M I N U T E S
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF
THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
|
WEDNESDAY, February 18, 2004 |
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS |
|
7:00 P.M. |
ROOM 213, CITY HALL |
1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at
7:10 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Hopkins led the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. ROLL
CALL: Present: Barbara
Brown [left at 2:27 a.m.]
Darrell Clarke, Chairperson
Julie
Lopez Dad
Arlene
Hopkins
Jay
P. Johnson
Gwynne
Pugh
Absent: Terry O’Day
Lucy Dyke, Transportation Management
Manager
Kyle
Ferstead, Commission Secretary
Suzanne
Frick, Director of Planning / PCD
Jonathan
Lait, AICP, Senior Planner
Kevin
McKeown, City Council Liaison
Bill
Rodrigues, AICP, Associate Planner
Barry
Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney
Amanda
Schachter, Acting Planning Manager
4. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S
REPORT:
Ms. Frick gave the Director’s Report. Ms. Frick reported that on February 10, 2004, the City Council approved the Noise Ordinance update, including the provisions regarding transition zones. Ms. Frick also reported that the City Council will be hearing recommendations from the Promenade Uses Task Force on February 23, 2004, and the Short-Term Rental Housing Text Amendment appeal on March 9, 2004. Forthcoming Commission meetings are scheduled for the following dates: March 3, March 17, April 14 and April 21, 2004.
Commissioner Johnson suggested that
the agenda order be altered so a presentation can be made on item 9-B and then
hear item 8-B, for which many members of the public have come to speak on.
Commissioner Hopkins seconded the motion. Commissioner Dad stated she is
against reordering the agenda as regards item 8-B.
Commissioner Johnson made a motion
to move item 9-B to the top of the agenda to hear the presentation only.
Commissioner Hopkins seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote.
Commissioner Johnson made a second
motion to switch hearing items 8-A and 8-B. Commissioner Hopkins seconded the
motion. Commissioners Brown, Dad and Pugh voted against the motion, and it
failed.
Chair Clarke added a comment of
congratulations to the City Council for approving the Noise Ordinance.
5. PLANNING
COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consent Calendar
6-A. Commissioner Pugh made a
motion to approve the minutes for January 21, 2004, as submitted. Commissioner
Dad seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote with Commissioner
Hopkins abstaining.
7. STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL
ACTION: Consent
Calendar
7-A. Design Compatibility
Permit 03-004 and Tract Map 03-005, 1537 Sixteenth Street
Commissioner Johnson
made a motion to approve the Statement of Official Action for 1537 Sixteenth
Street as submitted. Commissioner Dad seconded the motion, which was approved
by voice vote with Commissioner Hopkins abstaining.
7-B. Appeal 03-017 of
Architectural Review Board 03-384, 2601 Santa Monica Boulevard
Commissioner Johnson made a motion to approve the Statement of Official Action for 2601 Santa Monica Boulevard. Commissioner Dad seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote with Commissioner Pugh abstaining.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
8-A. Development Review (03DR-002),
Conditional Use Permit (03CUP-003), Text Amendment (03TA-003), and
Environmental Impact Report (03EIR-001), 2834 Colorado Avenue. The proposed project consists of the
development of a 145-unit apartment complex at the southeast corner of Colorado
Avenue and Stewart Street. One level of
subterranean parking containing 228 parking spaces would be provided. The
on-site buildings would be demolished in association with project
development. The project consists of 29
studio units, 109 one-bedroom units, and 7 two-bedroom units contained within
18 buildings varying in height from two to four stories. The
Planning Commission will also consider certification of the Final Environmental
Impact Report, Mitigation Monitoring Program and Statement of Overriding
Considerations prepared for the project.
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared for the proposed
project is available on the City’s website.
The Final EIR, which consists of the Draft EIR and the responses to
comments received during the comment period on the DEIR, is available at the
Office of the City Clerk and at the City Planning Division Public Counter, Room
111 in City Hall.
[Planner: Bill Rodrigues, AICP] APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: Colorado Creative Studios, LLC.
The Commission made the following ex
parte communication disclosures for this project: Commissioner Brown
disclosed that she drove by the site at approximately 6:00 p.m. She expressed concern as to how the area
will support the proposed project. Commissioner Hopkins disclosed that she used
to live adjacent to the proposed site and expressed concern with the loss of
light industrial uses. Commissioner Johnson disclosed that he is familiar with
the site and shops there. Commissioner Pugh disclosed that he also is familiar
with the site, which is near his office and that he had a client for an
adjacent property. Chair Clarke and Commissioner Dad had nothing to disclose.
Associate Planner Bill Rodrigues
gave the staff report. Also present to answer questions were Tom Gaul of Kaku
Associates, Joe Power of Rincon Consulting, and Lucy Dyke, manager of the
Transportation Management Division.
