M I N U T E S

REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA

WEDNESDAY, February 5, 2003	CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 P.M.	ROOM 213, CITY HALL

1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:17 p.m.

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

3. ROLL CALL: Present: Darrell Clarke, Chairperson

Julie Lopez Dad

Arlene Hopkins

Jay P. Johnson

Kelly Olsen

Absent: Barbara Brown

Geraldine Moyle

Also Present: 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. She reported that the City Council on Tuesday night reviewed the interim development standards for North of Wilshire and Sunset Park, which will be effective for 45 days, as well as adopting changes in the Landmarks process. On February 11, 2003, the City Council will be reviewing rules for outdoor dining and seating standards in the commercial districts public right-of-way. On February 25, 2003, the Council will be holding a hearing on the appeal of 1719 Ocean Front Walk and reviewing proposed Code Enforcement fees for proactive enforcement of Conditional Use Permit conditions of approval. Ms. Frick also reported that the Commission is scheduled to meet on the following dates: February 12, February 19, March 5, and March 19. She apologized that due to changes requested by the City Council at their prior meeting, the Main Library staff report will not be going out until Thursday.

Commissioner Johnson stated that he will not be available for the meeting on February 19, 2003.

5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

Commissioner Dad made a motion to approve the minutes for December 11, 2002, and December 18, 2002, as submitted. Commissioner Hopkins seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote.

6. STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION: Consent Calendar

Commissioner Hopkins made a motion to approve items 6-A, 6-B, 6-C and 6-D, as submitted. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote.

Commissioner Hopkins made a motion to approve items 6-E, as submitted. Commissioner Dad seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote with Commissioner Johnson abstaining.

6-A. Design Compatibility Permit 01-016 and Tract Map 02-001, 2013 Twenty-First Street

6-B. Design Compatibility Permit 02-004 and Tract Map 02-00, 1750 Tenth Street

6-C. Conditional Use Permit 02-017, 1719 Ocean Front Walk

6-D. Conditional Use Permit 02-026 and Variance 02-027, 1324 Fifth Street

6-E. Design Compatibility Permit 02-007 and Tract Map 02-005, 1415 Sixteenth Street

7. PUBLIC HEARING: Continued from November 20, 2002

7-A. Appeal 02-009 of Architectural Review Board Approval ARB 02-020; 1450 Fifth Street. Appeal of the Architectural Review Board’s approval of building design, colors, materials and landscaping plans for a 52-unit mixed use project with subterranean parking at 1450 Fifth Street. [Planner: Patrick Clarke] APPLICANT: David Hibbert, AIA. APPELLANTS: Arthur Harris and Ellen Brennan.

The Commission began the hearing by making their ex parte communication disclosures. Commissioner Dad disclosed that she spoke to the architect following the prior hearing, but did not discussion any matters of substance for this case. Chair Clarke disclosed that he received a telephone call from the project architect, David Hibbert, on December 18, 2002, with a request for clarification on comments made at the prior public hearing. He stated that he was also asked to review new sketches of the project, however Chair Clarke stated that he explained that the Commission is not permitted to “design” the project. He concluded his disclosure by saying that did review the sketches and informed the architect that they were not consistent with his comments. Commissioners Hopkins, Johnson and Olsen had nothing to disclose.

Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum explained that for purposes of ex parte communication disclosure, that once the hearing process has commenced, the Commission should not meet with the applicant or associates of the project. Commissioner Johnson asked if this means that if a project is listed on the Commission’s Caselist, then no communication should take place regarding the project. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that contact is not prohibited under the Commission’s Rules of Order, only that such contact should be disclosed.

Associate Planner Patrick Clarke gave the staff report.

Commissioner Johnson asked staff about the new plans showing a plaza and new setbacks. Mr. Clarke explained the changes to the plans.

The appellants, Ellen Brennan and Arthur Harris, addressed the Commission regarding their appeal and the newest changes to the project design.

Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Harris about the “canyonization” effect of the proposed project and the lack of vertical setbacks above the second floor. Mr. Harris stated that he respects the right of the developer to develop his property and expressed the opinion that the developer cannot be pushed any further. He also commented that Fifth Street is wider than Sixth and Seventh Streets, which makes a difference with the perspective of this project.

