M I N U T E S

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2005 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS

6:00 P.M. ROOM 213, CITY HALL

1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Hopkins at 6:20 p.m.

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

3. ROLL CALL: Present: Darrell Clarke, Vice-Chairperson [arrived at 6:36 p.m.]

Julie Lopez Dad

Arlene Hopkins, Acting Chairperson

Jay Johnson

Gwynne Pugh

Absent: Barbara Brown, Chairperson

Terry O’Day

Also Present: Kyle Ferstead, Commission Secretary

Suzanne Frick, Director of Planning / PCD

Paul Foley, Senior Planner

Pam O’Connor, Mayor, City Council Liaison

Barry Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney

Amanda Schachter, Planning Manager

4. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT:

Ms. Frick gave the Director’s Report. Ms. Frick reported on a new employee, Gay Forbes, who has been hired as Development Services Officer in response to the Matrix Report. She stated that Ms. Forbes will be contacting the Commission for their input and feedback regarding how the Planning and Community Development Department (PCD) operates and improvements that could be made.

Commissioner Pugh asked for more information on the new position. Ms. Frick stated that this position is envisioned as part of a two-year process to review and modify procedures and systems in PCD. She stated an aggressive schedule for completion of things that need to be improved, then there will be a re-evaluation and determination on how to proceed at the end of two years. Ms. Frick stated this is limited term position for the purpose of dealing with this project, however it is her belief that there needs to be continuous improvement.

Commissioner Pugh asked if Ms. Forbes will act as an ombudsman in terms of public interaction. Ms. Frick answered in the affirmative and stated she would be introduced to the Commission at a future meeting.

Ms. Frick reported that one community has been scheduled with the North of Montana Association (NOMA), however the date has not been confirmed. Commissioners Johnson, Pugh and Hopkins volunteered to attend.

Ms. Frick announced the upcoming City Council meetings as follows: on January 25, 2005, a discussion and direction from the Council regarding Santa Monica Place; on February 8 is appeal night with the 507 Wilshire appeal, the Garden of Angels Conditional Use Permit appeal and 2901 Ocean Park Boulevard and Text Amendment; on February 22, landmark appeal and direction on the Development Agreement for 1333-37 Ocean Avenue; and on March 8, possible joint meeting with the City Council and Commission on the Circulation Element traffic methodology

update.

Ms. Frick concluded her report by announcing the forthcoming Commission meetings as follows: a policy discussion on February 2; a development review meeting on February 16; a policy discussion on March 2; the joint meeting with the City Council on March 8; and a development review meeting on March 16, 2005.

Commissioner Pugh asked Ms. Frick if he could invite a speaker to the next policy meeting. Ms. Frick stated this should be discussed later in the agenda.

4-A. Introduction of Mayor O’Connor as Planning Commission Liaison

Mayor O’Connor greeted the Commission in her new capacity as Liaison to the Commission. She gave a brief history on her public work with the City as Landmarks Commissioner, Planning Commissioner and City Council, work with other jurisdictions and regional agencies. She cited the various elements of the General Plan she has actively participated in updating during her time in Santa Monica. She praised City staff as dedicated and talented people.

5. PLANNING COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS:

Commissioner Johnson announced he attended the Commission on Older Americans on January 19, 2005, and encouraged their participation in the update of the Land Use Element and appoint a person as on-going liaison to this process. He stated that he has spoken with the Housing Commission. He also stated that staff made a presentation before the Rent Control Board on Thursday, January 13, 2005, and that he arrived late, but also addressed the Board regarding the Land Use Element update process. Additionally, Commissioner Johnson announced that he will be attending the January 27, 2005 meeting of the Bayside District Corporation with Commissioner Hopkins and he has a tentative meeting scheduled with the Community College Board of Trustees meeting in February.

Ms. Frick reminded the Commission that the format being used for this visits to other agencies includes staff’s presentation with either visioning exercise or just information about the process. Commissioner Johnson commented that he has basically spoken to how the particular Board or Commission would relate to the Land Use Element update and speak to their particular issues.

6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

Commissioner Dad made a motion to approve the minutes for November 17 and December 1, 2004, as submitted. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote.

6-A. November 17, 2004

6-B. December 1, 2004

7. STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION: Consent Calendar

Due to the absence of several Commissioners, Items 7-B and 7-C were continued to February 16, 2005. Commissioner Dad made the motion to approve Items 7-A and 7-D. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote.

7-A. Amendment to TORCA – TPC 137 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50421, 118 Wadsworth Avenue.

7-B. Appeal 04-008 of Use Permit 04-001, 1777 Sunset Avenue.

7-C. Design Compatibility Permit 04-010 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 04-023, 1105 Eighteenth Street.

7-D. Development Review Permit 03-009 and Variance 04-011, 3107-3111 Santa Monica Boulevard.

