[0:22] that the land on, oh, I don

[0:22] t

[0:23] have it in front of me, so it

[0:24] s

[0:24] gonna not stay in my head.

[0:25] Let

[0:26] s see this right. The city

[0:27] acknowledges that the land on

[0:28] which we gather and that is

[0:29] currently known as the city of

[0:32] West Hollywood is the occupied,

[0:34] unseeded, seized territory of

[0:37] the Gabriella Tova and the

[0:38] Gabrielinoquih people, uh,

[0:38] we

[0:39] ll get started with a call

[0:44] to order. And the Pledge of

[0:45] Allegiance. We

[0:46] ll just stand.

[0:46] I

[0:54] ll leave this in the pledge.

[0:59] I. The United States of America

[1:02] and to the republic for which

[1:11] it stands. And Oh City clerk,

[1:13] MAY we please get a roll call

[1:15] of this fabulous joint study

[1:16] session of the planning

[1:17] commission and city council.

[1:19] Yes, Mary, thank you. Mayor

[1:23] Byers. PRESIDENT. Vice Mayor

[1:27] Heilman. Here Councilmember

[1:32] Erickson, Council member Hang.

[1:35] Councilmember Meister, uh,

[1:36] planning commission Chair

[1:38] Lombardi Planning Commission

[1:41] Vice Chair David Gregoire.

[1:44] Commissioner Hoop and Garner,

[1:46] Commissioner Jones,

[1:48] Commissioner Mattos,

[1:49] Commissioner Solomon, here we

[1:51] have all members of the city

[1:54] council, noting the absence of

[1:56] Rosilio Carbajaro. I will note

[1:58] for the record that Roggerio is

[1:59] listening to the meeting via

[2:02] Zoom, however, he will not be

[2:03] participating. Thank you.

[2:05] Terrific. And as we get to the

[2:07] approval of the agenda, I will

[2:08] just note that tonight we have

[2:09] one item on the agenda, which

[2:12] is why we do not have a general

[2:14] public comment period. All

[2:15] public comment will be about

[2:17] the one item on the agenda, so

[2:19] we will take that as part of

[2:20] the agenda item later in the

[2:22] meeting. Um, are there any

[2:23] other notes that we need to

[2:24] make for the approval of the

[2:26] agenda? No, Mayor. We

[2:26] re all

[2:28] set. Um, so tonight we have

[2:30] before us a study session on

[2:31] development agreements and

[2:32] public benefits policy. We

[2:32] re

[2:34] here as a city council and a

[2:36] planning commission, sort of an

[2:37] odd but exciting format for us

[2:38] to get to this discussion. I

[2:38] m

[2:39] gonna turn it over to staff for

[2:41] what will be. First a

[2:43] presentation, then a set of

[2:44] questions before we move into

[2:46] our public comment and then

[2:48] come back to this body for our

[2:49] comments and deliberation, um,

[2:51] but just to sort of set the

[2:52] tone so people understand

[2:52] what

[2:53] s going on tonight. Um,

[2:55] this is really a matter of

[2:56] education for this group of

[2:57] people, uh, getting us all on

[2:59] the same page. We all have

[3:00] unique roles we play between

[3:02] the public, the planning

[3:03] commission, city council, and

[3:05] staff. And tonight is about us

[3:06] creating a shared understanding

[3:08] of what that is, so I

[3:08] appreciate staff

[3:09] s, uh,

[3:09] presentation that you

[3:09] ve put

[3:11] together towards that end. Um,

[3:12] and we

[3:13] ll end tonight with some

[3:14] comments and deliberation, not

[3:15] necessarily direction, we

[3:16] re

[3:17] not creating new polonight.

[3:18] I just want to make that very

[3:19] clear to folks. Uh, this is

[3:20] really just a matter of us

[3:21] getting all on the same page,

[3:22] so I

[3:23] m gonna turn it over to

[3:25] staff, uh, to begin the

[3:26] presentation. Thank you. Good

[3:28] evening. Can you everybody hear

[3:30] me ok? Is this on? Ok, great.

[3:32] Thank you. Good evening, Mayor,

[3:34] Vice Mayor, uh, and members of

[3:35] the council, chair, vice chair,

[3:37] and members of the planning

[3:39] commission, um, we, I

[3:39] m

[3:39] Jennifer Alca. I

[3:40] m the

[3:40] assistant director of.

[3:41] Community development. I

[3:42] m here

[3:43] with David Wilson, our city

[3:45] manager, Lauren Langer, City

[3:47] attorney, Nick Marisic,

[3:47] director of Community

[3:49] Development, and Brian Lee, our

[3:52] property development manager.

[3:53] We appreciate everyone taking

[3:55] the time tonight to come

[3:56] together this evening for a

[3:59] conversation about some of the

[4:00] expectations around development

[4:01] agreements, public benefits and

[4:03] for billboards as well as major

[4:06] projects. Uh, over the last few

[4:07] years, the city council has

[4:09] been asked, oh, sorry, has been

[4:11] asked to make decisions on a

[4:12] number of billboard or

[4:13] development projects that have

[4:15] had development agreements and

[4:16] public benefit components and

[4:18] in some of those projects

[4:18] specific hearings, we

[4:19] ve heard

[4:20] before the planning commission

[4:23] and before the city council, um,

[4:25] some questions regarding, um,

[4:27] How the development agreements

[4:28] are negotiated, what is the

[4:29] role of each of these bodies,

[4:30] and we

[4:31] ve done the best we can

[4:32] to answer, but it

[4:34] s tricky to

[4:35] address those topics broadly

[4:37] and take direction for the

[4:38] future in a project-specific

[4:39] meeting. And so that

[4:40] s why we

[4:42] wanted to have this meeting

[4:43] tonight with no specific

[4:45] project on the table so we can

[4:46] have these dig into these

[4:48] topics a little bit more, um,

[4:49] and receive feedback on how we

[4:51] might make the process better.

[4:53] So to accomplish this, we have

[4:54] an agenda here, um, we

[4:55] re gonna

[4:55] go through a lot of information.

[4:56] Upfront. We

[4:57] re going to try to

[4:59] get through our whole

[4:59] presentation and then we

[5:00] ll

[5:02] take public comment and then we

[5:05] will dig into conversation, so,

[5:05] um, we

[5:06] re going to walk through

[5:07] the legal framework for

[5:08] development agreement and the

[5:10] roles of each of the bodies in

[5:11] that process. We

[5:12] ll walk

[5:14] through the sunset, arts and

[5:15] advertising program giving a

[5:16] general overview of how the

[5:17] development agreements are

[5:18] negotiated there and how we get

[5:20] got to the point where we take

[5:22] them to commission and to

[5:22] council. We

[5:24] re gonna go through

[5:25] the public benefits related to

[5:27] development projects. Separate

[5:28] from billboards. We

[5:28] re going to

[5:29] take public comment like I said,

[5:30] and then we

[5:30] re gonna finally

[5:32] tee up some questions for the

[5:34] group, um, about first about

[5:36] the Billboard projects then

[5:37] about development agreements

[5:38] for major projects and our goal

[5:40] is to get some direction on

[5:42] what the city council is

[5:43] expecting from the planning

[5:44] commission, from staff, and

[5:46] from these projects, um, moving

[5:47] forward and how each body is

[5:48] expecting to engage on these

[5:50] projects, and now I will kick

[5:52] it over to Lauren Laer to

[5:57] address the next few slides.

[6:00] Yep Oh, did did not work. There

[6:05] we go. There we go. Ok. Good

[6:08] evening, everybody. Um, just to

[6:08] finish off Jennifer

[6:08] s

[6:09] introduction. I just wanted to

[6:11] point out that the purpose that

[6:13] we feel of this study session

[6:15] is for information, education,

[6:17] so that everybody who functions

[6:18] on these projects has is

[6:20] operating off the same

[6:22] information. Staff, commission,

[6:24] counsel, and the public. These

[6:25] are complicated projects.

[6:25] There

[6:27] s a lot of moving parts

[6:27] and you

[6:27] ll see it

[6:28] s gonna take

[6:31] us a long time just to get

[6:32] through the explanation of all

[6:32] the different parts to the

[6:34] whole. So we really are glad

[6:34] everybody

[6:35] s here and members of

[6:37] the public too to, so this can

[6:38] be educational and we can all

[6:40] be operating off of the same

[6:43] information. Um As the mayor

[6:45] mentioned, a study session is

[6:46] really just a special meeting

[6:47] of the city council, and we

[6:48] actually have an extra body

[6:50] with us here tonight, the

[6:51] planning commission. And so we

[6:53] are here to focus on this one

[6:54] particular topic. I know there

[6:55] was some concerns about why

[6:55] there wasn

[6:57] t a general public

[6:59] comment session on the agenda,

[6:59] and that

[6:59] s because we

[7:00] re here

[7:01] with two different bodies to

[7:02] talk about one topic tonight,

[7:03] so there

[7:04] ll be plenty of

[7:05] opportunities for public

[7:07] comment later on. And then as

[7:08] Jennifer mentioned, there

[7:09] really is no action needed

[7:11] tonight. Study sessions are for

[7:12] discussion, and there

[7:13] s no

[7:14] action required. If there

[7:14] s

[7:16] some consensus or some

[7:17] direction or requests for more

[7:18] information at a later date

[7:20] that can come at a later time.

[7:21] We can memorialize it at a

[7:23] later time, but we really want

[7:25] to use this opportunity while

[7:25] everybody

[7:26] s in the room to

[7:27] share information, share

[7:28] feedback, like Jennifer said,

[7:29] we have some questions at the

[7:31] end that can help guide the

[7:32] discussion. So I

[7:33] m going to dig

[7:35] in a little bit just to the

[7:36] basics of development

[7:37] agreements so that it

[7:37] s a

[7:38] little boring, but just so

[7:39] everybody understands the

[7:40] framework of what they are

[7:41] because they

[7:41] re, they

[7:41] re a

[7:43] unique thing that we do.

[7:43] They

[7:45] re different from regular

[7:45] development permits and

[7:47] conditional use permits. There

[7:49] are a legislative act and so

[7:49] development agreement it

[7:50] s a,

[7:50] it

[7:52] s a legally binding contract

[7:53] between a property developer

[7:55] and a local government entity

[7:57] that specifies the terms and

[7:58] conditions for a development

[8:00] project on a particular parcel

[8:01] of land, including the

[8:04] permitted uses, density. Design

[8:05] standards required public

[8:07] benefits in exchange for

[8:08] certain approvals and

[8:09] flexibility in zoning

[8:13] regulations. The purpose of

[8:15] having a development agreement

[8:17] is to provide certainty and

[8:18] stability to developers by

[8:20] outlining the project

[8:21] parameters while allowing local

[8:23] governments to ensure that the

[8:24] development aligns with

[8:26] community goals and receives

[8:27] necessary public amenities and

[8:28] benefits. So it

[8:31] s really about

[8:32] that certainty before um before

[8:34] a developer engages in a long

[8:35] term project to know that the

[8:36] laws aren

[8:37] t going to change,

[8:37] that if they start now, they

[8:38] re

[8:39] going to be able to complete it

[8:40] all the way through to the end.

