M I N U T E S
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
WEDNESDAY, November 8, 2000
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
ROOM 213, CITY HALL
1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Brown led the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. ROLL CALL: Present: Barbara Brown
Julie Lopez Dad
Jay P. Johnson
Kelly Olsen, Chairperson
Also Present: Kimberly Christensen, AICP, Senior Planner
Kyle Ferstead, Commission Secretary
Suzanne Frick, Director of Planning/PCD
Bruce Leach, Associate Planner
Kevin McKeown, City Council Liaison
Bobby Ray, AICP, Senior Planner
Barry Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney
Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner
Jay M. Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager
4. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
Ms. Frick gave the Director’s Report. She reported that the Target Department Store project denial had been appealed to City Council. She also reported that the Commission is scheduled to meet on the following dates: November 15, December 6, December 13, and December 20, 2000. Commissioner Johnson asked if the January dates are available. Ms. Frick stated that meetings are scheduled for January 10 and January 17, 2001.
5. PUBLIC HEARING: Continued from October 4, 2000
5-A. Development Review 98-006; Conditional Use Permit 98-024; Tentative Map 98-009, 1751 Appian Way, (R3, Medium Density Multiple Family Residential District). Applications for a Development Review Permit, Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Tract Map to permit the construction of a 25,429 square foot, three story, 11 unit condominium with a 30 space subterranean parking garage located at the northeast corner of Appian Way and Seaview Terrace, in the R3 (Medium Density Multiple Family Residential) District. An Initial Study was prepared to assess impacts the project could have on the environment. Adoption of a Negative Declaration, including Mitigation Measures to reduce potential impacts on Historic Resources and increases in surface runoff resulting from development of the vacant hillside lot, are proposed pursuant to requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. (Planner: Bruce Leach) Applicant: Seaview Investment Co. LLC. [Continued from October 4, 2000]
Following the staff report, the Commission asked questions of staff. Mr. Leach informed the Commission that the City’s consultants were also present to answer questions.
Commissioner Johnson asked when in the process Coastal Commission approval is sought. Mr. Leach stated that Coastal Commission approval follows the City’s approval of the Development Review and Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
Commissioner Johnson asked staff if their decision takes into consideration Coastal Commission access issues. Ms. Frick stated that such consideration is only given if it is also part of the City’s purview and jurisdiction. Specifically, coastal access rights are not considered as part of the City’s approval process. Ms. Frick further stated that staff does inform the applicant of Coastal Commission requirements.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff about the buildable square footage for the site, sideyard calculations, staircase locations and how the setbacks are determined from Seaview Terrace. Mr. Leach responded that the Seaview Terrace measurements are taken from the actual property line and the easement requires more setback, but does not reduce the buildable area.
Commissioners Clarke and Johnson asked about setbacks. Staff explained about the various setbacks, with and without an alley, where setbacks were measured from for this particular site and when using Appian Way versus Seaview Terrace for the front and sideyard setbacks.
Chair Olsen asked the Commission to make their disclosures for this project. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum refreshed the Commission on ex parte communications and asked the Commission to place on the record matters of substance including communications received, site visits made, whom they spoke with, issues raised and observations made.
Commissioner Brown disclosed that she visited the site, but did not speak to anyone. She stated that she received numbers of letters, which generated the following questions:
· Issues of shadows
· Ground water depletion
· Noise from the ventilation system
· How gases are vented from parking garage
· Size of proposed parking spaces
· Future of palm trees
· Actual number of stories of the building
· Quality of the soil report
· Size of units
· Comparison with size of the adjacent hotels
Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum further advised that the Rule the Commission adopted at their previous meeting requires that the communications be made part of the record and that the content be disclosed.
Commissioner Clarke disclosed the following: that he met with Stephanie Barbanell and Jerry Bass on Sunday, October 29; that he walked with them around Seaview Terrace, Vicente Terrace, the Le Merigot Hotel and Appian Way; that he took note of the general topography; and that he received lots of mail (most of which was included in the staff report as correspondence). Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum asked Commissioner Clarke for the substance of the communication. Commissioner Clarke stated that he made observations of the topography as it related to the buildings adjacent to the project site; discussed ground water problems; the potential for settling adjacent to the hotel; reviewed the building plans and had concerns regarding the light wells.
Chair Olsen asked if it is important to recount observations made and information received from neighbors. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that according to the rule, the substance and essence of the conversations should be recounted, but not verbatim.