The applicant’s team consisted of
Monica Witt, attorney for the applicant, and the project architect, Sami El
Bayar of RTK Architects.
Commissioner Pugh asked staff to
comment on traffic issues associated with the proposed project. Ms. Dyke
commented that staff’s main concern regards access to the site. She recommended
that specific traffic questions be directed to Mr. Gaul.
Commissioner Hopkins asked about the
proposed egress from the site onto Colorado Avenue. Ms. Dyke stated that the
egress is from Stewart Street, not Colorado Avenue, and will be right turn
only.
Commissioner Pugh asked staff about
traffic volumes adjacent to the project site versus elsewhere in the City. Ms.
Dyke stated that the area around the project site, especially Colorado Avenue,
is impacted during peak drive times by drivers either avoiding or accessing the
Santa Monica Freeway. Commissioner Pugh asked staff if the proposed project
will exacerbate the situation. Ms. Dyke stated that the anticipated impact will
relatively insignificant.
Chair Clarke asked Ms. Dyke how
broad the traffic study for this project was and what assumptions were made.
Ms. Dyke stated that staff attempted to balance the impacts and made the
presumption that residents of the proposed project will be generally local
travelers. Chair Clarke asked if there is a way to categorize travel patterns.
Mr. Gaul stated that the proposed project is residential and part of the
traffic study includes surveying adjacent employment centers and shopping
areas. He stated that traffic analysis determined that 40% of vehicles will
travel to the Santa Monica Freeway eastbound and 30% westbound on surface
street and the remainder will travel either north or south from the subject
site. He added that regional models are used in the analysis process.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Gaul
where he would find the net new trips generated in the EIR. Mr. Gaul stated the
information is in Table 5, page 21 of the appendix or page 4.5-10 in the EIR.
Commissioner Johnson commented that the net new trips will be 771 trips daily.
Commissioner Johnson asked Ms. Witt
the status of the existing businesses on the site and whether they will be
relocated. Ms. Witt stated that there is no City requirement to relocated
businesses currently on the site. Commissioner Johnson asked Ms. Witt if her
client owns the property site. Ms. Witt answered in the affirmative.
Commissioner Johnson asked if her client has been discussing the disposition of
the property with the tenants. Ms. Witt stated that there have been no
discussions with the tenants, however it is the intention of her client to give
the business tenants as much notice as possible about vacating the property.
She also stated that the Text Amendment clearly states that these types of
businesses will continue to be permitted in the LMSD.
Commissioner Johnson commented that he has been concerned about the existing businesses on the property. He asked Ms. Witt for the names of the principles of Colorado Creative Studios, LLC. Ms. Witt stated that the principles are Glen Bayless and Jack Walter. Commissioner Johnson asked if these gentlemen have done other developments in Santa Monica. Ms. Witt stated that, to the best of her knowledge, they have not.
Commissioner Hopkins commented on permitted uses in the existing district and asked why artist live/work housing was not proposed. Ms. Witt stated that the proposal is a more viable option for the developers.
Commissioner Hopkins asked Mr. Gaul
about traffic analysis, specifically regarding impacts on Centinela Avenue and
Franklin Street. Mr. Gaul stated that significant impacts are anticipated for
Centinela Avenue and Nebraska, as well as three other intersections in the City
of Los Angeles. He further stated that mitigation measures have been proposed
for one of the intersections. Ms. Witt stated there is the expectation that
residents will walk to the neighboring café, however other amenities appear to
be further away and will require vehicle trips. She expressed the opinion that
“SMART” growth development is not viable for this project.
The following members of the public
addressed the Commission. Most of the public speakers were against the project.
The public speakers were: Hal Birth, A. Michelle Page, Dan Adams, Ken Kutcher,
Chris Elder, Liz Kane, Craig D. Jones, and Neil Shekhter.
Ms. Witt spoke in response to the
public comment.
Commissioner Brown asked Ms. Witt if
there is any legal reason not to approve the New Roads request if her client is
approved. Ms. Witt stated that an EIR cannot be changed once it is certified,
as has been done for the New Roads EIR. She also stated that there is no reason
to link the two projects, not to mention that it is setting a different
standard than for other projects in the City. Senior Land Use Attorney
Rosenbaum responded to Commissioner Brown by stating that the environmental
documents for both New Roads and this project indicate no impacts for
associated intersections. He also stated that New Roads is not before the
Commission tonight and cannot be discussed.
Commissioner Pugh asked Ms. Witt if
her clients have done projects in Santa Monica previously. Ms. Witt stated her
clients have not worked in Santa Monica before and that one of her clients is a
leasing agent and the other is a commercial developer. Commissioner Pugh
commented that he asked the question because of the public’s concern over the
number of residential units proposed. He asked if there will be on-site
residential managers for the development. Ms. Witt stated that she is unsure,
however office space is provided on the plans. Commissioner Johnson commented
that under State law an on-site residential manager is required for buildings
with ten or more units. Ms. Witt stated that there will definitely be an
on-site manager.
