sr-102781-10aOCT 2 7 1981
Santa Monica, California, Octo'aer 27, 1981
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT:. Transmittal of Development Permit Process and Neighbor-
hood Planning Task Force Recommendations
Introduction
GVe are pleased to transmit to you the Development Permit Process
and Neighborhood Planning Citizens Task Force's recommendations
for modification of the City's permit process and the Planning
Commission's comments on those recommendations.
.Background
As a result of committee work over a two-month period, including
a Task Force level public hearing, the Citizens Tasl: Force
unanimously agreed upon ten recommendations for City Council
consideration. Those recommendations are in keeping with what
was charged to the Task Force by your body as well as being in
agreement with the state law that requires that each city create
a single administrative entity to review all permit applications
for residential development. The recommendations (Attachment I)
range from tine publication of easy to use ,and simplified-develop-
ment guidebooks and ttie reassessment of variance criteria to the
creation of a staff development concept review committee.
Review :Results
On September 21, 1981 a public hearing on the Task Force's recom-
mendations was held before the City°s Planning Commission. As a
OCT 2 9 1984?
Mayor and City Council
-2- October 13, 19$1
result of the public hearing, at which no mems~ers of the public
other than Task Force members came forward to speak on the
recommendations, the Planning Commission took basically tine
following positions:
1. Guidebooks--support concept.
2. Publication of policy changes--do not support idea.
3. DTotification of tenants within 300' of development--
support idea and add Architectural Review IIoard into
concept.
4. Public member on staff Environmental Review Committee--
do not support concept as it is in conflict with the
City S9anager form of government.
5. Architectural Review Board codification of criteria--
do not support as it should be left to the Architec-
tural Review Board°s discretion.
6. Self-supporting permit services--support.
7. Future review of Permit Process---support.
8. Centralized Counter--the Commission could not reach.
agreement on the cost effectiveness of the computer
aspect of the Centralized Counter concept; therefore
no consensus on the whole concept.
9. Staff concept review--support.
10. Project compliance--support with additions.
Recommendation
It is respectfully recommended that- the Task Force proposals be
referred to staff for a report on administrative recommendations
and implementation program.
Prepared by: Joseph Fisenhut
JF, : lk
Attachments: Task Force Report
Mi.rutes (9/21/81) .
(8/27/81); Planning Commission
ATTACHMENT I
SANTA P.40NICA
DEVELOPPZENT PERP~tIT PROCES° AND NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING
TASK FORCE
DATE: August 27, 1981
T0: Santa D4onica City Council and Planning Commission
FROM: Task Force on Permit Process and Neighborhood Planning
SUBJECT: Report on Permit Process
The Task Force respectfully submits the attached report on the
permit process, the first of the two tasks entrusted to it.
The purpose of this letter of transmittal is to describe our
work to date.
The task force has met eight times since it was established,
each meeting lasting approximately two and a half hours.
Attendance was very good. ~Ve decided at an early stage to
concentrate our efforts first on the permit process, both in
order to meet the mandate of state law (California Government
Code §. 65913.3) to create a "single administrative entity" to
review "all application and permits for residential development"
and in order to comply with the September 1 deadline set by
the City Council with respect to those matters most immediately
relevant to the moratorium.
we began by familiarizing ourselves with the permit process
governing development in Santa t:Ronica. Staff provided us with
pertinent ordinances, regulations, and forms and prepared flow
charts. Staff also distributed materials from the American
Planning Association and the California Office of Planning and
Research. In addition, we heard extensive testimony from:
James Mount (.architect), Ray P.4ulokas (architect and developer),
Greg Broughton (planning consultant), Don Prochnow (Architectural
Review Board), Rex Oberbeck (Planning Department), Bill Rome
(Building Department), and Paul Silvern (_Architectural Review Board).
Our recommendations are predicated on the existing regulations
for land use development ih Santa Monica. If the proposals by
the two other task forces are implemented by the City Council
and the Planning Commission, in whole or in part, the situation
will change dramatically. jVe therefore urge that the permit
process be re-examined within six months after action has been
taken on the recommendations of the other task forces to see
whether further changes are necessary or desirable in order to
encourage and expedite development while ensuring that it complies
with city guidelines. That examination could be conducted by
the Planning Department or by this task force.