Commissioner Dad disclosed that she visited the site alone several times; and received lots of mail (which was given to the Commission Secretary for the record). She stated that she had the same concerns and substance cited by Commissioner Brown. She also revealed that she received several calls from Stephanie Barbanell and telephoned the applicant’s attorney, Mr. Kutcher, to ask that requested materials be supplied to Ms. Barbanell and the neighborhood. She further disclosed that Ms. Barbanell left her a message saying that the materials had been received, though some were outdated. Lastly, she mentioned that Ms. Barbanell had raised the question of whether this Planning Commission has jurisdiction over this project.
Commissioner Johnson disclosed that he visited the site alone once; that he received one telephone call from Ms. Barbanell; that he had questions regarding the accuracy of the tract map, the quality of the geology report, and the process for the project. Lastly, he disclosed that he received the same letters as the other Commissioners and cited Commissioner Brown’s list of concerns.
Commissioner Loui disclosed that he visited the site, walked the area alone, and had no contact with the neighbors. He further disclosed that he received several calls from Ms. Barbanell, received the same letters as the other Commissioners and cited Commissioner Brown’s list of concerns.
Commissioner Moyle disclosed that she had spoken to Ms. Barbanell months ago regarding the project; that Ms. Barbanell had left several messages on her telephone and e-mailed her (e-mails were copied for the public record and given to the Commission). She further disclosed that she had read all the information in the staff report packet, including the negative declaration; however the correspondence received on the dais this evening was not read.
Chair Olsen disclosed that he had visited the site alone; had received calls from Ms. Barbanell, but only discussed the Commission’s approval process with her.
The applicant’s architect, Steven Frew, 710 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 300, Santa Monica 90401, was present to discuss the project design. Also present were the owner/developer, Jong Kim; the applicant’s geologist, John Irvine; the applicant’s community outreach person, Abby Arnold; and the applicant’s attorney, Kenneth Kutcher.
The following members of the public spoke against the project:
Stephanie Barbanell, Jerry Bass, John Oursland [also spoke for: Johann Stein, Steve Natale, and Fred Loetterle*], Elaine Anderson, Kiki Oxener, Ben Rudner, Tom Seiger, Joyce Syme, and Chase Reynolds. *Fred Loetterle was permitted to speak separately from Mr. Oursland.
The following members of the public spoke in favor of the project:
Sung Kim [applicant’s nephew], Elaine Gealer, and Les Steinberg.
Two additional request to speak forms were received, but these people chose not to speak or were not present when their names were called: Mark Hagedorn and Judith K. Groug.
[The Commission took a break at this time from 9:40 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.]
The applicant’s rebuttal time was split among the following people: Kenneth Kutcher, 1250 Sixth Street, Suite 300, Santa Monica 90401; and the applicants Mr. Jong Kim and Ms. Janice Kim.
Commissioner Johnson commented to Mr. Kim that he is bothered that the soils engineer allegedly is not licensed by the State of California. Mr. Kim stated that he believes the soils engineer, who works for Pioneer Soils and does geotechincal reports, was licensed. Commissioner Johnson stated that the actual engineers were not according to information received. Mr. Kutcher stated that the individuals in question worked for Pioneer Soils. Mr. Kim offered to have the soils report redone.
Chair Olsen asked Mr. Kutcher if he feels he has had adequate rebuttal time. Mr. Kutcher answered in the affirmative and stated that this project complies with all objective criteria for the application.
Commissioner Johnson asked the applicant’s geology consultant, John Irvine, to explain the cover letter dated August 29, 2000 for Pioneer Soils’ report of 1998. Mr. Irvine stated that the copy of the report given to him by the City contained no signature page signed by a registered engineer, however the report dated May 5, 1998 does have a valid signature.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Irvine about a reference on pages two and four citing “silky sand” as a soil condition and wondered if this would be subject to liquifaction. Mr. Irvine stated that the liquifaction zone is seaward of Appian Way per the 1998-99 United Stated Geological Survey (USGS) maps, not east where the project site lies. He also stated that the report states there is silt and clay beneath the site in question.
Commissioner Johnson asked again about the possibility of liquifaction at the subject site. Mr. Irvine stated that to the best of his knowledge the site is not subject to liquifaction. Commissioner Johnson asked if the site is subject to subsidence. Mr. Irvine stated that the subject site is landward from Appian Way and there is only a low potential for subsidence.
Commissioner Clarke asked for a non-technical explanation of the 1998 soils report. Mr. Irvine stated that three borings (six inch diameter) were made sixty feet into the ground at the subject site and the samples were analyzed.
