M I N U T E S

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

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Zinner led the Pledge of Allegiance.

3. ROLL CALL:

Ms. Frick gave the Director's Report. She introduced Assistant City Attorney Joe Lawrence to the Commission. She announced that the RAND Draft Environmental Impact Report is available for review and comment. Forthcoming Commission meetings are scheduled as follows: June 21, July 5, July 19 and August 2, 2000.

5. STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION: Consent Calendar

5-A. Conditional Use Permit 99-025 and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 25508, 931 Tenth Street (Continued from 5/17/2000)

Upon the recommendation of staff, Commissioner Olsen made a motion to continue item 5-A to June 21, 2000. Commissioner Zinner seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote.

5-B. Development Review Permit 98-010, Conditional Use Permit 98-022, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 52361, Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report and Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations, 1513 and 1517 Berkeley Street.

Commissioner Parlee made a motion to approve item 5-B as submitted. Commissioner Olsen seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote.

5-C. Conditional Use Permit 99-045, 814 Broadway

Continued to June 21, 2000.

6. PUBLIC HEARING: Continued from May 17, 2000

6-A. Appeal 00-020 of Architectural Review Board Denial of ARB 00-038, 1547 Seventh Street, Appeal of the Architectural Review Board's denial of a sign adjustment to retain an existing non-conforming freestanding sign that was required to be removed by April 11, 2000 per Section 9.52.210(d) SMMC. [Planner: Tony Kim] APPLICANT/APPELLANT: Four Oaks Garage.

Following the staff report by Mr. Kim, Commissioner Clarke asked for an explanation of the findings to be made for approval of the appeal. Mr. Kim explained the findings.

Commissioner Clarke asked if staff could propose alternate types of signs for this site. Mr. Kim stated that a pylon sign could be placed on the site with better visibility than the current sign.

Commissioner Parlee asked for the allowable square footage for the frontage of this property. Mr. Kim stated that 48 linear or square feet are allowed.

Commissioner Olsen asked for some history of this disapproval by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). Mr. Kim explained that the ARB disapproved the sign, gave the applicant options for acceptable alternative signs, however the applicant did not return to the Board with new sign designs and appealed the disapproval instead.

Commissioner Brown related concerns expressed by the applicant and asked staff for their comment. Mr. Kim stated that staff reviewed the appeal statement and did not deem there to be any unusual circumstances or hardship associated with the property. He also stated that the Sign Ordinance effects all businesses and the current sign does not conform to the Sign Ordinance.

Commissioner Brown commented that a pylon sign would be blocked by the fence and shrubbery. Mr. Kim stated that these are not considerations for hardship. He also stated that the permitted height for a pylon sign could be 16 feet.

Commissioner Brown asked about setbacks for signage. Mr. Kim stated that setbacks are not considered a hardship and other businesses in the area have the same required setbacks.

Commissioner Olsen asked if there are findings for an adjustment that would help with the issue of trucks parking on the street frontage and blocking the view of the sign. Mr. Kim stated that the ARB felt they could not make a case for such a finding.

Commissioner Olsen commented on the photographs presented by the applicant/appellant, especially one where it appears a truck is parked in a red zone.

The applicant/appellant, Larry Beaufait, addressed the Commission regarding his appeal.

Commissioner Zinner asked Mr. Beaufait if he had appealed to the Meritorious Sign Board. Mr. Beaufait stated that he did not appeal to that Board as he did not believe the required findings for meritorious designation could be made for his sign. He stated that signage is vital to his business.

Commissioner Zinner asked why a pylon sign could not be placed on the corner of the property. Mr. Beaufait explained that under the new automobile repair requirements, parking spaces can not be removed and placing a pylon sign on the corner would take away required parking.

Commissioner Zinner asked if the sign would take a whole parking space and if he would be willing to trim back his shrubbery. Mr. Beaufait stated that he is not willing to do that.

No members of the public submitted requests to speak.

Acting Chair Kanny closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Zinner asked staff about the applicant/appellant's statement regarding placement of a pylon sign. Mr. Kim stated that staff believes a new pylon sign could be placed on the site without the loss of a parking space.