The applicant, David Forbes Hibbert, was present to discuss the design changes to the project.

Commissioner Hopkins commented on the easement issue raised at the original appeal hearing and asked if there could be signage on the building indicating access to the retail space on Fifth Street from Fourth Court Alley and access to Fourth Court Alley from Fifth Street. Mr. Hibbert was agreeable to such signage.

Commissioner Olsen asked Mr. Hibbert which set of plans he is asking the Commission to approve this evening. Mr. Hibbert stated that he is requesting approval of the plans left on the dais for each Commissioner and dated February 6, 2003. Commissioner Olsen asked for confirmation that he is requesting approval of plans that have not been analyzed by staff. Mr. Hibbert answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Olsen asked about the removal of trees from the plans. Mr. Hibbert stated that the proposal was revised so that the retail space would be more visible from the street.

Commissioner Olsen asked Mr. Hibbert about the distance between the planter and the store front. Mr. Hibbert stated it is approximately ten feet. Commissioner Olsen commented that the planters soften the area and create a good transition and that he is satisfied with the low scale plantings.

Commissioner Olsen asked Mr. Hibbert if the rear of the building will have bougainvillea vines. Mr. Hibbert answered in the affirmative.

Commissioner Olsen asked about renderings for the northside of the building. Commissioner Dad stated that northside elevation has not changed per the rendering in the packet.

Commissioner Johnson commented on “canyonization,” specifically that the proposed building is over five stories tall with only horizontal articulation. Mr. Hibbert expressed his disagreement and stated that Fifth Street is wide and the building is only 62 feet in height with stepbacks and an articulated roofline. He further stated that Fifth Street is really part of downtown as opposed to Sixth and Seventh Streets which are a separate neighborhood with lower height requirements. Lastly, Mr. Hibbert stated that at the corner of Fifth Street and Santa Monica Boulevard there are several 70-80 foot tall buildings and the height limit is 76 feet.

Commissioner Johnson stated that he wants more setbacks on the next building to the north and adequate light and air between the structures. Mr. Hibbert stated that 1450 Fifth Street is setback ten feet from the property line on the north elevation.

The Commission discussed with Mr. Hibbert setbacks and projections, such as balconies and bay windows. Mr. Hibbert explained the various setbacks as proposed for this project.

Commissioner Olsen raised the issue from the prior hearing about the ownership or partnership developing the property. The applicant’s attorney, Christopher Harding, stated that one of the partners was present. Mr. Bill Hammerstein stated for the record that he is a partner in the development of this property.

Commissioner Olsen asked Mr. Hammerstein if he has developed other properties in Santa Monica. Mr. Hammerstein stated that in 1989 he developed the property at Fourth Street and Arizona Avenue (Milken Building); in 1993 he began developing the Arboretum property, including the Ralphs Market site, the Courtyard, the Villa Apartments and Arboretum Gateway buildings. He stated that he sold his interest in the Arboretum properties in 2002. Commissioner Olsen thanked Mr. Hammerstein for his response.

Chair Clarke closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Johnson asked staff about the recommendation for Architectural Review Board (ARB) approval. Commissioner Olsen stated that the signage and landscaping for the project needs ARB review. The time frame for ARB approval was discussed by the Commission. Planning Manager Jay Trevino stated that the Commission can not approve signage or landscaping at this hearing.

Commissioner Hopkins asked staff if there is a procedure to create or protect an easement from Fifth Street to Fourth Court Alley. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that legal action would be required and this is not in the Commission’s purview. Commissioner Hopkins asked about the terms for legalizing an easement. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that there is a legal procedure, but it has not been started, and it is done via the court judicating the claim of easement. He also stated that this matter is not before the Commission.

Chair Clarke commented that this is an important and significant project. He stated that the redesign has achieved articulation on many levels, however the pedestrian level could be more open through more of a setback. He commented that the retail area makes a pedestrian want to “venture in” and the planters provide a nice green space. He stated that the changes in materials have come a long way in creating a better overall building design.