Commissioner Pugh asked the
architect about the common space, especially the very small common room. He
noted that the balconies and public open space are “very open.” Mr. El Bayar
stated that there are two common rooms, both north and south of the pool. He
also stated that the courtyard is intended to be a hub for outdoor activities
including bar-b-cues.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. El
Bayar about the size of the low-income units. Mr. El Bayar stated that all the
one-bedroom units, market-rate and low-income, will be approximately 800 square
feet.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. El
Bayar about his dealings with the City’s Urban Designer, the commented on the
“plain jane” design. Mr. El Bayar stated that the imagery of the building is
intended to be clean and simple to blend in with the industrial look of the
LMSD. He also stated that the design will be modified prior to the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) hearing.
Commissioner Johnson commented that
the Stewart Street side of the project is towering over the street. Mr. El
Bayar explained the design concept and how the separate building change height
and width. Commissioner Johnson commented that the buildings go from thirty
feet to forty-five feet south across the property. Mr. El Bayar stated that the
shorter, thirty foot buildings are adjacent to the R-2 District properties
along Colorado Avenue and there is deep frontyard setback. He also stated that
the entire project has only a 43% lot coverage when 50% is permitted.
Commissioner Hopkins asked Ms. Witt
for the names of the principles of Creative Studios LLC and if they have done
any other projects in Santa Monica. Ms. Witt stated that the principles are
Glen Bayless and Jack Walter and they do not have experience with development
in Santa Monica.
Chair Clarke commented on typical
condominium projects and the Commission’s desire for pedestrian orientation. He
noted that no unit entries are from Stewart Street. Mr. El Bayar stated that
this is correct. Chair Clarke asked for the setbacks along Stewart Street. Mr.
El Bayar stated that the setbacks are five to six feet. Chair Clarke asked
about interior landscaping. Mr. El Bayar stated that this aspect of the project
has not been designed yet.
Commissioner Brown commented on the
projects location within the LMSD zone, which does not permit residential
housing, and the fact that the proposed housing density is very high. Mr. El
Bayar stated that the portions of the site are R-4 and the unit density meets
R-4 standards with R-2 lot coverage.
Commissioner Pugh commented on the
proposed guest parking in the subterranean parking structure in terms of the
circulation. He expressed concern about the guest parking spaces and whether
there would be a security barrier. Mr. El Bayar stated that the security gate
is still in the design phase, but the guest parking spaces are proposed to be
behind the barrier.
Chair Clarke closed the public
hearing.
The Commission took a break from
9:50 p.m. to 10:10 p.m.
Commissioner Dad asked staff a
series of questions: when this application was filed; when the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was circulated; and was the application on
the Commission Caselist. She also asked about the date of the Final EIR being
in January 2004 and the applicant being notified of the public hearing on
December 22, 2004. Ms. Frick stated that Planning’s process and meeting date
schedules are months in advance of actual public hearings, hence the date
discrepancies. She also stated that the division’s past pattern has been taking
too long to prepare EIRs and this project shows the improvement in timing (ten
months instead of one year or more). Mr. Rodrigues responded to the first
portion of the questions. He stated that the application was filed on January
23, 2003 and it has been continuously updated on the Planning Caselist. He
stated that the DEIR was released on September 26, 2003 and the comment period
ended on November 10, 2003. Mr. Rodrigues stated that the applicant was
notified of tentative hearing dates.
Lastly, Mr. Rodrigues stated that the application was deemed in April,
2003.
Commissioner Dad commented that the
Text Amendment should be discussed first. She noted that the Text Amendment
says it meets the General Plan with the addition of housing to the LMSD.
Commissioner Dad expressed the opinion that this may not be a good idea as this
area is not like the downtown area or other commercial areas in the City where
residential housing would be more appropriate. She stated she is convinced that
the LMSD is not the place for housing and that the Text Amendment does not
conform to the General Plan and housing is out of context. Commissioner Dad
read from the Zoning Ordinance regarding the purpose of the LMSD “is intended
to preserve existing light industrial uses, provide a location for
studio-related uses such as film and music production and post-production
facilities uses, and provide opportunities for artist studio live/work
residential development.” She stated that the Text Amendment changes the
purpose and it should not be changed.
She expressed the opinion that changing the code to permit housing could
“take over the area” and would overthrow the Land Use Element. She stated that
there is a need to protect housing from industrial uses and the need to
preserve the currently permitted uses in the LMSD. She concluded by saying she
should not vote for the Text Amendment.
