M I N U T E S
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
WEDNESDAY, February 12, 2003
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
ROOM 213, CITY HALL
1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:17 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL: Present: Barbara Brown (left at 10:10 p.m.)
Darrell Clarke, Chairperson
Julie Lopez Dad
Jay P. Johnson
Geraldine Moyle (left at 10:10 p.m.)
Also Present: Wini Allard, City Librarian
Gordon Anderson, Assistant City Manager
Elizabeth Bar-El, AICP, Associate Planner
Kimberly Christensen, AICP, Senior Planner
Patrick Clarke, Associate Planner
Kyle Ferstead, Commission Secretary
Paul Foley, Senior Planner
Suzanne Frick, Director of Planning / PCD
Kevin McKeown, City Council Liaison
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. Ms. Frick reported that on Tuesday night the City Council discussed outdoor dining standards and signage for commercial districts and directed staff to prepare an ordinance to relax the standards for outdoor dining in most commercial districts by summer. She commented that enforcement will continue until such time as the ordinance is enacted. Additionally, Ms. Frick reported that the Commission will find information regarding the 2003 Planners Institute Conference at their places and they should contact her if they wish to attend. Lastly, Ms. Frick announced the forthcoming Commission meetings as follows: February 19, March 5, March 12 and March 19, 2003.
Commissioner Johnson stated he would unavailable for the meeting on February 19, 2003.
City Council Liaison McKeown announced that the City Council had also adopted the Sustainable City Plan including all the Commission’s recommendations. Commissioner Johnson asked for a report on three other “terrific” things adopted by the City Council. City Council Liaison McKeown stated that the Council voted to make all City parks “smoke free,” adopted a resolution affirming Santa Monica's commitment to civil liberties and supporting city protection for Constitutional rights; adopted a resolution urging the full legal recognition of same-sex marriages under California law; and voted to go on record as opposing a preemptive military action by the U.S. against Iraq, absent U.N. support, because of numerous negative local impacts.
Commissioner Olsen stated that he is withdrawing discussion item 6-E.
5. PUBLIC HEARING: Continued Items
5-A. Conditional Use Permit 02-025, Development Review Permit 02-015, Variance 03-002 and Text Amendment 02TA008; 1342 Sixth Street (Main Library). Proposed is a new 102,058 square foot, two-story Main Library to located at 1343 Sixth Street that will contain three levels of subterranean parking with a total of 559 parking spaces located on-site. A total of 189 on-site parking spaces will be required for the Main Library in-lieu of the Code required 408 spaces. The remaining parking spaces will be available for public parking. The public hearing was continued from January 8, 2003. (Planner: Patrick Clarke) APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: City of Santa Monica.
The Commission made the following ex parte communication disclosures regarding this project:
· Commissioner Olsen disclosed that on the Saturday following the prior hearing (January 11, 2003), at approximately 11:30 p.m. he spoke with Councilmember Ken Genser regarding the Council’s actions and issues raised during the prior City Council hearing on proposed changes to the new Main Library design, specifically that he concurred with the City Council’s request for changes to the Sixth and Seventh Street facades.
· Commissioner Moyle disclosed for the record that she was not present at the previous hearing, however she has reviewed the video tape of the meeting and read all the materials provided by staff.
· Chair Clarke disclosed that he received a call at 7:30 p.m. on January 9, 2003, from Gene Oppenheim regarding this project.
· Commissioner Hopkins disclosed she had e-mail exchanges with staff concerning contracts being signed and prompt approvals by the Commission and the Architectural Review Board being needed to ensure costs do not increase. She stated that Ms. Frick has assured her that the Commission’s actions will not delay the project. Commissioner Hopkins also stated that information she requested about the library was not provided to her.
Ms. Frick stated for the record that any cost increases for the project will not be due to the Commission’s review time for the project and that the potential always exists, for any project, to have cost increases.
· Commissioner Dad disclosed that Patricia Hoffman and Gene Oppenheim contacted her regarding the Commission’s concerns for the library project on January 9, 2003.
· Commissioners Brown and Johnson had nothing to disclose.
Associate Planner Patrick Clarke gave the staff report.