Chair Clarke made a motion to approve the project as redesigned (plans dated February 6, 2003) and with two conditions: (1) that signage be added regarding access through the building to both Fifth Street and Fourth Court Alley; and (2) that signage and landscaping return to the ARB for approval.

Commissioner Hopkins seconded the motion. She asked that the signage use the word “passageway” to retail and be placed on both entry points of the passageway.

Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum expressed concern regarding the signage for the easement/passageway as there is no legal requirement for such an easement in the development.

Commissioner Olsen commented that the project design has significantly improved, although he concurs with other Commissioners regarding the north elevation. He stated that he agrees the planters were too tall, however he does not like removal of the trees. He stated that the tree added a softness to the project and invited outdoor activity or dining.

Chair Clarke asked Commissioner Olsen if he prefers the “new rendering” with the four trees or the “last minute rendering” with the addition of trees. Commissioner Olsen asked for a condition that ARB require trees in the planters.

Commissioner Johnson stated that he also likes the trees. He commented that the staff report recommends enhancing the plaza area. He then stated that he support the motion, although he is unhappy with the vertical terracing of the upper elevations and the north elevation.

Commissioner Dad commented that she likes the project as presented this evening. She also stated that she likes the trees, the enhancement of the street frontage, and the pedestrian level setbacks, which are more inviting to the public. She commented that she is impressed with the Fourth Court entry design and new north elevation design. She also noted that the comments made by the Commission will help the future development of properties to the north of the current site. She expressed appreciation for the staff report and suggestion made by staff, however the plans presented by the applicant this evening made the suggestions unnecessary. Lastly, Commissioner Dad stated that she supports the motion.

Commissioner Olsen commented that he understands the comments made by Commissioner Dad regarding the staff recommendations and agreed that staff made the correct recommendation even if the Commission has chosen to take another course of action.

Chair Clarke thanked everyone for their input on this project and for setting important principles for downtown projects.

Ms. Frick asked for confirmation that the Commission’s motion is to uphold the appeal with changes to be specified in the Statement of Official Action, including language regarding passageway signage, review by ARB for building signage and landscaping prior to issuance of building permits.

The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Clarke, Dad, Hopkins, Johnson, Olsen; ABSENT: Brown, Moyle.

[The Commission took a break from 9:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.]

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:

8-A. Conditional Use Permit 02-019, Variance 02-017, 3116 - 3120 Colorado Avenue. Application by Healing Hands for Conditional Use Permit 02-019 to allow the conversion of an existing eight-unit apartment building into an adult day care facility and Variance 02-017 for reduced parking for the project located at 3116 Colorado Avenue. The proposed adult day care facility would operate from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. daily and be closed evenings and weekends. [Planner: Patrick Clarke] APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: Charles Rosenbleet and Carole S. Andress.

The Commission had no disclosures to make regarding this project.

Associate Planner Patrick Clarke gave the staff report.

Commissioner Olsen asked Mr. Clarke why he included statistics from the Census Bureau in his staff report. Ms. Frick responded that the proposed use is a new one, so background has been provided regarding the expected future demand for such uses. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that while the statistics have no role in the findings, they are associated with the land use and General Plan. Commissioner Olsen stated that he just wants to stay close to the General Plan and land use uses.

Commissioner Johnson asked staff about the number of patients and staff and if owners will also be on-site. Mr. Clarke stated it is his understanding that there will be seven professional staff members. Commissioner Johnson asked if there was provision for additional parking for technical support staff. Mr. Clarke stated there are two additional parking spaces.

Commissioner Johnson commented that he does not understand the business model for this application. He asked how visitation of residents would occur if there are not sufficient guest parking spaces. Mr. Clarke stated that this is a part-time facility, a day-care center, so visitors are not anticipated.

Commissioner Johnson commented that “variances” are delicate things. He commented on the social good of the project for the R-2 District, however it also intensifies the property use and it is adjacent to a school and religious structure. Mr. Clarke responded that the current structure on the site is an eight-unit apartment building, which is already under-parked. He stated that employees may also carpool or take the bus to work and not use all the parking spaces. Additionally, Mr. Clarke stated that the proposed use is a “day only” use with no week-end use. Commissioner Johnson stated that the proposed use is still an intensification and it is adjacent to a child day-care center.