8. DISCUSSION:

8-A. Discussion of Draft Phone Survey format, purpose, and questions, pertaining to the Land Use and Circulation Elements.

Planning Manager Amanda Schachter gave an introduction to the Telephone Survey to be conducted as part of the Land Use Element update. She stated this is the first statistically significant survey to be done. She asked the Commission to offer comments on issues they feel it will be important to include in the survey. Ms. Schachter then introduced Paul Goodwin of Goodwin Simon Strategic Research, who also conducts the annual citywide survey.

[Vice-Chair Clarke arrived at 6:36 p.m.]

Mr. Goodwin gave opening remarks on the three main purposes of the survey: to get public into the overall vision that the Land Use Element will reflect, to receive input on the specific choices facing the Commission, and provide statistically valid results.

Commissioner Dad expressed a desire for a very general type of survey rather than asking specifics and not isolate residents in their neighborhoods. She suggested questions such as what you like or dislike about the City now. She also suggested questions on uses – what types are there too many of or what types are needed. Mr. Goodwin stated that he is looking for more specifics in the questions.

Vice-Chair Clarke commented on how the survey is to be structured. Mr. Goodwin commented that survey will help the Commission hear from a broader base of residents. Vice-Chair Clarke suggested questions on whether there should be more housing in Santa Monica, where housing should be located, and how tall should it be by story height.

Commissioner Pugh asked Mr. Goodwin if there was more to his presentation as the discussion went into comments and questions. Mr. Goodwin stated that there is six question questionnaire before each Commissioner for a starting point in the discussion. Commissioner Pugh explained his approach in helping people understand design concepts and offered a question for the survey: what City do like and why are they interesting. Mr. Goodwin stated this would be a great question for the internet survey.

Commissioner Pugh commented on frontyard setbacks and how they are perceived in residential neighborhoods. He also commented on fences and hedges in the frontyard setback.

Commissioner Dad expressed appreciation for the questions suggested by Commissioner Pugh, however she feels they be more appropriate later in the process when the Zoning Ordinance is updated.

Commissioner Hopkins expressed the opinion that there is not enough creativity as regards vision in this process. She commented on environmental issues, equity issues and economic issues on a global scale and at the local level. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum reminded Commissioner Hopkins that the topic of the discussion is the telephone survey and her comments should be related to that topic.

Commissioner Hopkins cited the question on “objective – explore and assess the collective vision of City residents.” She suggested “catch phrases” not be used, but rather reframe the questions with a broader, more progressive vision. She expressed concern that opportunities may be lost. She referred to this the “triple bottom line thinking.” Ms. Frick stated she is not clear on those comments and asked for examples. She also stated the purpose of the survey is gather information on key issues. Commissioner Hopkins stated she would forward information and questions to staff.

Commissioner Hopkins commented on land use issues, specifically addressing building height, density and maintaining or increasing the residential population. Additionally, on circulation, “multi-modal options” need to be discussed as well as traffic congestion and parking availability. On quality of life issues, Commissioner Hopkins stated that issues should include maintaining a vital community and the relationships between people. She stated that Santa Monica is a community of “doers,” which would lead to questions regarding cultural activities.

Mr. Goodwin thanked Commissioner Hopkins for her suggestions.

Commissioner Hopkins offered suggestions on economic development and maintaining local business.

Commissioner Johnson offered four additional issues: use of parks; are more parks needed; bicycle use and bicycle path use; use of small businesses; and day laborers and labor exchanges.

Mr. Goodwin explained that the information from the survey will help the Commission understand the choices residents will be happy about and choices which divide the residents.

Commissioner Hopkins asked about discussion question four, which deals with growth in Santa Monica. She suggested a different word than “growth” be used as it may be confusing. She also stated she would like to see the questions revolve around “sustainable growth within the framework of human ecology.”

Commissioner Dad thanked Mr. Goodwin for his work. She commented that, based on prior work by Mr. Goodwin, the questions will be framed and phrased in a way that valuable information will be received.

Vice-Chair Clarke thanked Mr. Goodwin for his participation.

8-B. Discussion of Draft Internet Survey format, purpose, and questions, pertaining to the Land Use and Circulation Elements.

Ms. Schachter introduced the working draft internet survey, which is meant to ask much broader questions of the community and allow for longer responses than the telephone survey. She stated the results and comments will be posted on a “community bulletin board” on the Shape the Future 2025 website.

Commissioner Johnson expressed the opinion that the issues raised in the telephone survey are the same as presented here.

Commissioner Dad commented that the questions presented are good ones and will help guide the Commission in the process.

Commissioner Pugh asked staff about grouping ideas and statistical analysis. Ms. Schachter stated that the information received will be grouped rather than receiving statistical analysis. Commissioner Pugh asked if this will be an evolving survey with follow-up questions. Ms. Schachter stated that this survey will be static, however it is envisioned that there will be additional internet surveys during the process.