.r City Council and ~anning Commission August 27, 1981
We are now beginning work on our second task--neighborhood
planning. Because this issue is extremely open-ended, '
pol.it:ically sensitive, and complex we expect to take several
months to study it. [Ve hope to be able to submit our final report
to the City Council and the Planning Commission by the end of
the year.
This letter would not be complete without an acknowledgement
of the invaluable assistance the task force received from its
two staff members: .Dennis :~uilliam and Joseph Eisenhut of the
Planning Department. They guided us in the selection of witnesses,.
provided a great deal of essential documentation, answered our
endless questions, prepared each meeting (complete with agenda
and minutes), and in many other ways ensured the smooth running
of our work.. Their contribution to this report is incalculable.
RE COA4rdENDAT I ONS
o.f
CITI7,ENS TASK FORCE
ADOPTED AUGUST 20 1981 ,
The Santa Pdonica City Council created the Task Force on Development
Permit Process and Neighborhood Planning to;
a) Review permit process in the City, with the objectives
of maintaining efficient internal review while streamlining the
process to the extent .feasible.
b) Develop proposals for a planning process for individual
neighborhoods and areas.
The following recommendations have beeh prepared by the Task Force
and pertain only to streamlining the permit process. Recommendations
on neighborhood planning will be formulated at a later date.
1) It is recommended that Guidebooks on Development Permits
Procedures be prepared;
A. Purpose: Up-to-date written materials provide clear
explanations of the permit process and city requirements,
thereby. reducing uncertainty and confusion regarding
specific design criteria, time frames, departmental
responsibilities, and zoning and other requirements.
B. Develop guide books for each permit procedure:
1. Residential development: A guidebook for residential
.:.development, possibly divided into two parts, one for
r!multiple residential units, single residential develop-
;ment and condominium conversion; and the other for
alterations, would assist applicants in assembling the
necessary plans, documents and approvals in order to
process a relatively simple permit application.
2. ^4ixed-use development;
3. Commercial development; ,
4. Industrial development:
T4ixed-use, commercial, and industrial development guides
would assist professionals by putting into practical
terms local development criteria as established by city
ordinance. These guides should be well illustrated, and
organized according to zoning requirements.
_1_
.- y..' -.
5. Architectural Review Board guidelines for signs.
6. Environmental Impact Report: Summarize EIR process with
flow chart. This guide is a low priority, as there
was only one EIR required in Santa Monica last year,
Both the A-RB and EZR permit processes would be
referenced in outline form in the other permit
process guides, with special attention to the
particular impact of EIR and ARB requirements
on each of those procedures.
C. Guides should include the following information where
appropriate:
1. Simple explanations of procedures with flow charts; _
2. Selected ordinance sections, including applicable
zoning requirements;
3. Appropriate sample forms;
4, Complete list 'of all permits needed with checklists of
information requirements for each;
5. Of #'icial time frames and deadlines with typical or
average processing times;
6. Directories of elected and appointed officials which
include descriptions of review agencies, names and
_. phone numbers of responsible personnel, and the
organizational structure of departments;
7, Fee schedules;
8. Parking design standards;
9, Glossary;
1p, A summ~.ry of precedents established in past ARB decisions,
which describe design criteria applicable to each
permit procedure;
11. Lands capi:~g criteria, including those developed by
the APB; _
12, Puhlic safety requirements, e.g.: exterior lighting,
double tumbler locks, smoke detectors;
D. Guidebooks should be formulated with it,put from local
homeowners' associations, neighborhood organizations, `~
local architects, engineers, developers, city departments
and commissions, including the ARB and othex•s affected.