The applicant and property owner, Charles Rosenbleet, and his architect, David Kaplan, were present to discuss his application.

Commissioner Dad asked Mr. Rosenbleet what the clients do at the facility during the day. Mr. Rosenbleet stated that there are activities scheduled all day beginning with a 15-30 minute get acclimated time followed by an exercise program, small group discussions and activities. He further explained that his clientele range in age from 18 to 102 and the idea is to keep the clientele stimulated without television. The stimulation includes providing therapy. He also stated that there is a Registered Nurse on staff to provide medications, if needed.

Commissioner Dad asked about the other professional staff members. Mr. Rosenbleet stated that the staff includes a social worker, a registered nurse, activity coordinators and assistants who handle the arts and crafts and game activities.

Commissioner Dad asked if this type of use requires a license. Mr. Rosenbleet stated that his facility will be licensed by the State Department of Aging through Los Angeles County and the license will be issued following review of the physical plant, staff credentials and it will be reviewed and renewed annually.

Commissioner Hopkins asked about the square footage allotted for each client. Mr. Kaplan explained that only the ground floor will be used for clients and the square footage for the use excludes restrooms. Mr. Rosenbleet stated that the maximum number of clients is dictated by the usable square footage of the building.

Commissioner Hopkins asked if there will be an office use on the ground floor. Mr. Rosenbleet answered in the negative.

Commissioner Hopkins asked for the hours service personnel and staff will be on-site. Mr. Rosenbleet estimated that staff will be present from approximately 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., depending on paperwork that needs to be completed.

Commissioner Hopkins asked about cleaning of the property and deliveries. Mr. Rosenbleet stated that there will be a daily meal delivery at approximately 11:00 a.m., which should be completed in about 15 minutes and that cleaning and gardening will be done after hours.

Commissioner Hopkins asked about the rear drop-off area and van access. Mr. Rosenbleet stated that the City Code requires an on-site drop off.

Commissioner Hopkins asked if there will be any increase beyond eight staff members. Mr. Rosenbleet answered in the negative.

Commissioner Olsen asked about the “orange area” on the drawing. Mr. Kaplan stated that this is a deck/courtyard area.

Commissioner Olsen asked if there will be any changes in the footprint of the existing building. Mr. Kaplan stated that the height, roofline and footprint will not change.

Commissioner Olsen estimated that five, fifteen passenger vans would be needed to transport the number of estimated clients. He expressed concern regarding the size of the vans. Mr. Rosenbleet stated that Dodge Ram Vans are used. Mr. Kaplan stated these vans are like church vans.

Commissioner Olsen commented that the parking spaces on-site are regular sized. He asked Mr. Rosenbleet if he had experience with on-street parking sign violations. Mr. Rosenbleet stated that the alley entry can be used and that it is rare for there to be no parking available.

Commissioner Johnson asked the architect if he understood correctly that the existing building will be gutted and the two buildings connected. Mr. Kaplan answered in the affirmative.

Commissioner Johnson asked about plans for the rear structure. Mr. Kaplan stated that the rear structure consists of apartment units over the garage spaces and they will be used for storage and as dormant space. Commissioner Johnson asked what the architect means by “dormant” space. Mr. Rosenbleet stated that the second floor cannot be used for clients, so it will be used for storing files, etc.

Commissioner Johnson commented that staff is recommending the removal of one parking space. Mr. Kaplan stated this is agreeable to his client.

Chair Clarke asked if the kitchens in the units over the garage will be removed. Mr. Kaplan stated that this could be done, however such work was not contemplated for that structure.

Chair Clarke asked if the facility will be used on week-ends. Mr. Kaplan answered in the negative.

Commissioner Hopkins asked if the two units over the garage could be used as Administrative Offices. Mr. Rosenbleet stated they will not be used as offices as his philosophy is to keep staff and clients together.

Commissioner Hopkins asked if the apartment units over the garages could be rented out. Mr. Rosenbleet stated that he would not want to do that even if he could as it would not be compatible with his use and the space is needed for storage of equipment.

Commissioner Dad asked if Mr. Rosenbleet operates other like facilities. Mr. Rosenbleet stated that he runs other facilities, but not in California, and he has been in this business since 1996. He further stated that his locations are on the east coast, specifically in Maryland.