[8:44] Next slide. And so the basis of

[8:45] development agreements is

[8:46] really about the vested rights,

[8:48] the rights that are granted

[8:49] through this process. So a

[8:52] vested right is a legal right

[8:53] to continue development under

[8:54] the existing approvals despite

[8:57] future changes in the law. Um,

[8:59] the, the reason that the said,

[9:00] again, this comes from state

[9:03] law. The reason that the

[9:05] legislature created development

[9:06] agreements is because if you

[9:06] don

[9:08] t have vesting on a project,

[9:08] if there

[9:09] s not certainty that

[9:11] the project can be built

[9:11] throughout the entire lifetime

[9:13] of construction. It can defer

[9:15] it can deter large projects

[9:15] because there

[9:15] s just

[9:16] uncertainty. Who

[9:17] s going to

[9:18] start a project if they think 5

[9:19] years down the road the rules

[9:20] are going to change in the

[9:21] middle, and they

[9:21] re not going

[9:22] to know they can finish. So

[9:23] it

[9:25] s really about the certainty

[9:25] and it locks in the regulations

[9:29] at the time. Of the agreement.

[9:31] So the statutes where we look

[9:32] to that govern development

[9:34] agreements are in the

[9:37] government code 65864 to

[9:39] 865869.5, and that sets out the

[9:41] legal framework, including the

[9:41] required components and

[9:43] procedures for adoption, and

[9:44] those are enhanced in our local

[9:48] municipal code. Um, did you

[9:50] skip one? I think, yeah, so the

[9:52] key provisions of a da that are

[9:53] really set out in the statute

[9:55] or you have to have a duration.

[9:57] So the duration of the

[9:59] agreement and the deadline for

[10:00] completion and then the

[10:01] timeline is crucial for

[10:03] determining the term and

[10:04] helping cities anticipate

[10:05] project completion. I know we

[10:06] have a lot of conversations

[10:07] here about when are these

[10:09] projects going to get done and

[10:11] so one benefit of a project

[10:12] with a development agreement is

[10:13] you have a pretty certain

[10:15] timeline of when projects will

[10:17] be built. Uh, the permitted, I

[10:18] mentioned this already, the

[10:21] permitted uses on the land, the

[10:22] maximum allowable development

[10:23] density, intensity, height,

[10:24] size, and then if there

[10:27] s any

[10:27] uh dedications for public

[10:31] purposes. Slide. Other key

[10:33] provisions that are going to be

[10:35] included in the da are to, uh,

[10:37] decide which subsequent actions

[10:38] can be approved

[10:39] administratively to facilitate

[10:41] development while protecting

[10:44] city interests, uh, it sets out

[10:45] modification uh protocols. How

[10:47] are these developments modified

[10:48] over time because we over the

[10:49] course of a long project,

[10:49] you

[10:50] re also going to see the

[10:53] need for some flexibility and

[10:55] some changes as um projects

[10:57] move from design to

[10:57] construction documents to

[10:58] actually being on the ground

[10:59] building. There

[10:59] s, there

[11:00] s

[11:01] always some. You know,

[11:02] modification that needs to be

[11:03] made, and so you set out in

[11:04] advance what that

[11:04] s going to

[11:07] look like so everybody knows

[11:09] survivability of the terms,

[11:10] phasing of the project,

[11:13] assignment procedures. What if

[11:14] this entity that

[11:15] s building now

[11:15] gets acquired by another

[11:16] company down the road. So, so

[11:18] you have to lay out all those

[11:20] procedures, and then of course

[11:22] the public benefits, the

[11:24] negotiated advantages, DAs

[11:25] allow cities to secure

[11:26] community benefits that might

[11:28] not be feasible through

[11:29] standard approvals and so we

[11:30] want to detail the nature,

[11:32] scope, and time. Of benefits to

[11:33] ensure that they align with all

[11:38] of the phases of development.

[11:39] So there are 2 public hearings

[11:40] that are required for a

[11:41] development agreement. The

[11:42] first is that planning

[11:45] commission. And this is

[11:46] language from the municipal

[11:48] code. Upon finding the

[11:50] application complete, directors

[11:51] shall schedule public hearing.

[11:51] Well, there

[11:52] s a lot that

[11:53] happens in between that time

[11:53] and that

[11:53] s what we

[11:54] re going to

[11:56] talk to you about tonight and

[11:57] explain that process. So it

[11:57] s,

[11:58] it

[11:58] s not that quick, but that

[11:59] s

[12:00] what the code says. And then

[12:01] the planning commission will

[12:03] adopt a resolution with a

[12:05] recommendation to the city

[12:06] council to approve

[12:07] conditionally approve or deny

[12:10] the application. City Council

[12:12] gets the recommendation,

[12:13] schedules the public hearing,

[12:15] and the council MAY approve,

[12:16] conditionally approve or deny

[12:17] the application. And if we

[12:20] talked about this recently, if

[12:21] significant modifications are

[12:22] proposed by the council that

[12:23] haven

[12:24] t been considered by the

[12:25] planning commission before.

[12:26] Those modifications need to be

[12:28] referred back to the planning

[12:30] commission for review. Um, the

[12:32] development agreement is a

[12:33] legislative act, which means

[12:33] it

[12:35] s adopted by ordinance and

[12:36] in West Hollywood we have an

[12:38] extra layer to that, which is

[12:40] we require a zone map amendment

[12:41] with every development

[12:43] agreement so that the parcel

[12:45] where the development sits is

[12:47] rezoned with an overlay for the

[12:48] development agreement overlay

[12:50] zone. And that means our zoning

[12:52] map will show every parcel that

[12:53] has a development agreement on

[12:53] it, and there

[12:54] s a lot of

[12:56] reasons and benefit for that,

[12:58] but, but one of the most

[12:59] notable uh points is that you

[13:00] can look at the zoning map and

[13:01] you should be able to tell

[13:04] which parcels have these

[13:06] development agreements because

[13:06] they

[13:07] re timing their standards

[13:08] might be a little bit different

[13:09] than other things that you

[13:09] ve

[13:14] seen in the zone. I

[13:14] ll turn it

[13:19] back to Jennifer. Thank you. So

[13:20] from a developer

[13:20] s viewpoint,

[13:23] what, what is the motivation to

[13:24] do this? Why would somebody

[13:26] come in and want to have a

[13:28] development agreement. Well, uh,

[13:29] similar to what Lauren was

[13:31] saying, the developers seek

[13:32] development agreements for a

[13:33] number of reasons. First and

[13:34] foremost, it gives them that

[13:35] certainty that she was

[13:38] explaining. It gives them

[13:39] certainty about timing and

[13:41] things like fees, development

[13:41] standards and processes can be

[13:42] locked for the period of time

[13:45] in the term of the da. Um, and

[13:47] finally, they also, what we see

[13:48] as a driving factor in most of

[13:50] the DAs we have, uh, especially

[13:52] for major projects, is

[13:52] negotiated regulatory

[13:54] flexibility. And that

[13:54] s again

[13:57] part of, part of the. What goes

[13:58] into the development agreement

[13:59] here in West Hollywood and in

[14:00] other words, that

[14:01] s often

[14:02] changes to things like height

[14:04] density land uses and things

[14:05] like that. Um, so what

[14:06] s in it

[14:07] for the city from the city

[14:08] s

[14:09] viewpoint, what do we get out

[14:11] of this? We get the same

[14:12] flexibility that allows

[14:13] developers to ask for things

[14:14] above and beyond the zoning

[14:16] also gives the city the

[14:17] opportunity to focus on

[14:19] community priorities because

[14:21] the agreement is completely

[14:22] discretionary. The city has

[14:24] more latitude to help define

[14:25] the project and to request or

[14:26] require project benefits and

[14:27] contributions that wouldn

[14:28] t be

[14:30] allowed under normal, um, land

[14:31] use laws. Typically, there has

[14:34] to be some sort of reason why

[14:34] we

[14:37] re asking for a certain fees

[14:38] or certain community benefits

[14:39] that are related to the project

[14:41] itself, um, in a development

[14:43] agreement we have a lot more

[14:44] flexibility there. This can,

[14:46] this. This can take thank you.

[14:47] This can take the shape of

[14:49] things like more housing, more

[14:51] parking, enhanced public

[14:52] improvements, incentives for

[14:55] valued land uses that promote

[14:57] economic and social development

[14:59] and other public benefits, um.

[15:01] Like, like we see on all of our

[15:03] projects, so I will turn it

[15:04] back to Lauren for the next

[15:11] slide. Ok. So the findings that

[15:13] are required when a development

[15:14] agreement is approved are

[15:17] listed in the municipal code.

[15:18] And generally speaking, they

[15:20] re

[15:21] looking at whether the

[15:22] development as a whole and the

[15:23] agreement is in the best

[15:25] interests of the city,

[15:26] consistent with the general

[15:27] plan, specific plan and zoning

[15:29] ordinance, and that it doesn

[15:29] t

[15:30] adversely affect people working

[15:32] or residing in the area or

[15:33] jeopardize the health, safety,

[15:35] or general welfare. Um, what

[15:35] s

[15:37] going to be, I think one of the

[15:38] themes we talk about tonight is

[15:41] the general plan and the

[15:41] specific plan and consistency

[15:42] with those things. It

[15:43] s a big

[15:44] part of what is being looked at

[15:47] with these big complicated

[15:51] projects, um. The theme that

[15:54] the city council really gives

[15:55] their their broad land use

[15:56] direction through these

[15:57] planning documents. The general

[16:00] plan, the sunset specific plan,

[16:01] other specific plans and on

[16:03] what they want to see and the

[16:05] central role for the planning

[16:06] commission in implementing that

[16:06] plan because that

[16:07] s the guiding

[16:07] document. That

[16:08] s what the

[16:09] commission looks at when

[16:09] they

[16:12] re making decisions. Uh,

[16:14] next slide please. Um,

[16:15] generally speaking, the role of

[16:16] the planning commission comes

[16:17] from the planning and zoning

[16:19] law and the government code, um,

[16:21] and it says that planning

[16:22] commissions provide insight and

[16:24] allow councils to make more

[16:25] fully informed decisions on

[16:26] land use and other planning

[16:28] issues. And then the city in

[16:29] its ordinances assigns the

[16:30] functions to the planning

[16:32] commission is deemed

[16:33] appropriate and necessary. So

[16:34] land use power sits with the

[16:36] elected body, the city council,

[16:37] and then it

[16:39] s delegated down to

[16:40] the planning commission and

[16:41] generally planning commissions

[16:42] help city councils make the

[16:43] best land use decisions that

[16:47] they can. Um, the Institute for

[16:48] Local Government is, it

[16:49] s an

[16:50] organization that promotes good

[16:51] government at the local level,

[16:54] and they had a really good

[16:55] explanation of planning

[16:55] commission

[16:57] s roles. And they

[16:57] say that planning commissions

[16:58] play a central role in the

[17:01] planning process in 3 ways. One,

[17:02] acting as an, as an advisory

[17:04] board to the main governing

[17:06] body here, the city council on

[17:08] all planning and development

[17:09] issues. 2, here

[17:09] s the theme

[17:11] again, assures that the general

[17:13] plan is implemented by

[17:13] reviewing development

[17:14] applications on a case by case

[17:16] basis, just as you build a

[17:17] building one brick at a time,

[17:18] you implement a community one

[17:20] vision at a time or one project

[17:23] at a time and then 3 functions

[17:24] as the decision making body for

[17:27] many approvals, but not all. So

[17:28] when West Hollywood development

[17:30] permits, variances, CUPs, those

[17:32] are all decisions that are made

[17:33] by the city council, um, and

[17:34] those decisions can be appealed

[17:38] up to the city council, who can

[17:39] then uphold overturn, modify,

[17:41] or send it back, and other

[17:42] matters, mostly legislative

[17:44] matters, uh, such as amendments

[17:45] to the general plan, the zoning

[17:46] ordinance. And of course

[17:48] development agreements, the

[17:48] planning commission makes

[17:50] recommendations to the city

[17:54] council, not final decisions.