Commissioner Clarke asked about the issue of ground water raised by several members of the public. Mr. Irvine stated that this is a complex issue, then stated the following: the ground water elevation according to the USGS is 10 –13 feet above sea level; and the proposed elevation of the underground parking structure is 18 feet above the ground water level in that location. He further stated that on the west side of Appian Way, the ground water goes below the water table so subterranean garages require pumping in those locations.
Commissioner Clarke asked about reported pumping occurring at the Le Merigot Hotel, which is on the same side of Appian Way as the proposed project. Mr. Irvine stated that he is not aware of any problems with Le Merigot, but surmised that their parking structure is deeper and extends farther eastward than the proposed project. He also stated that it may be run-off water being pumped and not ground water.
Commissioner Clarke asked about any relationship between the project and the Pico-Kenter Storm Drain. Mr. Irvine stated he is unaware of any connection and it is not cited in the City’s Seismic Safety Element.
Commissioner Clarke asked some technical questions regarding shoring for the proposed project. Mr. Irvine explained the shoring process.
[At approximately 10:30 p.m., Chair Olsen consulted with the Commission regarding continuing item 6-A to another hearing date. See item 6-A below.]
Commissioner Dad asked Mr. Irvine if he had met with the neighbors for this project and if he was aware of their concerns regarding the local geology. Mr. Irvine stated that while he has had only a short association with this project, he has been in touch with the neighbors. He also stated that he was aware of the situation at the Sea Castle site and explained the difference between the sites.
Commissioner Dad asked Mr. Irvine if he had been in contact with other projects in the area such as the Shutters Hotel and Le Merigot Hotel. Mr. Irvine answered in the negative.
Chair Olsen asked the City’s geotechnical consultant to come forward. Mr. Ken Wilson of Wilson GeoSciences introduced himself as a licensed geotechnical engineer. He stated for the record that he along with his colleague, Tom Benson, had reviewed the 1998 soils report and found that the project is feasible based on the sufficient amount of reasonable data contained therein. He stated that he is “comfortable with the conclusion” and assured the Commission that there will be a thorough review by the City during the plan check process.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Wilson about the reference on page two, Table 1, regarding the classification correction from “silty sand” to “clay.” Mr. Wilson stated that based on the raw data reviewed by himself and Mr. Benson, the more accurate description of the sample was “clay.”
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Wilson for his opinion on whether this site was subject to liquifaction. Mr. Wilson stated that there is a low or minimal threat. He explained that the base of the bluff signifies a geomorphic change in soil deposits.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the physical weight of the Le Merigot Hotel would have bearing on excavation for the proposed project. Mr. Wilson stated that he could not accurately answer that question without seeing actual calculations.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Wilson for his opinion on the omission of a stamp and signature of a licensed geologist on the soils report submitted for review. Mr. Wilson stated that the omission is non-professional and made him cautious during his review.
Commissioner Johnson stated that the State of California has written a letter stating that those who prepared the soils study are not professionals. Mr. Wilson responded that the copy he reviewed omitted that signature page, however that does not mean the study was not done by a licensed professional.
Commissioner Moyle commented on the geology of the beach area and noted that the Santa Monica Beach is basically man-made. She asked Mr. Wilson to verify that older soil generally has less movement. Mr. Wilson stated that this is basically correct based on the Pioneer soils report and the USGS and State of California liquifaction maps. Mr. Wilson also explained that as part of the building permit process pertaining to the site the geology report will be reviewed by expert staff and, if needed, the City will require additional information from the applicant’s soils engineer and permits will not be issued until the City is satisfied that all issues are resolved.
[Chair Olsen took a moment to acknowledge that the Commission does not need a motion to continue past 11:00 p.m. He informed the Commission that the applicant for 6-A is unavailable for the continued hearing date and asked for another date. See next item for actual motion and vote.]
Commissioner Clarke asked Mr. Wilson to comment on the issue of ground water flow. Mr. Wilson concurred that this is a complex area and that he is not familiar with the specifics for Santa Monica. He stated that a historic water level needs to be determined for accuracy.
Chair Olsen asked Mr. Wilson if, based on what he had just said, that more review is needed before the project proceeds. Ms. Frick stated that this is the kind of information prepared for soils reports for review prior to issuing the shoring permit and other building permits. She also stated that staff can require further analysis or stop the project if the reports prove to be infeasible.
