M
I N U T E S
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
|
WEDNESDAY, July 9, 2003 |
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS |
|
7:00 P.M. |
ROOM 213, CITY HALL |
1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at
7:20 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Brown led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
3. ROLL
CALL: Present: Barbara
Brown
Darrell Clarke, Chairperson
Julie
Lopez Dad
Arlene
Hopkins
Jay
P. Johnson
Terry
O’Day
Absent: Geraldine Moyle
Also
Present: Kimberly Christensen, AICP,
Senior Planner
Kyle
Ferstead, Commission Secretary
Paul
Foley, Senior Planner
Suzanne
Frick, Director of Planning / PCD
Sarah
Lejeune, AICP, Associate Planner
Kevin
McKeown, City Council Liaison
Barry
Rosenbaum Senior Land Use Attorney
Amanda
Schachter, Principal Planner
Regina
Szilak, Assistant Planner
Jay
M. Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager
4. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S
REPORT:
Ms.
Frick gave the Director’s Report. Ms. Frick reported that the City Council has
approved the Text Amendment for neighborhood markets; upheld the appeal for 808
Wilshire Boulevard; directed staff to return with a fee program for proactive
monitoring of Conditional Use Permits (CUPs), both new and existing; reviewed
the Architectural Review Board notification process, and appointed new Planning
Commissioner Terry O’Day. Mr. O’Day was sworn in prior to this meeting.
City Council Liaison
McKeown added that on the neighborhood markets, the Council added the provision
for changing the hours of operation with a CUP, which means the markets will
return to the Commission in the future. He then welcomed Mr. O’Day to the
Commission.
Commissioner Dad
requested that a special Commission be added on July 23, 2003, for a Traffic
Analysis Study Session and to discuss the proposed Management Audit letter.
Ms. Frick stated she
had no other items to report.
The Commission spent a
few minutes commenting on the departure of Commissioner Olsen and greeting new
Commissioner O’Day.
Commissioner Johnson
suggested that there be an orientation for new Commissioners. Ms. Frick stated
this is a great idea.
Ms. Frick made a
statement to the Commission regarding the challenges of planning work in Santa
Monica, the dedication of Planning staff, the huge volume of customers Planning
staff helps every day and the high quality of work produced by staff.
5. PUBLIC
HEARINGS: Continued
from July 2, 2003
5-A. Design
Compatibility Permit 03-003 and Vesting
Tentative Tract Map 53685; 1032 Third Street.
Design Compatibility Permit and Vesting
Tentative Tract Map to allow the construction of a new three-story, five-unit
townhouse-style condominium building with eleven subterranean parking spaces
located at 1032 3rd Street in the R3-NW, Medium Density Multiple
Family Residential District, North of Wilshire (NW) Overlay. [Planner: Regina
Szilak] APPLICANT: Plus Architects for 3rd Street
Town Homes, LLC. PROPERTY OWNER: James
and Huguette Clarizo, Jeanine Perron. [Item 7-A on July 2, 2003 agenda.]
The Commission made the following
disclosures on this project: Chair Clarke disclosed that he drove by the site
and took photographs of the existing building; Commissioner Johnson disclosed
that he visited the site on July 9, 2003, and noted the palm trees.
Commissioners Brown, Dad, Hopkins and O’Day had nothing to disclose. Chair Clarke explained the disclosure
procedure to Commissioner O’Day.
Assistant Planner Regina Szilak gave
the staff report.
Commissioner Brown thanked Ms.
Szilak for her presentation.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff for
the status of the Landmarks Commission demolition review. Ms. Szilak stated
that the demolition permit has been applied for and will be in effect for six
months. If the permit lapses, then the applicant must reapply and be re-reviewed
by the Landmarks Commission.
Commissioner Johnson asked what
action the Landmarks Commission took on the existing building. Ms. Szilak
stated that the Landmarks Commission took no action, which means they waived
any action to stop the demolition of the existing building.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff
about the demolition process as regards the project before the Commission. Ms.
Szilak explained that there is an issue of timing for this project as the
developer wants the assurance that they can move forward with the development
prior to moving forward on the demolition process. She further stated that this
project has already been withdrawn once and refiled, therefore the applicant
must reapply for a demolition permit and be reviewed again by the Landmarks
Commission.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff if
the Commission’s action will have any impact on the Landmarks Commission.
Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the Landmarks Commission
addresses and reviews different issues than the Planning Commission. He also
stated that the Planning Commission’s action has no bearing on the demolition
process or any landmark status.
Commissioner Johnson thanked staff
for the clarification. He then asked staff about the sideyard block walls,
which are solid and eight feet in height. Ms. Szilak stated that the proposed
walls meet code in terms of permitted height.
Chair Clarke stated for the record
that the Commission has taken the lead in dealing with potential landmark
properties, specifically 401 Montana Avenue. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum
stated that 401 Montana Avenue has been stalled due to environmental review
issues, not due the demolition permit process.
Commissioner Hopkins asked staff
about the status of updating the Historic Resources Survey. Ms. Schachter
stated that the update is on-going, however this area of the City is not next
in the review queue. She further stated that the Landmarks Commission annually
reviews which areas of the City will be next updated.
The applicant’s representative and
architect, Shahab Ghods, addressed the Commission regarding the proposed
condominium project.
Commissioner Dad asked Mr. Ghods to
explain the sidewall heights. Mr. Ghods explained the reason for the eight foot
wall height.
Commissioner Johnson commented on
the 50-60 foot tall palm trees in the frontyard of the property and the
applicant’s intention to retain them on-site. Mr. Ghods explained why the palms
trees need to be moved to facilitate the required number of subterranean
parking spaces. Commissioner Johnson expressed skepticism regarding the ability
to move such large trees.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Ghods
about the need for eight foot sideyard walls. Mr. Ghods explained about the
topography of the site and adjacent site. Commissioner Johnson commented that
there is a courtyard on the adjacent property and suggested the addition of a
trellis with vines to shield the neighbor’s view of the eight-foot wall. Mr.
Ghods stated he would not object to such a condition.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Ghods
about Condition #9, which deals with the entry into the condominium building.
Mr. Ghods explained the reason for the current entrance design and that he
tried to make the entrance pedestrian-friendly.
Commissioner Johnson noted that
there is a thirty-foot separation between the palm trees when they are moved
the five-feet proposed. He asked if the entrance could be moved between the
palm trees with a meandering pathway. Mr. Ghods stated he prefers to keep the
entrance as designed.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Ghods
about the fourth story balcony railing and the chimney, which are situated on
the front of the building. He asked if Mr. Ghods would consider moving the
balcony railings back for more openness to the sky from the street level perspective.
Mr. Ghods asked if this suggestion is recommended by staff. Commissioner
Johnson stated that it is recommended as Condition #10, but on the side, not
the front façade. He also stated that he is very sensitive to the building
styles presented on this section of Third Street. Mr. Ghods noted that on page
A-2-3 of the building plans, the third floor plan has the deck setback and that
this is shown in the rendering.
Commissioner Hopkins asked Mr. Ghods
to explain the need for the eight-foot wall on the southside of the property.
Mr. Ghods stated that there is a “half-way house” to the south and the property
owner did not request a lower wall after reviewing the plans.
Chair Clarke expressed concern that
the front of the building appears to be four stories due in part to the ceiling
heights in the front master bedrooms. Mr. Ghods stated that he has lowered the
roof by twelve feet and there are no lofts in this project. He also stated that
he could have built six units on the site, but is proposing five units instead.
The following members of the public
addressed the Commission regarding the proposed condominium project: Robin
Enwright, Suzanne Watson, Michele Vice, Judith Volborth, and Martin Sweiback.
Mr. Ghods and landscape architect
Samuel Kim addressed the concerns raised by the public.
Commissioner Hopkins asked Mr. Kim
if the company hired to move the palm trees viewed the trees in person prior to
accepting the job. Mr. Kim stated that they were sent photographs of the trees.
Commissioner Hopkins asked if the survival rate for moving the palm trees is
really 95%. Mr. Kim stated that large palm trees, if they are healthy, have a
95% survival rate. Commissioner Hopkins asked about the health of the palm
trees at this time. Mr. Kim stated his
assumption that they are healthy. Commissioner Hopkins asked how the health of
the palm trees can be verified. Mr. Kim stated that this could be done through
a certified arborist’s report.