[17:59] Next time. Thank you. So that

[18:01] was the background super quick

[18:02] background on development

[18:02] agreements and the framework

[18:04] and the findings. And so now

[18:04] we

[18:07] re gonna dive into a more

[18:08] specifically the sunset

[18:09] specific plan, arts and

[18:11] advertising program and then

[18:13] major development projects. So

[18:14] I think we

[18:14] re all basically

[18:15] familiar with how the billboard

[18:16] policy worked up to this point,

[18:18] but I will give a very brief

[18:19] recap because I know there

[18:19] s a

[18:21] lot of people in this room that

[18:21] maybe don

[18:21] t don

[18:22] t know the

[18:24] whole full history. Um, there

[18:26] was a design excellent

[18:26] screening process that was set

[18:30] out in the Sunset Boulevard

[18:31] off-site signage policy, uh,

[18:33] there was a first round that

[18:36] was uh awarded design

[18:37] Excellence Awards in 2020 with

[18:39] the two subsequent rounds, one

[18:41] in 2021, which is called 1.5

[18:43] and 1 in 22, which is called

[18:46] Round 2. The projects were

[18:47] granted design excellence

[18:48] awards, and that means they

[18:50] were allowed to apply for

[18:51] entitlements. Um, that wasn

[18:51] t

[18:52] an approval for an entitlement,

[18:53] so they were allowed to go

[18:55] through the approval process by

[18:57] applying for a development

[18:58] agreement negotiating design

[18:59] and public benefits and going

[19:00] through a public hearings

[19:01] process before the planning

[19:02] commission and the city council.

[19:05] There were 2 main types of

[19:06] billboards that we talk about.

[19:08] One is the traditional or

[19:11] static, which is just the, but

[19:11] you

[19:14] d imagine the printed vinyl

[19:16] posted on a frame uplet or

[19:17] downlet with standard lights.

[19:19] The second and the one we talk

[19:20] about the most when we see

[19:22] development agreements for

[19:24] billboard projects are the full

[19:25] motion animated boards which

[19:26] have also been called digital

[19:28] boards in the past. Um, and

[19:30] these, so the arts component

[19:32] for these full motion digital

[19:36] boards is part of the sunset

[19:36] Boulevard offsite signage

[19:40] program, and that is 17.5% of

[19:42] the content where the, the

[19:44] requirement for arts in the

[19:45] traditional static is 1% of the

[19:46] valuation of the project

[19:48] similar to any development

[19:49] project, uh, subject to the

[19:51] urban arts program. In addition

[19:53] for these projects, we

[19:53] re

[19:54] negotiating site improvements,

[19:55] public realm enhancements, and

[19:56] for alternative standards

[19:57] projects, we

[19:58] re looking at

[19:59] extraordinary public benefit.

[20:04] Um, We also have a provision in

[20:07] the in the policy for historic

[20:08] preservation for cultural

[20:10] resources and that historic

[20:11] preservation or the

[20:12] rehabilitation of those sites

[20:13] can be considered part of the

[20:15] public realm enhancements or

[20:16] the extraordinary benefit, um,

[20:18] but the bulk of the public

[20:18] benefit that we

[20:19] re seeing in

[20:22] these projects is coming from

[20:24] the revenue share and Brian

[20:24] League property development Man

[20:25] is here to walk us through how

[20:30] that works. Thank you, Jennifer,

[20:32] um, I mean, the, the question

[20:35] we always get is, How does the

[20:37] city calculate revenue for a

[20:39] 30-year agreement and um You

[20:42] know, to do that, what we, we,

[20:43] we engage a consultant who

[20:43] s an

[20:45] expert in this field. Oh, I

[20:45] m

[20:46] sorry, we engage a consultant

[20:47] who

[20:49] s an expert in this field.

[20:50] And they come up with a

[20:51] valuation. It

[20:52] s an estimated

[20:54] evaluation for the first year

[20:55] of that billboard and it

[20:55] s

[20:57] based on on three components,

[20:59] the first being reach and

[21:01] impressions. The second is cost

[21:02] per thousands and that that

[21:03] s

[21:04] how many eyeballs we

[21:05] ll see the,

[21:09] the boards in in cars and um

[21:11] pedestrians and, and, you know,

[21:12] traffic and traffic patterns

[21:14] come into play on that. And the

[21:17] third is, is a lot more

[21:17] subjective. It

[21:18] s value driving

[21:20] pre premium. And this is

[21:21] related to these boards that

[21:25] are um. Creative, full motion

[21:27] and, and the type of content

[21:28] they could show on some of

[21:30] those full motion boards. We

[21:32] had a three dimensional board

[21:33] with a force perspective that

[21:35] will have a higher evaluation

[21:37] because it it captures more

[21:38] eyeballs, um, the other thing

[21:40] is these full motion boards,

[21:40] they

[21:44] re also able to um run

[21:45] static advertisements over the,

[21:47] over a 28 day campaign, and

[21:48] they could run multiple static.

[21:51] They could run up to 30

[21:52] different campaigns during that

[21:53] 28 day period. Where a

[21:55] traditional board is running

[21:56] one campaign, so that

[21:57] s why we

[21:59] see that the main value in

[22:00] these full motion digital

[22:01] boards. They

[22:02] re not often

[22:04] running animation, but they

[22:04] re

[22:07] running multiple campaigns. And,

[22:09] and the third, um, some of

[22:10] these boards just because of

[22:10] where they

[22:12] re at on the strip,

[22:13] they command a premium just

[22:16] based on their location. Um,

[22:22] Next slide. Next thing, um, is

[22:24] the revenue share and um I mean,

[22:24] we

[22:26] re asked often, where do we

[22:28] get these percentages from, um,

[22:30] and how, how do we come up with

[22:33] this formula. Uh, to justify

[22:36] why what developer x is paying

[22:37] something and another

[22:37] developer

[22:37] s paying something

[22:39] else. And and all these

[22:40] projects are unique and they

[22:40] re

[22:42] all different. They all have

[22:44] different settings. They have

[22:46] different costs associated with

[22:48] the public realm enhancements

[22:50] or site improvements. And, and

[22:51] some of, you know, some of them

[22:52] would rather pay a little more

[22:54] upfront. I mean, so we, we, we

[22:57] have to be flexible with these

[22:58] operators or they won

[22:58] t be

[22:59] bringing a project forward, so

[22:59] we

[23:00] re always trying to achieve

[23:04] that balance. Uh, on What

[23:04] s

[23:06] feasible and if we push too

[23:07] hard, you know, they might walk

[23:09] away. The second question is,

[23:12] um, We, we favor the approached

[23:15] where we get a fixed revenue

[23:17] per year, um, and we get this

[23:19] and it escalates at a 3%

[23:20] escalation for the life of the

[23:24] board. And, and we feel this is

[23:25] a better a better agreement for

[23:26] the city because it provides

[23:27] certainty in the budgeting

[23:29] process. You know, we

[23:29] re able

[23:32] to to see that cash flow and

[23:33] capture it and budget over 30

[23:34] years of the life of the

[23:37] agreement. Um, the, the other

[23:39] approach would be an audit

[23:41] audited revenue share, um, You

[23:43] know, these billboard operators

[23:45] have multiple boards. They

[23:47] could move campaigns around.

[23:48] And, and we

[23:48] re just not

[23:49] comfortable or confident that

[23:52] we would have a good good shot

[23:53] at auditing that revenue and

[23:53] it

[23:55] s, it would just be a lot

[23:57] more intensive, a lot more

[24:00] questions, so we have chosen a

[24:01] more conservative path which is

[24:02] just to provide the city some

[24:05] certainty. And it also avoids

[24:07] disruptions in the future, um,

[24:08] this is a broad program if, you

[24:10] know, there there

[24:10] s gonna be

[24:12] many more signs and if there

[24:13] s

[24:14] saturation, our revenue is

[24:15] guaranteed over the life of the

[24:21] agreement. Next slide, um. The

[24:22] Public realm enhancements, as

[24:23] Jennifer mentioned, they

[24:24] re all

[24:26] required um for each of these

[24:27] signs, you know, to qualify,

[24:29] they need a public development

[24:29] enhancement, a site improvement.

[24:33] And, you know, we go through

[24:34] that process in the public

[24:37] realm enhancement is often

[24:38] proposed with the initial

[24:39] design of the billboard, they

[24:41] were proposed during the Sign

[24:43] Excellence process. So staff is

[24:44] here to refine that public

[24:47] realm. Design, um, and we do

[24:48] that in a number of ways and we,

[24:51] you know, we work with our, our,

[24:52] our city architect Udas, our

[24:54] designers, and at one point we

[24:56] feel comfortable enough, we

[24:56] ll

[24:58] bring that that billboard

[24:59] design to the planning

[25:00] commission subcommittee with

[25:01] the public realm enhancement. I

[25:03] see, you know, many of you sit

[25:04] on that subcommittee and you

[25:07] provide feedback. And you know,

[25:08] sometimes that feedback

[25:08] s

[25:09] enough and we get it to

[25:10] planning commission soon.

[25:11] Sometimes it takes 8, 10 months.

[25:15] For the, the project to, to

[25:16] evolve to a point where it

[25:16] s

[25:17] comfortable and I think they

[25:17] ve,

[25:21] um, You know, acted towards

[25:22] those recommendations. Um, next

[25:27] slide. Then we

[25:28] re asked about

[25:29] these alternative standards

[25:31] project. I want to use the term

[25:32] standards because these, these

[25:33] are projects that are proposed

[25:38] that That are exceed the height

[25:39] or size standards of of the

[25:41] billboard policy. And, and

[25:41] we

[25:44] re asked, well, how many of

[25:45] these boards are alternative

[25:47] standard projects, and the

[25:48] answer is about 3/4 of them.

[25:50] And you know, why is that? I

[25:52] mean, I mean, I could say

[25:54] because they can, uh, and they

[25:55] are allowed to under the policy,

[25:56] and I think it

[25:57] s, it

[25:57] s for two

[25:58] reasons. There

[25:59] s a lot more

[26:01] creativity with these larger

[26:04] signs, and the second is, is

[26:05] the revenue on these larger

[26:07] signs is, is, it

[26:08] s exponential,

[26:08] um, there

[26:09] s a lot more

[26:11] creativity and the city not

[26:14] only benefits with this

[26:16] extraordinary revenue payment.

[26:17] It also participates in that

[26:21] increased revenue. Um, with

[26:22] that, um, one more, that

[26:30] s you.