Commissioner Hopkins expressed her
thorough agreement with the comments made by Commissioner Dad. She stated she
is concerned with traffic impacts cited in the EIR, especially on Stewart
Street and Centinela Avenue. She expressed the opinion that the traffic impacts
were not adequately analyzed. She also stated she is concerned with the
proposed density of the project and that a Statement of Overriding
Considerations is not sufficient. Commissioner Hopkins expressed concern with
the loss of small businesses and the jobs of those currently working on the
site, not to mention the loss of tax revenue for the City. She stated that the
proposed project displaces necessary services to the community. Additionally,
Commissioner Hopkins stated that there will be real estate impacts. For all
these reason, she stated she is disinclined to approve the Text Amendment.
City Council Liaison McKeown
commented that he is also liaison to the Housing Commission and that there is
need for more housing, especially affordable housing units. He stated that in
the next housing cycle (per the Housing Element), the City will need to find
areas to expand housing opportunities. He stated that the Downtown area has had
a good run with new housing production, however nearly all the parcels
available for development have been developed. He also stated that the State
mandates that the City build more affordable housing units and this Text
Amendment offers a new area for housing development.
Commissioner Hopkins thanked City
Council Liaison McKeown for his thoughtful comments, however her concern is
with balancing uses in the community. She stated that there is a desperate need
for more artist live/work space and that nearly half of the old live/work
spaces have been lost in recent years. She asked that this issue be viewed in a
global context.
Commissioner Pugh expressed
agreement with the prior comments. He commented that he has an affection for
the LMSD and has his office there. He stated that the LMSD is a unique resource
to Santa Monica, industry in the heart of the City. That said, he stated that
this does not preclude change in the LMSD, it just does not seem appropriate at
this time. He expressed a fear for “a loss of texture.” Commissioner Pugh
commented that the proposed density for the project is greater than what would
be allowed in the R-4 District, which he calculated to be 106 units instead of
the proposed 145 units. He also commented that if the site was fully developed
with a 1.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR), the parking requirement would be 1/300
square feet or 256 vehicles.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff if
the Text Amendment could be narrowed to just the site in question. Senior Land
Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that it would be better to apply the Text
Amendment to the larger area.
Commissioner Johnson commented that
the LMSD is approximately 5% of the City. He also commented that there is already
too much traffic, especially at this end of the City. He stated that the
underlying question is how to achieve more housing in the City and speculated
that condominiums in the LMSD would cost approximately half a million to
$700,000 per unit. He expressed the opinion that the Text Amendment is too
large an issue to address this evening. On the proposed project under
consideration, Commissioner Johnson had the following issues: that car trips be
reduced from 350 per day; that mixed-use be added at the Nebraska end of the
project; that the relocation of existing businesses on the site be addressed;
and the plans contain more details. He concluded his remarks by saying that he
cannot support the Text Amendment.
Commissioner Hopkins agreed that the
need for housing should be addressed in a larger context and discussion.
Commissioner Brown expressed
agreement with Commissioner Hopkins, saying that this is an example of putting
“the cart before the horse.” She suggested that other areas of the City should
be reviewed for more housing first. She commented that this is a specific
project with a Text Amendment attached and it is a “huge deal.” She stated that
she cannot support the Text Amendment.
Commissioner Dad stated that the
Text Amendment would create more housing, with affordable housing, however with
the R-4 plus density, she stated she is not prepared to go there at this time.
Ms. Frick stated for the record that
the LMSD, which was created in 1995 by the City Council, is a Special Office
District per the Land Use Element. The Special Office District allows for
housing and when the LMSD was created there was an oversight in excluding the
residential component for the new district. She noted that this is the only
zoning district that does not permit housing, even the M-1 allows housing.
Commissioner Dad asked if there are
residential standards for the M-1 and for the density. Ms. Frick stated that
the height standard is two-story, 30-feet with no unit density cited.
Chair Clarke asked about the
apartment building in the Arboretum development. Ms. Frick stated that the
Arboretum is zoned C-5.
Commissioner Hopkins asked if the
Arboretum apartments are corporate housing. Ms. Frick stated that they are not
and there are affordable units per the Development Agreement for the site.
Chair Clarke commented on the
apartments in the Arboretum project, specifically that they are an island
surrounded by commercial office space and are part of the spirit of “SMART
Growth,” which calls for integrating uses in small spaces with walkways,
transit access and pocket parks. He also commented that “civic space” is an
important consideration. Chair Clarke stated that he appreciates what the
applicant is trying to do with this project, however it does not meet SMART
Growth goals and he is concerned with the jobs/housing balance. He stated that
to move this project forward, it needs more livability.
Commissioner Johnson commented that
the Text Amendment should either be returned to staff for revision or the area
should be reduced. Commissioner Dad stated a preference for looking at the
zoning as a whole. She also stated she is generally against Text Amendments.
Commissioner Johnson commented that if the Text Amendment is denied completely,
then it could appealed to the City Council and approved, whereas if it is
remanded back to staff, the language of the Text Amendment can be revised.