Commissioner Hopkins had questions about the draft beginning on page eight. She suggested asking whether the person owned a business in Santa Monica. She expressed the opinion that if this information is to be posted on the internet, then there should not be a question asking permission to post. Ms. Frick stated that staff had debated this issue, but felt that it was a courtesy to inform the respondents that their responses would be published. Commissioner Hopkins suggested offering an “opt out” option.

Commissioner Hopkins asked if responses will be limited in space. Ms. Schachter stated that the idea is have responses in text boxes with space for about 100 words. Commissioner Hopkins felt the space should be approximately 250 words. Ms. Frick stated staff would look at options for additional space.

Commissioner Hopkins suggested that on page one, either one or two more goals or objectives could be added as follows: analyze and evaluate the issues by their category – resident, visitor, business owner/employee. She stated this should help with the analysis of the overall data and grouping of ideas and concepts.

Vice-Chair Clarke expressed agreed with the comments and suggestions made by the Commission. He stated he wanted to focus on the images to be used for the visual surveys. He suggested the following type of images be included:

· Downtown Santa Monica - images that embodies the Promenade, perhaps with a street performer and movie theater in the background;

· Beach area, include the ferris wheel at the Pier, people on the beach and using the bicycle path;

· Commercial Boulevards - images of small retail and restaurants as well as office buildings;

· Ocean Park Boulevard section should include images of the retail area as well as the Business Park.

Vice-Chair Clarke asked why Main Street was not included as an area on this survey. Ms. Frick explained that with the open-ended nature of the question, staff does not want the respondents to be overwhelmed or grow disinterested. Commissioner Pugh agreed that these smaller neighborhood commercial districts are very important to many people and should be included in the survey.

There was discussion regarding areas of the City which should, or should not, be included or highlighted. Commissioner Hopkins suggested either adding or shifting Ocean Park and Pico Boulevards into the neighborhood commercial section because they have a different feel from Wilshire or Lincoln Boulevard. She noted that Olympic Boulevard, Colorado Avenue and Broadway have been omitted from the commercial corridors. Commissioner Pugh expressed the opinion that the survey is attempting not to be hyper specific, but is looking more at the concept behind the use.

Vice-Chair Clarke continued with his list of suggestions:

· Industrial areas – the Water Garden is not representative, use Bourget Brothers instead;

· Examples of single family homes less than ten year old and older homes and recent condominium projects.

He concluded that there should be encouragement for people to agree to post their comments on the website.

Commissioner Dad expressed the opinion, in the future, every Commissioner that is going to go into great detail on an issue should write those comments down and e-mail them prior to the meeting to staff for distribution. Then the information will be available to the public and part of the record. She stated this should shorten the length of meetings.

8-C. Discussion to appoint a sub-committee of no more than three Planning Commissioners to attend the Land Use and Circulation Element Community Workshop on January 22, 2005 at John Adams Middle School.

Commissioners Clarke, Hopkins and Johnson volunteered to attend the Community Workshop on January 22, 2005.

9. PUBLIC HEARINGS:

9-A. Development Review Permit 04-008, Conditional Use Permit 04-016, 612 Colorado Avenue. Phases 2 through 4 of the Big Blue Bus Facility Expansion Master Plan. Development Review Permit 04-008 has been requested for the proposed project, which consists of the remaining Phases 2 through 4 of the Big Blue Bus Facility Expansion Master Plan. The remaining phases include: (1) A 75,885 square foot, 3-story, 45’ administration building at 612 Colorado Avenue with 3 levels of subterranean parking containing 353 parking spaces; (2) A 62,803 square foot, 2-story, 30’ vehicle maintenance building along 7^th Street between Colorado Avenue and Olympic Boulevard; (3) A 10,000 square foot, 2-story, 30’ OCC Access Center and SWASHLOCK facility to provide daytime services to the City’s homeless population located in the southwest portion of the campus adjacent to SAMOSHEL; and (4) A re-paved and re-striped bus yard to accommodate parking for 234 buses (222 with articulated buses). SMMC Section 9.04.06.080 provides that City government uses are allowed by Conditional Use Permit in all zoning districts. The Big Blue Bus, as a department of the City of Santa Monica, is subject to this provision. Therefore, Conditional Use Permit 04-015 has been requested for the remaining phases of the Big Blue Bus facility expansion. [Planner: Paul Foley] APPLICANT: City of Santa Monica – Big Blue Bus.

Vice-Chair Clarke asked the Commission if they have any ex parte disclosures to make. There were no disclosures.

Senior Planner Paul Foley gave the staff report.

Commissioner Hopkins commented that people are wondering whether the Big Blue Bus facility should be moved to the east end of town. Mr. Foley indicated this question should be directed to the Big Blue Bus staff.