[26:35] Thank you. All right, am I? So

[26:35] what we

[26:36] ve heard and what the

[26:37] council can confirm or add to

[26:39] when we get to the discussion

[26:41] portion is that the planning

[26:42] commission is relied upon to

[26:46] hear. And consider the totality

[26:49] of the project for these sunset

[26:50] Billboard projects. Is this

[26:52] project a good idea in general?

[26:54] Is this what is in the

[26:55] interests of the city based on

[26:57] the guiding documents, vision,

[26:58] and past direction. And in this

[26:59] case, we

[27:00] re not just talking

[27:01] about the official public

[27:02] benefits, but other general

[27:05] benefits of the project as well

[27:06] as any particular drawbacks.

[27:07] What is the balance that we

[27:08] re

[27:08] striking with these projects,

[27:11] um. And that is what is at the

[27:12] heart of the recommendation

[27:12] that

[27:13] s coming from staff and

[27:13] that we

[27:14] re expecting to see

[27:16] from the city from the planning

[27:20] commission as well. And, and

[27:22] you ask how do we get to this

[27:25] recommendation, um. It

[27:25] s, it

[27:26] s

[27:27] evolved process, but uh, you

[27:28] know, the public realm is the

[27:31] first part of it that came with

[27:32] the design excellence staff

[27:33] when they feel comfortable with

[27:36] that public realm. Enhancement

[27:39] is moves it forward to, um, the,

[27:40] the subcommittee of planning

[27:41] commission and in that review

[27:43] we brought in engineering to

[27:44] see if they

[27:44] re feasible public

[27:46] works, udas and all the

[27:47] different divisions within the

[27:50] city. As I said, the, the, the

[27:52] subcommittee gives us input.

[27:54] And at that point is when we

[27:55] feel comfortable enough with

[27:58] the design and the public realm

[28:00] enhancements that will engage

[28:02] our valuation expert and that

[28:04] valuation expert prepares that

[28:05] estimated annual fair market

[28:08] value, which is a showed you

[28:10] how they, they evolved to that,

[28:11] um, estimate, and that

[28:12] s when

[28:13] we start negotiating the

[28:15] revenue share. The revenue

[28:17] share is a percentage of that

[28:20] annual fair market value plus

[28:21] extraordinary benefit and we

[28:23] also factor in if there

[28:23] s

[28:24] extensive capital costs to

[28:26] build that sign. And the cash

[28:28] flow, I mean, there

[28:28] s a, these

[28:29] signs are expensive and we give

[28:32] them credit in the first couple

[28:33] of years of the agreements and

[28:35] they pay us back, and I think

[28:35] you

[28:37] ve seen that at council. So

[28:37] once we

[28:39] ve come up with these

[28:41] terms, we work with the city

[28:42] attorney

[28:42] s office and that

[28:42] s

[28:43] where we draft the actual

[28:48] development agreement. Thank

[28:57] you. Oops. Yes ok. So, um, when

[28:58] the agreement gets to the point

[28:59] of the public hearing, there

[29:01] has been a lot of back and

[29:01] forth. We

[29:02] ve, um, we

[29:02] ve gone

[29:04] through the whole process that

[29:05] Brian just outlined. And like I

[29:08] said before, the city team

[29:09] negotiates the agreement using

[29:10] our best understanding of the

[29:10] city

[29:11] s priorities from our

[29:13] vision documents and from past

[29:14] direction that we

[29:15] ve gotten at

[29:17] city council, and it

[29:17] s really

[29:19] tricky to throw new things into

[29:21] that balance. Once we strike

[29:22] the balance, they, you know,

[29:22] it

[29:22] s it

[29:24] s sort of an ecosystem,

[29:26] and once you throw some

[29:28] something new at the last stage

[29:31] that gets difficult, um. But

[29:33] that said, the city has

[29:35] improved our internal processes

[29:36] through these conversations.

[29:36] We

[29:36] ve we

[29:38] ve um, improved our

[29:39] processes to provide clearer

[29:40] documents, and we

[29:41] ve, um,

[29:43] updated some of our standard

[29:45] terms and, and, um, deal points

[29:45] based on what we

[29:46] ve heard from

[29:47] the commission and council

[29:49] through this process. So the

[29:51] conversation does have, uh, a

[29:52] lot of benefit and it does

[30:00] improve the process. Ok, so

[30:00] we

[30:01] re gonna move the

[30:02] conversation so we

[30:04] ve really

[30:04] been talking about billboards

[30:07] for the first part of this kind

[30:08] of revenue and public benefit

[30:09] conversation and as we know,

[30:12] the Sunset Arts and advertising

[30:12] program has revenue share

[30:14] component, public realm

[30:16] enhancements, and extraordinary

[30:18] public benefits. But for other

[30:19] larger development projects,

[30:22] whether or not they have a sign,

[30:22] that

[30:24] s also part of this

[30:24] conversation tonight because

[30:24] they

[30:26] re usually subject to DAs

[30:28] and the thing that I most

[30:29] wanted to point out was where

[30:31] the public benefit requirement

[30:32] comes from in West Hollywood.

[30:35] So When you all adopted your

[30:36] general plan, um, I don

[30:36] t

[30:38] remember how many years ago,

[30:40] maybe 10 years ago. The city

[30:41] did something really smart, and

[30:43] it put this language in the

[30:45] general plan, which explains to

[30:47] anyone who wants to do uh

[30:48] development in West Hollywood

[30:50] and they want to do something

[30:51] above and beyond what these

[30:53] stand uh standards call for

[30:56] that the city will only

[30:58] consider increases in permitted

[31:00] far density and height for

[31:02] projects in the commercial

[31:03] designations that provides

[31:04] significant benefits. To the

[31:06] city. So this is the language

[31:07] we turn to when a developer

[31:08] comes in and says, but I want

[31:09] to go much higher and I want to

[31:11] do this and I want to do that.

[31:13] The city has the grounds to be

[31:14] able to say, well, if, if you

[31:15] even want the city to consider

[31:17] that, you have to provide

[31:18] significant benefits to the

[31:19] city and the community, and

[31:20] that

[31:22] s the language that we

[31:24] turn to through the development

[31:27] agreement process. Thank you.

[31:31] So While we did adopt that

[31:35] language in our, in 2011 in our

[31:39] general plan 2035, um, it that

[31:40] we have projects that predated

[31:41] that that still used this

[31:43] process. And so for years

[31:45] through those projects, it was,

[31:48] it was case by case. We didn

[31:48] t

[31:50] have a regulated uniform way of

[31:52] applying a public benefit.

[31:55] Evaluation to a project and so,

[31:57] um, in 2018, the city

[31:59] established a public benefit

[32:00] policy to standardize this

[32:03] process and we contracted with

[32:07] 3 economic consulting firms and

[32:08] had them analyze what our

[32:10] options were to try to capture

[32:12] that the best target public

[32:13] benefit amount, and they all

[32:16] unanimously agreed that the

[32:16] residual land value method was

[32:18] the way to go and so that

[32:18] s

[32:20] what we use now for our public

[32:23] benefits target. So in addition

[32:24] to standardizing the approach

[32:26] to the value of the public

[32:28] benefits package. The policy

[32:29] establishes a process to

[32:30] involve the public early on to

[32:32] get community input into what

[32:34] that public benefits package

[32:40] MAY include, um, we also I lost

[32:43] my spot sorry and it um and it

[32:49] provides Um Just, uh, it

[32:50] provides a set of steps that we

[32:51] go through. So we have the

[32:53] community benefit, we have the

[32:54] community meeting. Thank you,

[32:56] this was what I was looking for.

[32:57] We had the project planner gets

[33:01] the project, um, evaluates it.

[33:04] Has a required public

[33:04] neighborhood meeting to discuss

[33:07] what But the potential impacts

[33:09] or benefits of the projects are

[33:12] and to solicit input from the

[33:13] community on public benefit

[33:16] scope, um, after that point,

[33:19] the city staff will hire an

[33:22] independent economic analyst to

[33:23] evaluate the, the residual land

[33:26] value like I mentioned, um,

[33:28] using the standardized public

[33:31] benefits tool the Economic

[33:32] consultant that we engage works

[33:34] with the city only, um, any

[33:36] input or any meetings that have

[33:38] to be had with the developer in,

[33:40] in the room, always includes

[33:42] city staff. This is how we

[33:43] engage all of our consultants

[33:46] from sqqla to, to public

[33:47] benefits and other things as

[33:49] well. Um, so there

[33:49] s never

[33:50] direct communication. And some

[33:53] of the inputs into the tool are

[33:55] things that the applicant. Oh,

[33:56] no, I

[33:57] m still there. Um, are

[33:59] things that the applicant knows

[33:59] that we couldn

[34:00] t know that it

[34:00] s,

[34:00] it

[34:01] s unique to the project and

[34:04] so they do give some input into

[34:05] that process, but all of that

[34:07] is vetted by the consultant to

[34:10] make sure that it is consistent

[34:11] with industry practices that

[34:11] it

[34:12] s a reasonable approach, it

[34:16] fits the project and so forth.

[34:17] Then the consultant reviews

[34:19] everything and once we have

[34:20] that target amount, the city

[34:22] manager and the city staff

[34:23] negotiate the deal points of

[34:26] the da, including the public

[34:27] benefits package that is a

[34:29] conversation with the developer.

[34:30] Sometimes they have ideas of

[34:31] what they would like to propose.

[34:32] It

[34:33] s part of their project.

[34:34] They can design it into their

[34:35] project. I know we

[34:35] ve seen, for

[34:37] instance, on the arts or the

[34:38] former arts club project they

[34:39] have an art gallery that would

[34:42] be open to the public. It was

[34:44] also a, a performing arts

[34:45] rehearsal space, and so there

[34:46] are certain things that can be

[34:47] developed into the project and

[34:49] the applicant kind of has to

[34:50] have control over that, and

[34:51] then there can be parts of it

[34:53] that are more monetary, um,

[34:57] that we can ask for as well.

[34:59] And then once that is done and

[35:00] the city council, I

[35:01] m sorry,

[35:03] the attorney, and the

[35:04] applicant

[35:04] s legal counsel will

[35:06] work out the terms of the

[35:07] development agreement, then

[35:11] once the project is ready, um,

[35:12] including the sqa, the design

[35:14] review, all of that stuff. It

[35:15] all comes forward to public

[35:20] hearings. So the public benefit

[35:22] policy staff report included

[35:23] this language with respect to

[35:23] the planning commission

[35:24] s role,

[35:25] and it says in the yellow here,

[35:27] this will allow for the

[35:29] planning commission to weigh in

[35:30] on whether proposed benefits

[35:32] are appropriate for the

[35:33] proposed project while ensuring

[35:35] that the project is being

[35:37] reviewed based on the necessary

[35:39] findings required to be made

[35:39] for the specified permit

[35:42] requested. So what that has

[35:45] been taken to mean over the

[35:46] years, um, is that the planning

[35:47] commission can and should

[35:50] provide feedback on whether the

[35:51] requested legislative changes

[35:53] make for a good project. That

[35:53] s,

[35:53] that

[35:54] s the biggest question,

[35:56] right? Is this project a good

[35:59] project? All of it included. Uh,

[36:00] whether the public benefits

[36:02] package makes sense from a land

[36:04] use perspective is the public

[36:05] benefits package making sense

[36:07] relative to the legislative

[36:09] changes being asked for, and

[36:11] generally the commission is not

[36:13] asked or tasked with evaluating

[36:14] the inputs into the evaluation

[36:18] tool. Um, things like The

[36:19] construction costs or, you know,

[36:19] if it

[36:20] s a hotel project, the

[36:22] room rates or things like that.