Commissioner Dad stated she is not afraid of the Council and that the
Commission needs to be specific in what it wants.
Commissioner Brown made a motion to
recommend the City Council not adopt the Text Amendment. Commissioner Dad
seconded the motion.
The Commission discussed the Text
Amendment as written by the applicant and considered whether this issue should
be approached in another way. Ms. Frick stated that some time ago the City
Council placed the issue of housing in the LMSD on the Planning and Community
Development’s priority list, however it is not projected for action until
Fiscal Year 2005-2006. She added that the next budget proposal update will move
the revision of the Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Element forward on the
priority list and this may be a preferred approach for the issue of housing.
She concluded by saying that staff does support the proposed project.
Chair Clarke suggested that the
applicant could revise the application with artist live/work space instead.
The Text Amendment motion to not
recommend adoption was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Brown, Clarke, Dad, Hopkins,
Johnson, Pugh; ABSENT: O’Day.
Chair Clarke made a motion to deny
without prejudice the Development Review permit and Conditional Use Permit
based on the Commission’s concerns regarding density, traffic impacts and not
being up to SMART Growth standards.
Commissioner Hopkins seconded the
motion. She stated that the project is not up to district standards which
permit artist live/work space.
The motion to deny the project was
approved by the following vote:
AYES: Brown, Clarke, Dad, Hopkins,
Johnson, Pugh; ABSENT: O’Day.
Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum
stated for the record that it is not mandatory for the Commission to certify
the EIR.
Commissioner Dad thanked staff for
using the updated traffic figure
8-B. Appeal
03-016 of Use Permit 03-011, 3010 Wilshire Boulevard.
Appeal of a
Zoning Administrator determination approving a wireless communication facility
at the subject address. The applicant requests approval to construct an
unmanned wireless telecommunication facility on the roof of an existing
five-story building. The equipment will
consist of a GPS antenna, a flat panel antenna, and three sectors of two
antennas each, which will be painted to match the building and mounted to the
parapet below the roofline. Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.04.10.06.110(b), the
Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission on appeal, may modify the
design standards and regulations applicable to non-parabolic commercial
antennas. [Planner: Peter Blied]
APPLICANT: Infranext, for A.T. & T. Wireless. APPELLANT Matthew Baird.
PROPERTY OWNER: Public Storage, Inc.
The Commission made the following ex
parte communication disclosures for this project: Commissioner Hopkins
disclosed that she visited the site two weeks ago. There were no other
disclosures.
Associate Planner Peter Blied gave
the staff report.
Chair Clarke asked staff to clarify
the Commission’s discretion and jurisdiction in antenna cell-site cases. Senior
Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the findings listed in the staff report
reflect the discretion of the Commission. He also stated that the issue of
harmful health impacts is preempted from consideration by Federal law.
Commissioner Hopkins asked staff if
a finding could be made regarding adverse effects on property values. Senior
Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that objective evidence would need to be
presented, however the courts generally do not uphold such evidence.
Commissioner Hopkins asked if a licensed appraiser wrote a letter regarding
property values, if that would be considered viable evidence. Senior Land Use
Attorney Rosenbaum stated that it would be evidence, but it would need research
to back it up.
The appellant, Matthew Baird, made a
presentation to the Commission regarding his appeal.
The applicant’s representative,
Barbara Farash of Intranext, spoke against the appeal.
Commissioner Brown asked Ms. Farash
to give the rational for the choosing of this particular building as a cellular
antenna site. Ms. Farash explained that there is a hole in reception and
capacity in this vicinity.
Commissioner Hopkins commented on
concerns raised by area residents and asked if the antennas could be moved to
the west corner of the building. Ms. Farash stated that coverage is needed in
all sectors. Commissioner Hopkins asked
if the antennas could be moved west, to Stanford Street and Wilshire Boulevard,
and raised up. Ms. Farash stated that if the antennas were moved to the front
of the building, they would have to greatly exceed the permitted height for
this district in order to clear the building’s parapets.
Chair
Clarke commented that the appellant, Mr. Baird, claimed that the best site for
this operation would be five blocks to the west. Ms. Farash asked,
rhetorically, if Mr. Baird was an RF engineer. She explained that there are not
many buildings of the proper height in this area and that lease agreements were
not possible with other buildings.
The
following members of the public addressed the Commission regarding the appeal:
Pattie Cross, Pearl Gershuni, Donald Hays, Barbara Beck, Peter Jensen, Mark
Wisner, Maria E. Jensen, Jim Musil, James Johnson, Daniel Bushnell, Julie
Simanante spoke for her mother, Helen Simanante, and Hillary Cohen. One member
of the public, James Matts, submitted a request to speak form but was not
present when his name was called.
Ms.
Farash spoke in response to the public comments.