Commissioner Johnson asked about the proposed cost of the construction for the new facility. Mr. Foley indicated this question should be directed to the Big Blue Bus staff. Commissioner Johnson asked about the proposed public parking and if this would be available to all people seven days a week. Mr. Foley stated that the intention for the public parking is to provide visitor parking and parking for Big Blue Bus employees. Ms. Frick stated that the original proposal was looking for another site to place public parking, however there was some controversy and concerns raised by adjacent small businesses. As a result, the City Council removed this component from the Master Plan. Commissioner Johnson stated that the parking is intended for visitors not the public. He asked staff if this can addressed by the Commission. Ms. Frick stated that the Downtown Parking Task Force was created to locate public parking in the downtown area and that group determined that a parking structure adjacent to the Big Blue Bus facility was not needed. She further stated that the additional public parking planned for the new main library was another solution to the downtown parking problem. Commissioner Johnson commented that there is never enough parking downtown, especially at night and on week-ends.

Commissioner Johnson asked staff about the fate of the Ocean Park Community Center (OPCO/SWASHLOCK) homeless shelter on bus yard property. Mr. Foley stated that these facilities are to combined into a single 10,000 square foot homeless services facility on Cloverfield Boulevard and that the homeless shelter was never intended to be a permanent fixture.

Commissioner Johnson asked about the size of the new administration building and whether it was covered as an addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Mr. Foley stated that there are three addendums to the EIR and the increased size of the administration building is included.

The applicant’s representative, Stephanie Negriff, Executive Director of the Big Blue Bus, was present to discuss the project.

Commissioner Dad asked Ms. Negriff if it would be possible to add parking for visitors to businesses across Colorado Avenue as the surface parking lot is about to be lost. Ms. Negriff stated that this was not included in the scope of work for this project and there is no budget for additional parking spaces. She stated that the proposal includes below grade parking for the Big Blue Bus employees, visitors and the volunteers and workers for OPCC/ SWASHLOCK. She concluded by saying that adding additional below grade parking would be cost prohibitive. Commissioner Dad expressed the opinion that this is short-sighted and additional parking is needed in the area.

Commissioner Johnson stated that there could be a “win-win” solution if the first level of parking had a permit process that would allow the public to use the parking on week-ends and evenings. He suggested that that the non-assigned space in the new administration building include a community meeting space for evening meetings. Ms. Negriff stated that this is possible and a community meeting space is included in the current proposal.

Commissioner Johnson asked about funding sources for the project and whether Proposition A or Proposition C funds would be used. Ms. Negriff stated that all funding is regional and there are no federal funds being used.

Vice-Chair Clarke asked Ms. Negriff is there is a benefit to maintaining the bus yards in their current location as it is closer to the main bus lines. Ms. Negriff stated that this is true and staff does not believe a move to the Santa Monica Airport would be appropriate. Vice-Chair Clarke asked about adding parking on-top of the underground parking. Ms. Negriff stated that this was not considered as part of this project. Vice-Chair Clarke asked about the removal of the current administration building. Ms. Negriff explained that the building was severely damaged in the 1994 earthquake and it will be prohibitive to repair, so a new administration building was proposed. She stated that a recent customer survey indicated that the current building is not easily accessible to the general public.

Commissioner Johnson asked Ms. Negriff to explain the $3,000,000 relocation costs. Ms. Negriff explained that these include tenant improvements for OPCC/SWASHLOCK and relocation when 612 Colorado Avenue is vacated and demolished.

The architect working on the project, Ernest Cirangle of HOK Architects, gave a brief presentation on the proposed building design for the project.

Vice-Chair Clarke asked Mr. Cirangle about the depth of the storm drain that cuts across the bus yard. Mr. Cirangle stated that it is approximately twenty-feet deep. Vice-Chair Clarke posed a hypothetical question regarding surface parking lots and whether it was the best use for the downtown area. He stated that the majority of the proposed project is parking related, then asked the feasibility of using a parking structure for buses. The consultant stated that has been done elsewhere, however is very costly due to the increased height needed for the structure floors, the weight of the buses and the need to special ramp configurations.

Commissioner Johnson asked about a reference on page thirteen of the staff report regarding surrounding properties, specifically the single room occupancy building at 502 Colorado Avenue and whether it has parking on-site. Commissioner Pugh commented that he designed this project and it does have on-site parking as required by Code. Commissioner Johnson stated he was attempting to show the need for more parking in the area.

Two members of the public, Craig Jones and Allen Freeman, were present to discuss the project.

The applicant’s team, Stephanie Negriff, David Hollister of HOK and Willie Nishizawa of Melendrez Design Partners, responded to the public comment.