[36:25] The inputs into the tool, but

[36:26] to provide overall land use

[36:28] related feedback on the package

[36:29] and provide recommendation to

[36:31] counsel on whether the

[36:32] components of the package make

[36:34] sense. Does the project in its

[36:35] whole in its totality moved the

[36:37] city in the direction of

[36:38] achieving its goals and its

[36:40] vision. Uh, and finally, the

[36:42] planning commission is asked to

[36:44] take an action and make a

[36:45] recommendation forward, move a

[36:47] recommendation forward to the

[36:49] city council and whether that

[36:51] is yes, no, or somewhere in

[36:52] between the recommendation goes

[36:54] to the city council. The city

[36:55] council then evaluates it and

[36:58] can send back, send staff back

[36:59] to re-evaluate things or

[37:01] something along those lines, um,

[37:02] but the, the role of the

[37:04] planning commission is to move

[37:05] a recommendation forward. And

[37:07] so with that, I will give you a

[37:08] preview of the questions that

[37:08] we

[37:10] re going to seek. Guidance

[37:11] on and then, um, like I said,

[37:12] we

[37:12] ll take public comment and

[37:13] come back to this slide, and so

[37:14] I

[37:15] ll turn it over to Lauren to

[37:19] go through those questions. So

[37:20] with all of that information in

[37:24] mind. In order to, you know,

[37:24] use everybody

[37:25] s time

[37:26] efficiently, um, we

[37:27] re gonna

[37:28] end with some proposed

[37:30] questions for the council and

[37:32] the commission to discuss after

[37:33] public comment that we think

[37:35] will help everybody, um, guide

[37:36] expectations through this

[37:38] process because I think the

[37:40] reality is with the Billboard

[37:40] program and other developments

[37:41] on the horizon, there

[37:41] s going

[37:44] to be a lot of development

[37:45] agreements coming through over

[37:47] the next many years and so I

[37:50] think um answering some of

[37:51] these questions during this,

[37:52] this joint meeting would be

[37:54] helpful in having the council

[37:56] provide their expectations. So,

[37:58] um, as Jennifer had noted, the

[37:59] process has been improved

[38:00] through the discussion at the

[38:02] commission and the point of all

[38:03] these public hearings is to get

[38:05] to the best document possible

[38:07] for the city. So some things

[38:09] that the um. Council can

[38:10] discuss tonight is what, what

[38:13] is the best way to use meetings

[38:13] efficiently and effectively.

[38:15] What is the city council want

[38:16] from the planning commission

[38:17] and its recommendation. There

[38:17] s

[38:18] a couple options here. Does

[38:21] this, does the council want the

[38:22] planning commission reviewing

[38:23] inputs into the economic

[38:24] valuation tool. Does the

[38:25] council want the planning

[38:27] commission to recommend changes

[38:28] on components of the benefit

[38:30] package. Does the council want

[38:31] planning commission to weigh in

[38:33] on the overall sufficiency of

[38:35] the public benefits and our

[38:37] public realm enhancements. And

[38:37] then additionally, are there

[38:39] additional benefits? The

[38:41] council would like to see from

[38:42] Billboard and or public benefit

[38:45] projects, um, as noted, a lot

[38:48] of what guides staff through

[38:49] this whole process is decisions

[38:51] that have already been made and

[38:52] the land use documents that the

[38:53] council has adopted. So those

[38:55] are the guiding documents um

[38:56] for billboards, the terms and

[38:58] benefits are based on past

[38:59] development agreements that

[39:00] have come through for

[39:01] development projects, the terms

[39:04] and the benefits are based on

[39:05] public benefits policy and the

[39:07] guiding documents. This, this

[39:07] is the guidance and we really

[39:09] want to know what are.

[39:09] Council

[39:11] s priorities. Are there

[39:12] additional negotiations that

[39:13] you want done, which, you know,

[39:15] can have the other benefit of

[39:17] delaying projects coming

[39:18] through, so provide staff,

[39:20] commission, you know, the

[39:21] public, the guidance of what

[39:23] you want to see, and that way

[39:24] this process can work a lot

[39:26] smoother for everybody who

[39:26] s

[39:28] involved. And then the last

[39:28] question that was put up here

[39:30] is, does the city council want

[39:32] to revisit the framework for,

[39:34] for the public benefit policy

[39:35] and tool or billboard da terms,

[39:36] which is something that would

[39:37] happen at a later date. That

[39:37] s

[39:39] not decisions. That need to be

[39:41] made tonight but just, you know,

[39:42] the conversation. Is this

[39:43] working the way you want it to,

[39:44] or do you want it to look a

[39:46] little bit different. Tell us,

[39:47] and then, and then the process

[39:49] can be improved and enhanced.

[39:49] So that

[39:50] s the goal for tonight.

[39:51] Um, I

[39:51] ll turn it back over to

[39:52] the mayor if you want to open

[39:54] it up for public comment and,

[39:56] and we can navigate that

[39:58] discussion. Thank you and As

[39:58] we

[40:00] re getting uh the public

[40:00] prepared for your opportunity

[40:02] to make comment, please make

[40:02] sure you

[40:04] ve, uh, submitted your

[40:05] comment request to our city

[40:05] clerk. Um, I

[40:06] ll just let this

[40:08] body know what my plan is, um,

[40:10] so many of these questions are

[40:11] directed at the council, so I

[40:11] m

[40:13] gonna come to the council for a

[40:14] first pass. I

[40:14] m sure we all

[40:16] maybe have a need for question

[40:17] clarity, that sort of thing on

[40:18] the presentation. So we

[40:19] ll do a

[40:20] first pass for my council

[40:21] colleagues go to planning

[40:23] commission and then come back

[40:24] to council if we need to do

[40:25] another exchange, we can do it

[40:27] at that time, but my hope is

[40:28] that we can all sort of take a

[40:30] moment. To digest, to get our

[40:31] responses clear to some of

[40:32] these questions. We have a need

[40:33] for clarity, this is going to

[40:34] be the moment. I

[40:35] m gonna go to

[40:37] the public now. Oh, maybe our

[40:39] city clerk needs another moment,

[40:39] uh, before we

[40:40] re prepared, but

[40:42] I understand we have a couple

[40:42] of public commenters prepared,

[40:43] and then we

[40:44] ll come back to our

[40:45] discussion. Sound good?

[40:50] Terrific. Sorry about that. Are

[40:51] we moving to public comment now?

[40:54] Ok, um, we had Jonathan Wilson

[40:55] signed up to speak, but I don

[40:56] t

[40:59] see him in chambers, so I will

[41:02] move to Steve Martin. Come on

[41:11] down, Steve Martin. Like. Well,

[41:12] thank you and thank you, thank

[41:13] everybody for coming. Ok, there

[41:16] we go. I just wanted to make

[41:19] sure it was on this. This is, I,

[41:20] I was long overdue, but the the

[41:22] staff presentation was very

[41:23] good. And, and I think

[41:26] informative. On the the most

[41:27] immediate question, I think

[41:28] most of the people of the

[41:31] public. I would think that the

[41:34] planning commission having a

[41:36] Review and some input on the

[41:37] development agreement kind of

[41:40] gives the public. An

[41:43] opportunity to be heard and

[41:44] also gives you an opportunity

[41:46] to have like a preview before

[41:49] it comes to consul of what the

[41:49] commission

[41:50] s concerns are and

[41:51] what the public

[41:52] s concerns are,

[41:53] um, I, I think we

[41:54] ve, I mean,

[41:57] over the, I mean for over the

[42:00] many, many years, these

[42:01] projects, these development

[42:03] agreements have really become

[42:04] way more sophisticated and

[42:06] frankly I think more lucrative

[42:08] for the city and better

[42:10] negotiated, um. That

[42:10] s just my

[42:11] observation and it

[42:11] s hard

[42:12] because you guys are there all

[42:13] the time. I

[42:14] m only sort of

[42:15] dropped parachuting in and out,

[42:18] but You know, I, I guess for an

[42:21] example, the the arts club.

[42:22] Development agreement left a

[42:23] lot to be desired. I thought it

[42:25] was all kind of way to go about

[42:27] doing it, uh, at the last

[42:29] minute, um, Lauren Meister was

[42:32] able to ask for a very large

[42:33] contribution towards housing,

[42:33] which wasn

[42:35] t even on the table,

[42:37] and within 30 seconds, the

[42:39] developer said, yes, which left

[42:42] a lot of people wondering. What

[42:44] kind of, how rigorous was this

[42:46] process and what was, what was

[42:47] staff really negotiating. I

[42:48] think we

[42:48] ve we

[42:49] ve evolved since

[42:51] then, but, uh, I do think that

[42:52] the planning commission having

[42:54] a say is, is just a good idea.

[42:55] So anyway, thank you for your

[42:57] time and thank you for your

[42:58] indulgence, and I saw you on tv.

[43:03] Yeah, on the on the Thank you

[43:03] very much. There

[43:04] s one more

[43:08] public comment. Wendy Goldman,

[43:10] Wendy Goldman, you will have 2

[43:11] minutes to be followed by David

[43:15] Ecker. Good evening, Mayor,

[43:17] council members, commissioners,

[43:20] staff, uh, I have a question

[43:21] regarding public benefit. Some

[43:23] years ago as a long term

[43:25] resident here, I have been to

[43:27] many scoping meetings for

[43:28] developments on Sunset Strip

[43:30] and elsewhere in the city at

[43:32] the meeting that I went to,

[43:34] there were artists renderings

[43:37] of the project that indicated a

[43:39] garden that was going to be

[43:41] established for the community,

[43:42] um, somewhere down the line,

[43:46] the developers sold the project

[43:48] to a 2nd party and the public

[43:50] benefit garden went away. I was

[43:53] not aware of that until the

[43:55] project completed and opened

[43:55] and it wasn

[43:57] t there. So I

[43:57] m

[43:59] just wondering how does someone

[44:02] like myself track these things

[44:04] when developers change

[44:07] midstream and do not exactly

[44:10] have a clear Definition of what

[44:13] is going to be the public

[44:13] benefit. So I

[44:14] ll leave that to

[44:17] you. Thank you. Thank you.

[44:19] David Eckhart, I believe was

[44:20] next. And it looks like we

[44:21] re

[44:22] still getting speaker slips.

[44:23] Good evening, everyone. Uh,

[44:24] just a quick question, and I

[44:25] know it

[44:28] s subjective, but the

[44:30] word extraordinary uh public

[44:31] benefits seems very broad

[44:33] termed, and I just as a public

[44:34] viewer and watching these

[44:35] things, it

[44:37] s very hard. For me

[44:39] or as a layperson to know what

[44:41] that definition means. And I

[44:42] just wonder if that moving

[44:44] forward can be a little more

[44:46] defined of what that means for

[44:47] the public, uh, but thank you

[44:48] all for what you do. I think

[44:50] you all do an incredible job

[44:52] and keep doing the great work.