The Planning Department should have primary responsibility
for preparation of the guidebooks; consultants, who
specialize in such guidebooks, may be utilized to assist in
their preparation, to the extent warranted by conditions
in the Planning Department such as heavy workloads. The
Permit Task Force should be designated as the advisory
body to oversee the preparation of the guidebooksr
Guidebooks should be updated periodically, with recent
additions published in the to cal paper. Separate guidebooks
are advisable as each is directed towards disparate.
constituencies in varying numbers, Guidebooks should be
developed as cheaply and practically as possible, without
sacrificing quality, and should be sold at cost.
2) It is recommended that departmental and City Council policy
changes, including potential policy changes, where feasible,
regarding development of private property, shall be published
at a set time every month, as needed, e.g.: the 1st Fi 3rd
Friday of each month, in accordance with normal city procedures.
Such policy changes are to be cleared through the City P4anager
before being published.
3) Wherever a developer is presently required to give notice to
all owners within 300' of parcel, developer should be required
to give notice to all tenants within 300'. as well. P,4any
tenants are as significantly affected by development,
especially where the owner is absentee. Mechanisms for
notification will be formulated when neighborhood planning _
procedures are considered by the task force.
4) It is recorrunended that a lay person, with interest `and experience
in environmental matters be appointed to the Environmental
Quality Review Committi:e to review EIA's. To the extent
feasible, it is desirable to have some type of representation
of neighborhoods being. affected by a proposal. The Task force
will develop more specific recommendations on this representation
at a later date.
5) The ARB should attempt to codify or restate its criteria on the
basis of prior decisions, and to summarize important decisions ____
which help to clarify those criteria. The ARB should also
examine the possibility of allowing staff counter approval of
selected permit applications and should identify the types of
development and signs, or establish criteria, for which such
ministerial approval would be appropriate.
_3_
,.'
6) The City Council has many times reaffirmed the principle that
city functions ought to be self-supporting. This is certainly
true for .the permit process (both approving plans and enforcing
compliance), Each city department involved in the process^
ought to calculate the costs of its involvement, broken down
by type of permit 'and city function performed. These should
be aggregated to determine cost of each permit. Such calcu-
lations should be made periodically since city functions
change, If the recommendations of this and other task forces
are accepted, the city may have to devote more resources to the
permit process; that should be taken into account in :fixing fees.
7) Future review of the permit process.
A, It is recommended that further review of the current
planning department permit process occur within 6 months
of the City Council adoption of recommendations, of the
Residential and Commercial Task Forces, which change the
overall planning procedure. The intent of this review, to
be conducted by staff and/or the Permit Task Force, will
be to respond to these changes by formulating recommendations
to streamline the permit process..
B. It is also reconunended that subsequent review include
consideration of the criteria .for Planning epartment/ _
Commission approval of special conditions such as adjust-
ments and variances. The Planning Department%Commission,
in conjunction with ihnut from the community of developers, '
should compile a list of unnecessary adjustments and
variances, such as those routinely granted, with the
intent of amending the Zoning Ordinance. by eliminating
unwarranted requirements. The following are Examples of
potential areas of change:
1. Eliminate need for adjustment for greenhouse windows in
;side/back yards;
2. Eliminate need for variance for greenhouse windows in
:front yards;
3. Eliminate need .for adjustment for up to 2' chimney
projections in side/back yards if yards are ~ 5 feet;
4. Eliminate reed for variance for up to 2' chimney
projections in front yards if yards are ~ 15 feet;
5. Eliminate need for adjustment if detached garage is
10' to 3' away from main building; and
6. Eliminate need for adjustment for solid platform fences
that are no more than 6 1/2' above grade.
_ -,
8) & 9) Recommendations on creating (8) a centralized counter service
and (9) a staff concept review conference for major projects.
Purpose: Provide the means to make application procedure
simpler and smoother by eliminating multiple stops at the
entry stage and by staff knowledge of large projects at the
entry stage.
.Although bottlenecks in the Santa blfonica permit process are
considered minor in comparison to other municipalities, the
development permit process may still be streamlined as
outlined by state law by providing a central point of contact
and by establishing a staff concept review conference process.
for major projects.
