M I N U T E S

REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Chair Breisch led the Pledge of Allegiance.

In the absence of the Planning Director, Planning Manager Jay Trevino gave the Report. He announced the following scheduled meetings for the Commission: March 1, March 15, April 5 and a special meeting on April 26, 2000. He also announced the date of the Annual Boards and Commissions Dinner as March 21. The place and time will be given to the Commissioners in the next week or so.

Commissioner Parlee asked Mr. Trevino about the scheduling for revision to the single family development standards. Mr. Trevino indicated that staff would not begin working on this issue until June 2000.

5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

Commissioner Kanny made a motion to approve the minutes for December 15, 1999, as submitted. Commissioner Parlee seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote with Commissioner Brown abstaining.

6. STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION: Consent Calendar

6-A. CUP 99-016, DR 99-002, TM 52681, 401 Montana Avenue

Commissioner Kanny made a motion to approve the Statement of Official Action for 401 Montana Avenue, as submitted. Commissioner Parlee seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote with Commissioner Brown abstaining.

7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Continued Items

7-A. Appeal of Architectural Review Board 99-326, 1117 Eighteenth Street; Appeal of the Architectural Review Board's denial of building design, colors and materials and landscaping and irrigation plans for a proposed two-story 5-unit condominium project located at 1117 Eighteenth Street. The appeal is based on the appellant's assertion that the project is in compliance with the required Architectural Review Board findings. (Planner: Jonathan Lait) APPELLANT/APPLICANT: A. Cy Askari, Bobby Askari, et al; PROPERTY OWNER: Okhovat, NS Askari, et al. [Continued from January 19, 2000.]

Following the staff report, the applicant/appellant, Cy Askari, 1217 Twenty-Second Street, Santa Monica, made his presentation to the Commission.

There were no requests to speak submitted by the public. Chair Breisch invited the Commission to ask questions of staff.

Commissioner Kanny asked for a brief history of the approvals for this project. Mr. Lait stated that this project had an old Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Architectural Review Board (ARB) approval which had lapsed along with the plan check approval. The appellant had reapplied for the necessary approvals for the condominium project and was now at the ARB approval stage.

Commissioner Kanny asked Mr. Lait if he could explain the differences between the two ARB reviews. Mr. Lait indicated that the designs appear to be similar, however the Boardmembers have changed over the extended time period.

Commissioner Parlee asked staff if the ARB's review approach has changed during that time period. Ms. Schachter stated that staff's review approach has changed based on the Commission's request for closer review of neighborhood compatibility issues. Ms. Schachter also stated that staff both agreed and supported the comments made by the ARB regarding the design presented for ARB approval.

Commissioner Parlee expressed concern regarding consistency and the use of design guidelines. Ms. Schachter stated that the design review now focuses more on neighborhood compatibility.

Commissioner Brown addressed the City Attorney regarding the approval process. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that if the Commission denies the appeal, the applicant/appellant may reapply for ARB approval.

Commissioner Clarke requested the public hearing be reopened so he could ask a question of the applicant/appellant. Commissioner Kanny so moved and Commissioner Olsen seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote.

Commissioner Clarke asked Mr. Askari which of the two sets of colors and materials board is the one the Commission should be considering. Mr. Askari indicated the appropriate colors and materials board for consideration.

Chair Breisch closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Parlee commented on his concern for consistency in approvals. He expressed the opinion that the project, even at the prior hearing, was "enough above the bar" to be approved. He noted that the project is even better now. He then made a motion to uphold the appeal per the plans submitted in the Commission packet.

Commissioner Zinner seconded the motion. He asked to add a friendly amendment to have the approval include the plans submitted February 16, 2000, for the south elevation. Commissioner Parlee was agreeable to this amendment.

Commissioner Kanny expressed his support for the motion. He commented that this may not be the best design, but he can make the required findings.

Commissioner Clarke expressed the need for more discussion, but indicated he did want a decision made. He also expressed a preference for the column design on the north elevation. Commissioner Parlee stated that the south elevation columns are more suitable. Commissioner Clarke deferred to Commissioner Parlee.

Chair Breisch asked if the motion now includes the south elevation column design for the entire building rather than the north elevation columns. Commissioners Parlee and Zinner were in agreement.

Commissioner Clarke asked if the proposed mustard color for the building could be changed or toned down. This was discussed briefly by the Commission.

Commissioner Zinner commented that the applicant/appellant has addressed the concerns raised by the Commission and he would support the motion.

Commissioner Olsen commented on the level of detail being discussed for this appeal, then noted that the findings in the staff report are not applicable for an approval. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that four findings must be made. Staff handed out a copy of the required findings.

Commissioner Parlee substantiated the four findings as follows:

(a) That plan for the proposed project is expressive of good taste, good design, and in general contributes to the image of Santa Monica as a place of beauty, creativity and individuality in that the project includes well articulated facades that include the use of covered entries, ground floor patios and stepbacks in excess of Code requirements. The building maintains a good style composition with its building design, window systems and column details and use of colors to highlight architectural elements.

(b) That the proposed project is not of inferior quality such as to cause the nature of the local neighborhood or environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value in that the applicant has demonstrated that high quality materials will be used consistent with the quality architecture in the neighborhood.