[44:54] Thank you. Do you have other

[44:56] folks. Thank you, David. We

[44:58] have one additional speaker, Oz

[45:01] Powers. So Thank you so much.

[45:01] I

[45:04] m, um, an advocate for uh

[45:05] trans lgbtq, non-binary youth,

[45:07] and I would love to see a

[45:08] program that would help some of

[45:10] the homeless youth that are in

[45:12] the center or other places to

[45:13] um teach them how to do. I

[45:14] m,

[45:14] I

[45:15] m a designer, production

[45:16] designer, art director. I was

[45:18] the art director on Avatar and

[45:20] Emmy Award-winning artist, but

[45:22] I love to teach, um, especially

[45:23] people in our community that

[45:24] have been targeted or thrown

[45:28] out of their home or, you know,

[45:29] homeless or struggling craft

[45:30] and skill of production design

[45:32] and. Artwork, um, and I would

[45:34] love to see that there

[45:35] s

[45:35] probably other programs out

[45:38] there, but to coalesce to help

[45:39] those youth produce some of the

[45:41] art that is on the billboards

[45:42] and showcase their work. That

[45:42] s

[45:43] all. Thank you. Thank you so

[45:45] much. Were there any other

[45:47] public commenters signed up in

[45:49] person or in Zoom. We had one

[45:49] individual signed up for Zoom,

[45:52] but they are not in the meeting.

[45:53] We can proceed here. Thank you

[45:56] all so much for coming out and

[45:56] delivering your public comments.

[45:57] Um, I

[45:58] m going to turn to my

[46:00] colleagues on the council to

[46:01] get the conversation started.

[46:04] Ed unless there was any

[46:04] extraordinary need for

[46:05] extraordinary, that

[46:05] ll be the

[46:07] word, uh, need for clarity on

[46:09] the presentation. It

[46:09] s ok. Ok,

[46:09] I

[46:10] m gonna come over to this

[46:13] side. Was anybody ready to

[46:15] begin the discussion? We

[46:15] re all

[46:16] super eager, uh, Vice Mayor,

[46:19] you said yes. Oh, ok, we

[46:19] ll go

[46:21] over there, councilmember my

[46:22] COUNCILMAN Bermeister, we

[46:22] ll

[46:24] begin with you. Are they gonna

[46:27] answer what extraordinary.

[46:28] Would you like to help. I would

[46:31] like them to answer what

[46:36] extraordinary is. An

[46:37] extraordinary benefit as a cash

[46:39] payment for an alternative

[46:43] standards project. So it

[46:44] s

[46:44] extraordinary means dollars at

[46:46] this point. And what about

[46:50] extraordinary design? That

[46:50] s

[46:52] subjective and uh Planning

[46:53] commission and council, you

[46:55] know, staff bring something

[46:57] forward that we believe is

[46:58] extraordinary, and that

[46:59] s a

[47:02] subjective definition, so then

[47:04] City Attorney Langer then

[47:06] planning commission can debate

[47:07] whether something is

[47:07] extraordinary design or not, is

[47:14] that right? I think the term is

[47:14] exceptional though that

[47:15] s

[47:19] exceptional used to be

[47:20] extraordinary. The design

[47:22] component in the land use

[47:22] component is absolutely

[47:24] something that the planning

[47:24] commission should be reviewing.

[47:25] I think it

[47:25] s something that

[47:26] s

[47:26] sassy, it looks, that

[47:27] s how we

[47:27] would say it

[47:29] s sassy, right?

[47:29] The sassy subcommittee looks at

[47:32] the design of the um, looks at

[47:34] the design of the signs and if

[47:36] it has that extraordinary

[47:37] exceptional component to it.

[47:38] The design is part of what

[47:38] they

[47:40] re reviewing. Ok, we

[47:40] re

[47:42] just doing like initial

[47:45] comments and then, ok, so, um,

[47:48] Wendy Goldman spoke about a

[47:51] change in public benefits, uh,

[47:52] midstream without the public

[47:55] getting to You know, give some

[48:01] input on that, um. I guess, I

[48:01] guess my, I don

[48:02] t know if it

[48:02] s

[48:04] a question or a comment, but

[48:05] you know, we

[48:06] ve had this issue

[48:08] about major versus minor

[48:13] changes. And I think that that

[48:15] is something that has caused

[48:19] grief to a lot of residents

[48:20] when changes happen on the

[48:22] staff at the staff level over

[48:24] the counter on big projects, I

[48:26] mean, even look at like the

[48:28] sunset Millennium when they

[48:29] took away, didn

[48:30] t that happen

[48:32] over the counter. They took

[48:33] away all the terraces and, and

[48:36] now it looks like a prison. Um.

[48:44] What can we do? To Um Fix that.

[48:44] So there

[48:46] s a provision in every

[48:47] development agreement that

[48:48] talks about changes to the

[48:50] project. And it, the way that

[48:50] they

[48:51] ve always been framed and

[48:53] in the samples that we

[48:55] ve used,

[48:57] um, it explains what is minor

[48:58] and oftentimes it lists

[48:59] specific things that would be

[49:01] considered minor, which means

[49:03] just in the efficiency of

[49:04] getting these projects going,

[49:06] that the um amendment is

[49:08] approved at a staff level. It

[49:09] MAY also list things that are

[49:11] major, for example, if it

[49:12] requires additional sql review,

[49:14] it would be major. And so It

[49:14] s

[49:15] that section of the development

[49:17] agreement where you want to set

[49:18] the expectations for both the

[49:20] city, the staff, and the

[49:22] developer of what is considered

[49:24] major and minor and what can be

[49:25] approved at the staff level and

[49:28] what should come back because

[49:29] of an amendment requires the

[49:31] full process, right? It

[49:31] requires the planning

[49:32] commission public hearing, the

[49:33] city council public hearing.

[49:34] It

[49:34] s, it

[49:35] s a long process to do

[49:37] a major amendment. So you want

[49:38] to specify in the document what.

[49:41] The council considers major and

[49:42] minor. I guess what I would say

[49:43] is that when you

[49:44] re talking

[49:46] about a project that has a da

[49:46] it

[49:48] s usually a very big project

[49:49] and they

[49:50] re probably very few

[49:51] changes that could be

[49:53] considered minor. Uh, where,

[49:55] you know, where the public

[49:55] wouldn

[49:56] t be have an interest in

[49:59] knowing what is changing. Um,

[50:02] so I would suggest that that

[50:04] minor versus major be made

[50:08] extremely narrow. For DAs. Can

[50:10] I just add one thing? Are we

[50:12] not giving I think before we

[50:12] re

[50:13] not here to make suggestions so

[50:14] much to sort of, right, we

[50:15] re

[50:17] not here to give direction or,

[50:18] you know, change anything

[50:20] specifically, just sort of

[50:21] posit what our understanding of

[50:21] things are, yeah, it

[50:22] s a little

[50:24] complicated, but yeah, so

[50:25] rather than it

[50:26] s there you go

[50:27] that direction, it

[50:28] s not

[50:28] direction. It

[50:29] s not direction,

[50:29] it

[50:32] s an emotion. Um, the other

[50:34] thing I wanted to bring up, uh,

[50:36] is, um, you know, it

[50:36] s

[50:40] interesting that we give DAs,

[50:42] um, to create certainty for

[50:44] developers, but somehow we

[50:45] haven

[50:45] t created certainty for

[50:49] us. For the city, for residents

[50:51] about getting projects built.

[50:51] You know, there

[50:52] s certainty for

[50:55] them, but not certainty for us,

[50:55] um, so I

[50:56] m not going to go on

[50:58] because then it would become a

[50:59] direction. Um, the other thing

[50:59] I

[51:01] ll bring up is on public

[51:04] input. Um, we talk about

[51:05] community meetings and, and I,

[51:06] and we just passed recently

[51:08] passed an item to have

[51:10] community meetings for all DAs,

[51:12] not just DAs having to do with

[51:14] development projects, but also

[51:16] billboards. And one of the um

[51:19] One of the points in uh the

[51:24] public benefits, um, The public

[51:26] benefits policy is public input,

[51:28] input and community meetings

[51:29] that staff will discuss the

[51:31] potential public benefits of

[51:34] the project at the initial

[51:34] neighborhood meeting required

[51:37] by the West Hollywood Municipal

[51:39] code. Staff will present to the

[51:41] community the above general

[51:42] list of public benefit

[51:43] categories, and there

[51:44] s a whole

[51:47] list and solicit and document

[51:48] feedback regarding neighborhood

[51:49] priorities. I don

[51:50] t think

[51:50] that

[51:51] s ever been done. I don

[51:51] t

[51:52] think that

[51:55] s ever been done. So,

[51:55] i

[51:59] ll just leave it there.

[52:00] Councillor Murhang, are you

[52:03] ready to go, or did you? Are we

[52:04] providing commentary or if you

[52:05] had if you had clarity, if you

[52:06] had initial thoughts you

[52:06] d like

[52:08] to share now or we can come

[52:10] back to you at the end. Um,

[52:12] thank you, Mayor. You know, I,

[52:13] I do think it

[52:14] s important to

[52:15] clarify the role of the

[52:17] planning commission in the

[52:18] development agreement process,

[52:19] um, under the city

[52:19] s governing

[52:21] framework, DAs are legislative

[52:23] actions that fall under the

[52:23] exclusive authority of the city

[52:25] council. While the planning

[52:26] commission MAY review and

[52:28] provide recommendations on land

[52:29] use matters. It does not and

[52:30] should not have the authority

[52:34] to approve, modify, or impose

[52:35] conditions on development

[52:36] agreements. The, the city

[52:37] council is the only

[52:39] decision-making body with the

[52:40] legal authority to negotiate,

[52:42] amend, and approve development

[52:43] agreements. Any conditions,

[52:45] terms, or public benefits

[52:46] associated with DAs are

[52:47] determined solely by the city

[52:48] council as part of its

[52:50] legislative discretion. The

[52:50] planning commission

[52:52] s role is

[52:54] strictly advisory in nature and

[52:55] its recommendations are

[52:56] non-binding as I head to the

[52:57] city council for determination.

[53:00] Thank you, Mayor. Ok. Uh,

[53:04] Councilor Erickson. Just Thank

[53:05] you so much. Um, I have some

[53:06] questions I

[53:06] ll, I

[53:07] ll talk about

[53:09] some initial comments. So on

[53:12] page 22 of your excellent

[53:13] presentation. Congratulations.

[53:14] Welcome, planning commissioners.

[53:15] Last time I was on here with

[53:16] some of you, I was vice chair

[53:18] and I believe you were

[53:19] commissioner of the, on the

[53:19] commission, so it

[53:20] s nice to

[53:22] serve a table with you again.

