M I N U T E S
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2005 CITY
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 P.M. ROOM
213, CITY HALL
1. CALL
TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:11 p.m.
2. PLEDGE
OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner O’Day led the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. ROLL
CALL: Present: Barbara Brown, Chairperson
Darrell
Clarke
Julie
Lopez Dad
Arlene
Hopkins
Jay
P. Johnson
Terry
O’Day
Also
Present: Kyle Ferstead, Commission
Secretary
Suzanne
Frick, Director of PCD / Planning
Jonathan
Lait, AICP, Acting Principal Planner
Barry
Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney
4. PLANNING
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
Ms. Frick gave the Director’s
Report. She reported the following community meeting dates: March 14 with the
Santa Monica College Trustees and the Youth Planning Forum on April 21 at 6:30
p.m. She also reported on future City Council meeting dates: February 22,
Development Agreement for 1333-37 Ocean Avenue and recommendations from the
Promenade Uses Task Force; a joint meeting with the Commission on March 8 to
discuss traffic methodologies and the Emerging Themes Report; and on March 22,
a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) appeal for 3010 Wilshire
Boulevard and a discussion on a proposed Development Agreement for 3025 Olympic
Boulevard.
Forthcoming Commission meetings are
scheduled as follows: March 2 (Shape the Future 2025 discussion meeting); March
16 (development review meeting); and March 17, a joint meeting with the Housing
Commission.
Lastly, Ms. Frick announced that
five Commissioners have expressed interest in attending the American Planning Association
(APA) Conference on March 19-23, 2005. She stated that staff will handle
registration and hotel reservations, however
the Commissioners will need to make their own travel arrangements.
Commissioner Johnson stated that he
wants to attend the Santa Monica College Trustees meeting on March 14. He asked
Ms. Frick to comment on the City Council meeting on February 8 regarding
participation by the Commission the Land Use Element update. Ms. Frick stated
that attendance by Commissioners at community workshops must be limited to three
at any one time however time frames can be created so all may attend in shifts.
She also stated that the City Council has concluded that they will refrain from
activities at events related to the update. Ms. Frick stated that the next
event is the Youth Planning Forum. Commissioner Johnson asked when he can
volunteer to attend that event. Ms. Frick stated it will be discussed at the
next policy meeting.
5. PLANNING
COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS
Commissioner
Pugh announced that he attended the PTSA meeting at
Commissioner
Johnson announced he attended the Bayside District Corporation board meeting
with Ms. Bar-El and Commissioner Hopkins.
Commissioner
Hopkins announced the Landmarks Commission has a presentation on goals and
objectives they would like to share with the Commission. She stated it is a ten
to fifteen minute presentation.
Commissioner
Pugh asked staff when the Airport Commission is meeting next. Ms. Frick stated
that the next meeting is on February 28 at 7:30 p.m. and staff will be making a
presentation.
Commissioner
Clarke announced he attended the Convention and Visitor’s Bureau meting on
February 9. He stated staff made a nice presentation.
6. APPROVAL
OF MINUTES: None.
7. STATEMENTS
OF OFFICIAL ACTION:
Consent Calendar
7-A. Conditional
Use Permit 04-013,
Commissioner
Johnson made a motion for approval. Commissioner Dad seconded the motion.
Commissioner
Hopkins stated that a noise mitigation condition requested by Commissioner Pugh
and herself was not included in the Statement of Official Action. Following
some discussion, the motion was withdrawn and staff stated they would research
the matter.
7-B. Appeal
04-008 of Use Permit 04-001, 1777 Sunset Avenue.
Commissioner
Johnson made a motion for approval. Commissioner Pugh seconded the motion,
which was approved by voice vote. Commissioners Clarke and Hopkins abstained.
7-C. Design
Compatibility Permit 04-010 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 04-023,
Commissioner
Johnson made a motion for approval. Commissioner Pugh seconded the motion,
which was approved by voice vote. Commissioner Hopkins abstained.
7-D. Design Compatibility
Permit 04-014 and Tract Map TM 04-027,
Commissioner Johnson made a motion
for approval. Commissioner Pugh seconded the motion, which was approved by
voice vote. Chair Brown and Commissioner O’Day abstained.