8) A Centralized Counter:'_
A streamlined permit processing system with a central counter
as a single point of intake for permit applications will be
staffed by cross-trained personnel from all involved departments
who will handle everything but the technical review of submitted
projects. This will still be performed by professionals in
the different departments. Counter staff will ansnrer ques-
tions about application procedures, collect application:> and
fees, route plans for review, and issue final permits. The
central counter will be the place where first time, users and
established businesspeople will go for general information.
The central counter is not meant to hinder any other procedures
that quicken the permit process system. Guidebooks on different
permit procedures will be available at this countex• along with
other pertinent materials.
The central coxznter personnel would be greatly aided by a
computer console with printout capabilities with a program to
hold application and land use information. This program will
`help developers discover where in the permit process or
construction process a project is, what items or information
are missing to allow the continued processing of reviews,
approvals, and inspections, and what legal issues might be
associated with a property. To overcome software expense,
it might be more feasible to phase the information into two
parts--information for the Planning Department and information
for the Building Department. _.
istablishing a central information and permit process counter
will require some reorganization within the city government
structure, a process already under way. It is recommended that
the existing Building Department be i^ charge of developin g
the centralized information counter concept with computer
capabilities as an integral part of its existing counter set-up ---
and that a six month report be prepared with recommendations for
future changes and phasing of computer capabilities. The
Building Department should be assisted by other departments,
including Data Processing, as well as outside consultants for
computer software, where required. sr
-5-
~~...,~
9) A Staff Concept Review Conference (see attached flowchart):
A staff concept review conference can provide the applicant
with a timely review of the development plans and a
preliminary screening to assess the probability of approval,
Benefits include reducing the number of applications with
errors and omnrissions, alleviating difficulties between
review staff and the applicant before expensive technical
materials are prepared, alerting developers to potential
obstacles ahead, and providing staff with extra lead time
to do homework when a project requires special studies,
legal opinions, etc.
Many large projects are often well. into the permit. process
before thay have been reviewed by all. the interested
agencies and departments. Unfortunately major projects
often meet with departmental, commission, or citizen.
reaction after large expenditures for designer time
and various fees have been made. At this point, adversary
relationships often develop between applicants, city
officials, and city residents.
It is recommended that all projects of new construction be
reviewed. Remodels which result in 300 additional square
feet, or more, or 20`io or greater increase in square footage
of the existing structure, will require review; remodels less
than these limits would be reviewed at the request of the
prospective applicant. These limits are intended~to tentatively
establish initial guidelines, subject to adjustment after further .
consideration and experience with reviewing these projects.
The staff concept review conference is a preliminary review
•step. The plans and ideas submitted should be sketch plans and
ideas"regarding land use, street and lot arrangement and size,
general building layout and choice of materials and design.
Discussion about minor issues that can be approved early is
encouraged brit. no formal signatures are to be expected
at this review.
The staff concept review conference process will be headed
by the Planning Director. The review committee shall
consist of the planning director and an assistant, a building
official, a fire official, and a general services official.
It is recommended that a six month report be prepared by the
review committee, detailing more specifically the appropriate
role of the concept review process, including the question of
whether the process is overly inclusive or under inclusive.
The review committee shall meet a minimum of every other week
at an appointed time. Minutes shall be kept as a record of
what has transpired. Its findings shall be advisory only,
.for the applicant may wish to pursue through the full permit
_.
process concepts that a:re not familiar to the city.
~~
_g_
i
The staff concept review conference will help streamline the
permit process by giving the developers a preliminary staff
opinion of proposed major projects. Too many projects area
into the commission review stage before being looked at
closely and end up causing delay by having to reappear at
various commission hearings, thereby wasting the time of
staff, commissione"rs, other applicants, and themselves.
10) Recommendations on project compliance with approved plans.
Purpose: To provide the city with the means to insure that
the completed project is in conformance with the approved
.plans.
A. It is recommended :that the city staff assign personnel:
to review completed projects and to review their
compliance with the approved package concerning site
and building layout, choice and use of materials, and
landscape installation.
