M I N U T E S
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF
THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
|
WEDNESDAY, July 14, 2004 |
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS |
|
7:00 P.M. |
ROOM 213, CITY HALL |
1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at
7:25 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 [departed at 12:15 a.m.]
Arlene
Hopkins
Jay
P. Johnson
Terry
O’Day [arrived at 8:55 p.m.]
Also
Present: Lucy Dyke, Transportation
Planning Manager
Kyle
Ferstead, Commission Secretary
Suzanne
Frick, Director of Planning / PCD
Kevin
McKeown, City Council Liaison
Stephanie
Reich, Urban Designer
Beth Rolandson, Senior Transportation Planner
Barry
Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney
3-A. Election
of Officers
Due to the absence of one Commissioner, the Election of Officers was tabled until later in the meeting.
At approximately 10:10 p.m., the
Commission reconvened their meeting and held their Election of Officers.
Ms. Frick opened the nominations for
Chairperson. Commissioner Hopkins nominated Commissioner Brown for Chairperson
effective July 21, 2004. Commissioner Dad seconded the nomination. The vote was
unanimous in favor of Commissioner Brown.
Ms. Frick opened the nominations for
Vice-Chairperson. Commissioner Hopkins nominated Commissioner Clarke for
Vice-Chairperson effective July 21, 2004. She thanked Chair Clarke for his two
years of extraordinary service as Chairperson for the Commission. Commissioner
Dad seconded the nomination. The vote was unanimous in favor of Commissioner
Clarke for Vice-Chair.
Chair Clarke congratulated
Commissioner Brown on her election as Chairperson. Commissioner Pugh thanked
Chair Clarke and Vice-Chair Hopkins for their wonderful service to the
Commission.
Commissioner Brown stated she
respects all the Commissioners and emphasized this is a collective work effort.
She commented that the Matrix Report had cited the “passion” of the Commission
and agreed that this Commission does have passion. She thanked the Commission
for the election.
Chair Clarke stated that it has been
an honor serving as Chairperson for the past two years, as well as a challenge,
and that he has grown through the process. He expressed his support for
Commissioner Brown as the new chairperson. He also thanked Commissioner Hopkins
for her support and service as Vice-Chairperson for the previous year.
Commissioner Johnson thanked Chair
Clarke for “herding these six cats” for the past two years and Commissioner
Hopkins for acting as Vice-Chairperson. He commented on the expertise and
professionalism of the out-going Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson.
The meeting continued with public comment
on Item 7-A at approximately 10:15 p.m.
4. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S
REPORT:
Ms. Frick gave the Director’s Report.
She reported that the City Council approved the multi-family development
standards with several amendments. On July 27, 2004, the City Council will be
holding hearings on the Montana Avenue (C-2) Ordinance and the Interim
Ordinance on Substantial Remodel. Ms. Frick reported that on August 10, 2004,
the City Council will hear an appeal on 2834 Colorado Avenue appeal, including
the Text Amendment for housing in the LMSD.
Lastly, Ms. Frick announced the
forthcoming Commission meetings as follows: July 21, August 4, August 18, and
September 1, 2004.
5. PLANNING
COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consent Calendar
6-A. June 16, 2004
Action: Continued.
7. PUBLIC
HEARING:
7-A. Development
Agreement 03-001, General Plan Amendment 04-001, Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report 00-002 and Consideration of a Statement of
Overriding Considerations; 3030 Olympic Boulevard (Lantana East) and 3131
Exposition Boulevard (Lantana South). Recommendation to the City Council
regarding two Development Agreements, two Tentative Parcel Maps, a General Plan
Amendment, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Statement of
Overriding Consideration to allow the construction of two new three-story entertainment studio buildings with subterranean
parking garages. Lantana East,
located at 3030 Olympic Boulevard would contain 64,105 square feet of floor area and provide 200 additional parking
spaces. Lantana South, located at 3131
Exposition Boulevard would contain 130,000 square feet of floor area and
provide 364 additional parking spaces.
