SR-04-23-2013-3GCity Council Meeting: April 23, 2013
Agenda Item: .. —C�t
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director of Planning and Community Development
Subject: Modification to Development Agreement Application Process to Require
Separate Architectural Review Board and Planning Commissions Float
Ups
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council modify the recently adopted Development
Agreement application review process to require separate Architectural Review Board
and Planning Commission float ups rather than one combined float up.
Executive Summary
A series of recommendations were recently approved by the City Council on January 8,
2013 and February 12, 2013 to address Development Agreement application
processing. One of the. recommendations called for a combined float up by the
Planning Commission and four members of the Architectural Review Board (ARB). It
was agreed that obtaining preliminary and conceptual comments from ARB early in the
development review process adds value.
Although combining a meeting of the Planning Commission and ARB members was
conceptually a good idea to reduce the required number of meetings per application,
implementation of the combined meetings is proving to be a scheduling challenge and is
not practical. Staff now recommends that a float up first occur at an ARB meeting
followed by a float up at a Planning Commission meeting. Scheduling a visit to the ARB
is doable within the same time frame and should not create a delay in processing a
Development Agreement.
Background
In January Council considered a December 11, 2012 report and a January 8, 2013
supplemental report focusing on ways to address the large number of Development
Agreement applications. On February 12 2013 City Council provided direction
concerning prioritizing projects and clarified the review process. Characteristics
identified for prioritization included: projects producing a high ratio of revenue for the
City, projects with a higher level of affordable housing units, residential projects
1
containing a prescribed range of unit types, including some two and three bedroom
units, educational institutions, and projects that combine adjacent sites into one
Development Agreement. Council also reviewed and revised several procedures for
processing Development Agreements, including shifting the responsibility to the project
applicant for hosting an initial community meeting. Additionally, Council approved the
recommendation to require an early conceptual review (float -up) by a combined body of
Planning Commission and ARB members for all Development Agreement projects.
Discussion
At its January 8, 2013 meeting Council adopted staff's recommendations to provide
ARB review through a combined meeting of the Planning Commission and four ARB
members as a way to obtain input from ARB without adding another meeting. Staff
recommended including ARB in the float up process to provide the applicant with an
early indication of conceptual but significant design issues such as massing, scale,
form, and relationship to the surrounding context. Without an ARB float up, ARB would
not review the project until after the Development Agreement had been approved by
City Council, making it difficult to adjust major design issues prior to approval of the
project.
Although combining the ARB review with the Planning Commission was intended to
reduce the required number of meetings for the applicant, it is proving to be a challenge
in terms of scheduling demands on the part of the commissioners and board members.
Planning Commission and ARB each have regularly scheduled meetings occurring
twice per month. A combined meeting would require either an additional date for both
bodies or an additional date for ARB if the four members joined a Planning Commission
meeting. Given the constraints on commission and board members' time, staff is now
recommending that an applicant first take the proposed project as a float up to ARB.
ARB will provide recommendations that can inform the Planning Commission float up
discussion at a subsequent meeting. Scheduling an item on an ARB agenda is
KI
generally not a timing issue and should not create a delay in processing a Development
Agreement.
The revised Development Agreement process is shown in Attachment A -1 for projects
requiring an Environmental Impact Report, (EIR) and in Attachment A -2 for projects that
are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Consistent with the
process changes authorized in January 2013, this recommended revision applies to all
Development Agreement projects that have not yet completed float ups, with the
exception of settlement agreements and Tier 1 or Tier 2 projects. Until tiers are defined
for the downtown district, ARB and Planning Commission float ups will be required for
projects over 60 feet within the area bounded by 2nd Street, Wilshire Boulevard, 4th
Street and the 1 -10 Freeway, and for projects over 45 feet in the remainder of the
downtown district.
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the
recommended action.
Prepared by: Ellen Gelbard, Assistant Director of PCD
Approved: Forwarded to Council:
David Martin, Director Rod Gould
Planning and Community Development City Manager
Attachments:
Al - REVISED processing chart for CEQA exempt projects
A2 - REVISED processing charts for projects completing an EIR
191
11,01, 11 01 1 ul �' 1`
• Tier 2 Projects an• specified Downtown Distrid
projects may skip ARB and PC Float-Ups