Loading...
SR-400-01 (2)CITY CLERK'S OFFICE - MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Maria Stewart, City Clerk SUBJECT: June 12, 2001 Agenda, Item 10-A DATE: June 7, 2001 ~o~ ~ ~'9~~D1 For your information, attached are minutes of the May 2, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting. Pages 7 through 12 reflect the discussion held by the Commission regarding this agenda item. The bottom of page 12 lists the motion and action taken. ~~~~~ MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ~~ty af OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA Santa Monica"' WEDNESDAY, May 2, 2001 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. ROOM 213, CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:16 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Brown led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL: Present: Barbara Brown Darrell Clarke Julie Lopez Dad Jay P. Johnson Kelly Olsen, Chairperson Absent: Anthony Loui Geraldine Moyle Also Present: Kim Christensen, AICP, Senior Planner Kyle Ferstead, Commission Secretary Suzanne Frick, Director of Planning/PCD Susan Healy Keene, AICP, Senior Planner Timothy McCormick, Building Official Kevin McKeown, City Council Liaison Bradley J. Misner, Associate Planner Jean M. Moore, AICP, Associate Planner Barry Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner Jay M. Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager 4. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Ms. Frick gave the Director's Report. Ms. Frick reported that the City Council approved the Draft Housing Element Update on April 24, 2001. The document will be forwarded to HDC for comments and will eventually return to the Commission for review. In other City Council news, the Council will be reviewing an interim ordinance on short-term rental housing on May 22, 2001. Ms. Frick announced the next Commission meeting dates as follows: May 16, May 23 and June 6, 2001. City Council Liaison McKeown expressed his thanks to Commissioner Johnson for his proposed amendment to the Draft Housing Element regarding a proactive Planning Commission May 2, 2001 approach for tenants in at-risk buildings. Chair Olsen welcomed and introduced Housing Commissioner Maser to the evening's meeting. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consent Calendar 5-A. Commissioner Johnson made a motion to approve the minutes for April 18, 2001, as submitted. Commissioner Dad seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote. 6. STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION: Consent Calendar Commissioner Dad made a motion to approve the Statements of Official Action (6- A, 6-B and 6-C) as submitted. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote. 6-A. Text Amendment 98-007, Conditional Use Permit 98-037, 1549 Twelfth Street 6-B. Conditional Use Permit 00-036, 1314 Second Street 6-C. Appeal 01-APP-003 of 00-VAR-022, 2415 28`h Street 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7-A. Conditional Use Permit 00-025 and Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 92- 007, 1315 Third Street Promenade, Space E, BSC-1 (Bayside Commercial) District. Application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to permit the issuance of a TyAe-41 (On-Site Beer and Wine Public Eating Place) alcohol license to be used in coniunction with an existingfast-food restaurant (5ushi Shogun) and to amend conditions of approval pursuant to CUP 92-007, which governs overall alcohol use and designates individual alcohol outlets in the food court. (Planner: Bradley J. Misner) APPLICANT: James SungChang, Sushi Shogun Restaurant. Prior to the staff report, Chair Olsen asked the Commission to make any disclosures they may have regarding this project. Chair Olsen stated that he had made a site visit on May 2, 2001 in the afternoon. There were no other disclosures of substance. Following the staff report, Commissioner Clarke asked if this applicant is in compliance with the current CUP conditions. Mr. Misner answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Johnson asked if staff is aware of any violations or complaints about this operation. Mr. Misner stated that there are no violations or complaints and he personally visited the site to review the conditions of approval. Commissioner Johnson asked about the 1992 CUPs. Mr. Misner explained that there is one overall CUP for the food court (CUP 92-007) and individual CUPs for the spaces permitted to sell alcohol. Commissioner Dad commented that the staff report indicates there are three active alcohol licenses for the food court, but also states that Spaces F and G are a z _ --- _ __ _ _ __ . __. _ Planning Commission May 2, 2001 shared space with one tenant. Mr. Misner explained how the CUPs for alcohol work for the various spaces. Chair Olsen asked for an explanation of the numbers cited in Condition #18 from the original CUP approval. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum explained that at the time of the original CUP, code language was written to suit the food court use, including the overall CUP and the six individual CUPs forspecific spaces in the food court. Ms. Frick further explained that at the time of the 1992 CUP, an interim ordinance was being written to limit the number of alcohol serving establishments, by block, on the Third Street Promenade. The food court was an exception cited in the interim ordinance. Commissioner Johnson asked howthe food court in question and the Santa Monica Place food court difFer. Ms. Frick stated that Santa Monica Place's food court was part of the original approval for the redevelopment project. Commissioner Johnson asked if future food courts will have the same provisions. Ms. Frick stated that the food court in question is the only exception. Ms. Keene reported that provision was made for one fast food court each in Blocks 4, 5 and 6. Chair Olsen asked about the requirement for a 42-inch barrier in Condition #17. Mr. Misner explained the requirement in context for this project. The applicant, James Sung Chang, and the property manager for the food court, X. Alexander, were present to discuss the application. Chair Olsen asked for details about the number of alcohol outlets in the food court. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that staffs recommendation would eliminate three of the six alcohol CUPs specified in the master CUP and which have lapsed as they were not used in the specified time frame. Mr. Misner stated that the strike-out language in the condition specify that (a), (d) and (h) have lapsed while (b}, (f), (g) and (e) are allowed to continue for a total of four alcohol CUPs for the food court. Chair Olsen asked why it is not three CUPs instead of four since Wolfgang Puck uses two spaces, but is one entity. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum cautioned Chair Olsen from discussing this subject because the space for Wolfgang Puck (Spaces F/G) is not before the Commission. Commissioner Dad commented that Conditions #18 and #16 specify different numbers of permitted alcohol outlets in the food court. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the Conditions are from the original CUP 92-007, but can be amended. Chair Olsen asked staff whether Wolfgang Puck has one or two licenses for alcohol. Ms. Keene explained that Puck leases two spaces with two separate CUPs, but probably only one State Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) alcohol license. She stated that the original CUP could be amended to say one space and one CUP. Planning Commission May 2, 2D01 Chair Olsen asked about the issue of the required railing. Ms. Keene stated that the railings are required adjacent to the public passageway and per ABC requirements. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Alexander when Sushi Shogun opened. Mr. Alexander stated that the establishment opened in June 2000. Commissioner Johnson commented on the security plan and asked if there has been any Police activity related to this establishment. Mr. Alexander stated that none of the establishments in the food court have had any problems regarding alcohol usage. Commissioner Johnson asked about the requirement for railings and the issue of accessibility. Mr. Alexander stated that he feels there is not enough clearance to install the required railings. He then commented on the placement of the railings on the ground floor level and that if the ABC requires the railings, they will be installed somehow. Commissioner Dad asked if alcohol is only sold with food. Mr. Alexander stated that that is correct. Chair Olsen asked staff if they had any comments. Ms. Keene expressed concern with the width of the passageway and any conditions regarding the barrier. She stated that staff needs to review the statistics for the small space. Lastly, she stated that ultimately the applicant must meet the ABC requirements. Chair Olsen asked if staff is recommending the change in language for Condition #17. Ms. Keene stated that a change is indicated, however it must be reviewed. Ms. Frick stated for the record that the second alcohol permit for the Wolfgang Puck space cannot be eliminated as it would violate the ABC permit and it authorizes the use of alcohol in that space of the food court. Chair Olsen expressed some confusion. Mr. Alexander explained that the lease for each food service space is written with the specific space designation attached, i.e. spaces A-H, even if two spaces are leased to one tenant. Chair Olsen asked what would happen if Wolfgang Puck's downsized to one space, would a new tenant get to use the alcohol CUP. Ms. Frick stated they would if they are able to comply with the CUP for the site, but would need to come before the Commission to amend the alcohol CUP. Commissioner Brown made a motion for approval of CUP 00-025 per the staff report and with the deletion of Condition #16 on page ten of the staff report. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. He suggested two conditions: the elimination of CUP(g), pending review of ABC issues; and a condition requiring follow-up inspection of the conditions of approval. Commissioner Brown reminded Commissioner Johnson that the Wolfgang Puck spaces cannot be considered in this hearing. Commissioner Johnson withdrew his first condition. Planning Commission May 2, 2001 Chair Olsen asked if the motion includes Condition #17. He suggested adding wording that no railing be required for the 16 counter seats in tenant space (e). Commissioner Dad announced she will vote against the motion because of various reasons, including amendment of Condition #17. There was discussion regarding the motion, specifically Condition #17. Commissioner Brown stated that there is no legal reason to deny the application. Commissioner Clarke asked what business was there before Sushi Shogun. Commissioner Johnson stated it was a coffee bar. Commissioner Clarke commented on the requirement for a barrieradjacentto every table. This led into a discussion of barriers, their placement and what constitutes a table or counter. Commissioner Brown suggested that the counter be considered a table for the purposes of Condition #17. Chair Olsen continued with a discussion on the Wolfgang Puck double space. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the overall CUP is for the consumption of alcohol in the food court, the individual CUPs are for alcohol sales and service. Mr. Trevino pointed out that the overall CUP is for the 400 seats allowed in the entire food court and that the 16 bar seats in Sushi Shogun are part of that 400 seat count. Commissioner Dad commented that she is not satisfied with the language of Condition #17, although she found Commissioner Brown's comments good. She noted that the counter faces away from the passageway and the stools act as a barrier. She suggested that language be added to indicate that the seats constitute a barrier, which she could support. She also commented that she does not share the concerns regarding the Wolfgang Puck CUPs. Following more discussion on the barrier issue, Commissioner Johnson made a motion to amend the language of Condition #17 to read that the barrier will be on the side of the counter. There was no second to the motion. Commissioner Brown commented on Condition #17. She stated that rails define the space of the tenant as do the positioning of the chair toward the counter in Space E. She argued that the intent of the railing condition is met by the configuration of the counter and seating. She suggested alternative language that "the chairs facing the counter in Space E meet this requirement." The motion was approved by the following vote: AYES: Brown, Clarke, Dad, Johnson, Olsen; ABSENT: Loui, Moyle. 7-B. Conditional Use Permit 00-035 1299 Ocean Avenue, RVC (Residential-Visitor Commercia~ District Application for a Conditional Use Permit to permit an existina 917 square foot tenant space located at the ground level of a commercial buildinq to be utilized as qeneral office space This request will modify CUP 97-011 which ~ermitted the conversion of a qround level retail/restaurant space to an office use. (Planner Jean M. Moore AICP~Applicant: Equity OfFice Properties. Planning Commission May 2, 2001 Following the stafF report, the Commission made their disclosures about this application. Chair Olsen disclosed that he visited the site on May 2, 2001, at approximately 4:40 p.m. No other Commissioners had anything of substance to disclose. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated for the record that unless the Commissioner has something of substance to declare about this particular application they may remain silent in terms of disclosure. The applicant's representative and attorney, Elizabeth Strahlstrom, was present to discuss the application. Commissioner Dad asked Ms. Strahlstrom how long the previous restaurant was at this location. Ms. Strahlstrom stated that the prior restaurant was a tenant for 13 years. She also stated that a second floor tenant wishes to rent the ground floor space for office use. One member of the public, Art Harris of the Downtown Area Residents Association, was present to comment on the proposal. Chair Olsen closed the public hearing. Ms. Schachter clarified for the Commission that when the Text Amendment was applied for in 1997, space was reserved for an intended food service such as a cafe. She stated that the current application is seeking to amend the 1997 plans. Chair Olsen expressed concern regarding the change of use. Ms. Strahlstrom waived her rebuttal time. Commissioner Johnson asked staff if the proposed change would change the parking requirements for the building. Ms. Moore stated that this is a non-issue for this application as there was never a parking variance associated with the development. She also