7-E. Development Review Permit 04-008 and
Conditional Use Permit 04-016,
Commissioner Pugh made a motion for
approval. Commissioner Dad seconded the motion, which was approved by voice
vote with Chair Brown abstaining.
Commissioner
Johnson expressed concern about Condition #57 which deals with parking for the
public at night. There was discussion regarding the parking condition and Ms.
Frick stated that this project has been appealed by a member of the public and
will be heard by the City Council. She stated the Commission will be kept
informed as to the appeal meeting date.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Consent Calendar
Chair Brown informed the Commission of a request by a
member of the public to address the Commission out of agenda order.
Commissioner Hopkins made a motion to hear from the member of the public prior
to the public hearing calendar. Commissioner Clarke seconded the motion, which
was approved by voice vote.
Mr. Chuck Allord addressed the Commission for three
minutes.
Commissioner Johnson removed Items 8-A and 8-B from
the Consent Calendar.
8-A. Tentative
Map 04-034,
Mr. Lait gave the staff report. He stated that two
conditions are being added the report (Conditions #13 and #14).
Commissioner Johnson commented that the new template
is fine, however the information between the two reports differs. He asked that
a section be added regarding existing units on-site. He then asked staff if the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) is constrained on issues of design
compatibility. Ms. Frick stated that the ARB reviews design and compliance with
design and development standards.
Commissioner Johnson commented that the pages are not
numbered, then asked if it is standard practice to record the tract map with
the County prior to final tract map approval. Mr. Lait explained that the
process for recording the map with the County occurs after this portion of the
overall approval process and is generally done during the plan check process.
Commissioner Johnson commented on the inclusionary
fees issue and whether the cost of new construction of unit can be added to the
template. Mr. Lait stated that Tract Maps are not in the purview of other
requests. Ms. Frick stated this discussion should be reserved for a policy
meeting and would be appropriately discussed as part of the joint meeting with
the Housing Commission.
Commissioner Clarke commented on a piece of
correspondence received regarding trees on-site and whether the Commission had
any discretion in this regard. Ms. Frick stated that the correspondence can be
directed to the ARB, however there is no City ordinance regulating the
preservation of trees on private property. Commissioner Clarke asked if the
Commission could request the on-site trees be boxed and moved to another
location on the property.
Commissioner Hopkins asked for clarification as to
whether any public body can weigh-in on building heights and setbacks. Ms.
Frick stated the new standards set the specific building heights and setbacks.
She also stated that the new standards are meant to give developers more
certainty in the process. The ARB retains authority to look at design, add or
modify articulation and materials for better design.
Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the
scope of the Tract Map process is part of compliance with State law.
Commissioner Dad expressed the opinion that this new
process is a disservice to the community and short-circuit’s the public’s
opportunity to give public input.
There was discussion regarding the “airspace
subdivision” terminology. Commissioner Pugh asked why Tract Maps are coming
before the Commission if there is no decision-making process involved. Ms.
Frick stated that the current Code requires the Commission to approve all
tentative maps.
Commissioner Johnson made a motion to approve the
Tract Map for
Commissioner Hopkins asked to add a condition to box
and preserve the existing trees on-site. Commissioner Johnson agreed to the
condition. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that trees are not part of
the scope and review for a Tract Map. Ms. Frick suggested the condition be to
direct staff to inform the ARB of the tree issue. Commissioner Hopkins stated
that the Tract Map actually says that all trees on-site are to be removed. Ms.
Frick stated that there is no code requirement to retain the trees.
Commissioner Hopkins asked if the note on the Tract Map regarding the tree
removal could be removed. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that part
of the approval process includes receiving all other City approval, including
ARB.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Brown, Clarke, Dad, Hopkins, Johnson, O’Day,
Pugh.
8-B. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 04-036,
Mr. Lait gave the staff reporting, including the addition of
Conditions #14 and #15.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff when the City Engineer
reviews curbs and sidewalks for new projects. Mr. Lait stated that this covered
in the plan check process.