Commissioner Dad asked if his other facilities are in residential neighborhoods. Mr. Rosenbleet stated that one facility is in a residential area and the others are in mixed-use areas.

Two members of the public submitted request to speak forms: Christine Taylor and Art Krasnow.

Mr. Rosenbleet spoke in response to the public concerns.

Commissioner Olsen commented that his issue is the loading and unloading provisions for the site. Mr. Rosenbleet stated that one vehicle unloads lunches daily and the delivery time is approximately ten minutes in duration.

Chair Clark asked where the fifteen-passenger van is parked during the day. Mr. Rosenbleet stated that van is provided by a subcontractor and is not left on-site.

Commissioner Dad commented that this is a good kind of facility to have in Santa Monica. She expressed concern with the use of the definition of “community care facility” for this enterprise and with basing the parking demand on a children’s day-care center. She stated that the use are quite different and have different parking needs. She expressed concern with the variance request for reduced parking when the site was already under-parked in its approved use. Mr. Clarke explained the different uses that were utilized when analyzing the site requirements.

Commissioner Dad asked staff why “health services,” which require one parking space per bed (page 467 of the Zoning Ordinance), was not used instead of what was used in the staff report. Mr. Trevino stated that “health services” may be a better choice of terms, however this facility has no beds, so staff searched for and found the most appropriate standard, which is a children’s day-care facility.

Commissioner Olsen asked for better communication between the Commission and staff. He stated that staff needs to explain why certain designations are used for calculations so the Commission has a better understanding of the project.

Chair Clarke commented on the narrow focus for adult day care and that clients do not spend the night at the facility. Mr. Trevino stated that staff has recommended approval because an approval locks in the floor plan for the adult day-care facility with the conditional limits for transportation, hours of operation, etc.

In response to questions raised by Commissioner Dad, Mr. Clarke explained that the substandard parking includes eight parking spaces, however the site is one foot short on the width for all eight spaces. In order for the applicant to comply or add spaces, the garage structures would need to be demolished. He also explained that the increase of 156 square feet to the existing structures is less than a 5% increase in floor area and will enable a smooth transition between the structures for the new use. Lastly, Mr. Clarke explained that the CUP runs with the land, so if the current applicant leaves the operation, a future owner is tied to very strict conditions of approval.

Commissioner Dad thanked Mr. Clarke for his explanation. She commented on other uses in the R-2 and how this application is in direct opposition to goals of the Land Use Element. She noted that there are other non-residential uses in the area, including a school and house of worship. She also expressed concern with the loss of rental units. Mr. Clarke stated that most recent applications to the City have been for mixed-use residential projects. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum cautioned the Commission that they cannot mandate the property owner to retain the property as a residential use or as a rental property. Commissioner Dad acknowledged the statement made by counsel, however she stated that the Land Use Element does have a residential goal for this area.

Chair Clarke commented that the property is currently vacant. Mr. Clarke stated that the property was “Ellised” approximately eight months prior.

Commissioner Johnson asked if the parking will be restriped for van deliveries. Mr. Clarke stated that there are two parcels and two loading spaces, eight by nineteen feet, that are required by Code. Commissioner Johnson asked for the size of a standard parking space. Mr. Clarke stated that on-street parking spaces are typically eighteen to nineteen feet in length and there are no meters on this block.

Commissioner Johnson asked if the curb will be repainted for the loading spaces. Mr. Clarke stated that the curb will be repainted with signs limiting the hours of use for the loading spaces.

Commissioner Johnson commented that Colorado Avenue has only one lane of traffic and one lane of parking each way. He asked if there are access issues and if curb cuts could be added. Mr. Clarke responded in the negative.

Commissioner Johnson asked if service vehicles could use the alley. Mr. Clarke stated that this is not a residential care facility, so there will be limited drop-offs, and the use is less intense than a residential care facility.

Commissioner Olsen asked if use of the space above the garages would skew the parking count. Mr. Clarke stated that the parking requirements are based on the total square footage of the buildings.