Commissioner Parlee asked about modifying the signage. Mr. Kim stated that the signage could be modified, that the sign could be smaller or only one-sided.

Commissioner Parlee suggested tabling the appeal pending the presentation of a proper site plan. He commented on the Sign Ordinance standards and expressed concern about accepting the applicant/appellant's argument regarding sign placement on the site.

Ms. Frick asked staff if there is a time limit for ARB appeals. Mr. Trevino stated that he was unaware of any time constraints.

Acting Chair Kanny asked if someone would like to make a motion for approval with a condition. Commissioner Parlee stated his inclination to support the staff report recommendation for denial. Commissioner Clarke stated that more details are needed to make approval findings.

Commissioner Zinner suggested making a motion to uphold the staff report. He stated that a condition could made to allow a different type of sign if the pylon sign did not work for the site. He noted that the sign is designed to be seen by drivers, not walkers. This led to a discussion regarding pylon signs and pole signs.

Ms. Frick reminded the Commission that they can only consider the existing situation and the appeal before them.

Commissioner Olsen commented on the possibility of alternative types of signs for the site, as suggested by both staff and the ARB.

Commissioner Zinner expressed favor for the staff report recommendation. He commented on the scale of the current sign and discussed the benefits of a pylon sign.

Acting Chair Kanny asked staff if it is correct that the Commission can not consider the loss of a parking space as an exceptional circumstance. Ms. Frick stated that the appeal is for a sign only.

Commissioner Zinner made a motion for deny the appeal and uphold the ARB's disapproval of the sign adjustment.

Commissioner Olsen seconded the motion.

The motion was approved by following vote:

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

The Commission took a break from 7:52 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.]

7. PUBLIC HEARINGS:

7-A. APPEAL 00-066 of Architectural Review Board Denial of ARB 00-021, 1747 Lincoln Boulevard. Appeal of the Architectural Review Board's denial of a sign adjustment to retain an existing non-conforming freestanding pole sign that was required to be removed by April 11, 2000 per Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.52.210(d). Applicant/Appellant: Janette Baranski for U-Haul. Property Owner: Amerco Real Estate Company.

Following the staff report by Mr. Kim, Commissioner Olsen stated that no photographs of the site were submitted. Ms. Frick asked staff to provide photographs from the sign inventory.

Acting Chair Kanny commented on the existing sign and asked staff if the Commission can approve an alternate sign these evening. Mr. Kim stated that any alternate sign design must return to the ARB for review.

Chair Kanny made a motion to allow the applicant/appellant a total of ten minutes for presentation and rebuttal. Commissioner Clarke seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote with Commissioner Olsen casting a negative vote.

The applicant/appellant's representative, Janette Baranski of U-Haul, made a presentation to the Commission.

Commissioner Clarke asked Ms. Baranski to explain the effect the loss of the sign will have on the business. Ms. Baranski asserted that the loss of the pole sign will result in a 40% loss of business.

Commissioner Olsen commented on the photographic presentation (via PowerPoint) to the Commission, particularly the photograph of the pole sign from the freeway. He stated that he drives this stretch of freeway almost daily and has never noticed the U-Haul sign while driving, nor does it seem possible to see the sign until one is parked on the shoulder of the freeway.

The applicant/appellant's sign code consultant, Jeff Baron, stated that the issue is whether the sign is "commercially effective." Commissioner Olsen stated that, in his opinion, the sign is not clearly visible from the freeway.

Commissioner Parlee asked the applicant/appellant if alternative signs were tried. Mr. Baron stated that the building is too far back from the street to have effective signage on the building.

Commissioner Parlee asked the applicant/appellant if there are any plans to remodel the building. Mr. Baron stated that plans were begun, but have since stopped. He stated that they attempted to go the Meritorious Sign Board route, however were told a sign adjustment was their only alternative.

Commissioner Parlee asked for the allowable square footage for signage on the site. Mr. Baron stated that only 92 square feet is allowed.

Commissioner Parlee asked if any alternative studies were done to take advantage of the extra square footage, or to increase visibility from the north and west. Mr. Baron stated that alternative signage can not be seen.

No members of the public submitted requests to speak.