Chair Brown asked staff if it is their intention to have
identical number of conditions in the staff reports. Mr. Lait answered in the
affirmative, however he stated that in Item 8-A, Condition #12 (the Ellis
provision) was omitted as it was redundant.
Commissioner Hopkins made the motion for approval.
Commissioner O’Day seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Brown, Clarke, Dad, Hopkins, Johnson, O’Day,
Pugh.
9. PUBLIC HEARING:
Continued Item
9-A. 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. This public hearing was continued from the
January 19, 2005 hearing. [Planner:
The Commission had no ex parte communication disclosures to
make.
Mr. Lait gave the staff report.
Commissioner Johnson stated his
understanding that the building is under-parked by eleven spaces and there is
no way compliance can be met. Mr. Lait stated that this is correct.
The applicant, Juliano Brotman, was
present to discuss his application.
Commissioner O’Day asked Mr. Brotman
if he worked with staff to resolve the parking issue. Mr. Brotman stated he was
told he needed to refile his application, which would cost thousands of
dollars.
Commissioner Johnson stated that on
page three of the staff report it says staff met with the applicant and
recommended a variance be applied for. Mr. Brotman stated he was told there was
a 50/50 chance of approval and a lawyer advised him to go forward with this
hearing.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr.
Brotman where the designation for a “deli” came from. Mr. Brotman stated that
all his papers were filed and stamped for a restaurant. Commissioner Johnson
asked for more details. Mr. Brotman stated that the architect’s plans are
stamped as a “deli” but say “restaurant.”
Chair Brown asked Mr. Brotman when
he opened his business. Mr. Brotman stated he opened about three years ago and
the business has been operated as a restaurant with table service.
Chair Brown stated there are two
requests to speak on this item. The public speakers were Craig Jones and Allen
Freeman.
Mr. Brotman spoke in response to the
public comment.
Commissioner Pugh asked Mr. Brotman
about his clientele. Mr. Brotman stated that he advertises world-wide.
Commissioner Pugh asked Mr. Brotman if his clientele generally walk or drive to
his establishment. Mr. Brotman stated that there is a combination and that he
offers a 10% discount to bicycle riders.
Commissioner O’Day asked Mr. Brotman
if he has any ideas about finding additional parking. Mr. Brotman stated there is some
parking in the area, but it is very expensive. He also stated that he has been
saving up for a liquor license.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr.
Brotman for the types of businesses that are near
Commissioner Clarke asked staff
about the approval of the business for “incidental food use” and the lower
parking requirement. Ms. Frick stated that there was an Administrative Approval
for the retail space in this building and that the plans cited the use as a
“deli.” She further stated that during the plan check process, the proposed use
was in compliance with Code and met parking requirements. Additionally, Ms.
Frick stated that the Business License was issued for a “restaurant” use, which
is the discrepancy in question. She stated that the land use approvals were for
a “deli” not a restaurant. Ms. Frick then explained that the remedy for the
situation is to apply for a parking variance, which could have been heard with
this CUP if it had been applied for initially.
Commissioner Clarke asked staff for
the definition difference between a “deli” and a restaurant. Ms. Frick stated
that the difference is method of operation and a restaurant has table service
and has a higher parking requirement. She also stated that an incidental food
service is restricted to 250 square feet of service area.
Mr. Brotman stated that Ms. Frick is
incorrect and all his approvals state his business is a restaurant, except the
Planning approval.
Commissioner Dad stated that the
document provided is from the Health Department. Mr. Brotman produced a City
Planning document, which was the Business License application. Commissioner Dad
stated that the Business License does say the use is a restaurant. Mr. Lait
explained the Business License process and that the approval is based on the
information provided by the applicant.
Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum
reminded the Commission that they are holding this hearing on whether to approve
an alcohol CUP, not on the overall merits of delis versus restaurant uses. He
stated that if the Business License is a problem, then the Commission should
not approve the alcohol CUP.
There was discussion regarding the
various approvals for this establishment and how to resolve the issues.