Commissioner Johnson expressed concern that the Text Amendment language is too broad, specifically the “institutional, governmental and other public buildings” phrase. He asked for definitions of these terms and if hospitals would be included. Mr. Clarke stated that the Zoning Ordinance does not have definitions for these terms, however the language is more narrowly defined than in the current Zoning Ordinance and does provide a requirement for the Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
Chair Clarke stated he had a similar concern as Commissioner Johnson, especially as concerns “public buildings.” Ms. Frick stated that she understands the Commission’s concerns regarding SMMC Section 9.04.06.080, however compliance by the school district and other agencies would require a CUP.
Commissioner Johnson asked for confirmation that the Text Amendment specifically covers the issue of requiring an entry every 100-feet on large buildings. Mr. Clarke stated that the Text Amendment is for this zoning district only and permits staff review.
Commissioner Olsen commented that the Text Amendment language has an exception and asked why this should be done by staff approval. He stated that governmental buildings are not outside the law. Ms. Frick stated that the approval would be akin to an Adjustment and staff felt it was appropriate for staff determination. She assured Commissioner Olsen that public review will still exist through review by the Commission and Architectural Review Board (ARB).
Commissioner Olsen asked for the size involved in discretionary permits. Ms. Frick stated that the size would be less than 7500 square feet if the project or use is permitted in the district.
Commissioner Dad commented on her concern about Text Amendments in general and for all public buildings in particular. She stated that her problems include that the entity bringing the project forward (the City) also reviews the project and that the City has not produced “great looking” buildings.
Commissioner Brown asked how an exception can be granted for this project only. Commissioner Johnson suggested a variance be granted. Ms. Frick explained that there is no provision in the current Zoning Ordinance to grant a variance. Commissioner Brown asked if granting the Text Amendment will amend the Code so that a variance can be issued. Ms. Frick stated that the Text Amendment requires City Council approval, therefore the Commission can recommend to the Council any changes they deem appropriate for the Text Amendment.
Commissioner Hopkins asked about the parking requirement for the project, which is based on a 1997 parking demand study done by Kaku Associates. She commented that the new library is likely to attract more people and the proposed number of parking spaces may be inappropriate. Senior Planner Paul Foley stated that the estimated demand was based on the library’s proposal, not on the parking demand study. Commissioner Hopkins asked for a copy of the study. Mr. Foley stated that the technical study is in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Commissioner Hopkins stated that the figures seem very low. Ms. Frick stated that all spaces in excess will be treated as they are in other public parking structures in the City and there is the provision to use some of the spaces as permit parking spaces to ease crowding in the downtown parking structures. Commissioner Hopkins asked if the peak hour demand for spaces increases, can the number of permit spaces be adjusted. Ms. Frick explained that the purpose of the parking variance is to allow flexibility in the permit parking program. She stated that the top priority is to provide adequate parking for the library patrons and staff.
Commissioner Olsen commented that if the Commission recommends adoption of the Text Amendment, the City Council could still change the wording. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the Commission is acting as an advisor to the City Council and the Council does have the final say.
Commissioner Olsen asked for confirmation that the City Council would not review the Text Amendment unless it was appealed if the Commission denied it. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the City Council adopts legislation, such as Text Amendments. Ms. Frick stated that if the Commission is inclined not to adopt the Text Amendment, then the project needs to be redesigned to meet Code. Chair Clarke stated that the Text Amendment wording could also be amended. Ms. Frick answered in the affirmative.
The applicant’s team included Wini Allard, City Librarian, Gene Oppenheim, Chairperson of the Library Board, and the project architect, John Ruble of Moore, Ruble, Yudell Architects and Planners. They gave a presentation on the revisions made to the facades.
Commissioner Hopkins asked about the current width of the planting area on Sixth Street. Mr. Ruble stated that the current planting area is 30-inches wide.
Commissioner Johnson commented on trees types and suggested the use of California Willow and more palm trees. He asked if the Library Board discussed landscaping. Mr. Ruble answered in the affirmative and stated that the landscape plans are being carefully designed and include palm trees for verticality.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the ARB will be reviewing the landscape plans following the Commission review. Mr. Ruble answered in the affirmative.
Commissioner Olsen asked Mr. Ruble if the column detail had changed. Mr. Ruble stated that the view appears different using the “daylight” rendering. Commissioner Olsen then commended the architect for the changes made to the upper level of the project design, especially on the eastside. He then expressed concern regarding the lower portion of the building and the “tiling effect.” Mr. Ruble explained the design concept and why the tiling is proposed at certain levels. He stated that in one portion there will be indoor seating at the window wall which affects the exterior wall design and proportions.