Commissioner Hopkins asked the landscape architect to comment on the function of the swale and how it is integral to the design concept. Mr. Nishizawa stated that it will mitigate some of the run-off from the site by percolating into and replenish the aquifer. He explained the proposed construction for the swale. Commissioner Hopkins asked if it is fair to say that the landscape is actually functional as well as decorative and is part of the sustainability of the building. Ms. Nishizawa answered in the affirmative.

Vice-Chair Clarke commented that the bus parking area pavement will be permeable, then asked which way the run-off will go during heavy rains. The consultant stated that run-off will go southwest, toward the fueling station. The consultant stated that the dark grey area on the plans, the bus parking area, will be the more permeable pavement.

Vice-Chair Clarke asked about a reference to plantings on the roof. The consultant stated that there is one roof which will have drought tolerant planting and it is the one-story building between the three-story building and the maintenance building. The project architect, David Hollister, explained that the rooftops will have photovoltaic panels for power production.

Commissioner Pugh commented on the concept of having some sort of retail or pedestrian oriented space on the ground floor and a planned for expansion area on the upper level. He suggested swapping the spaces. The consultant explained that the required ground floor uses for bus administration, operations and maintenance are the most intensive uses and need to be on the first level. Ms. Negriff further explained that this is an administrative and operations facility and as it is designed, the eastern portion of the building will house dispatch, locker rooms, training rooms, and supervisor’s offices. She stated that moving any of those areas would impact the operation.

Commissioner Pugh expressed his concern regarding the passive design nature of the eastern end of the building. He commented that the placement of uses could be reworked. The consultant stated that he can explore the functionality of the space. Commissioner Pugh commented that the Seventh Street is shown on the plans in light gray and asked if it was a “support area.” Mr. Hollister stated that this is the central plant and data room with access to the parking garage. There was discussion regarding swapping use areas and creating public access areas on the first and second floors.

Commissioner Johnson asked staff about the process for the EIR and addendums. Mr. Foley explained the EIR process when there are addendums involved and he assured the Commission that process would be the same for both public and private developers.

Commissioner Hopkins made a motion for approval with a condition that, based on the discussion initiated by Commissioner Pugh, that the architects look at activating the corner of Colorado Avenue and Seventh Street by adding retail or pedestrian- oriented space.

Commissioner Pugh seconded the motion.

Ms. Frick asked for clarification regarding the “architects look at” and what happens if the architects find this infeasible. She stated that if the Commission wants the corner activated, then that should be stated clearly in the motion. Commissioner Pugh stated that the corner needs to be activated. Commissioner Hopkins stated that if there is some operational or problematic reason why activation can not occur, then she wants the City to determine what is best for operational needs. She suggested changing the wording to “strongly urge” rather than look at. Commissioner Pugh suggested an alternative, that they need to activate the corner, if they find they cannot for some convincing reason, then they return to the Commission and explain why. Commissioner Hopkins agreed to Commissioner Pugh’s wording.

Commissioner Johnson asked for verification that this change will not eliminate the community room. Commissioners Hopkins and Pugh stated that the community room is not affected.

Commissioner Johnson asked to add a condition that the first floor parking shall be made available to the public nights and week-ends. Commissioners Hopkins and Pugh agreed to the condition.

Vice-Chair Clarke commented there could be a “bus-stop café” for a retail space. Ms. Frick cautioned that the Commission should not mandate how the space is activated. There was consensus on this issue.

There was discussion regarding public parking in the proposed structure that included security and access concerns. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum expressed concern regarding acting in a regulatory way on a City project and the public access condition not being the type usually proposed.

Vice-Chair Clarke restated the motion as follows: approval with a condition on activating the corner of Seventh Street and Colorado Avenue and a condition for adding great accessibility to the parking for the public. He asked for clarification if the access should be twenty-four hours a day. Commissioner Hopkins stated she was persuaded by Commissioners Dad and Johnson that access is important.

There was more discussion regarding the use of the proposed parking, including hours of operation and security. Commissioner Hopkins suggested that public parking be made available from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. for retail employees on a permit basis. Ms. Negriff stated for the record that the hours of bus service is from 5:45 a.m. to 12:30 a.m., although bus maintenance is a twenty-four hour a day operation. She also stated that the only parking not set aside exclusively for employees is the first level (fewer than 100 parking spaces) and the security of the entire facility is of concern. Ms. Frick stated that all the parking at the bus facility is required and there are “no extra” spaces, therefore the only available hours for public parking would be from 5:30 p.m. to midnight. There was discussion regarding hours for public parking.

There was consensus on the public parking on level one be permitted 6:00 p.m. to midnight. Commissioners Hopkins and Pugh seconded the motion.

The motion was approved by the following vote:

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

[The Commission took a break from 9:42 p.m. to 9:59 p.m.]