Commissioner Johnson commented on
two separate sets of approved plans, one which shows seating and one which does
not show seating. He asked staff how much parking is required for the 48 indoor
seats and 30 outdoor seats. Mr. Lait explained that parking requirements are
not based on number of seats, but on square footage. He further explained that
the 609 Broadway building has 39 parking spaces reserved for the residential
units, 45 spaces on-site and 2 spaces leased to another site. The application
before the Commission requires an additional 11 parking spaces which are not
available on-site.
Commissioner O’Day asked staff if
there is a construction solution to this parking issue. Ms. Frick stated that
the applicant can file a variance application to legalize the restaurant use,
which should have been done initially but was not. She stated that staff has
worked with the applicant and explained the situation, however as the Permit
Streamlining Act (PSA) deadline has almost run-out, the application was brought
before the Commission without the variance application. She stated that the PSA
cannot be extended at this point.
Commissioner Pugh asked if a deli
can have a liquor license. Ms. Frick stated that a deli can have a liquor
license, however the application request is for a liquor license for a
restaurant. Mr. Lait stated that it is his understanding from the Alcohol
Beverage Control (ABC) that a Type 41 license can be issued.
Following additional discussion
regarding the need for a variance application, Senior Land Use Attorney stated
that ‘regrettable decisions have been made” however it would be also be
regrettable decision to ignore that there is inadequate parking for the
business. He urged the Commission to vote on this matter in accordance with the
legal standards that it is operating under and not make judgments based on
errors that may have occurred outside this approval process.
Commissioner Dad asserted that there
is precedent and the Commission seeks neighborhood serving, mixed-use projects.
She stated this business is what the Commission is seeking all over the City,
especially in the Downtown area. She commented that the situation could have
been resolved and should have been resolved prior to this hearing, however to
deny it now does not fulfill the goals
for the area.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff
when the applicant could reapply if staff’s recommendation to deny was adopted.
Ms. Frick stated that if the application is denied without prejudice, then the
applicant can refile tomorrow.
Commissioner O’Day asked what the
fee is to reapply. Chair Brown asked if the fees can be waived. Ms. Frick
stated staff has no administrative authority to waive fees. She commented that
there are other remedies, such as threatened litigation, which the City Council
could consider.
Commissioner Pugh asked staff if the
Commission could approve the CUP if the word “restaurant” was changed to
“deli.” Ms. Frick stated that the plans do not say delicatessen, so the plans
could not be approved and there is no definitive answer from the ABC whether
they would accept this license type associated with a delicatessen. Chair Brown
commented that this would not solve the Code Enforcement issue.
Commissioner Johnson asked that
someone put forth a motion that makes this as clean as possible. He commented
the wants to keep the current tenant in the current business and location. He
then suggested a motion to deny the application without prejudice, so they can
refile with all issues resolved and (1) request a parking variance; (2) work
with staff to accommodate current parking spaces; and (3) to address the actual
use in the new application.
Chair Brown asked if there will be
an expedited process if the application is denied without prejudice. Ms. Frick
stated it could be expedited. She stated that if the application was approved
as a delicatessen with the previous land use approval plans, then the applicant
would need to return for an amendment to the CUP.
Commissioner Johnson made a motion
to deny the CUP without prejudice.
Commissioner Hopkins seconded the
motion.
Chair Brown asked if a separate
motion is needed to “flag” or expedite the process for his applicant. Ms. Frick
stated a separate motion would be needed to direction staff.
Commissioner O’Day stated a
preference for Commissioner Dad’s earlier recommendation as it seems more
equitable and meets the goals for the Downtown. He stated he is not so
concerned about parking, but is concerned about the costs associated with
additional applications for the applicant. Chair Brown expressed concern that
this would set a precedent outside the Code and current regulations, although
she would be personally inclined to do as suggested.
Commissioner Clarke asked what would
be approved under an alternate motion. Commissioner O’Day stated it would be
approval of an alcohol license for a delicatessen. Commissioner Clarke asked if
this would be an issue for the ABC. Ms. Frick stated it would create a
discrepancy between the ABC request and the City approval. Additionally, when
the restaurant issue is resolved, the applicant would need to return to the
Commission to amend the CUP approval. She also stated that if there is an
approval for a restaurant, then new findings need to made as it does not
currently comply with City regulations.
