M I N U T E S
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 1994CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 P.M.1685 MAIN STREET, ROOM 213
1.CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:14 p.m.
2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Weremiuk led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
3.ROLL CALL:Present:Kenneth Breisch
Ralph Mechur
Pamela O'Connor
Eric Parlee
Thomas Pyne
Kathy Weremiuk
John Zinner
Also Present:Kyle Ferstead, Commission Secretary
Suzanne Frick, Director of Planning/LUTM
Amanda Schachter, Senior Planner
Mary Strobel, Deputy City Attorney
Kenyon Webster, Planning Manager
4.APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Pyne made a motion to
approve the minutes for September 29, 1993, and March 2, 1994,
as submitted. Commissioner Parlee seconded the motion, which
was approved by voice vote.
Report. She reported that at the next meeting of the
Commission, on April 20th, Mary Strobel will be giving a
briefing on the new Brown Act regulations and begin discussion
on the new Safety Element. Since the last Commission meeting,
Ms. Frick reported that the City Council has been working on the
Earthquake Recovery Plan for the City and has adopted a
redevelopment area to aid in the recovery process. She stated
that the final plan should be going to the City Council in late
spring or early summer. In the future, the City Council will be
hearing the Text Amendment for 1702 Appian Way on April 12th;
the reconstruction ordinance and other emergency ordinances on
April 19th; and homeless issues on April 26th.
Commissioner Pyne asked if the April 20th meeting would be a
study session. Ms. Frick stated that it will be a meeting, but
not a public hearing.
6.STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION: Consent Calendar
Commissioner Pyne made a motion to approve the Statements
of Official Action as submitted. Commissioner Parlee
seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote.
6-A: Meeting Minutes contain no additional text for this item.
6-B: Meeting Minutes contain no additional text for this item.
6-C: Meeting Minutes contain no additional text for this item.
6-D: Meeting Minutes contain no additional text for this item.
6-E: Meeting Minutes contain no additional text for this item.
6-F: Meeting Minutes contain no additional text for this item.
7-A: Meeting Minutes contain no additional text for this item.
7-B: Meeting Minutes contain no additional text for this item.
7-C: Meeting Minutes contain no additional text for this item.
8-A: Text Amendment 94-003 to Amend Article IX of the Santa
Monica Municipal Code to Implement the Affordable Housing
Ordinance. Location: Citywide, The proposed text
amendment modifies the Zoning Ordinance sections related to
permitted uses and establishes incentives in order to facilitate
the development of affordable housing in the City. The
amendments replace an interim ordinance which has been in effect
for over one year. (Planner: Amanda Schachter)
Staff Report
Commissioner Parlee commented on the height limitations and that
a set number of stories is not specified. Staff explained that
there is not a limit on the number of stories for an affordable
housing project. Commissioner Parlee also commented on the
pitched roof ratio and how it affects articulation of new
structures.
Commissioner Pyne made a strong statement regarding requirements
for transitional housing projects. Specifically, Commissioner
Pyne stated that he does not feel comfortable with allowing
"sensitive housing types being allowed by right in residential
neighborhoods". He asked Ms. Frick how his concerns could be
addressed. Ms. Frick responded that this concern can be
forwarded on to the City Council and/or make a motion to move
transitional housing into the conditionally permitted use
category.
Commissioner Parlee asked if there was a set of guidelines or
performance standards for transitional housing. Ms. Frick read
the definition for transitional housing from the Code.
Commissioner Weremiuk stated she did not feel that the sensitive
housing types are not any different from any other type of
housing use, if properly monitored. Commissioner Pyne expressed
concerned about whether these types of housing are properly
monitored, and to the extra types of activities offered, such as
counseling.
The following members of the public spoke:
Mat Millen, 1753 16th Court, Santa Monica 90404
Peter Tigler, 2019 21st Street, Santa Monica 90404
Merritt Coleman, 1508 Stanford Street #5, Santa Monica 90405
Chair Mechur closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Pyne asked the Commission for a consensus regarding
some of the more sensitive issues raised by the Text Amendment.