B. It is recommended that all agencies and city departments
stamp and sign off a final set of plans, including, where
appropriate, but not limited to, the Architectural Review
Board, the Planning Commission, Traffic & Parking, and
Parks &, Recreation (Landscaping); where a Certificate
of Occupancy is required, all sign offs are to be obtained
before the Certificate is issued; where a performance bond '
is required, for any purpose, all sign offs must be obtained
• -before the bond can be released by the Building Officer,
upon completion of the project; the City shall use its
normal enforcement powers in all remaining situations.
,/j
_7_
,.
._ .
;31TT~1'CI~IMEI~YT S Z
REGULAR MEEl3~lG OF THE CITY PLANPdING COMMISSION
MOfdDAY9 SEP'CEMBER 21, 7987.. AT 7030 P,~~1.
IPd THE COUadCIL CWAMBER
1. The meeting was aa7led to order at ~~35 p>mo by Chairman Pro Tempore Kleffel.
2. ROLL CALLo Presenta
Robert K7effe7~
Susan Cloke
Prank Hotchkiss
7"isa McKee
Derek Shearer
Robert Su•17ivan
Chairman Pro Tempore
Absents Herbert Ka.t~s Jr.~ Chaiy~nan
Also Pa^esente ~etty7ou 8oravay8 Deputy Gity Attorney
James Lunsfordy Director of Planning.
Lyn. Kuh79 Secretaryg Planning Department
3~ The Pledge of Allegiance was Tod by ,Comsni,ssioner Hotchkiss.
4. The August 25y 7981 minaetes were approved on a motion b,~ Commissioner Hotohkiss,
seconded by Commissioner Shearer, sub~eat to correction of the first vote to change
Commissioner McKee.°s vote from Aye to Nays The vote Baas us~danimaus"iy favorable:
The August 3157981 minutes were unanimausiy approved on a motion by Commis
signer Sullivan and a second by Commissioner SYiearere
5o PUBLIC HEARINGSo
Ao Task Farce Recommendations.
The Commissian began review of the recommendai;•ions ,o{ %he Permie Processing
and Neighborhood Planning Task Force. Directow Lansford suggested that the staff
report be given by either Joseph Eisenhut or Dennis Qu•il7iamy Planning staff members
who had worked as stafr" liaisons 'for this task forced Mr. Eisenhut spoke first
and introduced the acting chairpes°sons Sara Faulds. She Hated two separate goals
of this .task force.. to deve7ap a streamlined permit praress and to develop a
process far neighborhood planninge She noted a77 €rf the membea~°s veers unanimously
in approv~7 of the resulting recammendations.and in the€r appreciation of the aid
jives by staff 77aisons Lisenhut end Quilliam, She then introduced Curt Ullman
and Ralph Mechur,, Task Force membersg who reviewed the Permit Ps^acnss and responded
to questions fs°om the Commission> Commissioner McKee requested that the Commission
c^ece~i~ve minutes of future Task f=orce meetings. Commissioner Sullivan questianecf
the advisory capacity noted in the:i7ermit Processo commissioner Cloke Hated the
value of the guidebook proposals Chairman Pro Tempore K7effe7 closed the hearing,
there being. no one else from the audience vaishing to comment, and maved the Commis-
sign to discussion of the recommendations presented by the Development Permit Process,
Sectaon l}a Commissioner Gloke.maved to support the ~loncept of guide books and send
it to the Council wits Eommssion'suppos°t% adding Cammiss~ioner McKee`s suggestion
to include mixed use development in the Commercial and Industrial Development
segments of the guideboakss and That yu!idebooks be reviewed by the Planning Cammism
sign while in process at~d in f7.nal draft,. .Commissioner 1{otchkiss seconded the.