Chair Brown stated a preference
would be for the applicant to refile and return on the next possible hearing
date. She stated her understanding that the Commission is wrestling with the
equity issues.
Commissioner Clarke asked what would
be different when the applicant refiles. Chair Brown stated that the applicant
would include the variance application. Commissioner Johnson commented that at
the bottom of page three in the staff report it states “if denied without
prejudice this would like result in the submission of a new CUP and variance
application to consider whether there are unique circumstances associated with
the property…”
Commissioner O’Day asked whether the
applicant can apply for a fee waiver. Ms. Frick stated there is nothing the
Commission can do regarding a fee waiver.
Commissioner Johnson restated the
motion to deny the CUP without prejudice and with direction to staff to
expedite processing if there is a new submittal. Commissioner Pugh asked for a
friendly amendment to include exploration of what credit can be given for fees
already paid. Commissioners Johnson and Hopkins agreed to the amendment.
The motion to deny without prejudice
was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Brown, Clarke, Hopkins,
Johnson, Pugh; NOES: Dad, O’Day.
[The Commission took a break from
9:18 p.m. to 9:33 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
Chair Brown asked the Commission to
give their ex parte communication
disclosures for this project. Commissioner O’Day disclosed he drove by the site
and noted the vacant lot adjacent to the site; Commissioner Johnson disclosed
his is familiar with the site, as did Commissioner Hopkins. Commissioner Clarke
disclosed he went to Economy Glass at 3:00 p.m. on February 4, 2005, and spoke
to the owner, Chris, regarding his situation. Chair Brown disclosed that she
drove by the site at approximately 6:15 p.m. on Wednesday, February 16, 2005.
Commissioner Pugh had nothing to disclose.
Acting Principal Planner Jonathan
Lait gave the staff report. He stated that Condition #8 should be removed as it
is in error and the date on the attached Resolution should be amended to
February 16, 2005.
Commissioner Johnson commented that
the language on page five the staff report does not make sense. Mr. Lait agreed
and stated that the report contains information pertaining to a similar project
on
The applicant’s representative,
architect Don Empakeris, was present to discuss the application.
Commissioner Johnson asked the
applicant how long the existing tenant has been at this location. The property
owner, Mario Saavides, stated that the business owner, Mr. Perry, sold his
business approximately one-and-one-half years ago. Commissioner Johnson asked
Mr. Saavides if he will assist the business in moving to a new location. Mr.
Saavides stated that the current business has a one-year lease at a cost of
40-cents a square foot. He stated the lease can be extended three-months or
more until the new project goes into construction. Commissioner Johnson asked
Mr. Saavides if other locations have been sought for the business. Ms. Saavides
answered in the affirmative and added that the business owner was not happy
with the suggested locations.
There was one request to speak form
submitted by Lee Chesnin.
Mr. Saavides spoke in response to
the public comment.
Chair Brown closed the public
hearing.
Commissioner Hopkins asked what
measures or conditions can be set to establish a condition to the existing
automobile repair shop. Mr. Lait stated that in the past the Commission has
required such things as double-glazed window to mitigate noise issue.
Commissioner Hopkins asked if there is a way to follow-up and require that the
applicant notify potential buyers or tenants of the pre-existing condition of
the adjacent automobile repair shop. Ms. Frick stated it could be a condition
of approval, so staff could enforce it.
Commissioner Johnson asked about a
reference to a density bonus on page eight of the staff report and how much
affordable housing will be required on-site. Mr. Lait stated that there will be
three affordable units on-site or 10% of the base project. Senior Land Use
Attorney referred the Commission to Attachment A of the staff report (page 18).
Commissioner Johnson asked if the
negative declaration is only for the construction issues. Mr. Lait stated it is
required for the entire project, including demolition, site preparation, during
construction and entitlement process.
Commissioner Johnson asked about a
reference on page seven, citing consistency with Land Use and Circulation
Element Policy 16.3. Mr. Lait stated if the project does not comply with the
General Plan, then it needs to denied.