He began by making a motion to require a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) for transitional housing projects, as they are different
from multi-family residential projects.
Commissioner Parlee seconded the motion for discussion.
Chair Mechur asked for a copy of the old definitions. Staff
supplied copies of the definitions.
Commissioner Pyne expressed his concerns with various aspects of
transitional housing. He also stated that he did not think
domestic violence shelters should have a CUP due to their
sensitive nature.
Commissioner Weremiuk commented on day care centers, senior
centers and asked how these operations were viewed when they had
offices, lobbies and counseling components. Ms. Frick stated
that counseling facilities are not necessarily on site for these
types of facilities, that each type of facilities is viewed on a
case by case basis for compatibility.
Commissioner Parlee asked about the definition for congregate
housing and whether it includes provisions for a community
kitchen, and housekeeping facilities. Ms. Frick explained that
congregate housing does include provision for a share kitchen
facility and staff to prepare the meals. Additionally, Ms.
Frick stated that congregate housing does not have an age
restriction.
Commissioner Zinner expressed his comfort with the transitional
housing definition. He also commented that some professions,
such as counselors, are allowed to operate their practices out
of their homes with a City permit.
Commissioner Parlee commented that it would be rare for a
transitional housing project to exceed the threshold limits that
would require Commission review. He also commented on
streamlining the permit process.
Chair Mechur commented on differences between transitional
housing projects and congregate housing projects. He asked
staff if there was any provision for staff to require or review
operational, screening or management plans for these types of
facilities. Mr. Webster stated that homeless shelters require
submittal of such plans, but transitional housing facilities do
not. He also stated that staff has not discussed this aspect
and the definitions are consistent with the current Housing
Ordinances.
Commissioner Weremiuk asked why the Upward Bound project had
submitted a operational plan. Mr. Webster stated that Upward
Bound applied under a Development Review Permit process, which
changed the requirements, and they offered to prepare the plans.
Commissioner Pyne stated that transitional housing stays are
limited to three years and asked if congregate housing had the
same restrictions. Ms. Frick stated that there are no time stay
requirements. Chair Mechur commented that homeless shelters
limit stays to six months.
Commissioner Weremiuk strongly spoke against requiring a
development review process for transitional housing as it is
socially necessary and needs to be facilitated. She recommended
that an operational plan be submitted as part of any review
process to help allay neighborhood concerns.
Commissioner Parlee expressed agreement with Commissioner
Weremiuk's recommendation. He suggested staff develop standards
for various types of housing similar to the Performance
Standards Permit (PSP) process. He then commented that the
definitions leave a great deal of room for interpretation.
Ms. Frick offered for the Commission's consideration Code
Section 9.04.10.02.142 (SMMC), which deals with standards for
the types of housing being discussed. Commissioner Parlee
thanked Ms. Frick for the section number and asked if staff
could provide the Commission with a list of, or copies of
applications for, transitional housing requests. Ms. Frick
indicated this may be a problem but would review it with her
staff.
Commissioner Zinner asked if the requirement for a management
plan could be attached to domestic violence shelters. Chair
Mechur argued against this idea and felt that if the people
proposing such a shelter were not responsible, then they would
not be able to obtain funding. Commissioner Weremiuk agreed,
stating that most agencies require the submittal of such plans
prior to funding these types of services. She suggested that
staff may wish to review such plans also.
Deputy City Attorney Strobel stated that these issues should be
reviewed, particularly as regards State law. She also stated
that domestic violence shelters may be exempt if single family
dwellings are exempt. She stated she could review this matter
if the Commission requests it.
Chair Mechur asked about an issue raised by a member of the
public regarding adding a provision for "granny" units. He
stated that he favored them, but thought the City Council had
not considered this issue yet. Ms. Frick stated that staff will
be studying the "granny" unit issues in the next fiscal year or
so.
Chair Mechur asked if there was a prohibition on the distance
between shelters. Mr. Webster stated that there is a distance
requirement under the PSP standards, however these types of
facilities will no longer fall under this category and type of
permit.