Commissioner Olsen asked about the Seventh Street rendering and use of the tile material in that location. Mr. Ruble stated that there is a proposal to add to the tile visually by the use of lines of text, such as literary quotations. Commissioner Olsen commented positively on the visual and mental stimulation such an addition would have. He again expressed pleasure with changes made to the upper portion of the building design.
The following members of the public addressed the Commission regarding the redesigned library: Sherrill Kushner(former Library Boardmember and Friends of the Library Boardmember), Sara Van Dyck (Friends of the Library Boardmember), Susanne Trimbath (Friends of the Library Boardmember), and Kenneth Breisch (Library Boardmember).
The applicant’s team waived their response time.
Chair Clarke complimented the architect for his “great” response to the Commission’s comments and concerns. He also complimented the great detail shown on the new renderings and stated that this really helps the Commission visualize the project. He asked if the lower textured surfaces will be graffiti proofed. Mr. Ruble stated that this issue is being studied.
Chair Clarke asked if there is any way to soften the Santa Monica Boulevard façade. Mr. Ruble stated that this elevation is constrained by the City’s Transit Mall streetscape requirements. He also stated that the Transit Mall has a strong graphic pattern as well as street furniture. Additionally, Mr. Ruble suggested the introduction of wall plantings to vary the experience and draw the eye upward.
Commissioner Johnson commented on the north entry garden and stair design. He suggested that the wall needs a design element or a City seal. Mr. Ruble stated that the auditorium’s name may be added to the wall.
Commissioner Olsen commented on the materials options and direction to ARB regarding which materials are preferred. He then commented on the Seventh Street parking garage entry. Mr. Ruble stated that the Seventh Street entry is actually a stairway egress from the garage to a vestibule and there is no elevator access at this location.
Commissioner Olsen asked who is expected to be the primary users of this access point, the library patrons of other parkers. Mr. Ruble expressed the opinion that the primary users will not be library patrons.
Commissioner Hopkins commended the architect for his work, especially the refining of the design. She expressed concern about ultra-violet light coming into the numerous windows and how that will effect the books. Mr. Ruble explained that the sunlight will be controlled by the use of “low-E” glass and the window bays cut light via roof overhands as well as placement of book shelves away from windows.
Chair Clarke asked staff a procedural question on motions. Ms. Frick stated that individual motions are required.
Commissioner Brown made a motion to recommend the City Council adopt the Text Amendment that allows for the library exception, but no other exceptions. She stated that the City Council should provide a variance solely for the library.
The Commission discussed the implications of the motion and variations to the Text Amendment wording. Ms. Frick reminded the Commission that no variance was before them, but suggested the wording be narrowed to focus on City Libraries only. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum cautioned the Commission that it would be highly problematic to recommend a Text Amendment that was specific to a single project.
Commissioner Brown asked staff if there is a way to recommend the Text Amendment provide a relaxation of the code through a variance procedure and hereby grant the variance. Ms. Frick answered in the negative.
Chair Clarke commented on the requirement for public entrances every 100-feet.
Commissioner Olsen suggested that in SMMC Section 9.04.18.060 (h), the word “institutional” be deleted and the term “governmental building or library” be used instead. He expressed concern that this may be administratively approved, which he feels is a conflict.
Commissioner Johnson seconded Commissioner Olsen’s suggestion.
Commissioner Dad suggested changing the wording to include educational facilities, which would include schools and libraries. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated this change would be more favorable since he is concerned with legislating for one specific project and this would narrow the scope.
Commissioner Olsen suggested using only the term “municipal buildings,” which would preclude educational facilities. He explained that this would exclude institutions that do not require City approval, but only State approvals.
Commissioner Hopkins asked if the change in the ordinance wording would include discretionary review by the Commission. Commissioner Olsen answered in the affirmative.
Commissioner Brown stated that her concerns have been met and it would be cleaner to provide for a variance, however she does not want to delay the project.
The Commission discussed more variations to the Text Amendment wording. Ms. Frick reminded the Commission that findings would need to made this evening.
Commissioner Olsen asked that a letter from Chair Clarke be sent to the City Council regarding the reasons for narrowing the Text Amendment language and only the language the Commission recommends is acceptable for approval of the library project.
