M I N U T E S

REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA

WEDNESDAY, October 1, 2003	CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 P.M.	ROOM 213, CITY HALL

1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:15 p.m.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner O’Day led the Pledge of Allegiance.

3. ROLL CALL: Present: Barbara Brown (arrived at 7:45 p.m.)

Darrell Clarke, Chairperson

Julie Lopez Dad

Arlene Hopkins

Jay P. Johnson

Terry O’Day

Also Present: Laura Beck, AICP, Associate Planner

Kyle Ferstead, Commission Secretary

Paul Foley, Senior Planner

Suzanne Frick, Director of Planning / PCD

Jonathan Lait, AICP, Senior Planner

Marika Modugno, AICP, Associate Planner

Barry Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney

Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner

Jay M. Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager

4. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT:

Ms. Frick gave the Director’s Report. Ms. Frick reported that on October 14, 2003, the City Council will be holding a public hearing on an interim ordinance regarding the half alley amendment previously reviewed by the Commission. On October 28, 2003, the City Council will be holding public hearings on proactive monitoring fees for Conditional Use Permits and proposed Downtown Design Standards. On November 11, 2003, the City Council will review the proposed Noise Ordinance Update and on November 25, 2003, the Council will hear the proposal to enter into Development Agreement negotiations with the Miramar Hotel and 1319 Palisades Beach Road.

Commissioner Dad asked if the Commission will still be hearing the proposed Downtown Design Standards on October 29, 2003. Ms. Frick answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Hopkins asked about the overall process for the proposed Downtown Design Standards. Ms. Frick explained that the standards may return to the Council for additional review or there may be additional review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the Commission.

Ms. Frick continued her report by poling the Commission on whether to hold a meeting on October 15, 2003, as scheduled. She stated that there is only a resolution on intention currently slated for that meeting date. The Commission discussed the issued and decided October 15 would be a good evening to get through their backlog of discussion items.

Ms. Frick announced forthcoming Commission meeting dates as follows: November 5, November 19, December 3 and December 17, 2003.

5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

5-A. Commissioner O’Day made a motion to approve the minutes for September 10, 2003, as submitted. Commissioner Dad seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote.

6. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Continued Items

6-A. Design Compatibility Permit (02DCP-006) and Tentative Tract Map (02TM-007), Negative Declaration (02IA-006), 1311 Centinela Avenue. Design Compatibility Permit and Tentative Tract to allow the construction of a new two-story, eight-unit townhouse-style condominium development with eighteen subterranean parking spaces located at 1311 Centinela Avenue in the R2 (Low Multiple Family Residential) District. Adoption of a Negative Declaration is required to approve the project. This project was previously considered by the Planning Commission at their May 21, 2003 and August 6, 2003 meetings. [Planner: Marika Modugno, AICP] APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: Centinela Townhomes, LLC.

The Commission made the following ex parte communications regarding this project:

· Commissioner O’Day disclosed that he drove and walked down the street adjacent to the proposed project at approximately 5:30 p.m., Wednesday, October 1, 2003.

· Chair Clarke disclosed that he also drove and walked down the street observing the topography of the neighborhood on the morning of Wednesday, October 1, 2003. He disclosed that he took special note of the property to the south, which contains an old bungalow and a two-story structure. Lastly, he disclosed that he took photographs of the property and adjacent properties, which he will submit as part of the record.

· Commissioner Hopkins disclosed that approximately three weeks ago she drove by the site and walked the neighborhood, observing the topography, which appears to be an old creek bed, and general character of the neighborhood. She also stated that she observed one person on the stoop of the rear building, but did not speak to the person.

· Commissioners Dad and Johnson had nothing to disclose.

Associate Planner Marika Modugno gave the staff report.

Chair Clarke stated that he would like to see the average natural grade for the adjacent properties, especially for the north elevation. He also stated that the rendering should contain more context and not be a watercolor sketch. Senior Planner Jonathan Lait stated that the rendering is the only one the applicant gave staff.

Commissioner Johnson commented that Condition #7, on page nine of the staff report, references preserving existing trees, however the rendering does not show the trees. Ms. Modugno stated that this is a standard condition.

The applicant’s representative, Lee Novik, was present to discuss the project changes.