9-B. Development Review Permit 04-004; Design Compatibility Permit 04-013; Vesting Tentative Tract Map 04-026 (Map No. 061234); and Mitigated Negative Declaration 04-IS-001, 1502 Broadway. Application to construct a 27,940 square-foot, four-story mixed-use building with 29 market-rate condominiums, three deed-restricted condominium units for use by low-income seniors, and 625 square feet of ground-floor commercial use. Three levels of subterranean parking with a total of 103 parking spaces is proposed. The Mitigated Negative Declaration examines impacts of the proposed project on the City’s environment. Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is required to approve the project pursuant to the State Implementation Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act. Pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.14.060(g), a Development Review Permit is required for any development within the Broadway Commercial zoning district that is more than 7,500 square feet in area. Pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.16.01.020, all new condominium applications deemed complete on or after March 7, 2000 shall require approval of a Design Compatibility Permit. [Planner: Ava M. Pecherzewski] APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The Broadway Group, LLC.

Ms. Frick stated staff has determined there is a potential conflict with a code provision and requires resolution prior to the public hearing and staff recommends a continuation on the matter. The applicant requested the hearing proceed.

Vice-Chair Clarke paused at 10:00 p.m. to welcome Mayor O’Connor as the new City Council Liaison to the Commission.

Ms. Frick explained that staff has determined there is a potential error in the floor area ratio (FAR) calculations and it is of concern to staff because the proposed building may be out of compliance with code for the district. She asked for a continuance until February.

The developer, Ron Dalah, and the applicant, Mario Savvides, addressed the Commission and spoke against the continuance request.

Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that, as Ms. Frick stated, there is a potential problem with the calculations and it seems prudent to pause and reassess the calculations for accuracy and compliance with code. He further stated that the developer may be correct, however staff needs to verify these calculations so that the Commission does not approve the project in error.

Commissioner Dad made a motion to move this item to the second meeting in February. Commissioner Hopkins seconded the motion.

Vice-Chair Clarke commented that it is better that the staff review the information rather than discovering such a error after the approval has been given. He apologized to the applicant for the delay.

The motion to continue was approved by voice vote.

Commissioner Dad asked that Item 9-D be continued. Vice-Chair Clarke stated that there are five people speak. Commissioner Dad asked that they return as the Permit Streamling Act deadline is February 28, 2005. It was decided not to continue Item 9-D, but continue Item 9-E instead, which has a Permit Streamling Act deadline in March.

Commissioner Dad made a motion to continue Item 9-E to February 16, 2005. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote.

9-C. Design Compatibility Permit 04-014 & Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 04-027, 2316 Third Street. The applicant requests approval of a Design Compatibility Permit and a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (061365) to allow the construction of a two-story three-unit townhouse style condominium located in the OP-2, Ocean Park Low Multiple Residential District. The project includes 6 parking spaces within a subterranean garage. [Planner: Reza Tabatabai] APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: Daniel Ganezer.

There were no ex parte communication disclosures made by the Commission for this application.

Senior Planner Foley gave the staff report.

Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Foley if the water color rendering is accurate. Mr. Foley stated that the colors accurately represent the proposed new building. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Foley about the parking access from Third Street. Mr. Foley stated that the rendering shows an abbreviated version of the building so adjacent buildings are visible.

Vice-Chair Clarke expressed agreement with Commission Johnson that the rendering lacks information, such as the placement of entry doors.

The applicant’s architect, Jeff Dahl, was present to discuss the project.

Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Dahl to specify which architectural drawings show the unit entrances. Mr. Dahl stated that Sheet A-2 shows the entries as well as Sheet A-1.

Vice-Chair Clarke asked about landscape plans. Mr. Dahl stated that landscape plans are pending.

One member of the public, Elan Glasser, spoke in opposition to the project.

Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Glasser his opinion as to why the Landmarks Commission declined to landmark the exiting building on the site. Mr. Glasser expressed the opinion that there was no public at the Landmarks Commission hearing and the demolition posting did not have a hearing date listed. He also commented on the charm of the existing 1880s structure despite new windows and other alterations.

Mr. Dahl spoke in response to the public comment.

Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Dahl why the Landmarks Commission did not give the structure some type of special status. Mr. Dahl stated that there has been too many alterations over time on the building.

Commissioner Dad asked Mr. Dahl if there is a specific reason the new building design does not incorporate the existing design. Mr. Dahl stated that based on discussion with the City’s Urban Designer, the applicant wanted to create a true Spanish Revival-style three-unit building. Commissioner Dad commented that the northside of the building, the portion closest to the street, is uninteresting and bland, unlike the other sides. Mr. Dahl stated explained that the placement of balconies and roof decks was done to enable residents to have a view. Commissioner Dad asked if entry doors in the front was discussed with the Urban Designer. Mr. Dahl commented on his discussion with the Urban Designer and that the current design was approved by the Urban Designer.