stated for the record that the last restaurant to occupy space in this building closed five years ago. Commissioner Clarke commented favorably on the prior restaurant use for the building (Caf~ Casino). He stated his inclination to deny the CUP because he would prefer a restaurant use and his distress that the space would become office space. Commissioner Dad expressed her agreement with Commissioner Clarke. She stated that nothing in the application meets the goals of the General Plan, the Land Use Element orthe Zoning Ordinance requirements forthe downtown area and the RVC district. She stated that more offices are not wanted. She asked staff about the use of the first 25 feet of the ground floor. Ms. Moore stated that area of the ground floor in question is not within the street frontage area. Commissioner Johnson made a motion to approve the application. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. Planning Commission May 2, 2001 Chair Olsen expressed his agreement with the comments made by Commissioners Clarke and Dad. He stated that the prior restaurant use was the last food service to the north on Ocean Avenue. He also stated it was a nice amenity in an unfriendly area. He stated that he could not support the motion. Commissioner Clarke stated that he could not agree with the following findings: {2) that the district would not be impaired by the approval and (5) that a restaurant use is a historic use in the RVC at this location. Commissioner Johnson withdrew his motion. Commissioner Clarke made a motion to deny the application based on the findings stated previously. Commissioner Dad seconded the motion. Ms. Frick asked if the motion includes the inability to make Finding #9. Commissioner Clarke agreed. Commissioner Brown commented that the points made by her fellow Commissioners were excellent. She stated that she loved Cafe Casino also, but it is not returning. She noted that there is only 850 square feet available for food service which will be difficult to lease. Chair Olsen commented that there is still lots of exterior (patio) space available for outdoor dining and seating. Chair Olsen asked staff about the current use of the space. Ms. Moore stated her belief that the space was vacant. Chair Olsen stated that when he visited the site this date, the space was filled with office equipment. He asked if this is permitted. Ms. Frick stated that such use would be questionable, however the space is currently not leased. CommissionerClarke suggested thatthe space could be used fora sandwich shop. The motion to deny the project was approved by the following vote: AYES: Brown, Clarke, Dad, Johnson, Olsen; ABSENT: Loui, Moyle. [The Commission took a break from 9:43 p.m. to 10:05 p.m.] 8. COMMUNICATIONS: A. Planning Commission Caselist B. Cumulative Development Projects List C. Projects List (G) DISCUSSION: Items continued from April 18, 2001 9-A. Discussion of Planninq Commission Priorities for Fiscal Year 2001-2002. Items 9-A and 9-B were heard as one item. Planning Commission May 2, 2001 9-B. Discussion of code compliance ~ractices and procedures by Planninq Staff and clarification of Planninq Commissioner's obligations and ability to carrv out those obligations in relationship to code compliance. Requested by Chair Olsen, via e- mail, April 23. 2001. For Item 9-A, Ms. Frick stated that the Commission was given a copy of the Planning and Community Development Priorities Fiscal Year 2000-2001 for review. The following members of the public addressed the Commission regarding priorities and code compliance issues: Ellen Brennan of the South Beach Neighbors Association, Chuck Allord of Neighbors for a Safer Santa Monica, and Art Harris of the Downtown Area Residents Association. Chair Olsen suggested that the Commission discuss the list first. For the record, City Council Liaison McKeown noted that we are currently in the Fourth Quarter. Ms. Frick stated that the list given the Commission will be updated at the end of May forthe City Council budget hearings. Mr. Trevino cited projects already begun such as the Noise Element update, Child Care Nexus Study, Art Nexus Study, Auto Dealer Study, and Circulation Element update. Commissioner Brown commented on her approach to the provided material and stated one of her priorities would be the Code Enforcement. Commissioner Dad also stated hertop priority would be Code Enforcement followed by traffic issues such as the Circulation Element and the Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) updates. Commissioner Johnson commented on the complaint level numbers and how his personal priority list is for the enforcement of hedge heights and sign violations, which are low on the overall compliance list. He expressed the need to do outreach to the neighborhood groups regarding Code Enforcement. He suggested that hedge height and other such regulatory information be sent out to raise awareness, be pro- active and increase