Following further discussion, Commissioner Olsen withdrew his prior motion. Commissioner Johnson withdrew his second. Commissioner Olsen made a new motion to recommend adoption of the Text Amendment with the change in wording to “municipal buildings,” and with the appropriate findings to modify the number of public entrances in the C3 Downtown Commercial Zoning District.
Commissioner Dad seconded the motion.
The motion to recommend adoption of the revised Text Amendment was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Brown, Clarke, Dad, Hopkins, Johnson, Moyle, Olsen.
Commissioner Johnson made a motion to approve DR 02-015. Commissioner Moyle seconded the motion.
Commissioner Olsen asked for a condition that the ARB pay particular attention to the pedestrian orientation at street level as well as choice of materials at street level.
Chair Clarke commented that he liked the addition of planters and trees to the project.
Commissioner Hopkins commented on the public process for this project and stated that in the future, for City projects, more time be given for review.
The motion to approve the Development Review permit was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Brown, Clarke, Dad, Hopkins, Johnson, Moyle, Olsen.
Commissioner Olsen made a motion to approve the parking variance. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion.
Commissioner Hopkins expressed concern regarding the variance and that there may not be enough parking in the proposed structure. She asked for a condition calling for annual review of the parking demand for the library by the Library Board. She stated that parking preference should be given to library patrons.
Commissioner Olsen commented that parking demand is “market driven” and he feels the Friends of the Library would let the library staff know if there was insufficient parking spaces available for patrons.
Commissioner Dad commented on the nature of library use by patrons and that many users do not come to the library via automobiles. Commissioner Hopkins stated she understands the comments made by Commissioner Dad, however many errors have been made in other parking studies and she wants the library to have a mechanism to provide more parking for patrons.
Chair Clarke asked staff if the leased parking spaces will be separated by a gate or if “stickers” will be used. Ms. Frick stated that the parking will be operated like other City-owned parking structures in the downtown area. She stated that there will be no guaranteed parking spaces for permit users, just entry/exit privileges. She also stated that this will be a balanced shared use and the variance gives flexibility for parking.
Commissioner Brown asked if it will be possible, should the need arise, to reduce the number of public users. Ms. Frick explained that monthly parkers can be “non-renewed” thereby shifting the balance of parking spaces for library patrons and public parking. Commissioner Brown asked how this will be determined and by whom. Ms. Frick stated that the parking use will be monitored monthly by City staff for number of parkers and duration of use and the amount of monthly short term parking availability will be determined.
Commissioner Hopkins asked who decides on parking availability if the City needs additional revenue and where is the locus of control. Ms. Frick stated that the space belongs to the Redevelopment Agency and various City departments will work collaboratively to adjust parking availability to suit the library’s needs.
The motion to approve the parking variance was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Brown, Clarke, Dad, Johnson, Moyle, Olsen; NOES: Hopkins.
Commissioner Hopkins stated for the record that her “no” vote was because she wants to protect the library’s parking availability.
Commissioner Moyle made a motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion.
Ms. Frick stated that additional findings are needed based on the changes made to the Text Amendment. It was determined that practical difficulties and exceptional circumstances exist in that the Main Library, as a public building, has special security needs, that the project design provides ample pedestrian amenities, including public open space and landscaping which offset the need for additional public entrances. Commissioner Moyle added that the Main Library, as a unique municipal use, was the embodiment of a public amenity in the City.
The motion to approve the CUP was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Brown, Clarke, Dad, Hopkins, Johnson, Moyle, Olsen.
[The Commission took a break from 10:10 p.m. to 10:40 p.m.]
5-B. Appeal 02-018 of Architectural Review Board Approval ARB 02-097; 1411 Seventh Street. Appeal of the Architectural Review Board’s (ARB) approval of the design, colors, materials, landscaping and irrigation plans for a new 52,466 square-foot mixed-use project, containing a 52-unit apartment building with residential units on the upper 4 stories over 1,947 square feet of ground floor retail with ground-level parking and two levels of subterranean parking. [Planner: Elizabeth Bar-El, AICP] APPLICANT: JSM Biella, LLC. APPELLANT: Arthur Harris and Ellen Brennan. PROPERTY OWNER: Craig Jones. Continued from January 22, 2003.
The Commission had no disclosures to make for this continued hearing item other than they had all listened to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) hearing tapes for this project.
Ms. Frick stated that the public hearing is closed for this item.