Vice-Chair Clarke commented on the unusual unbroken first floor wall on the northside and that a window for the northside bedroom would be nice. Mr. Dahl commented that there is pedestrian access to Units 2 and 3 along that wall, so lack of window provides privacy to the first unit bedroom and there is a fire safety issue. He also stated that the bedroom has a very large window facing the park.

Commissioner Pugh commented on the permitted projections into sideyards and the potential encroachment of the chimney, which might enliven the second floor. Mr. Dahl commented on his experience, which indicates otherwise. He also stated that will be doing landscaping on the north wall.

Commissioner Johnson commented on the Ocean Park Design Guidelines and if this project complies. Mr. Dahl stated that, per the Urban Designer, this project complies as Spanish Colonial Revival style. Commissioner Johnson asked about removal of trees. Mr. Dahl stated he does not know about any tree removal as the landscape plan has not been completed.

Vice-Chair Clarke commented on the “historic style” on-site and the choice to create a completely different historic style building. Mr. Dahl stated that the current architectural style would not make a good three-unit building.

Vice-Chair Clarke closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Johnson commented on the enclosed balconies cited in the staff report and where they are located. Vice-Chair Clarke stated each unit has a roof deck per Sheet A-5. He commented on the inadequacy of the plans provided.

Commissioner Dad agreed that the plans are not clear and only the bare minimum has been presented. She asked staff if the item could be continued. Ms. Frick stated that this application is at the end of its Permit Streamlining Act date.

Commissioner Johnson made a motion with staff recommendations and conditions. He expressed confidence that the Architectural Review Board can adequately deal with the landscaping and tree issues. He strongly recommended that the rendering be enhanced, accurate and comprehensive view of the proposed project.

Commissioner Hopkins seconded the motion. She expressed confidence that staff can work out the design issues.

The motion was approved by the following vote:

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

9-D. Conditional Use Permit 04-013, 1443-47 Twelfth Street Application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow Pluralistic School (PS#1) located at 1454 Euclid Street to develop a two-story, 3,132 square foot afterschool-care facility and classroom between two adjoining lots located at 1443 and 1447 Twelfth Street. Pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.06.020, school uses on an R3-zoned parcel (1443 Twelfth Street) require approval of a Conditional Use Permit. [Planner: Ava M. Pecherzewski] APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: Pluralistic School, Inc.

There were no ex parte communication disclosures made by the Commission for this application.

Senior Planner Foley gave the staff report.

Commissioner Hopkins stated it is not clear why the hours of operation are being changed to 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Mr. Foley stated that the recently approved outdoor area was approved for those hours, so this proposed change is consistent.

Vice-Chair Clarke asked to see the plot plans and parking layout. Mr. Foley provided as set of plans for review and stated that the proposed project complies with code and there is no proposal to change the hours of operation for the play yard.

The applicant’s representative, Joel Pelcyger, was present to answer questions from the Commission.

Commissioner Pugh asked Mr. Pelcyger for the hours of operation for the afterschool program. Mr. Pelcyger stated the afterschool program concludes at 6:00 pm. Vice-Chair Clarke noted that the hours of operation request is to 8:00 p.m. Mr. Pelcyger explained the operation of the school and that there are outdoor lighting restrictions.

The following members of the public addressed the Commission regarding the current application: Taylor Uhler, Stefani Uhler, Rossamal Calumesse, Bernatdette Scully, Jesse Bornstein, Ron Segall, Alan Wertheimer, Hugh Harrison, Peter Werner, Buzz Harris, and Victoria Pakshong. One additional member of the public, Lawrence Green, submitted a request to speak form, but was not present when his name was called.

Mr. Pelcyger responded to the public comment.

Commissioner Dad asked Mr. Pelcyger about some parking spaces that will be removed when the new building is built. Mr. Pelcyger stated that these have been used by PS#1 in the past, but were not required parking. He also stated that is more than required parking available for the school on and off-site. Commissioner Dad asked Mr. Pelcyger about the drop-off/pick-up area on Twelfth Street and where parents are supposed to park. Mr. Pelcyger stated that parents dropping off and picking up students form a line down the street and staff members either retrieve or deliver students to their parents at the curb. Commissioner Dad commented that there appears to be no off-street drop-off area. She asked if this has not been viewed as a problem by school staff. Mr. Pelcyger stated that he does not know of any school with an on-site drop-off area. Commissioner Dad stated that some private schools have come before the Commission with designated off-street drop-off areas. Mr. Pelcyger explained that PS#1 has slowly expanded over time and parking is available, however there is no “turn around area” for dropping-off students at the parking locations. He then stated the hours for morning drop-offs is 8:00 a.m. to 8:45 a.m. and virtually all children arrive by carpool or single vehicles which is about twenty vehicles all together.