Commissioner Hopkins asked if the
reason for moving the palm trees has to do with the placement of the
subterranean garage and the root system of the trees. Mr. Kim responded that
the palm trees have a fiberous root
ball and, when transplanted, will send out new roots and shoots.
Commissioner Hopkins asked if the
moving of the palm trees will give the roots room to expand. Mr. Kim answered
in the affirmative. He explained that moving the palm trees will give the roots
room to expand below and toward the street.
Commissioner Hopkins expressed
concern regarding the height of the palm trees and re-rooting after
transplanting. Mr. Kim explained that palm trees grow in course sand and will
withstand lateral load. He also stated that the palm trees will be trimmed and
the fronds tied prior to moving.
Commissioner Hopkins asked Mr. Kim
how often palm trees of this size are moved. Mr. Kim stated that that firm that
will be doing the transplantation are palm tree specialists and regularly move
palm trees of this size. He also stated that this size palm tree, per the
specialists, are easier to move.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Kim
if he had consulted with the City’s Forester, Walter Warriner, about this
proposal and, if not, would he be willing to meet with him. Mr. Kim stated he
would be willing to meet with Mr. Warriner about the palm trees and that he had
spoken with him once about the street trees already.
Chair Clarke asked Mr. Kim for the
height and diameter of the palm trees. Mr. Kim stated that the trees are
approximately sixty-feet tall with a base diameter of four-feet and a root ball
of approximately six to seven-feet in diameter.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Kim
about how deep the root ball extends.
Mr. Kim explained that the root system of a palm tree includes “air
roots” which are at the surface and the root ball should not be more than
seven-feet in depth.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Kim
about the garage walls and grade at the front of the property. Mr. Kim stated
that there will be no structure beneath the palm trees. Commissioner Johnson
asked Mr. Kim about the placement of the trunks in relation to the sidewalk.
Mr. Kim stated that the trees will be placed mid-way between the garage wall
and the sidewalk in an area approximately nine-feet wide.
Commissioner Hopkins asked Mr. Ghods
about the issues raised by neighbors regarding the demolition process and the
probability of the presence of lead paint and asbestos. She also asked if the
applicant is willing to do a hazardous materials assessment on the existing
building. Mr. Ghods stated he was agreeable to such an assessment.
Commissioner Hopkins asked Mr. Ghods
about redesigning the front entry so that it is off-set for the front unit. Mr.
Ghods stated that this could be redesigned, however he would want to keep the
front door behind the gate.
Commissioner Hopkins commented on
the City’s sustainability standards, then asked Mr. Ghods if the windows will
be operable and the building will have a “green” approach. Mr. Ghods answered
in the affirmative, adding that all windows except in the staircase will be operable.
Commissioner Hopkins asked about the
fate of an existing plum tree in the rear of the property. Mr. Ghods stated
that the tree can be boxed and replaced after construction.
Chair Clarke closed the public
hearing.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the
adjacent facility manager and the property owner had been notified of the
public hearing. Ms. Szilak stated that notices were sent to all property owners
and residents in a 500 foot radius of the site. Commissioner Johnson asked if
there had been any feedback from the southside neighbors. Ms. Szilak stated
that she had contacted the manager of the adjacent facility when she learned of
the use, but not the property owner, however the manager offered no input.
Commissioner Johnson expressed
concern regarding the palm tree and the conflict with the subterranean garage
wall. He suggested that the wall could be moved west with the loss of one guest
parking space instead of moving the trees. Ms. Szilak stated that the guest
parking space is required by code and may not be a tandem space. She also
stated that the applicant can excavate more than 50% of the lot, however the
lot dimensions limit the parking configuration in the subterranean garage.
Commissioner Johnson asked if this option had not been explored. Ms. Szilak
suggested that the architect be consulted on this matter. She also stated that
such a change would necessitate a complete redesign of the parking plan for the
project.
Commissioner Hopkins expressed the
opinion that the garage could be redesigned. Ms. Szilak stated that the
Transportation Management Division would need to review and approve any changes
to the subterranean garage design.
Commissioner Hopkins asked if the
applicant could excavate into the rear yard setback instead of the frontyard.
Ms. Szilak stated that there is no prohibition on the rearyard, only that there
be a four-foot unexcavated sideyard and less than 50% of the frontyard seback
may be excavated.
