar
9-A. Resolution
of Intention to consider amending City of Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC)
Section 9.04.02.030.395 [Definition of Hedge], Section 9.04.02.030.900
[Definition of Yard, Front], and Section 9.04.10.02.080
[Fence, Wall, Hedge, Flagpole] to modify fence, wall, and hedge
standards; to grandparent existing nonconforming fences, walls, and hedges; to
establish criteria for the repair and alteration of existing nonconforming
hedges, walls, hedges; to establish administrative and discretionary height
modification procedures; to clarify the criteria for assessing objections to
nonconforming fences, walls, and hedges; to require the maintenance of hedges;
and to specify a self-help remedy for overhanging hedges. [Planner: Tony Kim]
Commissioner Dad made a motion to
approve the Resolution of Intention. Following a clarification request from
Commissioner Johnson, Commissioner Davis seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by the
following vote:
AYES: Dad, Davis, Johnson, Koning,
Pugh, Ries; ABSENT: O’Day.
10. PUBLIC HEARING: Regular
Calendar
10-A. Recommendation to the City Council of
Planning Principles and Conceptual Land Use Designations for the Industrial
Areas and Consideration of Transportation Strategies in the Land Use and
Circulation Element Update Process.
Planning Director
The following member of the public
addressed the Commission on this item: David Hibbert, Sharon O’Rourke [representing
the Gas Company], Tom Larmore [on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce], Mr. Ross,
Catherine Eldridge, and Jack Walters.
Chair Pugh closed the public
hearing.
Ms. Fogarty explained the approach
being used for this update of the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) in
relation to the 1984 LUCE. She stated that the principles are based on input
received from the workshops and analysis will follow in due course.
Commissioner Davis issues included
the economic marketing aspects and concern with the loose of organic
development.
Commissioner Johnson expressed
concerns regarding workshop participation and community feedback; scheduling
for City Council review; and traffic and parking.
Commissioner Dad concerns included
traffic congestion; one-way versus two-way streets; the vision presented at
workshops; and that the workshop should be completed prior to forming
principles.
Ms. Fogarty stated that the City
Council has set a clear direction and the building block approach that has been
chosen for moving the process forward. She stated that all neighborhoods are
being approached to endorse the principles and placemaking workshops are going
to be held in the spring for certain boulevards. Ms. Fogarty emphasized that
most of the City will not change under the new LUCE, except for the industrial lands.
She stated that it is the intention of staff to have a series of workshops,
noticed as Commission meetings so the Commission can participate, which will
encourage broad-based engagement by the public.
Commissioner Koning expressed
agreement with the overall principles and general direction. He stated things
are missing, but expects they will be part of the evolution of the process.
Commissioner Ries complimented the
workshops, which he felt were well run and the principles are well thought out.
He stated that the biggest issues seems to be traffic and the lack of
affordable and/or workforce housing. He commented on uses that need to remain,
such as the cement plant in the industrial area, “mom-and-pop” businesses, and a
good mix of retail and office uses. He encouraged the emphasis on mixed-use
projects along the boulevards and stressed the need for sustainability.
Chair Pugh suggested redefining
“industrial” uses and commented on opportunity sites in the Light Manufacturing
and Studio District (LMSD) such as Bergamot Station and the Papermate site. He
stated that the principles are about intention and the reality check is
analysis. He also stated this is a good starting point.
Commissioner Davis expressed unease
with the term “principle” which she feels means something set in concrete. She
stated she would prefer the word guidelines and to call the information a
working draft.
Commissioner Koning made a motion to
endorse the preliminary principles with amendments and comments made by the
Commission. Commissioner Ries seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by the
following vote:
AYES: Davis, Johnson, Koning, Pugh,
Ries; NOES: Dad*; ABSENT: O’Day.
* Commissioner Dad explained her
negative vote was because she felt this process was premature.
[The Commission took a break from
9:55 p.m. to 10:10 p.m.]
Chair Pugh asked for the Commission’s
input on transportation principles. City Council Liaison McKeown explained that
the City Council has the opportunity to act on setting aside funds for a new
traffic methodology and the Commission could also ask for that funding at the
meeting.
Ms. Fogarty invited the Commission
to comment on their issues with traffic methodology. The Commission expressed
support for funding the process to get a new traffic methodology for use on
environmental documents.
Commissioner Johnson made a motion
to recommend the City Council set aside
funds for a new traffic methodology. Commissioner Davis seconded the
motion, which was approved by voice vote.
10-B. Text Amendment to
modify City of Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 9.04.10.04.100
[Landscape Maintenance and Protection] and SMMC Section 9.04.10.04.110 [Water
Conservation Landscaping] by deleting the substantive provisions of these
sections except Sections 9.04.10.04 (a) and (j), relocating deleted provisions,
with modifications, to the City’s Green Building Design and Construction
Standards (SMMC 8.108) and referencing these relocated standards in the Zoning
Ordinance. APPLICANT: City of
Senior Planner
Commissioner Johnson asked staff if
a Certificate of Occupancy was only issued for new construction. Ms. Munves
answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Johnson asked if City inspectors are
dedicated to enforcing these issues. Ms. Munves stated the inspections will be
performed by Environmental and Public Works Management (EPWM) inspectors.