cooperation. Chair Olsen asked Building Official Timothy McCormick to give a brief summary of the talk he gave at the prior hearing, including the status of code enforcement and figures. Mr. McCormick complied with the request. He stated that annually approximately 2200 complaints are received and the current staff capacity can handle approximately 1400 cases per year. He further stated that Code Enforcement personnel begins with life safety issues, then moves down a prescribed priority list. Ms. Frick added that the numbers refer to complaints received, not proactive enforcement action. Commissioner Dad asked what telephone number should be called to register complaints. Mr. McCormick stated that the telephone number is 458-8355, and the voice mailbox for Code Compliance is #2. He explained that the new telephone system will hold a huge amount of calls to be answered in rotation and people may have to hold as long as 15 minutes. Planning Commission May 2, 2001 Commissioner Dad asked if this telephone number is included in the new "City Hall On-Call" flyer. Mr. McCormick replied in the affirmative and stated that after hours, the telephone line is transferred to the Police Department if one does not want to leave a message. Chair Olsen asked if the Police Department personnel know how to answer Code Compliance calls. Mr. McCormick stated that the Building and Safety Division's voice mail "after hours" recording alerts callers to the option of being transferred to the Police Department or leaving a message. The calls are routed to Police Dispatch. Commissioner Dad asked if callers are expected to leave their names when they complain. Mr. McCormick stated that many complaints are made anonymously or with only a first name. Unfortunately, staff cannot respond to the complainant if no name, address or telephone number is left with the complaint. He also stated that staff's concern is whether the complaint is valid, not who makes the complaint. Chair Olsen asked again whether the Police Department is aware of the telephone message system for complaints and their expected response. Mr. McCormick stated that this has been the practice for two years. He also stated that there are Code Enforcement personnel on duty after hours some days of the week. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. McCormick to respond to his earlier idea regarding the use of neighborhood groups for spreading information. Mr. McCormick stated that he would be pleased to attend any such meetings and inform neighbors about enforcement issues. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. McCormick if he felt this would be an important role. Mr. McCormick stated that contact with the community is very important and many issues can be resolved between parties in such situations. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. McCormick if he had a percentage figure for how many instances people simply did not know the rules as regards an enforcement action. Mr. McCormick stated that he did not have a percentage figure, however once people are made aware of violations, compliance is usually done quite quickly. Commissioner Johnson suggested the preparation of information papers for the most common types of violations i~ order to raise awareness. Mr. McCormick stated that would be an excellent idea. He also stated that he has already begun looking in to the use of the City's "Seascape" publication for dispersing information. Lastly, Mr. McCormick explained that for the purposes of enforcement, the City has been divided into five areas using a GIS data base of complaints by location, and each area is assigned a dedicated Code Enforcement person handling the complaints for that area. Chair Olsen thanked Mr. McCormick for his input. Chair Olsen then commented on the prior meeting's discussion, specifically the City Attorney's direction about the Commission's ability to interact in the complaint process and issues of due process. He expressed his prior frustration and asked for further explanation as to why a 9 Planning Commission May 2, 2001 Commission may not follow-up on a complaint. He noted that some issues and complaints are not connected to addresses with Conditional Use Permits (CUPs). He then expressed the need for checks and balances for the public. Ms. Frick stated that the complaint procedure includes response to the complainant when a name and telephone number or address is given. This would include when a Commissioner makes a complaint. The concern lies in the appearance that the Commission could influence staff. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the City Attorney has no desire to subvert Code Enforcement activities. He explained that he spends many hours writing draft ordinances and wants to see them enforced when they become law. He also stated that the City Attorney, Marsha Jones Moutrie, is a big proponent of Code Enforcement. That said, Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum cautioned the Commission that legal bias may occurwhen discussion leans toward specific sites. He stated that the current discussion is quite appropriate and that his concern is due process. On the issue of complaint process, Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum recommended that if a Commissioner wants to follow-up on the status of a complaint, this should be done through the Department head, not through direct contact with Code Enforcement. He stated that if the investigation is not proceeding, then go the City Manager and City Council. He commented that if there is no CUP for a site, then there are other penalties, remedies and mechanisms to ensure compliance. Chair Olsen stated his understanding that such a follow-up would be inappropriate according to what Ms. Frick had said earlier. Ms. Frick stated that debate on Code Enforcement issues is inappropriate, but the status of a complaint will be provided. Information beyond the status is inappropriate. Chair Olsen explained his views on the planning process as regards Code Enforcement, and cited frustrations and suspicions voiced by residents. He commented on his perception of the change in culture needed from inaction to a commitment to Code Enforcement by the City Council and Commission. Commissioner Johnson commented that this is a work in progress and there is no quick fix to the problems of Code Enforcement. He stated that a direction needs to be set beginning with prioritizing enforcement and following with on-going oversight with regular reports. He suggested a follow-up in four to six weeks. He then commented on the need to fix things like broken sidewalks to reduce the risks to the City and residents. Commissioner Johnson suggested that Public Works, employees in the field and Police and Fire personnel work together and funnel observations back to Code Enforcement. Commissioner Clarke commented on the enormity of tracking all the information and the number of employees it will take to reduce the backlog. Commissioner Brown asked what the Commission can realistically do to resolve these problems (management and staffing). Commissioner Johnson suggested a letter to City Council outlining staffing and equipment needs. Chair Olsen commented that the City Manager needs to know. io Planning Commission May 2, 2001 Commissioner Dad commented on the sense of frustration in the community regarding enforcement issues. She stated that the Commission is now focused on the issue and she believes the City Council is also focused on enforcement. She related her history of activism in the City and changes over the years. She concluded by stating that the City needs to regain the trust of the community as regards Code Enforcement. City Council Liaison McKeown commented that it is difficult to ask staff to react to political situations as are being described here. He noted that May is budget preparation month and the Council wants to help, but needs information. He noted that this year has had the largest increase of staff since the 1980s. He commented that increase staff leads to the problem of where to house them, which is a challenge. City Council Liaison McKeown concluded by saying that the Commission's political message is being heard loud and clear and suggested that the Commission work with staff to achieve the resource goals desired. Chair Olsen agreed with City Council Liaison McKeown's comments and expressed the hope that the entire Commission is committed to solving the Code Enforcement situation. Commissioner Dad suggested that two Commissioners (Olsen and Moyle) draft a letter to the City Council regarding funding needs and department priorities. Ms. Frick asked that the letter clearly state the priories for resource allocation and cite specific priority areas such as pro-active sign enforcement, complaint backlog and substandard housing issues. Chair Olsen stated that livability is the number one priority for himself. Commissioner Dad agreed. Ms. Frick suggested other enforcement issues such a fence heights, outdoor displays and other complaint driven enforcement issues. Other areas cited by the Commission were the timely resolution of complaints (Clarke); quality of life issues such as substandard housing and noise (Olsen); and enough staffing so the complaint backlog can be reduced and complaints can be responded to in a timely manner (Clarke). City Council Liaison McKeown stated that it appears the Commission's end goal is compliance. Chair Olsen asked staff if a vote is needed on this discussion. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum recommended that there should be a vote to authorize the drafting of the letter to City Council. Commissioner Dad made a motion to have Chair Olsen and Commissioner Moyle draft a letter to the City Council citing the Commission's priorities for PCD as Code Enforcement and with the political message of commitment. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. ii Planning Commission May 2, 2001 Chair Olsen asked that Commissioner Clarke be included in the letter writing. Commissioner Dad agreed to this. The motion was approved by voice vote. [Commissioners Brown left at 12:02 a.m.] 9-C. Citywide Traffic Issues. Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) and Circulation Element. Repuested bv Commissioner Dad on December 13. 2000. ACTION: ISSUE COVERED UNDER ITEMS 9-A AND 9-B. 9-D. Establishing duration limits for certain types of Conditional Use Permits. Requested L.. /~L_:_ l~l___ . _:1 ~A___L /_~ ~11~/~A uy ~nau visen via e-riian, iviarcn o, cvv i. ACTION: ITEM WITHDRAWN. 9-E. Landscaping in M-1 District and ancillary landscape to provide staffwith direction nn 7nninn nrrlinanr.a mnr~ifiratinnc RA(111PCtA(I hv (:nmmissinnar _Inhncnn nn _.. __.....~ _._..._..__ ...__...___._.._. . --~------ -, -_......._..._.._. .._.......... ..,. March 7 and March 21, 2001. CommissionerJohnson began this discussion item, howeverCommissionerClarke stateci thai he neeciecJ to leave which resultecJ in ihe lack oi a quorum. ACTION: CONTINUED TO MAY 16, 2001. 9-F. Request of Chair Olsen to discuss scheduling a study session with planning staff and a representative from the police department regarding clarification and interpretation of construction hours and governing regulations. Reauested via e- mail, April 10. 2001. ACTION: CONTINUED TO MAY 16, 2001. 10. FUTURE COMMISSION AGENDA ITEMS: None. 11. PUBLIC INPUT: None. 12. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 12:05 a.m., Thursday, May 3, 2001. iz FR~M : JRNE DEMPSEY PHONE N0. ~ 310 392 0066 Jun. 11 20a1 12:37PM P1 ~t~~ 70 ~RIENDSC~ ~ ~~' OHp~Sy~y~UfNSET PAIiK ~¢ y~ ?~ ~2~ ~,~~ ~-Mly,Yi1 L~'+~, ~:~~.S~4f«',~tl..:1'd}Y.. ~.n.e,~~'~w~:..'d f~i'.~.'~.~Jd~~~~rnd~oi .rva;ek#VFb».M~~n..sWk~t>, h7~.w:~.ik.'~aaf#:,.{..~'~:,<a»~A>d.0e:~,. ke',,.,,l.Wmd~.r~,~~~ ~~~i A ~w'~Ati. ... . T '`MY:~:.:. •ri` ~~ia~k A California non profrt corporation of Sunset Parlc residenu I lI2Z Oak Street, Santa Monrca, California 904Q5 •(3I0) 35$-7117 Presidenl: r~y x~gn~ Vice President: Emmalie FTodgin Secretary: Suzanne Shellaby T~easurer.• Jane Dempsey Directors: Karen Comegys Caroline Denyex 7ina Joscphs Cathy Txzson Colin Maduzia June 91, 2001 Santa Moni~a City Caunci! FAX (3 ~OJ 458- 962 9 Page 1 of 4 RE: City Council Meeting June 12, 2009 Aqenda item 10A - Planning Commission letter ~egarding Planning Department priorities in ihe upcaming budget Dear Mayor Fernstein and City Counci/members, Per the attached /et2ers, the Board of Directors of Friends af Sunset Park voted unanimausly to support the position ihat th8 number of code enforcement officers should be increased from two to at /east four in the upcoming City budget. We hope that the City Council understands how important code enforcemenr is for the qua/ify of life of residents of the City and considers this request, S~ cer y, r ,Ja e Dempse y reasurer Attachments: 3 pages FR~M : SRNE DEMPSEY PHONE N0. : 310 392 0066 Jun. 11 2601 12~37PM P2 PAGE 91 66l11/20Q1 12:49 316a505961 ' ~RIENDS Ca OF BUNSET PARK ~x~ ~&~° .'°i~#~`~:~'~" ~~i.~n~:~i:a~:i~?:~vii:~.:a ~<~~.3~'~F:t~`~n.: • .. . . .,,. ~?~'^.e4`.~~q`u" ~ .. . . . , „~ .. ~, A Calffomta non-p~'oJir corporarlon af Sunsec Park -atidents l122 Ocrk Stra¢t, Stmra Monica, CqlEfornia g04D5 ~(310) 39&7117 May 30, 2001 ' PrarideRk KathY Knigh~ Vlc~ Prerident: Emmalie Hodgin Secnfary: 5uunna Shellaby rn~~: lanc nomPgey Illnatvn: x~. c~~~g Ceroline F7enyer Zlna Joeepha Kachy Lazwn Cflli~ Maduaia Ms_ Susan McCaRhy Giry Manager City oP Santa Monica 1@85 Meln SG Santa Monica, CA 80407-220d Dear Ms. McCarthy: i Friends of 5unset Park ls wri~ing lhis letter to inform you th~at we suppoft the pcsition of ihe North of Montana Association that the n~mber of new coda enfor~ement officers should be increasad from two t at leas# four in the upcoming Gity budget. We deaperately need this, be use as was brought out by NOMA in the M~y 3, ZOQ1 meating with the LA City Planning Oept., buifders are buildi~g oade ~violations into m ny homes_ We h2ve first hand knowledQa that building contractors do ot think the Clty of Santa M~nic~ will enforce tlleir building codes. ~ We understand fr~om that meeting th~t vlolations cf life-1 recelve prlonty first, as !t should be. But the lack of ~v~ puts 5uilding code violations doWn to pdority number 3, many are n@vsr dealt with. The City recsived approxii violation complafnts last yea~, hut with their limited pers only handle approxlmately ~t400. Thank you for your attention to thls matter. Sincerely, J!