The Commission discussed the comments made by the City Council Liaison to the ARB, Herb Katz. It was determined that Councilmember Katz merely gave direction to the ARB but did not exert undue influence, as was alleged. The Commission then discussed comments made by the ARB about the project.
The applicant’s architect, Don Empakeris, was present to discuss the design changes in the project.
Ms. Frick reminded the Commission that they are in deliberation and recommended that the public hearing not be reopened.
Following a request by Chair Clarke, Mr. Empakeris related the newest changes to the project design, including lowering the planters to eighteen inches to allow for seating and a change in plant materials.
Chair Clarke asked if there would be vines or trellises. Mr. Empakeris stated that vine pockets could be added to the brick facades.
Chair Clarke asked if there was a materials board. Mr. Empakeris answered in the affirmative.
Chair Clarke asked about the provision for seating. Mr. Empakeris stated that planters will be eighteen inches high with an eighteen inch wide ledge. He also stated that the glass will come down to the planter edge.
Commissioner Johnson asked for the applicant’s reaction to the staff recommendation. Commissioner Olsen objected to giving the applicant more time to make a presentation. Commissioner Johnson stated that he has an issue with inadequate height and massing on the south side. Mr. Empakeris stated that the current building design has lots of frontyard setback and plantings and exceeds required stepbacks. He further stated that the building is on an 80-foot wide street and the permitted height limit is lower than on Fifth and Sixth Streets. Lastly, Mr. Empakeris stated that there are major trees in the landscape plan and the building has been stepped back from the south side building. The property owner, Craig Jones, stated that he met with City staff on January 21, 2002, regarding making changes on the southeast elevation to meet concerns raised by staff.
Commissioner Johnson commented that the retail space seem rather “lobby-like.” Mr. Empakeris stated that the left side doors are set too far back, but if the benches were removed, then there could be a small food service business with tables.
Commissioner Johnson commented that the design is dramatic, but it does not harmonize with the building to the south. Mr. Empakeris stated that stylistically it can not harmonize and then commented on other buildings in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Hopkins asked about the southside of the building and how light and air will reach into the “incision.” Mr. Empakeris explained air movement in and around the building, including the use of courtyards.
Commissioner Olsen asked if the model presented is the same one used at the prior meeting and if the exact same plan has been presented to the Commission. Mr. Empakeris answered in the affirmative.
Chair Clarke asked for the percentage of blank walls that go straight up. Mr. Empakeris stated that would be approximately 25% of the walls.
Chair Clarke closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Olsen asked for clarification from staff regarding the ground floor treatment and other issues raised with the architect. Mr. Trevino stated that Ms. Schachter, Ms. Christensen and himself met with Mr. Empakeris to discuss concerns raised regarding the street elevation transition. He stated that the trees on the adjacent lot add to the transition, but since they are on the adjacent property should not be considered as part of the current project. He also stated that it is likely the trees will be harmed when excavation is done for this project. He noted that the basic issues raised had to do with pedestrian and street orientation of the building design.
Commissioner Olsen asked for more information regarding the tree issue. Mr. Trevino stated that in the meeting with the architect, it was stated that the trees are part of the transition between the adjacent property and the proposed project and staff recommended that this elevation be revised. Commissioner Olsen stated that the adjacent trees should not be used as a mitigation measure for this project.
Commissioner Hopkins expressed her appreciation for the dramatic curves and the benches for the proposed project. She stated that she shares the concerns raised by staff regarding the façade. She commented that she is concern that there will not be enough light and air for the units, especially for units facing the “incisions.”
Commissioner Olsen stated that he concurs with recommendations made by Mr. Trevino and staff, as well as being concerned for the trees and front corner façade. He stated that there is a “massive blankness” on the rear and north sides of the proposed building.
Chair Clarke commented on the massing impact on the neighbors, especially the verticality. He questioned the choice of brick for the facade. He expressed the desire for more green space and more “residential feel” for the building.
Commissioner Dad stated she is pleased with how the building is “broken-up” on the westside and continues around to the side. She also stated she appreciates staff’s comments about the street level design, however if an incidental food service goes into the building, then she would prefer that the entry not be on the sidewalk. She further stated that she likes the plantings and the use of the brick, but they can be changed if the Commission comes to consensus. Commissioner Dad stated that her only concern is for the north and south elevations.
Chair Clarke asked for consensus that the property line walls should not rise straight up from the ground level to the top of the building, especially not as blank walls, and that there should be setbacks above the first floor to soften the building. The Commission came to consensus on the matter.