Commissioner
Johnson asked Ms. Farash about co-locating antennas with another carrier on
another building. Ms. Farash stated that co-location is not an option in this
area as adjacent buildings do not meet the engineering criteria for coverage
specifications.
Commissioner
Johnson asked Ms. Farash about radiation patterns, whether it is straight line
or spread. Ms. Farash explained that the pattern is like what occurs when one
drops a rock in a pool of water, a ripple effect, but in a more triangular than
circular pattern.
City
Council Liaison McKeown commented that Ms. Farash stated there was inadequate
service in this area, however the public indicated that they get adequate
signal strength. He asked if the antenna is needed for signal strength or to
handle more calls in the area. Ms. Farash stated that the antennas are needed
both for capacity and coverage.
Commissioner
Pugh asked Ms. Farash about the non-metallic screening and if the antennas work
by line-of-sight. Ms. Farash stated that they work by line-of-sight and the
material is fiberglass.
Chair
Clarke asked Ms. Farash about the parking lot and roof plan for the antennas.
Ms. Farash did not have an answer to the parking lot question, but did show a
visual plan of the antenna locations on the roof plan.
The
appellant, Mr. Baird, spoke in response to the public comments.
Commissioner
Johnson asked Mr. Baird if he was aware of any co-locations antenna sites in
the area. Mr. Baird answered in the negative.
Chair
Clarke commented that if the proposed site is moved west five blocks, neighbors
will likely have the same reaction. He asked how, if people are not aware of
the site, it can lower property values. Mr. Baird stated that his primary
concern is health concerns, then the lowering of property values. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum
cautioned the Commission regarding basing their decision on property values as
no objective evidence has been presented. He stated that aesthetic values, such
as for a monopole, have been upheld in courts, but this case does not include a
monopole. He reiterated that a denial cannot be based on health issues.
Commissioner Pugh asked if the
notification issue is moot. Ms. Frick stated that it is not an issue. The code
requires that the notice be mailed out ten days prior to the public hearing,
not that it be received ten days prior. She also stated that the postcards were
mailed out on February 5, 2004, per staff, therefore the requirement has been
met. She also noted that many people came to the hearing, which leads staff to
assume that they received notice.
Commissioner Johnson asked about the
preparation of mailings. Ms. Frick stated that postcard notification is sent
first class.
Commissioner Pugh commented that
health risks and property values are not before the Commission, only whether
the site complies with City codes and aesthetics.
Chair Clarke asked staff if a
condition can be added regarding building security. Ms. Frick answered in the
affirmative.
Commissioner
Brown asked if a postmark on the postcard is not proof of mailing. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum
stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires the City to mail notices not less
than ten days prior to the public hearing. The Commission Secretary explained
the noticing process, including printing, labeling, placing the notices in the
office mailbox for pick-up by the mailroom staff. She stated that once the
mailroom personnel pick-up the mailings, it is beyond the control of Planning
Staff. It is her understanding that the mailroom personnel place postage on the
postcards, then take them to the post office on the same day they pick-up the
postcards from City Hall.
Chair
Clarke asked how many postcards were mailed for this appeal. The Commission
Secretary estimated it was approximately 300 cards.
Commissioner
Hopkins commented on Municipal Code Section 9.04.10.06.110(b), which deals with
antennas. Senior Planner Jonathan Lait explained that this subsection no longer
applies because of the FCC Act of 1996. He stated that the code section
language no longer fits the new language of Federal law. He also stated that
free standing antennas are permitted by right.
Commissioner
Hopkins asked what type of array is proposed for this site. Mr. Lait stated
that the proposal is for roof-mounted antennas. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum commented that the
code specifies antennas by right and those that require a Use Permit.
Mr. Lait added for consideration
that Condition #5 could be amended as the “security condition” the Commission
mentioned previously.
Commissioner Hopkins asked staff
about the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) issue raised by the
appellant. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that this permit is exempt
and the emissions cited by the appellant cannot be addressed by CEQA.
Commissioner Dad commented that she
had been in agreement with the staff report until she heard the public comments
regarding safety and location of the antennas. She noted that the building is
very accessible to graffiti artists. She also noted that the map provided by
the applicant indicates that additional cell sites will be needed in this area
even if this permit is approved.
Commissioner Johnson made a motion
to refer the applicant for further co-location analysis. Commissioner Hopkins
asked if this is a motion to uphold the appeal. Commissioner Pugh asked what
this motion would achieve.
Chair Clarke commented that there
have been two recent appeals before the Commission involving cell sites. One
was located at Lincoln and Ocean Park Boulevards, which was denied based on
aesthetics. The appeal on San Vicente Boulevard dealt with a proposed cell site
on a residential building and was denied based on the placement of the antennas
within reach of balconies.
Commissioner Hopkins stated there is
a motion with a second to uphold the appeal. She stated that there should be a
study on where antennas are placed in the City and where co-location can occur.
Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum recommended that the hearing be continued
rather than the motion on the table.
Commissioner Dad commented that she
appreciates the reasoning, however she does not feel she can support the
motion. She stated that she does not like the location choice, but it is a
commercial zone and the building is suitable for the proposed use even if it is
not the ideal location for full coverage. She stated that there needs to be
conditions to protect graffiti artists from the antenna equipment.
Commissioner Johnson made an
alternate motion to continue the public hearing.
Commissioner Dad commented that the
noticing issue has no bearing on the outcome of the hearing. She stated that
she wants to know how many antenna sites there are and where they are located.
Commissioner Hopkins commented that
there are still a significant number people present at 1:00 a.m. and she shares
the concerns raised by those people. She expressed her support for continuing
the hearing.
Commissioner Johnson restated his
motion to continue the hearing pending a co-location study and representation
by an AT&T technical representative at the next hearing.
Commissioner Hopkins seconded the
motion.
Commissioner Dad expressed her
appreciation of the public participation on this appeal.
Commissioner Brown stated that
co-location is not her issue, but rather the lack of technical background give
by the applicant’s representative.
Commissioner Hopkins made a motion
to uphold the appeal per the comments by Commissioner Brown. There was no
second to the motion.
The motion to continue was defeated
by the following vote:
AYES: Hopkins, Johnson; NOES: Brown,
Clarke, Dad, Pugh; ABSENT: O’Day.
Commissioner
Pugh made a motion to deny the appeal. Commissioner Dad seconded the motion.
The
motion to deny the appeal was approved by the following vote:
AYES:
Brown, Clarke, Dad, Pugh; NOES: Hopkins, Johnson; ABSENT: O’Day.
8-C. Appeal
03-018 of 03VAR-014, 144 Fraser Avenue. The
project includes the demolition and replacement of the rear portion of an
existing three-story house. Approximately 140 square feet of new floor area
will be added on the third floor. The addition will not exceed the existing
building height or the maximum 30-foot height limit for the zoning district.
However, the variance is needed to expand the floor area of an existing third
floor in a district that limits buildings to two stories. Pursuant to SMMC
Section 9.04.20.10.030(k), an applicant may request a variance to allow an
additional story, which would not otherwise be permitted for an existing
residential structure, consistent with applicable criteria. [Planner: Bill
Rodrigues, AICP] APPLICANT/APPELLANT: Luicija Baskauskas. PROPERTY OWNER: Justina Baskauskas.
The Commission made the following ex
parte communication disclosures for this project: Commissioner Hopkins
disclosed that she spoke with Susan Cloke by telephone regarding the appeal and
visited the site and adjacent site at 3:15 p.m. on Wednesday, February 18,
2004. She also disclosed that she met with Joel Brand, an adjacent property
owner to the west at 140 Fraser Avenue, and looked at the addition on 144 from
Mr. Brand’s rear yard. There were no other disclosures by Commissioners.
Associate Planner Bill Rodrigues
gave the staff report.
The applicant/appellant’s representative, Howard Robinson, the property owner, Justina Baskauskas, and project architect, Ronald Chang, were present to discuss the appeal.
The following members of the public
addressed the Commission regarding the appeal: Joel Brand, Liuda Kaupas,
Stephen Anaya, and Michael Urwitz. One member of the public was not present
when their name was called: Kristina Deutsch.
Commissioner Pugh commented that the
drawings are quite frustrating as they do not show the rear property line. The
project architect, Mr. Chang, stated that the required rear setback is sixteen
feet to the face of the building and the deck adds five feet.
Chair Clarke asked about the width
of the cantilever. Mr. Chang stated that the cantilever is one foot wide and
was designed to protect the French doors below it.
Chair Clarke asked the architect
about moving the rear wall back an additional five feet, as suggested by the
adjacent neighbor. Mr. Chang stated that this would not be practical. Mr.
Robinson stated that the applicant/appellant does not want any more reductions
and has compromised by adding one-foot wide planters at either corner of the
balcony.
Commissioner Brown announced that
she was leaving the meeting. It was 2:27 a.m.
Chair Clarke closed the public
hearing.
Commissioner Pugh commented that he
feels conflicted on this appeal because the projects seems to be, by the letter
of the law, a third story, but this neighborhood is built very tight and the
lots are very small. He stated that the massing is fairly significant. He also
acknowledged the concerns raised by the neighbors and stated there is “no
public good to grant.”
Commissioner Hopkins thanked
Commissioner Pugh for his comments and expressed her agreement. She stated that
the third floor addition should be “cut back” five feet, which will result in a
room approximately fifteen feet by fourteen feet, and that the balcony should
be stepped back for more open space with the addition of the planters at either
end and “breathability.” She stated that the changes would still leave a
bedroom with a deck/balcony.