Commissioner Hopkins asked Mr. Novik about the proposed building height, what the measurements are based on, and apparent discrepancies on the plans. Mr. Novik explained that the building height is based on natural grade and that the property steps down toward the rear of the property by approximately fourteen feet. He also stated that he cannot make the alley driveway any lower because of the alley height and that he has already removed a loft and mezzanine from two of the rear units.

Chair Clarke asked Mr. Novik about the height of the alley wall. Mr. Novik explained that the wall on page A-16 is a sideyard elevation and are parapet walls, approximately fourteen feet from the alley to the top of the wall.

Chair Clarke asked about the wall on the northside. The project architect, Karman Tabrizi, stated that this is a six-foot block wall with a trellis on top as shown on sheet A-5 of the plans. Chair Clarke asked about the top of the subterranean garage. Mr. Tabrizi explained that this is a property line wall. Chair Clarke asked if he is correct in assuming that the adjacent bungalow will be looking at a blank wall and trellis. Mr. Tabrizi answered in the affirmative.

Chair Clarke asked Mr. Tabrizi about changes in the slope of the front setback. Mr. Tabrizi stated that the front unit entry has been raised, based on concerns raised by Commissioner Hopkins at the prior meeting, and can be seen on Sheet A-15, both the old and new plans.

Commissioner O’Day asked the applicant to comment on the height of adjacent buildings. Mr. Novik stated that all the buildings are single-story, except at the alley, where there are two-stories above garages, and there are several two story buildings to the south of the project site.

Commissioner Johnson asked the applicant for comments on the façade changes to the north elevation. Mr. Novik stated that high windows have been added for light and ventilation, but they will not infringe on the privacy of the neighbors due to their interior height.

Commissioner Johnson asked the applicant to comment on changes to the balconies. Mr. Novik stated that the rear two units have reduced balcony space and the addition of gable roofs.

Commissioner Johnson asked the applicant to explain the removal of the spas on units 7 and 8, but not on units 5 and 6. Mr. Tabrizi explained the decision to make the changes cited.

Commissioner Johnson commented that the prior design looked and “felt like” a three-story building, but that has been reduced. Mr. Novik stated that the proposed building is two-stories in height with high ceilings.

The following members of the public addressed the Commission regarding the latest changes to this project design: Brett Daniels, Keva Rosenfeld (who also spoke for Karen Murphy), and Monique M. Biizault.

The applicant, Eyal Gamliel, spoke in response to the public comment.

Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Gamliel how the neighbors will feel about the proposed windows on the new building. Mr. Gamliel stated that the neighbors should feel fortunate that they have had twenty years without development next door and that he has a right to develop that property. Commissioner Johnson asked if the neighbors will not feel “invaded.” Mr. Gamliel stated that he has worked with the developer in terms of landscaping and there are plans to have a tree barrier between the properties. He also stated he would let the neighbors chose the type of trees to be planted.

Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Gamliel how the issue of three-stories to two-stories was addressed. Mr. Gamliel stated that some mezzanines were removed and the building height was lowered, thereby compromising the legal right of the developer.

Chair Clarke closed the public hearing.

Chair Clarke commented that every condominium development requires a Design Compatibility Permit (DCP), and this includes not only adhering to City regulations, but also findings that must be met. The first finding is that the proposed project will be compatible with the adjacent structure and the Commission has a legal mandate to investigate whether a proposed building will indeed “fit” in the neighborhood. Chair Clarke also commented that this is a difficult site with the sloped topography and the three adjacent lots on Arizona Avenue. He thanked the applicant’s team for their responses to the Commission’s questions.

Mr. Lait stated for the record that the site clearly has a different average natural grade from the adjacent properties, however lack of information on the Arizona Avenue properties cannot result in denial of the project. He noted that many improvements have been done to the proposed project with decks, patios and height changes since the previous hearings dates.

Commissioner Johnson asked staff about the “rounding rule” to calculate the number of units for a site. Mr. Lait stated that for market-rate units, a “plus .5” rounds up, affordable and other types of units round down.

Commissioner Johnson asked staff about mechanical screening for the project. Ms. Modugno stated that the mechanical equipment will be screened behind parapet walls or behind the roof pitch.

Commissioner Johnson asked staff about the location of the deck spas and if they are on the interior wall of the deck. Ms. Modugno stated that units 5 and 6 have a condition to be removed and units 7 and 8 are shielded by a gable roof. Commissioner Johnson asked staff if they are comfortable with this. Ms. Modugno stated that staff is comfortable because of the screening.