Chair Clarke asked for consensus that ground floor retail space should be enhanced and that a food service use would be a good use. The Commission came to consensus on the matter.
Chair Clarke asked for consensus that the brick material should be changed. Commissioner Johnson suggested a stone material be used. Commissioner Hopkins suggested masonry. Chair Clarke suggested shingle style. There was no consensus.
Commissioner Olsen stated that he concurs with staff regarding the planter in that it is too much of a barrier. He also stated that the retail space should be oriented toward the street. Chair Clarke commented that he generally likes the street façade.
Commissioner Hopkins commented on the “incisions” and stated that attention should be paid to the issue of light and air for the units facing into these areas.
Commissioner Olsen asked if the rear of the building is included in the request for setbacks above the first floor. Commissioner Hopkins felt the setback should begin at the third floor on the rear elevation.
Ms. Frick reminded the Commission that there is no guarantee that an incidental food service will go into the ground floor retail space. Chair Clarke expressed the hope that the design will invite such a use.
The applicant’s representative, Craig Jones, expressed appreciation for the comments made by the Commission, as well as concern that some of the requests may effect the Administrative Approval for the project. He stated that the requests will likely reduce the density by 30-40%. He concluded by saying that he took notes, heard the comments, and will return with a revised design as soon as possible.
Ms. Frick stated that this is an appeal, so there is no streamlining issue. She stated that staff will need to analyze the design changes and write a new staff report, which staff will do in a timely manner, however a new hearing date will be continguent on the applicant’s submission of new drawings. Based on this, the item will not be continued to a date certain.
Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum commented on a letter received from the Law Offices of Harding, Larmore, Kutcher and Kozal regarding the density of housing project and a statute cited in the letter. He stated for the record that the statute cited only applies when a project is denied and this project has not been denied.
Commissioner Olsen made a motion to continue this item for redesign based on the comments made by the Commission and by Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum.
Commissioner Dad seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Clarke, Dad, Hopkins, Johnson, Olsen; ABSENT: Brown, Moyle.
6. DISCUSSION: Continued Items
6-A. Request of Commissioners Johnson and Olsen for the Commission to discuss and adopt a policy of prohibiting ex parte meetings and other forms of lobbying Commissioners by interested parties outside of public view for quasi-judicial items that appear before the Commission, to establish rules and procedures for the transmittal of written materials and e-mails from interested parties regarding quasi-judicial items and give direction to staff to prepare language to amend the Commission rules to carry out these policies. Requested via e-mail on August 27, 2002. [Continued from October 9, 2002, November 6 and November 20, 2002.]
6-B. Discussion on appropriate scope, areas and subjects of analysis to be undertaking by the Master Environmental Assessment (MEA). Requested by Commissioner Hopkins via e-mail on October 10, 2002. [Continued from November 6, November 20, and December 4, 2002.]
6-C. Discussion on the procedure for public appeal of an Administrative Approval and for initiation of an Administrative Approval Revocation Hearing. Requested by Commissioners Brown, Hopkins and Johnson on November 20, 2002. [Continued from December 6, 2002.]
6-D. Request by Commissioners Brown and Hopkins to discuss possible text amendment to expand criteria for revocation of administrative approvals, to add public notification and to add public appeal procedures. Requested by Commissioner Hopkins via e-mail on November 27, 2002.
6-E. Request to set a date for a public hearing to hear from staff about the status of the Housing Element, what is expected from the City of Santa Monica by the State in regards to housing production, what is being done by other communities, how Santa Monica compares and the option that the City has, to discuss if there are any means available to fulfill the State requirements without rezoning the single family R1 districts to allow apartments and condominiums and to hear from the public about such rezoning. Requested by Commissioner Olsen via e-mail on January 28, 2003.
6-F. To discuss the merits and practicality of initiating a text amendment to eliminate the sign code and all rules and regulations related to signs. Requested by Commissioner Olsen via e-mail on January 28, 2003.
6-G. Request of Commissioners Brown and Hopkins to direct staff to add a standing agenda consent calendar subsection: Requests for Information. Requested via e-mail on January 30, 2003.
7. FUTURE COMMISSION AGENDA ITEMS: None.
8. PUBLIC INPUT: None.
9. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 12:08 a.m. on Thursday, February 13, 2003.
APPROVED: March 19, 2003