Commissioner Johnson asked when
disabled access requirements are reviewed. Mr. Lait stated these requirements
are reviewed for compliance during the plan-check process.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff if
the proposed signage for retail space automatically goes to the Architectural
Review Board (ARB) for approval. Mr. Lait replied in the affirmative.
Commissioner Dad expressed the
opinion that a finding should be included that recognizes there will be
complaints and Code Enforcement issues attached to this project and in the
general area. She suggested “recognizing the potential conflict as the area
changes, the importance of the long-term existing uses should not be minimized
and that new projects do not take precedence.” She stated that she does not
want to jeopardize existing businesses. Mr. Lait suggested this could be added
to Finding #1 on the Development Review Permit.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff if
the Urban Designer has reviewed this project, particularly the south balconies.
Mr. Lait answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Johnson asked if the ARB can
address the balcony issue. Mr. Lait answered in the affirmative.
Commissioner Pugh commented that
there appears to be 23 parking stalls beyond the required number of 80 spaces.
Mr. Empakeris explained that the intent is to have two parking spaces per unit
plus guest parking in addition parking spaces for the retail and/or retail
space. Commissioner Pugh asked if the project would then have sufficient
parking for both the residential and possible restaurant space. Mr. Empakeris
stated he wants the option of having any type of retail tenant, including a
restaurant.
Chair Brown closed the public
hearing.
Commissioner
Dad made a motion for approval with staff findings, conditions and amendments.
Commissioners Pugh and Clarke
seconded the motion. Commissioner Hopkins asked for a condition requiring
double-glazed windows on the southside and that tenants be informed of the
adjacent automobile repair facility.
There was discussion regarding
Condition #23, tarps covering dirt hauling vehicles, and lack of enforcement of
this condition. Commissioner Johnson cited page eleven, item 33 last sentence:
“immediately after commencing dirt removal from site, general contractor shall
provide City of
Commissioner Pugh suggested that the
following language be used: “that the developer shall provide an inspection
report generated by an independent inspector satisfactory to the City of
Chair Brown asked for clarification
on the amendments: that the windows be double-glazed on the northside, for all
contiguous units on all stories; that buyers/tenants be informed that the
property is adjacent to an automobile repair facility; the addition to Finding
#1; and the condition regarding the inspectors report.
Ms. Frick stated that the first
motion would be to adopt the Resolution for the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Commissioner Dad so moved and Commissioner O’Day seconded the motion.
The motion to adopt the Resolution
was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Brown, Clarke, Dad, Hopkins,
Johnson, O’Day, Pugh.
Commissioner Dad made a motion to
approve the Development Agreement with amendments, conditions and amended
Finding #1 as stated previously. Commissioner Hopkins seconded the motion.
The motion to approved the
Development Review Permit was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Brown, Clarke, Dad, Hopkins,
Johnson, O’Day, Pugh.
Commissioner Hopkins made a motion
to approve the Design Compatibility Permit. Commissioner Dad seconded the
motion.
The motion to approve the Design
Compatibility Permit was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Brown, Clarke, Dad, Hopkins,
Johnson, O’Day, Pugh.
Commissioner Dad made a motion to
approve the Tract Map. Commissioner Hopkins seconded the motion.
The motion to approve the Tract Map
was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Brown, Clarke, Dad, Hopkins,
Johnson, O’Day, Pugh.
Commissioner Johnson commented on
the loss of Economy Auto Glass, a local business currently located on the site
in question. He also commented on the loss of Fisher Lumber down the street and
other local businesses. He stated that the Commission needs to carve out a
space for these types of uses as the Land Use Element is update. He also
complimented the property owner on giving his current tenant a price break
during the application and development process.
Commissioner O’Day shared the
comments made by Commissioner Johnson. He stated that he is sensitive to the
loss of local jobs as well and there needs to be a housing balance, especially
affordable housing.
Commissioner Clarke also shared the
comments made by Commissioner Johnson as regards the Land Use Element Update
and policy goals to retain small businesses in
Commissioner Dad commented that she
appreciates this conversation as some developers like to spread the myth at the
City and Commission are anti-business.