Tentative Parcel Maps 060785 (Lantana East) and 060786 (Lantana South)
would allow individual ownership of each building with the land and parking
held in common ownership. The City
Council will also be considering a number of neighborhood traffic protection
plan improvements including curb extensions, dead-end streets and turn
restrictions. Amendment of the General Plan Circulation Element would be necessary
if the City Council approves dead-end streets in the residential neighborhood
adjacent to Lantana South to discourage cut-through traffic. The Development Agreements propose a number
of public benefits including the construction of restroom
improvements at Stewart Park, office/restroom and playground equipment at
Edison School for
the City’s Playground Partnership
recreation program, new sidewalks on Olympic
Boulevard and Centinela Avenue, and funding for the City’s childcare and arts
programs. [Planner: Bruce Leach] APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER:
Lantana-Hines Development, LLC.
The staff report was given by
Associate Planner Bruce Leach and Lucy Dyke, Transportation Planning Manager.
Commissioner Hopkins complimented
staff on their excellent presentation. She asked staff to explain the different
childcare benefit options cited in the Development Agreement especially since
the developer already donates to the childcare fund. Mr. Leach stated that the
figure cited in the Development Agreement is the amount proposed by the
Developer. However, based on the size and impacts of the project, and since
this is not a standard development permit, staff recommends a $925,000 fee. Ms.
Frick stated that the City’s Childcare Task Force asked the City Council for a nexus
fee in Santa Monica for all new developments and the initial analysis has been
prepared regarding funding. The analysis revealed that Santa Monica has higher
requirements than other comparable cities and that this is consistent for Santa
Monica childcare, hence the $925,000 versus $400,000 figures proposed by the
Developer.
Commissioner Hopkins asked if the
nexus study cost if based on square footage. Ms. Frick answered in the
affirmative and stated the fee is $5.00 per square foot.
Commissioner Hopkins asked staff to
explain the costs associated with the improvements for Stewart Park and Edison
School. Mr. Leach stated that the Developer’s proposal asks for the
Lantana-South development only to pay for the improvements to these facilities
prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Staff is of the opinion that
the two facilities should receive the benefit sooner and that this will also
benefit the Lantana employees who use the park as well as the neighborhood,
therefore these benefit should be tied to whichever development is finished
first. Ms. Frick stated that, as proposed, Lantana-South is obligated.
Accordingly, if only Lantana-East is built, they are not obligated to furnish
this benefit.
Commissioner Brown asked staff about
the collecting of the Childcare fees, whether they go into the General Fund or
a special fund. Mr. Leach explained that the fees are deposited in a special
fund under the Community and Cultural Services Department and aid will cover
the cost of full scholarships for up to 20 children per year.
Commissioner Johnson commented that
this is a serious project involving millions of dollars and hundreds of
employees. He asked staff for the approximate population of the adjacent
residential neighborhood. Ms. Frick responded that staff will need to gather
than information and return with an answer later.
Commissioner Johnson complimented
staff on their presentation and time spent on this application. He then asked
about traffic issues, specifically the date the traffic counts were done. Mr.
Leach stated that the Supplement Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) includes
new traffic data and is based on the reduced project size. The City’s traffic
consultant for this project, Tom Gaul of Kaku Associates, stated that the
intersection counts for the Certified FEIR were done in November 2002, while
the SEIR traffic counts were done in early 2004 and include impact analysis for
the reduced project proposal.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Gaul
if the analysis includes the estimated 2700 vehicle trips a day that will be
generated by the recently approved New Roads School project. Mr. Gaul answered
in the affirmative. Commissioner Johnson asked where he would find this
information in the SEIR. Mr. Gaul stated the raw data was not included in the
SEIR, but the new data was used in the analysis.
Commissioner Johnson commented on a
proposal to erect a bridge over the MTA right-of-way, which staff stated would
be impractical due to the length of ramps needed for accessibility and that
height would exceed what is permitted in the Code. He asked if there had been
consideration of an underpass. Mr. Leach stated that the underpass idea was
reviewed in the original EIR, however the subterranean garages are not adjacent
and it is unlikely the MTA would permit a diagonal tunnel under their property
for a private project.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff
about the proposed roof top satellite dishes and whether the parapets will
fully screen the dishes. Mr. Leach stated that the parapets will adequately screen
the dishes despite the perspective shown on the graphics. Ms. Frick suggested
that the Commission may wish to consider adding a condition to guarantee the
screening of the satellite dishes from street view.