Commissioner Moyle commented on ground water and dewatering as part of the site preparation for construction. She asked Mr. Wilson if the water table is closer to the surface as the topography nears sea level. Mr. Wilson stated that it depends on the soil type and geology of the area.
Commissioner Clarke asked for an explanation of the difference between the water table and subsurface water, such as a subterranean creek. Mr. Wilson explained how water moves through various types of soils.
Commissioner Loui commented on the geotechnical summary as regards pressure from the adjacent hotel to the north. Mr. Wilson stated a comprehensive list will be reviewed by the City’s expert during plan check.
Chair Olsen asked the Commission if they had questions for the applicant’s architect.
Commissioner Loui asked Mr. Frew to comment on the revised plans for “Craftsman” style and explained how the plans have changed. Mr. Frew explained the changes to the design, including the removal of two lofts and other design elements which lowered the overall height of the proposed building. Mr. Leach added that the original design had four lofts and the overall height was substantially taller. A discussion ensued regarding the stair penthouses and access to the roofs.
Chair Olsen commented that there appears to be information missing from the plans. Mr. Leach stated that although it will not be visible from Appian Way, the elevator should be shown on the southeast elevation.
Commissioner Loui stated that the south elevation stair tower is not shown and that the drawings are inconsistent. Mr. Leach projected the plans on the screen showing that the south stairs do not go to the roof and outlined the actual height and prior plan heights.
Commissioner Clarke expressed concern about the underground unit with the light-well. He asked if others exist in the City. Chair Olsen cited one location that he knew of on Twenty-Fourth Street. Commissioner Clarke also commented that the only light for the lower units media room is a skylight. He asked about egress requirements. Mr. Leach explained that egress is only required for sleeping rooms.
Commissioner Clarke asked for a profile on development between the ocean and Ocean Avenue. Mr. Leach stated that this is an R-3 district and development is consistent with the General Plan. He also explained requirements for average natural grade and stepbacks. Ms. Frick commented that the site in question is not part of any view corridor, however the stepbacks were designed to encourage views.
Commissioner Clarke asked about the Seaview Terrace historic district. Mr. Leach stated that the design before the Commission reflects the recommendations made by the Planning Commission in 1998.
Commissioner Brown asked about the parking layout. Mr. Leach stated that the original design did not allow for standard size spaces due to the building’s width and the latest design has extra tandem spaces, which comply with City size standards.
Commissioner Brown asked about the fate of the palm trees currently on-site. Mr. Leach stated that they are not a special species and under Condition #29, the palm trees must either be reused on-site or relocated off-site.
Commissioner Brown commented that she had noted on her walking tour that an adjacent single family dwelling had a building permit in the window. Mr. Leach stated that the sign in question is for either repair or remodeling work.
Commissioner Johnson raised the issue of the use of the roof, the stairway access and the nature of the rooftop mechanical equipment. Mr. Leach stated that rooftop mechanical equipment is generally air-conditioning units and explained the conditions that deal with the noise issue.
Commissioner Johnson asked a series of questions regarding the proposed roof decks and their proposed use. He stated that roof decks have proven to be a significant use in other projects and should be conditioned accordingly.
Commissioner Clarke asked where the parking garage gases are exhausted. Mr. Leach stated that the plans call for roof level exhaust with Condition #34 that requires the vents be directed away from adjacent residential uses.
Commissioner Clarke commented on the Seaview Terrace easement and asked what could be placed in that easement area. Mr. Leach stated that this is a private easement and the City is limited in directing what can and cannot be placed in it. He noted that there are already many encroachments into the easement. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum concurred with staff’s assessment and stated that most of the properties have been developed so that the full width of the easement cannot be utilized for walk purposes.
Commissioner Clarke commented on the CUP findings that the Commission must make and expressed the opinion that the proposed project seems to be out of scale with the Seaview Terrace neighborhood. Ms. Frick stated that staff looks at the general area including Appian Way, the adjacent hotels and other projects in the area, not just Seaview Terrace.
Chair Olsen asked the Commission if they had additional questions for staff. He thanked Mr. Leach and closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Clarke commented that he saw other small scale buildings on the adjacent residential streets and feels the proposed development is incompatible.
Chair Olsen asked the Commission for comments, suggestions, and modifications.
Commissioner Clarke commented that the proposed design does not “step down with the terrace” and expressed the opinion that he would favor redesign to be in scale with the Seaview Terrace neighborhood.