Commissioner Dad asked Mr. Pelcyger about the meditation garden and what neighbors are saying has been turned into an active play area. Mr. Pelcyger stated that in addition to the meditation garden, the prior application included active play space (ball field) for soccer, a basketball court, two eating areas and the garden with the old oak tree and bamboo forest. Commissioner Dad commented on the sound wall which actually amplifies noise according to neighbors, then asked if there has been consideration on softening the surface. Mr. Pelcyger stated that this was considered at the time of the application, however the City insisted that the project retain a residential feel. He stated that the cinderblock wall is adjacent to Santa Monica Ford and vegetation is being added. He also commented that he feels there is more noise generated from Santa Monica Ford than from the school. Commissioner Dad commented that neighbors assert there is more noise since the wall was installed. Mr. Pelcyger stated he has complied with City requirements including adding a wall along the alley to protect neighbors across the alley from noise.

Commissioner Hopkins commented on the noise issue and expressed support for having an acoustical engineer study and provide solutions to the noise issue. Mr. Pelcyger expressed concern about the cost of this recommendation and reminded the Commission of the school’s non-profit status.

Commissioner Hopkins asked Mr. Pelcyger if microphones are ever used for Sunday events. Mr. Pelcyger stated that children’s voices do not project very far and microphones are needed for outdoor events. Commissioner Hopkins asked Mr. Pelcyger to explain the need for outdoor lighting until 8:00 p.m. if the afterschool care ends at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Pelcyger stated that sometimes parents arrive late and the exterior lighting is needed for security reasons. He also stated there are no such restrictions on the other five lots occupied by the school. Commissioner Hopkins asked if there are ever evening meetings. Mr. Pelcyger answered in the affirmative.

Commissioner Hopkins asked Mr. Pelcyger about circulation and drop-off of children and plans prepared by other schools.

Vice-Chair Clarke asked Mr. Pelcyger for the number of children pick-up from afterschool care on Twelfth Street. Mr. Pelcyger stated there are 20-40 children picked-up in a three hour period. Commissioner Hopkins noted that 180 children are dropped-off in the morning. Mr. Pelcyger explained that the children are dropped-off approximately 20 per 10 minute window. Vice-Chair Clarke asked Mr. Pelcyger if he can think of other remedies to the noise and traffic issues. Mr. Pelcyger suggested he could meet with the neighbors again, but could not think of any other solutions. He stated there is a written agreement with parents regarding pick-up from afterschool care. He also stated that he does not know where parents park when attending events at the school.

Commissioner Dad asked if there will be more children attending school when the proposed new building is completed. Mr. Pelcyger stated it is the intention to expand the school to 200 students.

The Commission discussed number of students, whether there was an approved drop-off plan and solutions to noise issues raised by neighbors. Ms. Frick reminded the Commission that they cannot regulate other lots associated with the school, only the parcel on the application before them, therefore playground noise issues are not part of the review. It was determined that the drop-off/pick-up issue could be regulated as it also pertains to the afterschool facility. The Commission came to consensus on the 8:00 p.m. closure time; requiring notification in a 300 foot radius of school events (Special Condition #41) and requiring an approved drop-off plan prior to Certificate of Occupancy. Commissioner Pugh suggested that sound absorbing material on exterior walls per a previous child care facility approval.

Commissioner Johnson made a motion for approval with staff conditions and with the following conditions: that there be a drop-off/pick-up plan approved by Transportation Management Division; a staff monitoring plan; modify Condition #38 to include compliance with Conditional Use Permits 02-005 and Variance 02-006; and amend Condition #41 from one hundred feet to three hundred foot radius notification for school events.

Commissioner Hopkins seconded the motion. She added a condition that any future applications be in compliance with this permit and

The motion was approved by the following vote;

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

9-E. Conditional Use Permit 04-014, 609 Broadway. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit 04-014 to establish an alcohol outlet with a Type-41 alcohol license (On-Sale Beer and Wine for a Bona Fide Public Eating Place) to be used in conjunction with an existing incidental food service use. [Planner: Dennis Banks] APPLICANT: Juliano Brotman. PROPERTY OWNER: SMB Broadway Group.

Commissioner Dad made a motion to continue this item to February 16, 2005. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote.

10. FUTURE COMMISSION AGENDA ITEMS:

Commissioner Pugh asked to add to the next agenda a guest speaker to speak on the subject of West Hollywood streetscape improvements. He speaker would USC landscape architecture student.

Commissioner Johnson requested a representative from the Malibu Labor Exchange make a presentation regarding “casual labor exchange” at Bourget Brothers.

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:

11-A. Planning Commission Caselist

11-B. Cumulative Projects List

12. PUBLIC INPUT: None.

13. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 12:49 a.m. on Thursday, January 20, 2005.

No other business will be conducted at the Special Meeting.

APPROVED: JULY 20, 2005