[53:27] Um. Page 22 regarding

[53:28] complications, um, I

[53:28] m aware

[53:30] when I was a planning

[53:32] commissioner, most commissions

[53:35] are commissioners are asked to

[53:37] bring complicated questions or

[53:40] commentary to you prior. Are

[53:41] you experiencing difficulties

[53:42] with that. It sounds like you

[53:43] are, but I just I

[53:45] m trying to

[53:46] understand better because if

[53:47] questions were asked ahead of

[53:49] time, then we wouldn

[53:49] t be

[53:51] having um Negotiation

[53:52] strategies in front of

[53:55] development. Second guessing

[53:56] facts in detail, stuff like

[53:57] that. I

[53:57] m sounding like that

[53:58] s

[53:58] a challenge that you

[53:58] ve been

[54:02] facing. I think that there are

[54:04] a lot of times that the

[54:05] planning commissioners will

[54:06] bring us questions ahead of

[54:07] time and then sometimes

[54:08] questions come out of the

[54:10] deliberation and the, and the

[54:12] presentation and the

[54:12] applicant

[54:13] s presentation, and

[54:13] so I think there

[54:15] s a little of

[54:18] both, yeah. Great. So you are

[54:20] having difficulty. Wonderful.

[54:22] In regards to page 20 slide 24,

[54:25] you talk about an independent

[54:26] economic consultant. That

[54:27] individual, I

[54:28] m guessing is

[54:30] certified, has credentials that

[54:30] most if I

[54:31] m I don

[54:32] t know what

[54:34] the commissioners have in terms

[54:34] of their professional

[54:35] credentials, but a way in which

[54:38] they would be able to provide

[54:40] expert expertise, correct?

[54:41] Correct. That

[54:41] s, that

[54:44] s their

[54:45] profession, yes was to be

[54:52] dealing with. And you Thank you.

[54:53] Um, if the planning commission

[54:55] is supposed to be solely land

[54:58] use, then why are we getting

[55:00] into like economic Calculations

[55:01] back and forth with some of the

[55:02] commissioners. I

[55:02] ve seen it

[55:04] happen, but I

[55:05] m just wondering

[55:05] why that

[55:06] s even an option in

[55:07] their discussion and it

[55:07] s not

[55:09] shut down. Well, that

[55:10] s the

[55:10] direction that we

[55:11] re trying to

[55:13] get to you and I see that as

[55:14] one of your questions. I

[55:14] m just

[55:15] clarifying for the public

[55:16] because I

[55:17] ve seen the public

[55:17] s

[55:19] time wasted as a result of that.

[55:26] Um, additionally, on Page. Or

[55:38] slide 29, um. Uh For the

[55:44] evaluation tools. Um I

[55:44] m

[55:46] looking back on to some of the

[55:48] conversations in the staff

[55:50] report on page 5 and 4

[55:52] regarding how we evaluate and

[55:55] some confusion specifically.

[55:57] For land use authority, why is

[55:58] the commission talking about

[56:02] public parks and open space. So,

[56:03] for example, I believe it was

[56:05] the Viper room project. There

[56:06] was some conversation at the

[56:07] planning commission that dealt

[56:09] with hours of a museum at some

[56:11] point. Why was that even

[56:15] allowed to happen? I don

[56:16] t, I

[56:16] don

[56:17] t think that

[56:17] s land use

[56:18] authority, and I

[56:19] m reading this

[56:20] as strictly the planning

[56:23] commission deals with land use,

[56:24] correct? Well, for instance

[56:25] with a conditional use permit,

[56:27] we talk about the hours of

[56:28] operation. I think that that

[56:28] s

[56:29] part of, part of what we talk

[56:30] about in a lot of land use

[56:32] questions, yeah but at the end

[56:34] of the day. The planning

[56:35] commission should not be

[56:38] negotiating a public benefit

[56:40] that you all dealt with

[56:40] regarding the hours of

[56:42] operation. It just doesn

[56:43] t seem

[56:44] within their authority. I

[56:44] m

[56:45] guessing, and correct me if I

[56:45] m

[56:45] wrong, if it

[56:46] s in their

[56:47] authority and you would like

[56:47] that, but I

[56:48] m hearing that

[56:48] s a

[56:51] no. And yeah, I think that

[56:51] s

[56:52] part of the conversation

[56:53] tonight is where do you want

[56:54] the commission spending their

[56:56] time? All of this in some way

[56:58] or another can be connected to

[57:01] land use design, some points

[57:02] are purely financial and so the

[57:03] council should set the

[57:05] framework of what they want the

[57:06] commission focusing and I

[57:07] understand the planning

[57:08] commission is not elected by

[57:10] the people, that is us. Um, I

[57:11] know there

[57:11] s some conversations

[57:15] there at times, but, um, my

[57:16] final question um is just

[57:18] regarding, I think the general

[57:18] confusion of what we

[57:19] re having

[57:20] up. Right? Uh, we

[57:25] ve. This was

[57:26] a very great presentation. I

[57:27] think it

[57:28] s very thorough. When

[57:29] I was a planning commissioner,

[57:31] I understood this. I

[57:31] ve

[57:33] negotiated a few public

[57:34] benefits and development

[57:34] agreements. I

[57:35] m just wondering,

[57:36] is there a training component

[57:39] when an individual gets put on

[57:39] the planning commission to

[57:40] understand that role. I believe

[57:42] there is, but I

[57:42] m just wanna

[57:45] confirmation in that way. Yeah,

[57:48] we, we train and we meet with

[57:49] each new commissioner when they

[57:50] come on and we get them, give

[57:52] them all of this background,

[57:53] and again, like part of what

[57:55] comes out of this is gonna be

[57:57] what goes into that onboarding

[58:00] as well. Wonderful. So then in

[58:03] terms of uh commentary on page

[58:04] 29 for questions. Um, I

[58:05] m happy,

[58:07] MADAM Mayor to say, uh, you

[58:08] know, frankly, i

[58:11] m happy to

[58:12] have the planning direction

[58:12] comments right now, we can go

[58:15] back to it. I can if you like.

[58:16] We

[58:17] ll come to Vice Mayor

[58:17] Heilman and they

[58:18] ll come back

[58:19] before we move on to the

[58:19] planning commission. I

[58:19] m sorry

[58:20] to cut you off, COUNCILMAN

[58:23] Burks. I just wanna be careful,

[58:26] get into questions yet. Vice

[58:27] Mayor Heilman, thank you, Mayor,

[58:30] and, uh, thank you to the staff

[58:31] for the great presentation.

[58:32] Thank you to the commission and,

[58:35] and the members of the public

[58:38] who spoke, I wanna go back to

[58:39] something that Jennifer

[58:42] mentioned having to do with

[58:44] what was happening before we

[58:46] developed this framework and

[58:47] this approach. What would

[58:50] happen is a developer would

[58:52] come to the city with a project

[58:53] and ask for things above what

[58:57] the zone. Ordinance allowed and

[58:59] they would propose what they

[59:00] thought was an ideal public

[59:03] benefit. And then they would

[59:04] chop around the community to

[59:06] try to get other people in the

[59:09] community to get on board. It

[59:09] wasn

[59:11] t necessarily a public

[59:13] benefit that the city had

[59:15] identified, it was a public

[59:17] benefit that the developer

[59:18] thought they could utilize to

[59:20] get people to come out and

[59:23] support the project. Um, and

[59:24] frankly, we didn

[59:25] t always know

[59:27] what the value of that public

[59:29] benefit was we didn

[59:31] t know the

[59:33] value of the extra, uh, density

[59:37] or extra height. Um So this

[59:40] approach actually is an

[59:43] approach where the city has

[59:44] identified in advance those

[59:46] kind of public benefits that,

[59:49] you know, the council listening

[59:50] to the community because we did

[59:54] have hearings on this. The

[59:56] council has identified these as

[59:58] the public benefits that we

[59:58] re

[1:00:01] looking for as part of a

[1:00:03] development agreement and

[1:00:04] bringing in the consultant

[1:00:05] using the residual land value

[1:00:09] which is standard in the

[1:00:12] development community using

[1:00:13] that methodology to determine

[1:00:15] how much is the developer

[1:00:19] getting from this extra height,

[1:00:21] extra density or changes and

[1:00:25] then having somebody with the

[1:00:27] expertise to negotiate that

[1:00:29] agreement, um, I think that

[1:00:31] makes perfect sense. And the

[1:00:33] question about whether the

[1:00:34] planning commission should be

[1:00:36] involved in that negotiation. I,

[1:00:36] I

[1:00:38] m not even sure the council

[1:00:41] should really be involved in

[1:00:43] that negotiation because our

[1:00:46] role I see as setting the broad

[1:00:49] parameters, making sure that we

[1:00:51] have experts making those

[1:00:53] decisions and having a policy

[1:00:57] in place that is a broad public

[1:00:58] policy with each development

[1:01:00] that comes forward, I

[1:01:01] m not

[1:01:05] aware of the specific costs of

[1:01:06] things that developer is doing.

[1:01:07] Uh, I

[1:01:10] m not aware of how much

[1:01:12] in value is associated with

[1:01:13] this greater height, and I

[1:01:13] m

[1:01:14] not, I, I don

[1:01:15] t think it really

[1:01:17] is our role to be involved in

[1:01:21] that give and take, um, I think

[1:01:23] our role is to establish the

[1:01:26] broad broad parameters, so

[1:01:27] maybe I agree with my

[1:01:29] colleagues that it

[1:01:29] s not the

[1:01:29] commission

[1:01:32] s role to be

[1:01:32] involved in that negotiation,

[1:01:35] but I also would add to it, I

[1:01:35] m

[1:01:35] not sure it

[1:01:37] s our role. As the

[1:01:38] council because we don

[1:01:39] t have

[1:01:41] that kind of expertise either

[1:01:41] and frankly we don

[1:01:43] t have all

[1:01:46] of the information for those

[1:01:48] negotiations. The other thing I

[1:01:51] wanted to point out because you

[1:01:54] brought up signage is what was

[1:01:56] happening before we use the

[1:01:59] development, uh, agreement

[1:02:01] process for signs. Before that

[1:02:04] happened, people would come in

[1:02:05] and propose large signs, uh,

[1:02:08] the tall balls The building

[1:02:10] owner would get a lot of money

[1:02:13] from the rental, the Sign

[1:02:15] Company would get a lot of

[1:02:17] money from the signage. And the

[1:02:19] city would get a one-time

[1:02:23] permit fee of about $1500. The

[1:02:24] city didn

[1:02:25] t get anything from

[1:02:27] all of the signage that was

[1:02:30] being approved. Now with the

[1:02:31] development agreement process

[1:02:34] for these signs, there are

[1:02:36] signs where the city is getting

[1:02:39] 10 million over 30 years or 30

[1:02:42] million over 30 years. Those

[1:02:45] are extraordinary. Uh, it

[1:02:45] s an

[1:02:46] extraordinary change, um, and I

[1:02:49] just want to make sure that as

[1:02:51] we have this conversation about

[1:02:52] development agreements,

[1:02:54] particularly with respect to

[1:02:56] signage, people really

[1:02:59] understand the value that they

[1:03:01] are providing from um

[1:03:03] development. And then my final

[1:03:05] point, uh, I have two final

[1:03:08] points. One, first and foremost

[1:03:10] is, I, I think always the

[1:03:11] decision is Is this project

[1:03:14] good for the city? Putting

[1:03:17] aside the, the benefits,

[1:03:18] putting aside the monetary, uh,

[1:03:18] it

[1:03:20] s always got to be, is this

[1:03:23] an appropriate and good project

[1:03:26] for the city and then the final

[1:03:27] point is, uh, going back to

[1:03:31] something Brian said, and that

[1:03:34] is uh having this, this tension

[1:03:37] between uh trying to find

[1:03:38] consistency between projects,

[1:03:40] but also making sure we

[1:03:40] re

[1:03:42] evaluating each project. For

[1:03:43] the unique benefit it

[1:03:44] s getting

[1:03:47] and the unique cost of that, so

[1:03:47] we can

[1:03:50] t just say all projects.