(c) That the proposed design of the project is compatible with developments on land and in the general area in that the proposed design includes well articulated building facades and appropriately uses colors, window placement and architectural details that serves to reduce the mass of the structure thereby designing a structure of compatible scale to that of adjacent structures.

(d) That the proposed development is in conformity with the effective guidelines and standards adopted pursuant to this chapter and all other applicable ordinances insofar as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved in that all applicable Code requirements has been satisfied.

The motion to uphold the appeal was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Breisch, Brown, Clarke, Kanny, Parlee, Zinner; NOES: Olsen.

7-B. Development Review Permit 99-006, Conditional Use Permit 99-024, and Tentative Tract Map 52906, 849 - 853 Fourteenth Street, Application for Development Review Permit 99-006, Conditional Use Permit 99-024 and Tentative Tract Map 52906 to allow the construction of a two-story, 16,312 square foot, eight-unit condominium building with eighteen subterranean parking spaces accessed from Fourteenth Court Alley. (Planner: Jean M. Moore) APPLICANT: Danny Rojany, owner. [Continued from February 2, 2000.]

Following a request by staff to continue this item, Commissioner Parlee made the motion to continue this item to March 15, 2000. Commissioner Zinner seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote.

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Consent Calendar

8-A. Conditional Use Permit 00-001, 2461 Santa Monica Boulevard, C-4 (Highway Commercial) District. Application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment of a Quizno's Subs fast food restaurant in a vacant tenant space in an existing shopping center located at 2461 Santa Monica Boulevard. The 800 square foot restaurant is proposed to contain nine counter seats and one table accommodating three seats. The remainder of the restaurant will be used for food preparation and storage. (Planner: Roger Kiesel) Applicant: Noor Noorani.

Commissioner Kanny requested that this item be removed from the Consent Calendar as he had some questions about the project. He asked staff about the proposed hours of operation (9 a.m. to 9 p.m.) which is not consistent with the other businesses in the strip mall. Mr. Kiesel explained that the applicant understood the hours of the other businesses and had specifically requested the hours stated in the staff report.

Commissioner Brown asked staff about parking requirements for the fast food use and the requirement for a CUP. Ms. Healy Keene stated that the parking requirements for fast food restaurants have changed in recent years, which is why additional parking is required for the use.

Mr. Trevino asked the Commission to note the supplemental staff report at their seats amending one condition of approval (Condition #26).

Commissioner Kanny made a motion for approval including the revised Condition #26. Commissioner Parlee seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote.

8-B. Conditional Use Permit 99-046, 1447 Fourth Street, BSC-3 (Bayside Commercial) District. Application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the issuance of a Type 47 (On Sale General Alcohol Sales for a Bona Fide Eating Place) alcohol license to be used in conjunction with a new 6,900 square foot, 205-seat Benihana Restaurant. Operating hours are Monday through Sunday 11:00 a.m. - 12:00 midnight. (Planner: Art Bashmakian) Applicant: Benihana National Corporation.

Commissioner Parlee made a motion to approve CUP 99-046 with staff report conditions. Commissioner Zinner seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote.

9. DISCUSSION:

9-A. City Planning Budget Priorities

[Requested by Commissioner Zinner, January 5, 2000.]

Commissioner Zinner opened the discussion by commented on the lists provided by staff. He asked for comments from City Council Liaison McKeown.

City Council Liaison McKeown commented that the City Council had received a similar list, however he had not had time to review it thoroughly. He noted that it is a long list and that it needs prioritizing.

Commissioner Zinner asked staff how the dates were set on the list. Mr. Trevino commented on the documentation presented, including City Planning's Projects List, which is intended to provide the scope of the staff's workload. He stated that an enormous amount of resources go into processing applications.

Commissioner Zinner commented that in reviewing the list he noted many familiar old projects, many new projects and that some projects were missing from the list. He suggested going through the list systematically.

Chair Breisch expressed the opinion that if there are glaring omissions, they should be noted to staff, but the Commission should not go through the list one by one.

Commissioner Parlee agreed with Chair Breisch. He suggested the need for more information on the Department priority list.

City Council Liaison McKeown asked that the list be made complete. He noted that the list is by deadline date. He suggested a preference for presenting the list as a chart with lines indicating duration of projects (start/completion dates) and that the lines should have varying thicknesses to indicate number of employees utilized on each project.

Commissioner Kanny asked how staff prioritizes projects. Mr. Trevino stated that development applications take precedence over other projects as they are deadline based. He suggested a method of summarizing the presented data and returning with that information.

Following some additional discussion, Chair Breisch suggested that the Commission voice its overall philosophical and specific priorities, such as environmental issues, the Circulation and Conservation Elements, etc.

Commissioner Zinner agreed with Chair Breisch's suggested approach. He noted the following omissions: the suggested expansion of the North of Wilshire/ R2 Design Standards; and the Main Street and Montana Avenue Urban Design Plans.

Chair Breisch asked that this discussion be continued to the next hearing date of March 1, 2000.

10. FUTURE COMMISSION AGENDA ITEMS: None.

11. PUBLIC INPUT: None.

12. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.

APPROVED: MARCH 15, 2000