Acting Chair Kanny closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Olsen asked for a short history of the Sign Ordinance and Meritorious Sign Board process. Ms. Healy Keene stated that the Sign Ordinance, Chapter 9.52 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, was adopted in 1985. Late in 1999, the Meritorious Sign Board (MSB), appointed by the City Council, reviewed more than 100 non-conforming signs to consider designation as meritorious. The MSB met three or four times, signs not approved by the MSB could be appealed to the City Council. She stated that U-Haul could have appealed their sign to both the MSB and City Council. She also stated that the sign is not considered meritorious and was not included on the final list of 100 plus meritorious signs. She further stated that existing sign does not meet the sign adjustment criteria.

Commissioner Olsen asked about the issue of visibility from the freeway. Ms. Healy Keene stated that while this may be desirable for a business, it is not a requirement.

Commissioner Olsen asked about the issue of visibility and whether some signs are too visible. Ms. Healy Keene stated that the Sign Ordinance prohibits the following signs: roof signs, freestanding signs, projecting signs, off-premise signs and upper level signs.

Commissioner Olsen asked about a sign south of the subject property that is on a rather tall building. Ms. Healy Keene stated there is a new E-Z Lube facility with approved signage just south of the U-Haul location. Commissioner Olsen stated that is only a one or two story building.

Commissioner Parlee asked about approval of signage on the second story level and if the same sign height could be approved even if the building was not two stories. Ms. Healy Keene explained allowable height for signage on buildings.

Commissioner Parlee asked if the applicant/appellant could have a sign, 10 feet by 10 feet, or 30 square feet, on an outside wall. Ms. Healy Keene explained that this could be permitted with ARB approval. She noted for the record that the facility in question is a non-conforming use in the district.

Commissioner Zinner asked about the Firestone Tires sign. Ms. Healy Keene stated that this sign was approved by the City Council on appeal.

Commissioner Zinner asked if all other pole signs along Lincoln Boulevard and the freeway were coming down. Ms. Healy Keene stated that most of the other poles signs would be removed except the Penguin, which was designated as meritorious.

Acting Chair Kanny closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Zinner made a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the ARB's disapproval. Commissioner Clarke seconded the motion.

Commissioner Zinner stated that he can find no grounds to grant the appeal. He stated that the facility is a recognizable site in the City and easily accessible from northbound on Lincoln Boulevard and the I-10 (Santa Monica) freeway.

Commissioner Clarke complimented the "earnest presentation" by the applicant/appellant. He stated that the presentation shows the limits of still photography. He noted that eastbound traffic on the freeway can not see the U-Haul sign at all and westbound only from the shoulder or after one has passed the appropriate off-ramp. The U-Haul trucks on the property are far more visible than the sign. He stated that he supports the motion.

Commissioner Parlee commented on options for the applicant/appellant and expressed the opinion that this should have gone to the MSB for appeal. He stated that he will support the motion. He encouraged the applicant/appellant to work with staff to find other options for new signage.

The motion to deny the appeal and uphold the ARB's disapproval of the sign adjustment was approved by the following vote:

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

7-B. Conditional Use Permit 00-002 and Performance Standards Permit 00-001, 1442 2^nd Street, BSC-4 (Bayside Commercial) District, Application to amend the conditions of approval stipulated in Conditional Use Permit 98-041 which approved a Type 47 alcohol license for the Buca di Beppo restaurant. The proposed amendment of CUP 98-041 involves two requests: (1) an amendment of the previously approved hours of operation (Monday-Saturday from 4:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. and on Sunday 12:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.) to Monday through Sunday 12:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m.; and (2) an amendment of the previously approved floor plan to include the addition of an 134 square foot outdoor dining area having 3 tables and 12 seats. Approval of a Performance Standards Permit is required to allow outdoor dining on the public right-of-way. (Planner: Bradley J. Misner) Applicant: Buca, Inc.

CONTINUED TO JULY 5, 2000.

8. FUTURE COMMISSION AGENDA ITEMS: None.

9. PUBLIC INPUT:

One member of the public, Richard Herrera, addressed the Commission.

10. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.

APPROVED: September 20, 2000