~ r ~~~~ U c Kethy Knight, Presi ent Cc: Members of the City Council Suzanne ~~ick Tlm McCormick tenln~ stature e personnel therefore, ly 2200 code ~I they couid Jun. 11 2001 12:38PM P3 FROM : JRNE DEMPSEY PHONE N0. : 310 392 0066 PAGE 02 05;1112061 12:49 3104505961 ~ N 0 R T H O F M 0 N T A N A p 8 B O G I A T i O N . A CA4IFORNIh NON•PROFIY PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORA IOW 29 May 2001 Ms. 5usan McCarthy City Ma~ager City oF Santa Manica, CA , Dear Ms. ~vicCarthy; On Thursday, May 3, 2441, aeveral repres~tatives from four neighbarizood o ganizations, (4PC0, Wilslure-Montana, NOMA, and Ftxends of Sunsa Park) naet with M yor Michael Feinstein e,nd representat~ves from the 3a~ta Monica Aepartnoent of Pianaing d Co~n.tnuuity Dev~topment (Suzanue Fz~ck, 'Tay Treviuo, Tun McGozmick and Lucy Dyke). The discussion touched on sevetal topics of conccm to the aeighborhood gsoups. One znajflr npie was our concern abvut code emforcemeat, specifically that the city is ~,ot doing au ade ate job in this area.. , We were told that the city rooeived some 2,200 ce~p(aints for ~ade violations last yea~ but only b.ad resources to take appropriate ~ction on 1,400 of these coutplaints. The vo e of complairtts over the last two yeairs hsa doizbled from the amount reeeivod pzi~r to that ~er od. Ther~e ara only five full-titne employees wk~o imrestigate code violations, The discrepancy betweer~ demends add resources is currently beiru, handtad by ~ssqgair~g each complaint a priazi#y number, ras~,ging &pm oae to five: • Pniarity one: emergencies that ~ust be responded to immerliately. • Priority two; Code violations regarding sub-standard I~ousimg, ovar-crowdi etc. • Priority Tb.cee: Quality of life concerns, sueh as auto repaur shap t~oise, or o- hovzs co~attuction. ' • kriority Four: Zoning violatioz~8 tege~rdin~g misuso of land, etc_ • Pziority Five: D1ega1 use of signs, aidewa3ks for display, etc. Currently, the department o~ly has reaources to inveatigate priority one, two, an same griority' three vzol$tions. Prior;ty fow and ~ve violations are e$ldam if ever enfo~ced. PMB 516 • 1 OOl MOMTAMq AVENUE • BANTA MONICA • CA + I9O403 (310) A61•174! • 8MNoMA~~9~.COM FROM : JANE DEMPSEY PHONE N0. : 310 392 6066 Jun. 11 2001 12:38PM P4 06/11/2061 12:a9 31e4505961 -Z- We expressed our concem tb,~t beceuse violatiotls in some categories are r some people who own property aad manage businesses in auz com~mvnity adhere to our aonung codes. PAGE 93 res~onded to, they don't meed to- We are told chat the bvdget now being pxepared for submittal to tlie city cou cil contain~ proviai~n for two more code enf`orcement officers. Wi,th eac~ eode enfo~ce ut actaon requiring aearly one person-day, that wili not even cover the prescat shortfall (about 8 0 c~m~]ainrs per year riot noW beuig addressed). Nothir-g oould be dono for the present 6ackl of ua-processed complaints, aor could the staffcope rouith an anticipated &rowth i,n rate of ea plaiAts. We urgeutly recommend that you ir-crease the budggt provisioz~ far additio code enfazcement o~cers from the present two to at least fovr, A total sttt~'af nine code ez~ffor mem of~ce~s is ihe Aninimu~m ihat can cope wi~.h ihe grawing rate of eomplai,ats, m,uch iess begin o addtess tho ~resent backiog. We recognize that budget resuwrces are limited, ~nd that tk~e additioa we rec ea,d will requirc pruaing something eZse in the plsuued budget £ox tho next fiscal year. We do ~t prattind to h~ve the scope of lcnowledge about city flnances ta ea~b1~ us ta reeommea3 spee' c cute that would enabte funding the additional code entoxcement o~icers. We do have tk~e stro g convic2ion that enfnrcement of current codes ia the city must aurely ba ~ugh on the ]ist of cxty rriozities. R~ithout strong enforcement we are at xhe z~aercy of a11 thoae wha vialate the codes, ei er tkuough ignorance or aggressive intent. Cordially youzs; The fiaceauta~e Cpmmictee of the NOMA Board of b~xectoxs Victor Fresco Gi1,es Smith D~ris Sasin Copies: Membezs of tb,c City Council Suzac-ne Fack Tim 3blcConmick ( V ~ 1" To: City Council Members 6-12-01 From: Jerry Bass and Stephanie Barbanell Re: Code Compliance should be a priority and more staff should be assigned to this issue. --What is the point of having codes if there is no one to enforce them, --Do eodes not need to be enforced on weekends and every other Friday? --Didn't the police state over 10 years ago, that due to their staff limitations, they would not do CUP condition and code compliance enforcement, according to the draft city wide alcohol policy? --If we can afford 20 + enforcement officers to write citations and fine violators whose only crime it is, is to occupy space too long- --Then we shouid be able to afford that many enforcement agents to write citations and fine violators who would do damage to the public health, safety and welfare and the fragile environment by willfully violating CUP conditions and other city ordinances by way of their activity during and after construct+on. --No code enforcement=no protection --No financial damages/work stoppages, business closures, permit revocations=no deterrence --I encourage you to increase the # of code enforcement officers, --Make them available 24/7 --and finance them through rigorous enforcement and fines for code compliance violations.