Commissioner Moyle asked staff for the next step in the process, whether to certify the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration [IS/MND]. Ms. Frick stated that certification comes before a motion to approve or deny the project. Commissioner Moyle commented that the IS/MND has materials from 1998 and asked if anything new was placed in that record. Mr. Leach stated that the IS/MND was recirculated in July 2000, additional responses were responded to as well as the addition of historic information and geological reports.
Commissioner Moyle asked if there has been any significant changes since July 2000. Mr. Leach stated the only change was the geology analysis.
Commissioner Moyle stated that she could not make a motion to certify the IS/MND.
Commissioner Johnson stated his agreement with Commissioner Clarke. He expressed concern regarding the soils report, which he would like to see redone and/or reviewed by certified engineers. He also expressed concern with the scale of the proposed building and its incompatibility with the neighborhood.
Chair Olsen asked staff about the issue of requiring a bond. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that a bond can be imposed at the stage of excavation, however it would protect the City not the neighbors.
Commissioner Dad expressed her opinion that she is not inclined to approve the project. She commented on the unique nature of walk streets. She stated that she would deny the project per the Land Use Element section on Ocean Front districts which requires low scale facades and strict height limits. She noted that the proposed project will obstruct views from higher up on Seaview Terrace. She stated that the proposed project will change the character of the neighborhood, which deserves preservation. She then cited three references in the staff report as grounds to deny the project.
Commissioner Brown commented that this is a difficult decision as there is no question that the project will effect the neighborhood. She stated that the proposed design is not compatible with Seaview Terrace, however it does not go against the General Plan and condominiums are permitted.
Chair Olsen reminded the Commission that they need to make findings as was done for the Sixteenth Street condominium project. Commissioner Brown stated that there is a problem with how to define the neighborhood.
Commissioner Moyle commented that the Sixteenth Street condominiums were denied without prejudice so the project can be redesigned. She stated that the Commission’s decision will effect many, especially the Kim family who have already spent three years designing this project. She commented on the issue of fairness, to the applicant and to the neighborhood. She also commented that the applicant has operated with good faith and tried to meet the spirit of the prior Commission’s requests. She stated that the neighborhood has acquitted itself well and put everything on the record. She expressed concerns regarding the soils report. She stated that she can not support a motion for denial.
Commissioner Clarke commented on Commissioner Brown’s remarks. He agreed that a condominium project can be built on the site, but it should be smaller with, perhaps, less units. He stated there is a need to protect the interests of the City and the neighbors. He then stated that the current project does not adequately meet the Commission’s concerns.
Chair Olsen commented that Commissioner Clarke’s last statement is compelling. He stated that he is satisfied with the explanation on the soils report. He also stated that construction noise cannot be helped and the bond issue is not a Commission issue. He commented that this project is significantly better than the previously presented project. He noted that Commissioner Moyle presented an interesting perspective. He stated that it is not uncommon to have projects return and that the compatibility issue is a judgment call. He expressed the opinion that a redesigned project should follow the topography of the site.
Commissioner Dad expressed her general agreement with Commissioners Brown and Moyle that this is a difficult decision. She stated that she is more inclined to deny the project as it uses every square foot of space available. She also stated that it does not fit with the historic preservation of the walk street.
Commissioner Loui expressed his support for the staff recommendations in their entirety as regards context and design. He stated that the design is consistent with Appian Way, which the project faces. He also stated that Seaview Terrace is very strong in itself and very compelling. He commented that smaller units could have been designed with a north/south focus. He noted that the applicant stated that the project was designed so that he and his family can live there. He concluded by saying he supports the comments made by Commissioners Brown and Moyle.
Commissioner Clarke commented that although the building was redesigned with the removal of two lofts and one stair tower, the project did not really get smaller as the same number of units are proposed.
Chair Olsen stated that the proposed project does not fit with the neighborhood.
Commissioner Johnson stated that everyone knows the lot will eventually be built on and there is goodwill on both sides to work together. He made a motion to deny the project without prejudice.
Commissioner Dad seconded the motion.
Commissioner Loui commented that the key to Seaview Terrace is that it is a walk street with its own rhythm and frequency of doors, walls and fences. The project should be designed to reflect that rhythm.
Commissioner Johnson expressed his endorsement of Commissioner Loui’s comments.
Commissioner Clarke stated that no other building on Seaview Terrace is taller than two stories and a redesigned project should not significantly exceed that height.
