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.