Commissioner
Johnson asked staff how car trips can be reduced for this project to mitigate
traffic impacts. Mr. Leach stated that the project has been reduced by 33% and
the 2002 EIR evaluated a scenario identifying the same intersections and
streets. Mr. Leach explained that the impacts would be reduced, but any
meaningful size project would have significant impacts because of existing
traffic volume and the City’s significance criteria.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff if
community meetings rooms were considered for the project. Ms. Frick stated that
this has been discussed, however past practice has shown that this is not a
successful amenity and is difficult to monitor.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff
about the proposed waiver of all City fees to off-set the public benefits (page
10 of the Development Agreement). Mr. Leach explained that the waiver of fees
is only for work associated with the public benefits such as the sidewalks,
bathroom for the Stewart Park and Edison School improvements.
Commissioner Pugh commented on the
traffic study and the developer’s claim that the study did not reflect the
actual use of the proposed buildings. Mr. Leach stated that the traffic study
used the traditional office use analysis for the project, which is expected to
show higher generation than will be the actual case for the pre/post production
work to be done in Lantana-East and Lantana-South. He further stated that the
ITE Manual does not have an entertainment use category, there for office use
was used for the analysis. He also stated that this is a conservative approach.
Mr. Gaul explained the trip generation figures as follows: the FEIR estimated
total new vehicles trips is 290 a.m. peak hour trips and 240 p.m. peak while
the reduced project (SEIR) was analyzed to produce a total of 260 a.m. peak and
220 p.m. peak. He further stated that
actual driveway counts done for the SEIR indicate 25% to 45% less peak hour
trips.
Commissioner Pugh asked Mr. Gaul how
many new vehicles trips were estimated for New Roads School. Mr. Gaul stated
the figure is less than 1800 vehicles trips for New Roads School. Commissioner
Pugh stated that it appears the Lantana projects will generate far less new
traffic than New Roads School. Mr. Gaul agreed.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff
about the two favored traffic mitigation plans (#1 and #7) and the
approximately population of the adjacent residential neighborhood. Mr. Leach
stated that there approximately 400 residential units total, 108 mobile homes
and 300 single family homes and apartment units. Ms. Dyke stated that there is
no compelling reason not to go with the neighborhood Option #7 as long as
emergency vehicles can access the area and traffic is not negatively shifted to
other residential areas. She stated that staff is more comfortable with Option
#1. Ms. Frick commented that neighborhood protection plans go through a lengthy
process with review by neighbors and staff prior to coming before the
Commission. She stated she does not know what sort of process Option #7 went
through as it was not part of the rest of the Options presented in the draft
SEIR.
[Note: Commissioner O’Day arrived at
8:55 p.m.]
Chair Clarke asked staff about
southbound traffic routes that use Stewart/Twenty-Eighth Streets and Pico
Boulevard. Mr. Leach commented on traffic patterns south of the Santa Monica
Freeway (I-10), but noted that the reduced project does not significantly
impact these areas.
Chair Clarke asked about the
estimated number of vehicle trips for the proposed projects. Ms. Dyke stated
that it has been estimated that 80 vehicles trips travel through Sunset Park to
and from the project site in a twenty-four hour period. She also stated that
Sunset Park already has a Neighborhood Traffic Plan, and additional plans are
not proposed.
The applicant’s team consisted of
Doug Holte, representing Hines-Lantana; project architect, Steven Ehrlich;
landscape architect, Pamela Burton; and Dale Goldsmith, the applicant’s
attorney.
Commissioner Johnson commented on
the traffic count analysis being based on classic office use and standard office
hours. He noted that, in his experience, creative, entertainment type uses do
not occur during normal business hours, and this should be considered. Mr.
Holte agreed and stated that the Lantana campus is the premiere pre- and
post-production venue for eight major motion picture studios and HBO
productions. He also stated that the work schedules for the employees are just
a likely to be from 9:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. as standard business hours. Mr.
Holte explained that Lantana offers approximately 300 rooms in a flexible and
fluid arrangement for the entertainment uses and many offices are leased for up
to nine month, but only actually utilized for three months. Additionally, Mr.
Holte stated that management has video taped traffic use patterns at the Lantana
campus in order to understand the use patterns of the site.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Holte
if the video taped information was included as part of the traffic analysis.