Commissioner Johnson stated that he
does not want the Zoning Administrator’s approval deleted, which is only fair
to the applicant/appellant. He expressed support of the applicant/appellant’s
corner planter solution as an acceptable compromise for privacy. Commissioner
Hopkins stated that this does not reduce the massing. Chair Clarke pointed out
that the Zoning Administrator denied the deck. Commissioner Pugh added that the
Zoning Administrator permitted the massing and permitted the applicant to chose
between the massing or the deck/balcony.
Commissioner Dad expressed agreement
with Commissioner Hopkins.
Commissioner Johnson commented that
he would like to keep the Zoning Administrator’s approval and permit the
applicant/appellant to use the space either as the master bedroom or as a
deck/balcony.
Commissioner Pugh suggested, for
clarity, that the 20 foot mark is the current deck line; that the 25 foot mark
is where the massing ends and the 25 foot mark is where the Zoning
Administrator’s approval permits the applicant/appellant to choose how the
space is used.
Chair Clarke asked staff if the
appeal could be granted with different conditions or does it have to be the
Zoning Administrator’s original approval. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum
stated that this is a de novo hearing.
Chair Clarke suggested a compromise
of extending the planters at either end of the deck/balcony and moving back the
wall two to three feet, instead of the five feet. He stated that the third
floor massing is still a concern, but at least the building has a pitched roof.
Commissioner Hopkins stated that she
visited the site “today” and viewed from the adjacent yard, the building is
huge. She then attempted to craft a motion as follows: that the 25 foot setback
from the rear property line should be a condition, with stepped back planters
on each end of the deck/balcony for privacy, and the redesign should be within
the building envelop with the third story setback. She stated that the
applicant/appellant should decide how to achieve these goals.
Chair Clarke asked for clarification
on the 25-foot setback. Commissioner Hopkins stated that the setback from the
rear property will be 25-feet, with or without the deck/balcony as the balcony
can be cut into the massing of the building.
Chair Clarke commented that the
original approval included the roof overhanging the deck/balcony. Commissioner
Pugh stated that this is not exactly correct because the deck/balcony was not
part of the Zoning Administrator’s approval. He stated that at the 25-foot
mark, the balcony can be achieved with the reduction of bedroom area. He
suggested a compromise using the central area and the eight foot line, based on
the ridgeline of the roof, allow a projection of three feet into the setback
for a setback of 22 feet if the deck/balcony option is chosen.
Commissioner Hopkins made a motion
to deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator’s approval, with the
following modifications:
(1)
that
the rear wall of the third story be setback to the 25 foot mark from the
property line;
(2)
that
if there is to be a deck/balcony on the third floor, the balcony shall be
measured from the centerline of the roof, four feet to either side, not to
exceed eight feet, and it may be a maximum of three feet (or 22 feet from the
property line); and
(3)
that
the balcony shall not extend to the edge of the building (side of building).
Commissioner Johnson seconded the
motion.
The motion to uphold the Zoning
Administrator and deny the appeal was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Clarke, Dad, Hopkins, Johnson,
Pugh; ABSENT: Brown, O’Day.
Following the vote, Mr. Robinson
asked if Commissioner Pugh could diagram what the motion approved.
9.
DISCUSSION:
9-B. Discussion
of “in-lieu” development fee, and the relationship between the amount of fee
versus market price versus cost of replacement and attendant issues related to
on-site inclusionary housing. Requested by Commissioner Johnson on January 21,
2004. [Continued from February 4, 2004.]
[Note: This item was moved to the
top of the agenda in order to hear from a guest speaker.]
David Rosen of David Paul Rosen and
Associates, Oakland, California, made a presentation to the Commission
regarding inclusionary housing and “in-lieu fee” analysis.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Rosen
about preferences for paying in-lieu fees versus building inclusionary units
on-site. Mr. Rosen stated that it varies from city to city and fees are
generally adjusted annually. He added that Santa Monica’s fees are below
average.
Commissioner Pugh asked Mr. Rosen if
there are any compulsory thresholds on fees. Mr. Rosen stated that one-in-five
jurisdictions do not allow fees.
Commissioner Dad asked Mr. Rosen
about mixed-use projects and inclusionary housing. Mr. Rosen outlined how
inclusionary housing has changed over time as to where inclusionary housing is
constructed and length of time it remains active.
Commissioner Brown thanked Mr. Rosen
for his presentation, but stated that the Chambers are full of people waiting
for public hearing items.
Mr. Rosen concluded his remarks by
saying that lawsuits cannot be prevented, cities can only endeavor not to loose
the cases.
[Following this item, the agenda
resumed with public hearing items.]
10. FUTURE
COMMISSION AGENDA ITEMS: None.
11. PUBLIC INPUT: None
12. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 2:48 a.m. on Thursday, February 19,
2004.
APPROVED: March 24,
2004