Commissioner Hopkins asked staff
about the issue of lead and asbestos in the existing building. Ms. Szilak
stated that part of the demolition process includes certification of asbestos
abatement. Commissioner Hopkins asked if a hazardous materials assessment can
be done prior to the demolition. Ms. Szilak stated that she is unfamiliar with
that process.
Commissioner Hopkins asked staff
about requiring a more sustainable approach for cooling new buildings. Ms.
Szilak stated that the sustainable guidelines are being given to applicants and
architects, however the City has not yet begun offering any incentives. Ms.
Frick added that the Green Building Standards require 25% compliance beyond
current code requirements.
Commissioner Hopkins expressed
concern that asbestos abatement for the existing building may include airborne
particulates. She asked that a condition be added that the landscape architect
consult with the City’s Arborist regarding the health of the palm trees. Ms. Szilak stated that this is included in
Condition #36.
Commissioner Hopkins asked staff if
there is a way to protect tenants from displacement. Senior Land Use Attorney
Rosenbaum stated that there is no protection from eviction for current tenants
of the building due to the 1986 Ellis Act. Commissioner Johnson commented that
there have been recent changes in State law which extends the time seniors and
the disabled may stay in Ellised buildings. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum
stated that the extension is only one year. Commissioner Johnson suggested that
the tenants pursue Section 8 housing through the City’s Housing Division.
Commissioner O’Day asked if the
tenants can stay on-site during demolition. Ms. Szilak explained that all the
units are slated to be demolished following the issuance of building permit.
Commissioner Brown commented that
she is unclear on where to find a condition regarding the airborne hazards
during the demolition process. Ms. Frick stated that hazardous materials must
be assessed and removed prior to the actual demolition of the building and a
certification must be given at the time the demolition permit is issued.
Commissioner Brown asked if the
hazardous materials include the presence of lead-based paint. Ms. Frick stated
that this can be added as a condition. She commented that there is new
legislation governing the removal of lead-based paint on buildings. Senior Land
Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the concerns he is hearing seem to be in
regards to avoiding health hazards to the neighborhood and the need for an
approved removal plan. Planning Manager
Trevino stated that based on conversations he has had with the City’s Building
Officer, Tim McCormick, a condition could be added requiring an Industrial
Hygenist, or other technician approved by the Environmental Programs Division,
to prepare a report identifying hazardous materials on-site and that a
certified asbestos removal company perform the actual removal per Air Quality
Management District (AQMD) review and standards.
Chair Clarke stated that Mr. Trevino
has offered a good recommendation. He then cited the other concerns raised by
the Commission, including the palm trees, the subterranean garage design and
construction mitigation issues. Commissioner Dad added that the walls need to
be lowered.
Chair Clarke commented that the
front façade appears to be a four-story building. He suggested that the roof
decks be moved back and that there be fewer “little windows” on the north
façade. He further suggested that the ceiling heights be lowered. He commented
that the building needs to “fit” into the neighborhood. He asked the Commission
if the project should be conditioned for approval or continued for redesign.
Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the State Permit Streamlining
Act for this project expires on July 26, 2003.
Commissioner Johnson made a motion
to continue the project for redesign.
Commissioner Hopkins seconded the
motion.
Chair Clarke asked if the project
could return on July 23, 2003. This date was discussed by the Commission and
staff. Mr. Ghods stated he could achieve the City’s time schedule to return on
July 23, 2003.
Chair Clarke stated that the
redesign should include lowering the ceiling height in the front unit. Mr.
Ghods stated a four-foot setback is required on each level and there needs to
be access to the decks. He also stated that the new R-2 ordinance is very
restrictive in terms of design issues.
Ms. Frick stated for the record that
revised plans are due to City staff by July 16, 2003, and the packet will go
out on July 18, 2003. Mr. Ghods stated he can perform the changes by July 16,
2003.
Commissioner Hopkins asked if the
design can move the subterranean garage wall west. Mr. Ghods stated this can be
done, however staff and the Transportation Management Division will not approve
such a change.
Commissioner Dad asked Mr. Ghods if
he could change the design so that each unit did not have an individual garage.