Mr. Holte answered in the negative and stated that the traffic analysis was done
using the conservative approach of “standard office use.” Commissioner Johnson
asked Mr. Holte if his experience indicates there will be less traffic than the
analysis reports. Mr. Holte stated that his analysis indicates there will be
approximately 25% to 45% less traffic than indicated in the SEIR.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Holte
which Neighborhood Traffic Protection Plan (Option #1 or Option #7) he
supports. Mr. Holte stated that he and his staff have been listening to the
neighborhood since 2002 and have worked closely with them in developing the
various options. He stated that most involved neighbors developed Option #7,
which address the concerns of cut-through traffic on the eastern edge of the
neighborhood (Warwick Street to Centinela Avenue). He commented that he knows
these neighbors do not want to be sealed off and a “good faith” exchange has
been made.
Commissioner Johnson asked about the
idea of providing a community room on-site. Mr. Holte stated that Lantana has
given space for meetings to the local
the Girl Scouts and other groups in the original building, however he
was not asked for dedicated space. He also stated that space may be available
in two of the three existing buildings, if needed.
Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Holte
to repeat his belief that there will be less traffic than indicated in the
traffic impact analysis. Mr. Holte stated that his experience is that less
traffic is generated during peak hours than indicated in the EIR traffic
analysis. Mr. Holte also stated that generally people working irregular hours
want to get home the quickest way possible, which generally means getting to
the Santa Monica Freeway via Centinela Avenue.
The applicant’s architect, Steven
Ehrlich, and landscape architect, Pamela Burton, were given five minutes to
make a presentation of their design plans.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr.
Ehrlich about the color choices for the building. He commented that he would
expect bright colors for an entertainment industry use, not mid-gray tones. Mr.
Ehrlich commented that Sony Entertainment’s building is beige and Warner
Brothers is gray. He stated that the preference was for a sophisticated design.
Commissioner Johnson asked about the burnished steel material. Mr. Ehrlich
stated the copper elements are a burnt sienna color, however the glass is more
prominent. Commissioner Johnson asked about the proposed trim color. Mr.
Ehrlich stated that it will be aluminum or silver anodized.
Commissioner Hopkins asked Mr.
Ehrlich about screening the satellite dishes from street view. Mr. Ehrlich
stated that the parapets are ten and one half feet from the roof line and
dishes are getting smaller with new technology. He expressed the opinion that
the dish height will not be visible from the street as they will be setback as
much as possible.
Chair Clarke commented on the
proposed sidewalk on Olympic Boulevard and asked if an “experience” will be
created. Ms. Burton stated that there will be a buffer from traffic, a berm
with plantings and street trees as well as plantings south of the sidewalk.
Chair Clarke declared it was time
for a break. The Commission briefly discussed when to hold the Election of
Officers and what effective date to choose.
[The Commission took a break from
9:48 p.m. to 10:10 p.m. Election of Officer was held, the public hearing
resumed at 10:15 p.m.]
The following members of the public
addressed the Commission: Jennifer Polhemus, Irene Zivi, Zina Josephs, Betsy
Hiteshew, Mitchell Block (also spoke for Susan Fraser), Linda Sullivan, Ana
Maria Jara, Maria Loya, Eric Parlee, Cathleen Couchois, and Irma Carranza.
One member of the public, Grace
Phillips, submitted a request to speak form, but was not present when her name
was called.
The applicant’s team, Doug Holte and
David Jordan, spoke in response to the public comments.
Commissioner Dad commented that the
childcare funding in the Development Agreement is not being specified to whom
it goes and the requests for benefits received from the Pico Neighborhood
Association’s (PNA) is very specific. She commented that it does not seem
appropriate to cite this in the Development Agreement. She also commented on
establishing a mentoring program for young people as proposed by PNA, which
makes sense considering the tenants occupying the Lantana campus. Mr. Holte
stated that his staff is very enthusiastic about mentoring and has already
established career development visits to Lantana with St. Anne’s Catholic
Church. He also stated that scholarships already exist for youth at Lantana.
Commissioner Dad suggested that such a mentoring program could be folded into
the Development Agreement without specificity.
Commissioner O’Day commented that he
has observed the work Lantana has done with job fairs at St. Anne’s. He asked
Mr. Holte what alternative uses would occur on the sites in question if this
proposal is denied. Mr. Holte stated that the site could returned to a
“production trucking” uses, which involves many vehicles trips at very early
and late hours, as well as such commercial uses as automobile repair.
Chair Clarke closed the public
hearing.
Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum
explained the concept of nexus in terms of Development Agreements versus other
development permits. He stated that the City looks at applications for land use
and imposes reasonable fees to offset public impact of that use to the City.