Commissioner Hopkins asked staff if the roof deck and spas for units 7 and 8 will have privacy from the alley (west) side. Ms. Modugno stated that they will not be shielded on the west side.

Commissioner Hopkins commented that she has been doing research on air conditioning units as regards noise issues. She asked staff if requiring the use of quieter units can be a condition of approval. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that conditions must relate to findings and compliance with the Noise Ordinance is usually sufficient.

Chair Clarke commented on his thoughts since the prior meeting and that the major impact of this project is on the Arizona Avenue neighbors to the north. He asked the Commission to list their current concerns with the project.

Commissioner Dad commented that she needs to be convinced of the findings. She stated that the proposed project “does not fit as if it belongs.” She commented that the building “looms” over the neighbors and appears to be three-stories tall. When asked by Chair Clarke if she could suggest any changes, Commissioner Dad stated that she cannot imagine a building on this site.

Commissioner O’Day respectfully disagreed with Commissioner Dad. He expressed the opinion that the staff report provides sufficient findings for approval and the applicant has made an effort to improve the project design and respond to Commission concerns. Commissioner O’Day commented on the testimony given, especially the attitude expressed by the developer toward the neighbors. He stated that height is an issue, however there are other three-story buildings in the neighborhood.

Chair Clarke commented that the previous meeting requested the reduction on the front façade height (to 23 feet), and suggested that perhaps the northside of the building should also be reduced in height. He also commented that the rear units are still problematic because of the sixteen-foot vertical wall along the property line.

Commissioner Brown commented that she wrestled with the proposed project in terms of neighborhood compatibility. She acknowledged that the neighborhood will change over time, however this project will have an impact. Chair Clarke suggested viewing the proposed project in terms of what could be developed on Arizona Avenue in the future.

Commissioner Johnson expressed the opinion that the project should move forward with conditions. He stated that the applicant has met the development standards setforth in the Code and made good faith efforts to make changes requested by the Commission. He stated that noise and shadow issues are still a concern for him, however they may be resolved through additional conditions of approval.

Commissioner Hopkins expressed support for the comments made by Commissioner Johnson and Chair Clarke. She then commented on the building design and expressed hope that the architect can make the proposal work.

Commissioner Johnson asked staff for the time restraints on this application. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the time line extends sixty (60) after the approval of the Negative Declaration. Commissioner Johnson asked staff if this is an adequate turn-around time. Ms. Frick stated it is dependant on the applicant.

Commissioner Brown suggested that the applicant be consulted on whether he wants to continue the project once more. Mr. Novik stated he has done two redesigns already, so he would like to hear the Commission’s conditions first. A lively discussion followed. Ms. Frick stated that the Commission has the option to attach conditions to the approval with the ARB as the final voice. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum commented that in addition to making findings for a DCP, State law prohibits denial of a DCP as regards density changes.

The Commission raised the following issues of concern: landscaping, spa placement, air conditioning noise, the 23-foot frontyard, and privacy protection for northside neighbors through additional set/stepbacks.

Chair Clarke thanked the applicant for changing the front entry door. Commissioner Hopkins thanked the applicant for adding cross ventilation to the project.

Chair Clarke suggested that the four-foot planter along the length of the sideyard be left to the discretion of the ARB. He also suggested that the building have three steps along the Arizona Avenue (north) side so that the breaks occur at approximately 208 feet, 216 feet and 223 feet. He cited Sheet A-15. Ms. Frick asked if this is for the north side only. Chair Clarke stated that it is not needed on the south side for the length of the building.

Chair Clarke commented on the removal of one mezzanine and a roof projection in the adjacent unit. He suggested that there could be roof access if the room was not pitched in that location. Chair Clarke further suggested that property line wall be stepped back at the eight foot level in some way so it is not a sixteen foot sheer wall facing the neighbors to the north. The Commission discussed with staff how such a stepback could be accomplished.

Commissioner Johnson commented on the roof spas. He was comfortable with the spa for Unit 8 because it is private, however he supported staff’s recommendation that the spas be removed for Units 5 and 6. Commissioner Hopkins expressed support for removal of all spas due to concern for the neighbors across the alley (adjacent to Units 7 and 8).

The Commission discussed moving the spas and decks to the interior courtyard.