Commissioner Johnson asked if this ordinance would apply to substantial
remodels. Ms. Munves responded that it does not and should not.
Commissioner Koning commented that
the Zoning Ordinance definition states that a substantial remodel is new
construction, then asked if it should be moved. Ms. Munves stated that the
applicability of the section states conformance is required.
Commissioner Johnson asked about the
irrigation section and if it includes installation and the parkways. Ms. Munves
answered in the affirmative. Ms. Bar-El stated that the language stays in the
Zoning Ordinance as regards private property.
Commissioner Koning commented that
the ordinance language is overly prescriptive and not workable. Ms. Schachter
stated that the purview of this ordinance is under Chapter 8 of the Santa
Monica Municipal Code.
There was discussion regarding
permeable soil, tree wells, and over spraying sidewalks.
Commissioner Johnson made a motion
to recommend the City Council adopt the proposed Text Amendment with
modifications based on the Commission’s comments. Commissioner Ries seconded
the motion.
The motion was approved by the
following vote:
AYES: Dad, Davis, Johnson, Koning,
Pugh, Ries; ABSENT: O’Day.
10-C. Modification of the City of Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC)
9.04.08.020.070(c) [R1 Single-Family Residential District Property Development
Standards] to increase the minimum lot size north of Montana Avenue to 7,000
square feet and to increase the minimum width for properties north of the San
Vicente Boulevard centerline and east of 7th Street to 60 feet; and
modification of SMMC 9.04.08.02.076 [Special project design and development
standards for the Sunset Park and North of Wilshire Boulevard Neighborhoods] to
allow one-half of the rear alley along the parcel width to be included in
calculating parcel coverage if garage access is provided from an alley and the
property contains no curb cuts. [Planner:
Senior Planner
Commissioner Johnson asked staff if
there has been feedback from property owners. Ms. Bar-El answered in the
negative. Commissioner Johnson suggested feedback should be sought based on the
reaction some time ago when a large lot north of
Commissioner Ries inquired about
incentives and whether curb cuts would be allowed in the R-2 District. Ms.
Bar-El stated that there is a policy to have access from the alley for new
development.
Commissioner Koning expressed
concern about the potential loss of some tiny lots that he finds interesting
and that he does not understand the need. He stated that the first part of the
proposal is not sustainable and the alley access is already required in the
multi-family districts.
Commissioner Ries asked if the
proposal would increase density. Ms. Schachter explained that residential
density is not based on floor area ratios (
Commissioner Dad expressed agreement
with Commissioner Ries. She commented on the history of the area, which was the
portion of the City that originally objected to the “mini-mansions.” Ms. Bar-El
explained how this modification would retain the character and consistency with
adjacent lots.
Commissioner Johnson expressed the
opinion that this item should be continued in order to obtain more community
feedback from the neighborhood group. He made a motion to continue.
Commissioner Koning seconded the
motion.
The motion to continue was approved
by the following vote:
AYES: Dad, Davis, Johnson, Koning, Pugh,
Ries; ABSENT: O’Day.
11.
COMMUNICATIONS:
11-A. November Newsletter of the Land Use and
Circulation Element (LUCE) Update
11-B. Update regarding the Exposition Light Rail Project
12.
DISCUSSION: (Public Input Permitted)
12-A. Discussion regarding project feasibility analysis used to evaluate
alternative projects in Environmental Impact Reports. (Johnson) [Continued from
October 3, 2007.]
Commissioner Johnson opened this
discussion item and explained his concerns regarding feasibility analysis in
environmental documents. He asked for support in directing staff to return with
a proposal for accounting or market based principles.
Commissioner Koning asked for
clarification from staff, specifically if economic analysis of the project is
already part of environmental review. Ms. Schachter stated that the economic
analysis is managed by staff and the consultants, however developers often
submit their own economic analysis in addition to what the City prepares for
the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum
commented that in the context of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) review, a critical issue is whether an alternative project is feasible
economically. In this case, a peer review and analysis is measured against
predetermined standards.
Commissioner Johnson stated that his
concern is there is a vast gray area and he suspects there are projects that
are too generalized and a prudent investor or lender would be made wary of
investing if the specifics were exposed. He stated he wants guidelines for developers.
He asked that staff consider his concerns and this item return in December.
Commissioner Dad suggested staff prepare a presentation on how the process is
done now. Commissioner Johnson accepted this proposal.
This item was continued to December
5, 2007.
12-B. Discussion and possible recommendation to the City Council
regarding regulatory amendments to the standards set forth in the LMSD and M1
zoning districts. (Dad) [Continued from October 3, 2007.]
Commissioner Dad asked that this
item be removed from agenda.
12-C. Input, discussion and
possible action on policies, process, materials, timeline, participation
strategies and related issues pertaining to the Shape the Future 2025 and
Motion by the Ocean projects.
Continued.
13. PUBLIC INPUT:
One member of the public, Catherine
Eldridge asked for clarification on workshop schedule and City Council action.
14.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:25
p.m.
APPROVED: August 20, 2008
|
|
Help Us Shape the Future!
Be part of the effort to create
new Land Use and Circulation Elements, and a new Zoning Ordinance. Help shape a twenty year vision and improve
the way we get around http://www.shapethefuture2025.net
(Land Use Element) |
|