For a Development Agreement, the City can impose more fees as this is a
contract rather than a permit approval, however the benefit needs to have some
type of nexus to the project. He further stated that the City’s Childcare Nexus
study was not cited in the Development Agreements because it has not been
approved yet. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum commented that, based on a cursory review, the more significant
PNA proposals show no clear connection, however Lantana and PNA can enter into
separate negotiations that are not linked to the Development Agreement.
Chair Clarke offered the Commission
three options: to call it a night; to complete the deliberations; or give staff
specifics requests that will return next week.
Commissioner Pugh asked to question
the traffic engineer hired by the neighborhood group and financed by Lantana.
Chair Clarke stated that there is
consensus to move this Development Agreement forward.
Commissioner Pugh asked Mr. Fleener
to speak to Option 7 as presented by the neighbors this evening. Dick Fleener
began his comments by saying that this process is the best he has seen between
a developer and a neighborhood. He then commented on the proposal for “pinched”
intersections, which he called a nebulous solution. He stated that traffic
control is an art, not a science, and that “traffic calming” is not reflected
in or part of basic traffic studies. He also stated that it is certain that
some residential streets will be impacted by Lantana’s proposal if mitigation
measures are not installed. He concluded by saying that Option 7 does not
barricade the residential streets, but prevents left turns from the project
site into the residential streets.
Commissioner Pugh suggested that
staff’s Option 1 be adopted with a bond posted by the applicant, then revisit
the issue after the project is built to see if cut-through traffic is actually
a problem. If there is no problem, the bond can be returned to the applicant.
Commissioner Pugh commented on the “test, then build” idea, then asked Mr.
Fleener of his opinion regarding the bond idea. Mr. Fleener stated that the
neighborhood would react negatively to this idea as they already perceive a
problem with cut-through traffic.
Commissioner Hopkins asked Mr.
Fleener how many meetings were held and how many scenarios were discussed prior
to Option #7. Mr. Fleener stated that the neighborhood meetings began
approximately eighteen months ago and included both large and small gatherings,
telephone calls and e-mails on a continuous basis. He stated that many, many
scenarios were discussed and it was an educational process for the residents.
He further stated that Option #7 came about in May 2004, after the final
traffic figures were released and following an explanation of the “real” impact
of scenarios #1 - #6. He concluded by saying the Option #7 is a hybrid that
resulted after much debate.
Commissioner Brown asked if there
consideration that Option #7 might redirect traffic into Sunset Park. Mr.
Fleener stated that his charge was to protect the “Lantana South” neighborhood.
He also expressed the presumption that traffic will go down Centinela Avenue as
the fastest way to access the Santa Monica Freeway (I-10).
Chair Clarke commented on an
apparent overlap with Option #7 and staff’s recommendation. He asked Mr.
Fleener to comment on the difference. Mr. Fleener stated that the four changes
effect Warwick Avenue, Dorchester Avenue, Yorkshire Avenue at Exposition
Boulevard as well as calling for V-shaped diverters at Virginia and Centinela
Avenues as well as “pinch” diverters at intersections.
Chair Clarke asked if Option #7 is
chosen, will the diverters be painted on the pavement or bollards or some other
method. Mr. Fleener discussed the options and stated that emergency vehicles
prefer painted stripes on the pavement.
Chair Clarke closed the public
hearing.
Commissioner Dad asked staff what
happens if the Development Agreement is approved and the project site is sold.
Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the purchaser takes on all the
obligations in the Development Agreement. He also stated that “side agreements”
between the developer and parties other than the City are not part of the
Development Agreement
Commissioner Pugh asked staff how
specific the recommendation to the City Council should be. Ms. Frick stated
that it can be as specific as the Commission wants with issue details being
“flushed out” between the Commission hearing and City Council hearing.
Commissioner Pugh expressed the desire to make recommendations and move this
along now.
Chair Clarke asked staff about
endorsing Option #7 and what staff would need to do. Ms. Frick stated that it
should be noted that the Fire Department has not evaluated Option #7 and not
all the neighbors are aware of this option, so another neighborhood meeting
would be recommended.