motiono Commissioner McKee suggested changing G~10:on page 2 to aover only the
descriptian of design criteria„ e7imis7ating the "summary of precedents established
in past ARB decisions " ~fhe motion was restated by the mai<er to recommend that
Section 1) an Guidebooks be forwarded to the Gity Council with Corr~riission support
3Yi f3 the {'nSlrlw v"nn rnm.n~>..+r< Y-t. -, < ar_., r~____~__.'__ w_ _Y ..~ _.. _.._
planning Commission Minutes ~2- September 21, 19B1
Section 2): Ms. Faulds and Mr. Eisenhut were called upon to give an explanation
of the section. Commissioner C7oke-moved that while making the maximum possible
information available to the public is a City goal, this section is felt to be
unnecessary, adding at Commissioner Sullivan°s request that all changes be
channeled through one offioe, 6Jith Commissioner Sullivan°s second, the motion
carried as noted:
AYE: Cloke, Hatchkisss PryclCee, Sullivan, Kleffel
?JAY: SheareF
ABSE~lT: Katz
Section 3): During discussion Commissioner McKee noted program 37 in the draft
Housing Element, which also concerned the matter of public. notification. She moved
;that a flexible notification radius be adcipted to correspond to the scale of develop-
ment, with tenants as evell as owners being notifieds and that notice be given when
the Architectural Review Board is considering large scale projects, and including
the recommendations made in Section 3. Commissioner Cloke seconded the motion, add
ing that the developer be required to provide the notice. Comanissioner Hotchkiss
requested that the developer be provided with a clear notification procedure which,
if adequately complied with; would relieve him of liability. 3oth'amendments were
accepted and the motion carried by the following vote:
AYE: Cloke, Hotchkiss, Mc Kees Shearer, Kleffel
NAY: Sullivan
ABSENT: ;<atz
Section 4 : Commissioner Sullivan moved that the Commission recommend against
this proposal for reasons of conflict with the City Planager form of government.
Seconded by Commissioner Hotchkiss, the motion received unanimous vote of the six
members present.
Section 5): The Commission studied a memorandum from the Architectural Review
Board. Commissioner Cloke moved that the Commission support the idea that the
Architectural Review Board continue to participate in establishing ahd pre§enting
its criteria :i'n a clear fashion and that the Commission suggest that the decision
as to the presentation be determined by the Architectural Review Board. Seconded
by Commissioner McKee, the motion carried by unanimous vote of the six members
present.
Section 6): Comomissioner Hotchkiss moved to forward this sectian to the City
Council with the Commission°s support. Seconded by Commissioner Sullivan, the
motion carried by unanimous vote of the six members present.
Section 7 : Commissioner Hotchkiss moved to forward this section to the City
Council with the comment that the recommendations appear to merit further cdnsid-
erationlwith the third line changed to now read." "of .the City Council action on
the recommendations, of the°°. Seconded by Commissioner Sullivan the motion passed
with a unanimous vote of the six members present.
sectian 8): Mr. ()uilliam responded to questions concerning the computer processing
and :centralized data base proposals. Commissioner Hotchkiss moved to forward this
item with support for the centralized counter concept, sta~bing the Commission
believed the computer system proposal merited consideration but urged caution an the
cost effectiveness and feasibility of implementation. Seconded by Commissioner
Sullivan, the motion was withdrawn fora motion by Commissioner Cloke recommending
a ;central point-of-intake counter to the Council vaith the Commission°s sfrong sup-
port, noting that the Commission r'elt the addition of putting City data onto a
computer form would be very desirable and urging Council support. Seconded b.y
Planning Commission Minutes
-3-
September 21, 1981
Section 9 : Following a review by Planning Director Lunsford, Commissioner
Sullivan moved to forward this item with no consensus. Commissioner Hotchkiss
seconded; however, Commissioner Cloke made a substitute motion to send this sec-
ti on to the Council with the recommendation that the Commission supports the con-
cept and suggests that specifies be worked out in concert with staff. Commissioner
McKee seconded the motion with her amendment accepted to,note the Commission's con-
cern for the delay ~ossi6il.ity and to request that minutes of the conference
always be forwarded with the next agenda packet for 'the Commission's information.
following further discussion, the substitute ~aotion oarri'ed as follokvs:
AYE: Cloke, Hotchkiss, !~cKze, Shearer, ECleffol
NAY: Sullivan
5ectiorr 10)0.. Corrinnnissioner Sullivan moved to forward this proposal to the City
Council with a further recommendation that the Certificate of Occupancy not be
granted until the developer had met all criteria set forth by the Architectural.