Chair Clarke closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Johnson made a motion for approval with staff findings and conditions. He stated that the use fits the neighborhood and it saves a structure from demolition. He stated that he is not happy that the property was “Ellised,” however the use is sensitive and compatible with the neighborhood and his concerns have been dissipated. On balance, Commissioner Johnson stated that this is a type of use to be encouraged.

Chair Clarke seconded the motion.

Commissioner Dad expressed appreciation for comments made by Commissioner Johnson. She stated that she still has a problem with the lack of parking and the number of employees. However, she stated that her biggest concern is the conversion of residential units to a non-residential use and the number of other non-residential uses in the block. She closed by saying she understands staff’s recommendation, but stated she feels the connection is tenuous.

Commissioner Hopkins stated she has mixed feelings about the project because she sees the community benefit but also sees Commissioner Dad’s argument. Chair Clarke commented that an alternative for the site would be condominiums. Commissioner Hopkins expressed the opinion that there should be a way to utilize the apartment space over the garage as residential.

Commissioner Olsen asked for a condition stating that the units over the garage may only be used for storage by Healing Hands. Commissioner Johnson and Chair Clarke agreed to the condition.

Commissioner Hopkins suggested an alternative condition that the two units be used be used for Healing Hands or returned to the rental market. Commissioner Olsen commented that a residential use is not possible currently.

Commissioner Olsen asked that the condition requiring painting the street address numbers on the roof be removed. Commissioner Johnson and Chair Clarke agreed to the condition.

Commissioner Olsen asked for a condition to require that off-site parking be provided. Ms. Frick stated that based on the information provided, seven parking spaces are requested, ten are required by Code. She directed the Commission’s attention to Condition #34, which specifies that only seven employees are permitted.

The Commission discussed whether to require the applicant to secure parking spaces off-site. Commissioner Olsen expressed concern that if a consensus cannot be reached, the project will be appealed to the City Council and all of the Commission’s additional conditions will be lost.

Commissioner Hopkins stated that she would support the project if the apartments over the garage can be returned to Rent Controlled units or the area is used exclusively for Helping Hands storage. Ms. Frick stated that the apartments cannot be placed back under Rent Control without a variance, which has not been applied for or noticed. Commissioner Hopkins stated that if a variance can be obtained, then she is open to approval of the project. She also stated she wants the applicant to secure three off-site parking spaces for staff and that the spaces should be standard sized and located at a reasonable distance for the site. Her last requests were for annual monitoring of the site and notice to the neighborhood regarding the use of the property.

Commissioner Olsen accepted the conditions outlined by Commissioner Hopkins. He suggested the additional parking spaces be located within a 1000 foot radius. Commissioner Johnson and Chair Clarke agreed to the condition.

Commissioner Hopkins asked that the notice to neighbors be distributed in a 300 foot radius of the site. Mr. Rosenbleet stated that he holds an annual Open House for neighbors, so the annual notice will not be a problem.

Chair Clarke asked Mr. Rosenbleet if he accepts the condition of providing three additional parking spaces within a 1000 foot radius of the site. Mr. Rosenbleet stated that this would be workable, then asked if having eight employees on site would be a violation. Commissioner Olsen stated that the intent of the condition to keep people parking legally, so it would not be a violation.

Commissioner Johnson and Chair Clarke agreed to the 1000 foot radius condition and the annual notice condition.

Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum asked the Commission to articulate the need for the notice and off-site parking spaces since the minimum required spaces are being provided on-site.

Commissioner Johnson and Chair Clarke agreed to the deletion of Condition #22 regarding painting the roof with the street address.

Commissioner Johnson suggested that the condition regarding the hauling of dirt be deleted from page 11.

Commissioner Hopkins stated for the record that the purpose of the notice to neighbors is to keep them aware of the purpose and conditions for the facility.

The motion was denied by the following vote:

AYES: Clarke, Hopkins, Johnson; NOES: Dad, Olsen; ABSENT: Brown, Moyle.

Commissioner Olsen changed his vote to “aye” so that the project was approved, but stated that he agrees with the sentiments raised by Commissioner Dad.

Commissioner Dad stated for the record that this is an important service to the community, however she would prefer it in another location.

ACTION: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS.

9. DISCUSSION: Items continued from . . .

Public Input Permitted

9-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.]