Mr. Ghods stated that the units are already small and he would not want to
remove direct access from units to their respective garages. Commissioner Dad
stated her understanding of Mr. Ghods’ situation, however she then expressed
the Commission’s shared concerns with the neighborhood. Mr. Ghods stated that
changing the garage configuration does not allow for the required back-up space
required by Transportation Management.
Commissioner Hopkins asked if a 24-foot back-up space is required. Mr. Ghods stated that 22-feet clear is required.
Chair Clarke asked if the rearyard
setback can be excavated. Ms. Frick stated that rearyard can be excavated, but
not the side or frontyard setbacks.
Chair Clarke asked staff for the
minimum interior width for garages. Ms. Szilak stated that the minimum interior
dimensions are 20-feet wide by 18-feet deep. Ms. Frick stated that this is a
code required minimum size.
Commissioner Johnson asked for a restating
of the motion. Chair Clarke stated that the redesign issues include:
·
moving
the west wall of the subterranean garage further west so the palm trees will
not need to be removed and their root structure protected;
·
move
the front door of the front unit so it faces the street; reduce the ceiling
height of the front unit so it looks like a three-story building;
·
reconfigure
ceilings in other units; increase the size of the northside windows so they
look less imposing to adjacent neighbors;
·
finished
side walls not to exceed six-feet in height;
·
that
there be fewer potacarpus in the landscape design;
·
that
the plum tree be saved and reused on-site, if possible;
·
that
the demolition condition be expanded to include issues previously discussed;
·
that
an Industrial Hygenist be hired to determine the extent of hazardous materials
on-site; and
·
that
the roof balcony railing be set back a few feet.
Commissioner Johnson requested that
the property line walls be finished on both sides and landscaped. Senior Land Use
Attorney Rosenbaum stated that conditions cannot include work on adjacent
properties not owned by the applicant.
Commissioner Johnson asked that the
rooftop air-conditioning unit or units have sound curtains or that only one
unit be installed and curtained. Ms. Frick stated that mechanical equipment
must meet current Noise Ordinance standards and this will be checked by staff
prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building.
Commissioner Hopkins expressed
concern that that mechanical equipment will be audible down the street. Ms.
Frick explained the Noise Ordinance regulations regarding mechanical equipment
in residential areas.
Mr. Ghods commented that all these
recommendations may not be able to be incorporated by July 16.
Commissioner Dad suggested that the
specific changes be given to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for review.
Commissioner Brown and Chair Clarke concurred. Commissioner Johnson stated that
he wants this project to return to the Commission.
Commissioner Hopkins asked that the
requirement for a report on the health of the palm trees by a certified
arborist be included. Ms. Frick stated this would be Condition #36.
Commissioner Hopkins asked that the plans include the current location of the
palm trees.
Commissioner O’Day asked if the
north window redesign had been included in the list. Chair Clarke answered in
the affirmative.
Commissioner Johnson asked that
Condition #19 be amended to include that the contractor will advice or certify
that the dirt hauling trucks cover their loads with tarps.
Ms. Frick suggested a condition be
added that if the palm trees are retained (and to ensure their survival),
should they die within seven years, then they must be replaced with the same
size and species of palm tree. Chair Clarke suggested that only the species be
specified in the condition, not the size. Ms. Frick suggested the word
“similar” be added.
Chair Clarke stated there appears to
be four votes to move this item forward to ARB. Commissioner Johnson reasserted
his motion to continue. Commissioner Hopkins expressed concern with Landmarks
Commission review of the current building.
Commissioners Dad, Brown and O’Day
express support for the project with the redesign recommendations.
Commissioners Hopkins and Johnson asserted the need to review the project
following the requested design changes.
Chair Clarke made a substitute
motion to approve the project with the redesign recommendations as conditions
of approval, and that the ARB will pay particular attention to the redesign
conditions. The motion was seconded.
Commissioner Brown expressed concern
with the viability of the palm trees. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated
that the trees could die of natural causes unrelated to the development of the
property and that the City does not have a tree preservation ordinance. He
stated that a palm tree preservation condition would be inappropriate.
The substitute motion was approved
by the following vote:
AYES: Brown, Clarke, Dad, O’Day;
NOES: Hopkins, Johnson; ABSENT: Moyle.
[The Commission took a break from
10:26 p.m. to 10:42 p.m.]