Review Board and Planring Commission and 'that it be the responsibility of the
building officer doing the final inspection to determine this: He later added
a further condition--that in the absence of a Certificate of Occupancy, such
inspection should be done. at the directiors of the planning officer. Seconded by
Commissioner Shearer, the motion received six unanimously favorable votes.
Prior to moving on, Commissioner Cloke ar~oved that a "letter of oommendation be
forwarded to the members of the Task Force. Seconded by Commissianes~ Sullivan,
this motion received unanimous approval.
B. Z. A. Case No. 4438-Y
The staff report cohcerned an appeal b,~ Rosario Perry,From tfie .
- Acting Zoning-Administrator°s denia"I of his request for, a variance of parking
regulations at 1333 Ocean Avenue in the C3 District: Mr, Lunsford noted that.
a continuance had been requested by the appellant in order to prepare adequate
photographs and plans for his presentation before the Commission. The audience
was asked if there were anyone present to speak on the matter. There being none,
Commissioner Sullivan moved to continue the public hearing. to'October 19, 19II1.
Seconded by Commissioner Cloke, the motion carried unanimously.
C. ARB Case No. 1614
The .staff report ooncerned an appeal of the Architec'cura"I Review Board`:s
denial of a sign permit far Lynch Lincoln Mercury offices at 1229 Santa Monica
Boulevard. Bob Gordon, of Local Neon y, spoke for the appeal as did Robert Kramer,.
part-owner of the company, both responding to questions from the Commission.
.There being no on present from the Architectural Review Board and no one else
w~lshing to speak, the public hearing was closed.. Discussion followed and Commis-
sioner Sullivan moved to support the appeal and grant the installation of the Subaru
sign on the east wall with the following conditions: that 'the Capri sign and
the two projecting lease signs be removed from the structure. Seconder Comm•s-
sionerr Hotchkiss asked for modification of the motion to state that location of
the Subaru sign would be at the customer°s discretion. This was accepted by the
maker who then added to his motion that this action did not constitute approval
of the whole sign program for that property. The motion carried as follows:
AYE: Hotchkiss, Mcf<ee, Sul"Eivan, Kleffel
NAY: Cloke
RQCT11 `e F1. CL .............
,,
„-
Planning Commission Minutes
_4_
September 21, 1931
6. OLD BUSINESSa
A. Housing Element
Director Lansford noted that a ,mint study session with the Citizens
Advisory Committee for the Housing Element to be held October 5, 1981 at 6.00 p.m.
in the Council Chamber. He also stated that a Request for proposal for bidding
on the Housing Element environmental and fisoal impact reports .had been issueda
7. NEW BUSIPlESS~
A. Extension: "tentative Tract PJo. 87926
The staff report was .fora new twelve-unit condominium proposed for 1855-
1859 Ninth Street by Luis Villalobos, noting that under the moratorium the request
for extension must be denied. Commissioner Shearer, seconded by Commissioner
McKeey moved to deny the requested extension The motion failed as noted:
AYE: Clokep Mc Kees Shearer
ABSTAINS Hotchkissv Sulliva~o9 Kleffel
ABSENTo Katz
B. Modifications Ter~~ative Tract No. &0221.
°fhe staff report concerned a request r"or modification of the approved plans
for a new six--unit condominium at 1013 Tenth Street by Jesse Aptaker, rice president
of Fireside Builders Inc, Commissioner Sullivan moved that the Commission approve
the requested modification. Seconded by Commissioner Hntchkiss, the motion carried
by the following votea
AYE: Clokey Hotchktssg McY.ee, 5ttllivana Kleffel
ABSTAIN: Shearer
ABSENT:. Katz
8. COMMUfJICATIONS~
None.
9, COMMISSION AGENDAe
Nnne.
10. ADJOURNMENT.
The meeting was ad,~ourned at 10020 p.m. an a motion by Commissioner Sullivan
which was seconded by Commissioner Cloke and agreed to unanimously by the sir,
members present.