On the subject of air conditioner noise, Commissioner Hopkins requested sound-rated enclosures such as are made by Lennox and Carrier be used.

Commissioner Hopkins commented on landscaping, which she felt was needed to protect the privacy of the neighbors to the north, however the landscaping should not interfere with light and air circulation for those properties when mature.

Chair Clarke asked the applicant to comment on the conditions being discussed by the Commission. Mr. Novik expressed concern about redesigning the rear units due to requirements for access to the subterranean parking garage. Chair Clarke and Commissioner Hopkins made suggestions as to how their design changes could be accomplished. Ms. Frick expressed discomfort with the Commission’s direction of redesigning the project “by committee.”

The Commission expressed concern regarding the north property line walls, deck spas, and air conditioning noise and how they will impact the Arizona Avenue neighbors.

Commissioner Johnson made a motion to adopt the Negative Declaration. Commissioner O’Day seconded the motion.

The Negative Declaration was adopted by the following vote:

AYES: Brown, Clarke, Johnson, O’Day; NOES: Dad, Hopkins.

Chair Clarke made a motion for approval with conditions cited previously. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion.

The DCP was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Brown, Clarke, Johnson, O’Day; NOES: Dad, Hopkins.

Commissioner Dad commented that all the conditions are an improvement, however she does not like the design and it does not fit with the neighborhood. Commissioner Hopkins commented that she is still concerned with the massing.

[The Commission took a break from 10:04 p.m. to 10:20 p.m.]

6-B. Conditional Use Permit 03CUP-005; Text Amendment 03TA-005; and Variance 03VAR-004; CM (Main Street Commercial) District/2705 Main Street. Application for Text Amendment 03-005 to modify Zoning Ordinance Sections 9.04.08.28.040 and 9.04.08.28.070 to allow the addition of a private dining facility to an existing restaurant on Main Street in specific circumstances, pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit; Conditional Use Permit 03-005 to allow the addition of a private dining facility at 2705 Main Street for Chinois on Main located at 2709 Main Street pursuant to the proposed text amendment and allow a Type 47 alcohol license, and Variance 03-004 to allow the 9 required on-site parking spaces to be provided in a shared parking arrangement off-site at 2725 Main Street. This project was previously considered by the Planning Commission at their August 6, 2003 meeting. [Planner: Laura Beck, AICP] APPLICANT: Wolfgang Puck and Bella Lantsman. PROPERTY OWNER: Lenore Lambert.

The Commission made the following ex parte communications regarding this project: Commissioner Hopkins disclosed that she received a telephone call from a neighbor who lives behind the cooking units, which do not have valid permits; and that she has observed that the restaurant is currently using three parking lots for their operation. There were no other disclosures made.

Associate Planner Laura Beck gave the staff report.

Commissioner Dad disclosed that she was not present at the previous public hearing, however she has reviewed the video tape. She complimented staff on the explanation on the parking issues at the previous meeting.

Commissioner Hopkins asked staff for the address of the second parking lot. Ms. Beck stated that the address is 2725 Main Street, which has seventeen spaces, and a lot at 2811 Main Street with fifteen spaces available from 6:00 p.m. to midnight.

The applicant’s representative, attorney Christopher Harding, was present to discuss the application. Ms. Bella Lantsman was also present to answer questions.

Commissioner Hopkins asked Ms. Lantsman about a complaint she received from a neighbor regarding the use of a walk-in refrigeration unit behind the restaurant. Ms. Lantsman stated that the Building and Safety staff have reviewed the situation and the unit is currently in compliance as of this morning. She stated that she had received a notice in September regarding the refrigeration unit. Ms. Beck stated that, per Code Compliance officers, there is no clear violation at the site and the inspections have been finaled. She recommended that the refrigeration unit be screened and insulated. Ms. Lantsman stated that this has been taken care of and expressed the wish that the neighbor had called her directly.

The following members of the public addressed the Commission regarding the application: John Endicott, Ron Schur, Rod Wright, Tom Pomatti, Briana Kirkilevich and Roger Genser. Three others submitted request to speak forms, but were not present when their names were called: Matthew Bernard, Viki Merjos, and Carlos Vasconselos.

Mr. Harding spoke in response to the public comment.