5-B. Text Amendment 03TA-006, Citywide, and
Conditional Use Permit 02CUP-028, 2019 Fourteenth Street. Application
for a Text Amendment to add SMMC Section 9.04.02.050(b) to allow a supervised
residential housing and educational facility for young adults emancipated from
foster care in the R1 Single-Family Residential District, subject to a
Conditional Use Permit, and to add a definition to Section 9.04.02.030 for a
supervised residential housing and educational facility for young adults
emancipated from foster care. Application
for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a supervised residential housing and
educational facility for twelve women emancipated from foster care at 2019 14th
Street. [Planner: Sarah Lejeune, AICP] APPLICANT: Santa Monica YWCA.
PROPERTY OWNER: YWCA (for 02CUP-028 only). [Was Item 7-B on July 2,
2003.]
Commissioners Brown, Clarke, Dad, Johnson and O’Day had nothing to
disclose. Commissioner Hopkins disclosed that she used to be a YWCA member.
Associate Planner Sarah Lejeune gave the staff report.
The applicant’ representative, Sally Young, Executive Director of the
YWCA, was present to discuss the application.
Two members of the public, Marguerite Spears and Debbie Osterhold,
commented favorably on the proposal.
Ms. Young waived her response time.
Commissioner Hopkins made a motion to recommend approval of the Text
Amendment by the City Council. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion.
Commissioner O’Day asked why the words “and educational” were included
in the Text Amendment. Ms. Lejeune stated that wording was based on the model
for domestic violence shelters. Commissioner O’Day thanked Ms. Lejeune for her
response.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Brown, Clarke, Dad, Hopkins, Johnson, O’Day.
Commissioner Hopkins made a motion to approve the CUP. Commissioner
O’Day seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Brown, Clarke, Dad, Hopkins, Johnson, O’Day.
[The Commission took a break from 11:00 p.m. to 11:05 p.m.]
6.
DISCUSSION:
The Commission discussed which items would be discussed and which items
would be continued to the next meeting. Commissioner Johnson asked that the
order for discussion be as follows: 6-I, 6-C, 6-D and 6-G (combined), then 6-K.
He also asked that all items with former Commissioner Olsen’s name be changed
to his name.
Following discussion on item 6-I, Commissioner Johnson asked that items
6-C, 6-D and 6-G (combined) and beginning with item 6-K. The Commission agreed
to this re-ordering of the discussion items.
6-A. Discussion and adoption of a policy 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 by Commissioners Johnson and Olsen via e-mail on August 27, 2002. Continued from June 4, 2003.
Action:
Continued to July 16, 2003.
6-B. Discussion on 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. Continued from June 4, 2003.
Action:
Continued to July 16, 2003.
6-C. Discussion on developing guidelines
requiring open courtyards for projects that are situated on more than one lot
in multi-family residential districts. Requested by Commissioner Olsen via
e-mail on February 20, 2003. Continued from June 4, 2003.
Commissioner Johnson commented on the genesis of this discussion item being the recent submission of a condominium project on multiple lots. Mr. Trevino stated that he has spoken with Commissioner Johnson regarding his concern and that the multiple-family development standards are in the early process of being revised and would be the best place to address this concern.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr.
Trevino for the timeline for this revision of the multiple family development
standards. Mr. Trevino stated that the process has just begun and is expected
to conclude next June.
Commissioner Hopkins stated she is
glad the process is going forward.
Action: Discussion held.
6-D. Discussion on the definition of “minor”
versus “substantial” remodel and potential text clarification. Requested by
Commission Johnson on June 4, 2003.
Commissioner Johnson commented on
recent instances of remodels becoming more than minor during the construction
process and the abuse of the code. He stated that the code language needs to
clarified. He asked that staff look into definitions from other cities to determine their standards for these types
of situations. Chair Clarke stated that
he recalls one such situation on Palisades Beach Road.
Commissioner Johnson stated that it
is fundamentally important that the definition be refined for projects in the
R-1 Districts. He asked that staff gather information and return with a
comprehensive definition and hold a public hearing on the issue.
Commissioner Dad asked where, if
this requires a Text Amendment, would it fall in the workload queue. Ms. Frick
stated that if this becomes a Text Amendment, then it would need to be placed
on the list, however if this can be done as a Zoning Administrator
Interpretation, the process can be done more quickly and will not need to be
placed in the queue.