Chair Mechur commented on the issues raised by a member of the
public regarding the distribution of affordable housing project.
Commissioner Parlee commented on "granny flats" and that current
setback requirements for dwellings and accessory structures will
not allow for the construction of "granny flats" on most
properties.
Commissioner Weremiuk commented on the cost of land, which
restricts the kinds of development which occurs. She stated
that the idea of distributing the placement of low income
projects is a good one, in principle, but land costs make it
unlikely.
Chair Mechur commented that the greatest problem is economic
segregation. He agreed that affordable housing should be spread
throughout the City, but questioned how this could be done. He
suggested the initiation of such concepts as land banking and
City contribution to non-profit housing projects.
Commissioner Parlee commented on Ordinance 1615 and Proposition
R and the mandate of 30% affordable housing units. He felt that
in time, the housing affordibility issue should balance out.
Commissioner Pyne restated his motion to subject transitional
housing projects to the CUP process.
The motion failed by the following vote:
AYES: Pyne;
NOES: Breisch, Mechur, O'Connor, Parlee, Weremiuk, Zinner.
Chair Mechur made a motion to forward the Text Amendment to City
Council per staff report recommendations.
Commissioner Zinner seconded the motion.
The Commission discussed singling out certain types of uses and
came to the consensus that they should not be singled out.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Breisch, Mechur, O'Connor, Parlee, Weremiuk, Zinner;
ABSTAIN: Pyne.
8-B: Development Review Permit 93-006, (Amendment to DR 292),
1301 20th Street, CP, Applicant: Saint John's Medical Plaza,
Application for a Development Review Permit to permit the
amendment of an existing Development Review Permit in order to
allow the building owner to charge employees and visitors for
parking at the medical office building at 1301 20th Street. The
existing Development Review Permit (DR 292) requires that
parking be offered free to employees who work in the building
and free to visitors for the first hour. No physical change to
the building is proposed. (Planner: D. Buckley )
[Commissioner Pyne stepped down from the dais and left the
meeting due to a potential conflict of interest.]
The applicant's representative, Randy Moore, 444 South Flower
Street, Los Angeles, was present to discuss the proposal.
Commissioner Weremiuk asked Mr. Moore if he would accept a
condition requiring free parking for van and carpools. Mr.
Moore stated that would be acceptable.
Commissioner Zinner commented that having a transportation
management plan is not mandated for this type of building with
multiple tenants. Mr. Moore stated that his management company
takes a pro-active approach to parking in their buildings.
Chair Mechur commented that the building has free parking. Mr.
Moore stated the parking has one hour free parking for visitors
and free parking for employees of the building.
Chair Mechur asked Mr. Moore about the operation of the garage.
Mr. Moore stated that his company has full control of the
building management and hires a subcontractor to manage the
garage parking.
Chair Mechur asked staff about requiring a TMP. Mr. Webster
stated that Condition #19 on page six of the staff report covers
this issue.
Commissioner Zinner asked for the definition of carpools. Mr.
Webster stated that carpools are designated as two or more
riders, which can be added to the condition.
Commissioner Weremiuk asked if parking is part of the lease
agreements for tenants of the building. Mr. Moore stated that
there is a parking agreement as part of the lease and specifies
one hour free parking for visitors.
Commissioner Weremiuk asked if the proposed change will roll-
over with the leases or if the leases will be renegotiated. Mr.
Moore stated he would try to amend the tenant's leases regarding
the parking amendment.
Chair Mechur closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Zinner made a motion to approve the Development
Review amendment, and with the addition of a definition of a
carpool being two or more people.
Commissioner Parlee seconded the motion.
Chair Mechur suggested that in future staff reports that are
amendments to an original approval, if instead of deleting the
condition and renumbering, staff could leave the numbering and
insert the wording "condition deleted".
The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Breisch, Mechur, O'Connor, Parlee, Weremiuk, Zinner;
ABSENT: Pyne.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.