Commissioner Dad commented on the Main Street Plan process, which should have been able to review the expansion issue. She stated that she does not like Text Amendments and she is concerned with intensification of use. She also stated a preference for the text amendment wording in Mr. Harding’s letter. She asked for staff comment. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the current restaurant is “legal, non-conforming,” so it is not permitted to expand or intensify its use. He stated that staff’s language makes it clear that this it would remain a legal non-conforming use and that a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would be required for the new use. Ms. Frick clarified that staff is saying that the establishment of a private dining facility definition and use is not an intensification whereas the expansion of hours of operation or number of seats is a trigger for intensification of use.

Commissioner Hopkins stated that she is unclear as to why the applicant is applying for a Text Amendment for an existing use and adding a new use. Ms. Beck explained that the Text Amendment provides for the greatest level of review by the Commission.

Commissioner Hopkins asked staff if there is a way to reduce the parking radius to 200 feet from 500 feet. Ms. Beck stated that 200 feet would not be practical for Main Street and 500 feet is the practical distance used throughout the City.

Commissioner Hopkins made a motion for approval with the following conditions: that Text Amendment scope be modified to include only existing restaurants; and that the parking radius be reduced from 500 feet to 250 feet radius.

Commissioner Dad asked if the existing restaurants would be from this date. Commissioner Hopkins commented that some restaurants on Main Street are not properly permitted, but she would use this date as the existing restaurant date. She stated that she wants to preserve the small, local character of Main Street.

Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion.

Commissioner O’Day asked Commissioner Hopkins why she chose a 250-foot radius. Commissioner Hopkins stated that she wants this to be as restrictive as possible in order to preserve existing parking lots. She stated that the restriction would only be for private dining facilities.

There was discussion with staff about the parking radius limit and applicable standards. Mr. Harding expressed concern that the 250-foot radius may be a de facto denial of the proposal and that a standard city block is 600 feet in length. Commissioner Hopkins withdrew her condition regarding the parking radius reduction.

Ms. Beck stated for the record that the variance condition for the off-site parking lot is 125-feet from the existing restaurant.

Chair Clarke asked staff about wording for the current operation of the existing restaurants. Ms. Frick stated that the Text Amendment will specify no new restaurants and for those existing “as of October 1, 2003.” Chair Clarke expressed the opinion that the date should be the adoption date of the Text Amendment by the City Council.

Ms. Beck asked the Commission to state the hours of operation for the private dining facility. Commissioner Hopkins stated that last service will be at 10:30 p.m., the facility cleared by midnight all days except Sunday when the last service will be at 10:00 p.m., with facility cleared by 11:30 p.m.

Commissioner Hopkins made a motion to change the language of the Text Amendment to include “as of the date of adoption.” Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion.

Commissioner Dad commented that she has no problem with the amendment, however she is uncomfortable with the definition of intensification, therefore she will vote against the motion.

Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the private dining facility should be viewed as a separate operation, not an expansion of the primary business; or include a clause saying that if the operation ceases for one year, then the private dining facility use cease for that location.

The Text Amendment, as altered, was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Brown, Clarke, Hopkins, Johnson, O’Day; NOES: Dad.

Commissioner Hopkins made a motion to approve the CUP and Variance per the supplemental staff report and with the hours of operation previously cited.

Commissioner Dad seconded the motion.

The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Brown, Clarke, Dad, Hopkins, Johnson, O’Day.

7. PUBLIC HEARINGS:

7-A. Conditional Use Permit 03-006, 2801-2803 Colorado Avenue. Application for Conditional Use Permit to modify the existing conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit 97-025 to extend the conditional use permit to allow the operation of a non-conforming commercial use within the R2 (Low Density Multiple Residential) District. [Planner: Laura Beck, AICP] APPLICANT: David & Ellen Adams, Pyramid Films. PROPERTY OWNER: David & Ellen Adams, Trustees.

The Commission made the following ex parte communications regarding this project: Commissioner Hopkins disclosed that she used to live next door to the subject property. There were no other disclosures.

Associate Planner Laura Beck gave the staff report.

The applicant’s representative, Steve Bacchetti of RTK Architects, was present to discuss the project.

There were no members of the public present. Chair Clarke closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Dad made a motion to approve the project per the staff report.

Commissioner Hopkins seconded the motion.

The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Brown, Clarke, Dad, Hopkins, Johnson, O’Day.

8. DISCUSSION: items continued from September 17, 2003

8-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 via e-mail on August 27, 2002. Continued from August 6, 2003.