Commissioner Johnson expressed
concern that a Zoning Administrator’s Interpretation would not be formal
enough. Ms. Frick assured him that a Zoning Administrator Interpretation is a
formalized process and is reviewed by both the Commission and City Council.
Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum
stated that while an Interpretation cannot change the law, it defines the
language of the code, and many issues can be addressed through this process.
Commissioner Johnson asked for the
timeline of Text Amendments in the queue. Mr. Trevino stated that the following
items are in the Text Amendments queue: alley setbacks; auto dealerships;
downtown design guidelines; Development Review Thresholds; and the Landmarks
Ordinance update in the current fiscal year.
Mr. Trevino commented that with a
Zoning Administrator Interpretation, the process would take about 90-120 days
to return. The Commission discussed this alternative and were agreeable to this
solution. Mr. Trevino stated that Senior Planner Jonathan Lait would be writing
the interpretation and it will be scheduled for Commission review in late
November.
Action: Discussion held with Item 6-G. Zoning Administrator
Interpretation to be prepared by staff.
6-E. Discussion of the appropriate standards
for commencement of planning permit revocation proceedings and the applicable
constitutional provisions. [Staff:
Barry Rosenbaum] Continued from June 4, 2003.
Action: Continued to July 16, 2003.
6-F. Discussion on creating a process for
condominiums and possibly
commercial projects to be presented to the Planning Commission with conceptual
plans for Commission feedback prior to final design and staff analysis and the
creation of a booklet which would be available to applicants which would show
examples of projects that were asked for redesign by the Commission and the
resulting projects which were approved. Requested by Commissioner Olsen via
e-mail on June 5, 2003.
Action: Continued to July 16, 2003.
6-G. Discussion of
initiating a text amendment regarding the "50 percent
remodel" section of the zoning code.
Requested by Commissioner Olsen via e-mail on June 5, 2003.
Action: Discussion held with Item 6-D. Zoning Administrator Interpretation to be
prepared by staff.
6-H. Discussion of sending
letter to the City Council requesting that the
following section of the City Charter which requires the Planning Commission to
make recommendations concerning proposed public works be complied with.
"The Planning Commission shall have the power and be required to:
(c) Make recommendations concerning proposed public works...." Requested
by Commissioner Olsen via e-mail on June 5, 2003.
Action: Continued to July 16, 2003.
6-I. Workshop on Traffic Analysis.
Requested by the Commission Dad on June 18, 2003.
Commissioner Dad stated that her request for a Special Meeting and Study
Session on July 23, 2003, requires a vote of the Commission. She stated that
the Study Session will begin with a staff report from Transportation
Management, then a presentation by Will Rechter from U. C. Irvine on traffic
analysis models, and then public comment.
Commissioner Dad made a motion to
convene a Special Meeting of the Planning Commission on July 23, 2003, for the
purpose of a Study Session/Workshop on Traffic Analysis.
Action: Study Session set for July
23, 2003.
6-J. Discussion on the potential
strengthening of the implementation of policies associated with noise, sound
and music to enhance protection of the public health, safety and welfare.
Discussion on the steps that the Planning Commission might take to enhance
protection of the public health, safety and welfare on the issue of noise –
sound – music. Requested via e-mail on June 5, 2003, by Commissioner Hopkins.
Action: Continued to July 16, 2003.
6-K. Appointment of Planning Commissioner to
the East-West Commercial Corridors Parking Task Force.
Commissioner Hopkins explained that
Commissioner Olsen was a member of the Task Force and a replacement was needed.
She nominated Commissioner Johnson. Commissioner Johnson stated he was willing
to serve. Chair Clarke seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote.
Action: Commissioner Johnson
appointed to Task Force.
7.
COMMUNICATIONS:
7-A. Appeals of Planning Commission action to City Council:
1. Development Review Permit 02-008 and
Conditional Use Permit 02-011, 301 Santa Monica Pier
8. FUTURE
COMMISSION AGENDA ITEMS: None.
9. PUBLIC INPUT: None.
10. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was
adjourned at 11:36 p.m.
APPROVED: December 3, 2003