Chair Olsen asked staff to comment on findings. Ms. Frick stated that a motion to deny requires findings based on information and documentation on compatibility. She stated it is not appropriate to give direction, unless the item is being continued for redesign.
Chair Olsen asked if the denial is appealed, can the project be remanded back to the Commission for redesign. Ms. Frick stated that this is not the best process. She recommended that, if the Commission is considering a continuation for redesign, the applicant be consulted.
Chair Olsen asked the Commission to comment. Commissioner Dad stated her inclination in favor of the project if it is redesigned and the issues of the soils report and parking are addressed.
Commissioner Moyle asked staff if the lot across Appian Way will be built on. Mr. Leach stated that it is a public parking lot. Commissioner Moyle commented that the parking lot will remain undeveloped and she would prefer to face the beach rather than Seaview Terrace. She noted that orienting the units north-south would limit their ocean views.
The applicant’s attorney asked for a five minute break to consult with his client. [Commissioner Brown left the meeting.] Following the short break, Mr. Kutcher stated that his client wants to redesign the project if it can be expedited. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum asked Mr. Kutcher to acknowledge that his client understands that the project, including the Tract Map and IS/MND was being continued. Mr. Kutcher responded in the affirmative.
Chair Olsen announced that Commission Brown had expressed her support for a redesign before she left. Ms. Frick stated that the Commission should articulate what they expect in a redesigned project.
Commissioner Clarke stated that the redesigned project should reflect the scale of the neighborhood of Seaview Terrace, two-story height and clear entrances on Seaview Terrace.
Chair Olsen asked that the façade reflect the sense of scale of Seaview Terrace including using the existing topography of the site, stepping up from west to east.
Commissioner Dad expressed her agreement with Chair Olsen and Commissioner Clarke. She asked that the historic character of Seaview Terrace, height and scale, be essentially maintained.
Commissioner Johnson agreed with the prior comments. He asked that the CC&Rs prohibit the use of the roof decks from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and that no furniture be permitted. He also asked that the Appian Way façade be broken up.
Commissioner Loui asked for the continuation of the spirit of the neighborhood with a sequence of doors and windows facing Seaview Terrace at the pedestrian level and the massing sequence be proportional to and in character with Seaview Terrace.
Commissioner Moyle stated she had no suggestions and would vote against the motion.
Chair Olsen commented that the Craftsman style fits the neighborhood and is appropriate. He expressed agreement with the comments made by the other Commissioners. He again stressed the need for the redesign to follow the topography of the site with stepbacks in the façade.
Commissioner Johnson asked that there be a new rendering which accurately portrays the building scale and separation. He then made a motion to continue this item for redesign per the comments made by the Commission.
Commissioner Dad seconded the motion.
The motion to continue the hearing for project redesign was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Clarke, Dad, Johnson, Loui, Olsen; NOES: Moyle; ABSENT: Brown.
ACTION: CONTINUED FOR REDESIGN.
6. PUBLIC HEARING:
6-A. Conditional Use Permit 98-037, Text Amendment 98-007, Variance 00-011, 1549 Twelfth Street. Text Amendment to modify Part 9.04.18.040 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to allow existing nonconforming commercial and industrial uses to continue operation in the R1, R2, R2R, R3, R4, and RVC Districts through the approval of a conditional use permit; application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the continued operation of a nonconforming commercial/light industrial use located at 1549 Twelfth Street in the R3 (Medium Density Multiple Family Residential) and R3-A (Medium Density Multiple Family Residential with Off-Street Parking Overlay) Districts, subject to approval of the proposed Text Amendment, and Variance 00-011 to allow a maximum 14-foot high cantilevered fence to be installed on the northern (sideyard) property line. (Planner: Donna Jerex) Applicant/Property Owner: Smith Pipe and Supply.
Upon the recommendation of staff, Commissioner Dad made a motion to continue item 6-A to Wednesday, November 15, 2000. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion, which was approved b voice vote.
Later in the evening (at approximately 11:00 p.m.), the Commission learned that the applicant would not be available on November 15, 2000. Commissioner Dad made a motion to continued item 6-A to Wednesday, December 13, 2000. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote.
ACTION: CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 13, 2000.
7. FUTURE COMMISSION AGENDA ITEMS:
Chair Olsen requested that staff reports be made available in a binder outside the Council Chambers for all hearing items on a given agenda. Ms. Frick stated that this will be done.
8. PUBLIC INPUT: None.
9. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 1:09 a.m. on Thursday, November 9, 2000.
APPROVED: FEBRUARY 7, 2001