Chair Clarke asked about staff’s
recommendation to the neighborhood. Ms. Frick stated that Options #1- #6 were
part of the neighborhood meetings. She stated that the neighborhood needs full
disclosure on these issues. She suggested that if the Commission is leaning
toward recommending Option #7, then she would recommended the Commission’s
support include notification to the neighborhood regarding Option #7 with
results to be forwarded to the City Council. Commissioner O’Day asked if this
would require another mailing. Ms. Frick stated that a mailing is part of full
disclosure.
Commissioner Dad announced that she
cannot vote on the Development Agreement this evening and that this item be
continued for further consideration.
Commissioner Johnson expressed
agreement and stated he had six points to make about the Development Agreement.
Ms. Frick informed the Commission
that Development Agreements are unique in that the recommendation must be
forwarded to a City Council hearing 30 days after the Commission’s public
hearing. She stated that this item is already scheduled as a continued item for
next week’s hearing (July 21, 2004).
Chair Clarke commented that there
appears to be general agreement that the Development Agreement should be
approved. He asked the Commission to offer any changes or requests for
information regarding traffic mitigation and benefits.
Commissioner Dad announced she is
leaving. It was 12:15 a.m.
Commissioner Johnson made the
following requests:
·
That
the public benefit improvements (for Stewart Park and Edison Elementary School)
not be tied to one project, but are to be completed when whichever project is
completed first;
·
That
the proposed satellite dishes not be visible over the parapets from the street;
·
That a
community room be provided for “convenient use” with the cooperation of the
developer;
·
That
there is confusion regarding the size of the benefits package, which
Commissioner Johnson feels should be larger or on-going rather than to be paid
off in five years;
·
That
traffic mitigation Option #7 be adopted in principle; and
·
That
the PNA benefits proposal be reviewed for viability.
Commissioner Hopkins expressed
“whole-hearted” support for Option #7. She stated she is very impressed by the
developer for hiring the traffic consultant to work with the neighborhood. She
also stated that she sees very little difference between Option #1 (recommended
by staff) and Option #7. She also asked that this item be heard before Garden
of Angels on July 21, 2004.
Commissioner O’Day expressed
agreement with Commissioner Hopkins. He stated that this has been an
extraordinary effort. He then stated his concern with Commissioner Johnson’s
point about the benefits package and how long the financial commitment should
be. Commissioner Johnson expressed concern that five years was a short period
of time and there is the potential for lack of maintenance after five years.
City Council Liaison McKeown
observed that if the Commission is requesting new information, they are
obligated to reopen the public hearing at their next hearing.
Commissioner Brown commented that it
was Commissioner Dad’s understanding that there would not be a vote on this
matter this evening.
Commissioner Pugh commended the
developer for their neighborhood outreach, which will be the “gold standard”
for future developers. He responded to comments made by Commissioner Johnson
regarding the nexus amount and how this would be determined. He also stated
that the largest antenna dishes would be setback to the center of the building
and would be out of the line-of-sight of the street. He concluded his remarks
by commenting on the traffic mitigation proposal and saying he is unsure about
fixing what may not be a problem.
Commissioner Hopkins stated she
would argue against Commissioner Pugh’s proposal of a bond for the traffic
mitigation measures. She stated that the Commission has a long tradition to
encourage cooperation between developers and residents and the Commission
should stand behind the efforts made by this developer and the neighbors. She
also stated that large developments usually require traffic mitigation measures
as part of their approval. Commissioner Pugh responded that the point is well
taken.
Chair Clarke asked the Commission
whether the issue should be continued with staff to report back at the next
meeting or vote now. Commissioner Pugh stated he will not be present at the
next hearing. The Commission discussed their options.
Commissioner Hopkins made a motion
to continue this item to the next meeting and that it be the first hearing item
on the agenda, and that staff return with what information they can and that
other information requested by the Commission will be included in the City
Council’s staff report.
Commissioner Johnson seconded the
motion.
Ms. Frick stated that revised
language for the Development Agreement may not be available by next week,
although other items can be accomplished by that date. She also stated that the
review of Option #7 will not be completed, nor review of the PNA proposal.
The developer, Mr. Holte, stated
that he can meet with whomever is necessary, but would like to be able to keep
the City Council meeting date in September.
The vote to continue this item was
approved by voice vote.
Action: Public hearing
held; deliberations continued to July 21, 2004.
8. FUTURE
COMMISSION AGENDA ITEMS: None.
9. PUBLIC INPUT: None.
10. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 12:43
a.m. on Thursday, July 15, 2004.
No other business will be conducted
at this Special Meeting.