10. DISCUSSION:
10-A. Development Agreement 04-004, 3025 Olympic Boulevard. Discussion of a proposed development agreement application has
been filed for the property at 3025 Olympic Boulevard (also known as
Urban
Designer
The
developer’s representative, Dale Goldsmith, and Mark Cassidy of Pacific
Properties, gave a presentation on their proposal for 3025 Olympic Boulevard.
Commissioner
Hopkins asked the applicants about the proposed artist live/work units, their
cost and if they will be deed-restricted. Mr. Goldsmith stated that none of
these issues have been finalized, but he expects the units to range from
780-1200 square feet. Commissioner
Commissioner
Johnson asked a series of questions regarding the developer and other
properties they have developed or own. Mr. Goldsmith stated that his client
prefers to own rental housing and owns six other properties.
Commissioner
Johnson commented that the Light Manufacturing and Studio District (LMSD) is
approximately 15% of the land mass of the City and does not allow housing by
right. He expressed concern that approving residential uses in this area may
inflate land costs. He asked Mr. Goldsmith why the project is proposed to be
four-stories in height. Mr. Goldsmith stated it is the “urban scale.”
Commissioner
O’Day asked Mr. Goldsmith if an accurate picture is given of the property line
abutting
Commissioner
Clarke commented on the Smart Growth aspects of the proposed project, including
having a neighborhood retail space as part of the development. Mr. Goldsmith
stated that the proposed project will also have hard, durable floors and the
units will have higher than average ceilings. Randall Real of Pacific
Properties stated that the units will also have roll-up entry doors and sealed
concrete floors.
Commissioner
Clarke commented that the typical artist is not rich and that he is concern
that these units will become “trendy loft living” spaces. Mr. Goldsmith stated
that 10% of the units will be for very low income tenants.
Chair
Brown stated that one request to speak for has been submitted, but the
requestor is not present. She also stated that an e-mail has been received from
Mr. Shapiro.
Commissioner
Johnson asked staff for the size of the
Chair
Brown closed the public hearing. She stated that the Commission’s task is to
make a recommendation to the City Council with respect to entering into
negotiations for a Development Agreement for this site. She commented that the
staff report was very helpful, especially the questions set forth on page four.
Commissioner
Dad commented on the developer’s presentation and the references to the Land
Use Element encouraging residential uses in commercial areas. She noted that
this parcel is not zoned for residential use.
Commissioner
Clarke commented that the site is very accessible to City bus lines and the
proposed transit stops on the future light rail system.
Commissioner
Pugh stated that a general discussion is in order. He stated that he has met
with the developer. He had the following concerns: on density (73.2 units per
acre), on the miniscule amount of retail space (5000 sf); and on aesthetics. He
stated that the LMSD was created to preserve low scale, industrial uses. He
stated he would not personally recommend moving forward with this proposal and
that there are no issues to negotiate.
Commissioner
Dad expressed agreement with Commissioner Pugh.
Commissioner
Hopkins made a motion to support staff’s recommendations. Commissioner Dad
seconded the motion.
Commissioner
Clarke commented on Commissioner Pugh’s eloquent assessment. He stated that
there needs to be a citywide discussion on live/work spaces along with the land
use discussions.
Commissioner
Johnson stated that he agrees with the other Commissioners. He noted that the
proposed project is on 3.3 acres. He stated that the project is the size of a
village and needs a master plan. He also commented on issues of transit.
Commissioner
O’Day commented that he has found this discussion quite compelling. He stated
that the proposal would be a fundamental change to the Land Use Element and he
does not support it.
There was
a voice vote to support the motion to recommend not moving forward with this
proposed Development Agreement.
11. FUTURE COMMISSION AGENDA
ITEMS: None.
12. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
12-A. Planning Commission Caselist
12-B. Cumulative Projects List
12-C. Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to City Council/
1.
Appeal 05-001 of Development Review Permit 04-008 and Conditional Use
Permit 04-016,
13.
PUBLIC INPUT:
Prior to Item 8, Mr. Chuck Allord addressed the
Commission for three minutes.
14. ADJOURNMENT: The
meeting was adjourned at 11:09 p.m.
APPROVED: AUGUST 17, 2005