[1:03:53] This is the amount or this is

[1:03:54] the percentage because it is

[1:03:56] going to vary from project to

[1:03:58] project based on the cost of

[1:03:59] developing that particular

[1:04:01] project. I would love to have

[1:04:03] consistency, but I just don

[1:04:03] t

[1:04:04] think it

[1:04:05] s possible. The

[1:04:07] framework, however, does give

[1:04:09] us consistency because it looks

[1:04:11] at the residual land value for

[1:04:13] this particular project and

[1:04:14] these extra benefits and that

[1:04:16] gives us the framework for

[1:04:18] negotiating for that particular

[1:04:20] project. Thank you very much.

[1:04:21] Councilmember Meister, I

[1:04:25] believe you had a question 2

[1:04:29] questions. Thank you. Um, uh,

[1:04:32] Lauren, um, First of all,

[1:04:34] conditions of use, that is

[1:04:35] something that planning

[1:04:37] commission decides on?

[1:04:40] Conditions of use. That that

[1:04:40] s

[1:04:42] in a project, conditions of use,

[1:04:43] right? That

[1:04:44] s in every project,

[1:04:45] whether it

[1:04:46] s a whether it

[1:04:46] s a,

[1:04:50] a, a da project or a or a just

[1:04:52] a standard project, right? It

[1:04:53] s

[1:04:53] usually about compatibility to

[1:04:54] make sure that the uses that

[1:04:57] are going to be established on

[1:04:57] the site are compatible and

[1:04:59] done in a way that complies

[1:05:00] with code and doesn

[1:05:01] t create

[1:05:02] harm, but also the conditions,

[1:05:05] I mean, you know, a a a a store

[1:05:08] is open from 9 A.M. Till 9:00

[1:05:09] P.M. And this is open till 3

[1:05:11] till. 7 and, and this is how

[1:05:14] they have to drive in and, and

[1:05:16] ingress, egress. So why would

[1:05:18] that be any different for a

[1:05:18] project that

[1:05:19] s getting a

[1:05:21] development agreement, for

[1:05:24] example, uh, John

[1:05:24] s example of

[1:05:26] the how long the museum is open.

[1:05:28] Why would that be any different

[1:05:31] than if we were making or or

[1:05:32] planning commission we

[1:05:32] re

[1:05:34] making a decision about whether,

[1:05:37] you know, uh uh this the uh the

[1:05:39] skate store should be open past

[1:05:39] 9. O

[1:05:41] c lock at night. Well,

[1:05:42] first of all, we

[1:05:42] re, we

[1:05:43] re not

[1:05:47] here to talk about specific um

[1:05:48] DAs or specific provisions of

[1:05:50] specific projects that have

[1:05:53] been hours of operation example.

[1:05:58] You know, some uses in the code,

[1:05:58] um, specifically have

[1:06:00] restrictions in them, the time

[1:06:01] that they

[1:06:03] re open is regulated,

[1:06:04] um, yes, we, we were always

[1:06:05] looking at land use and

[1:06:06] compatibility. I think the

[1:06:07] point is that you

[1:06:08] re looking at

[1:06:09] the land use, and that is what

[1:06:12] is in the planning commission

[1:06:12] s

[1:06:13] purview. How, how these things

[1:06:15] function, how they look, how

[1:06:15] it

[1:06:16] s complying with the funeral

[1:06:18] plan and the zoning ordinance.

[1:06:18] That

[1:06:21] s sort of the the greater

[1:06:22] land use authority. Sometimes

[1:06:24] that means that you

[1:06:24] re imposing

[1:06:25] conditions on operations.

[1:06:26] Sometimes it means you

[1:06:26] re

[1:06:27] imposing conditions on how

[1:06:28] something looks, but it

[1:06:28] s in

[1:06:28] the, it

[1:06:31] s all under the broader

[1:06:32] category of land it

[1:06:33] s a project

[1:06:36] with the da or a project that

[1:06:36] doesn

[1:06:37] t have a da, the, the

[1:06:39] process should be the same and

[1:06:41] the decision making abilities

[1:06:42] of the planning commission

[1:06:45] should be the same in terms of

[1:06:45] that stuff. I

[1:06:45] m not talking

[1:06:49] about the the actual financial.

[1:06:50] The only thing I would say is

[1:06:52] that, um, I don

[1:06:53] t know that we

[1:06:55] regulate the hours of

[1:06:56] operations of museums generally.

[1:06:58] So in that context, it MAY have

[1:07:00] been different if if it was

[1:07:01] just a museum coming before the

[1:07:02] planning commission. I don

[1:07:02] t

[1:07:04] know if there would have been a

[1:07:05] discussion about hours of

[1:07:06] operation because the code

[1:07:06] doesn

[1:07:07] t, doesn

[1:07:07] t limit them.

[1:07:08] The code doesn

[1:07:09] t talk about

[1:07:10] that. Again, I, I really don

[1:07:10] t

[1:07:12] want to get into specifics

[1:07:13] about specific projects, that

[1:07:13] s

[1:07:14] just what comes to mind for me.

[1:07:14] I don

[1:07:15] t know if a, if a

[1:07:16] standalone museum. Came before

[1:07:17] the planning commission, would

[1:07:20] there be a discussion of ours?

[1:07:22] Depends what I

[1:07:22] m just saying

[1:07:25] whatever use it is, that would

[1:07:26] be a consideration of the

[1:07:28] planning commission when they

[1:07:30] look at a project. I, I think

[1:07:33] the issue was that the public

[1:07:35] benefit was a museum open a

[1:07:36] certain number of hours, not

[1:07:40] really a, a regulation of how

[1:07:42] many hours the museum could be

[1:07:45] open, so I, I think it was a

[1:07:47] condition of the development.

[1:07:48] Agreement that they provide a

[1:07:51] museum that was open to the

[1:07:52] public during certain hours and

[1:07:54] I think it is a little bit

[1:07:55] tricky because it

[1:07:56] s similar to

[1:07:59] those kind of conditions where

[1:08:01] we would limit the hours of

[1:08:03] operation. This was about how

[1:08:05] many hours would they be open

[1:08:07] as a part of that public

[1:08:09] benefit and wanting more, so it

[1:08:10] was about the public benefit

[1:08:13] piece, not actual land use

[1:08:14] operations. Got it. All right,

[1:08:15] well, thank you for clarifying

[1:08:19] that. And then um, when the

[1:08:20] planning commission looks at a

[1:08:23] a project with the da. They are

[1:08:24] not making the decision about

[1:08:27] it, right? They are usually

[1:08:30] making a recommendation.

[1:08:31] They

[1:08:31] re always making a

[1:08:33] recommendation to us, so. So

[1:08:36] then they are not deciding

[1:08:37] something they are recommending

[1:08:40] and That recommendation could

[1:08:42] be we could take it or leave it,

[1:08:42] but it

[1:08:44] s not a final decision.

[1:08:45] For a development agreement,

[1:08:47] that is true. Ok, thank you.

[1:08:49] Thank you, thank you.. 01 more

[1:08:50] and then we

[1:08:50] re moving on. I

[1:08:51] think what I

[1:08:52] m hearing in the

[1:08:54] conflict and in the staff

[1:08:56] report though is that that

[1:08:56] disconnect isn

[1:09:00] t clear. Correct

[1:09:02] That yes, it is a

[1:09:04] recommendation. However, what

[1:09:04] I

[1:09:05] m reading in your public

[1:09:09] document is that you have

[1:09:12] commissions, commissioners

[1:09:13] engaging in potential page 20

[1:09:14] whatever it is, I

[1:09:15] m 29. Thank

[1:09:18] you very much, Vice Mayor. Uh,

[1:09:21] that, uh, you, you, you let me

[1:09:24] down. Sorry, um, that, that

[1:09:28] there is um is that you are

[1:09:29] experiencing that difficulty

[1:09:30] because I

[1:09:32] m slide 22, you are,

[1:09:32] and I

[1:09:35] ve watched it happen, um,

[1:09:37] dealing with potential

[1:09:39] negotiation strategies out of

[1:09:40] planning commission hearing

[1:09:42] after months and months of

[1:09:43] negotiations in the public

[1:09:45] benefit that could weaken the

[1:09:45] city

[1:09:46] s position and financial

[1:09:48] standing. And so I think that

[1:09:48] s

[1:09:48] what you

[1:09:50] re asking us to give

[1:09:51] you very clear direction on

[1:09:53] here tonight. Right? I mean,

[1:09:53] that

[1:09:54] s one of your questions so

[1:09:55] I can answer the question, yes,

[1:09:58] for you, but I, I think one of

[1:10:01] the points of this slide was to

[1:10:03] point out that what is in a

[1:10:05] agenda packet is the result of

[1:10:06] a long process, right? And so

[1:10:06] there

[1:10:08] s lots of back and forth

[1:10:09] that happens with negotiations.

[1:10:10] Things are proposed, things are

[1:10:11] rejected. City pushes back.

[1:10:13] They, you know, developer

[1:10:13] pushes back. So it

[1:10:14] s, it

[1:10:15] s a,

[1:10:15] it

[1:10:16] s a long process where

[1:10:18] things have been considered and

[1:10:20] rejected and so at the very end

[1:10:21] to get questions, well why

[1:10:21] didn

[1:10:22] t you ask for this? Why

[1:10:22] don

[1:10:23] t you ask for that? It

[1:10:23] s,

[1:10:24] it, they

[1:10:25] re hard things to

[1:10:26] answer in the moment because of

[1:10:28] the long process. And what

[1:10:28] you

[1:10:29] re saying to us and what

[1:10:29] I

[1:10:30] m reading here is they are

[1:10:31] not involved in the

[1:10:35] negotiations. They are involved

[1:10:36] in recommendations on land use

[1:10:37] policy, but they are not

[1:10:38] involved with the planning

[1:10:40] commission being the grand they,

[1:10:43] the the negotiations you are

[1:10:44] having with the developer and a

[1:10:45] development agreement. I think

[1:10:47] Jennifer gave a really good

[1:10:48] discussion on one of the slides

[1:10:52] of sort of a Overall, um,

[1:10:54] description of how to look at

[1:10:55] planning commission purview and

[1:10:56] it might be helpful if she says

[1:10:57] it again because I, I thought

[1:11:03] she worded it really well. Um

[1:11:04] So I think I, I

[1:11:04] m gonna, I

[1:11:04] m

[1:11:07] gonna add like here. As long as

[1:11:07] the mic

[1:11:13] s on. Not yet. Almost.

[1:11:16] How about now? Ok. So I think

[1:11:18] what um what Lauren is

[1:11:20] referring to is that The

[1:11:21] planning commission is looking

[1:11:23] at the totality of the project.

[1:11:24] They

[1:11:24] re looking at everything

[1:11:25] that it took to get to the

[1:11:27] place where we are. And we

[1:11:27] re

[1:11:30] looking for direction correct,

[1:11:31] Councilmember Erickson from the

[1:11:32] council and what that entails

[1:11:35] and what pieces and parts to

[1:11:37] take into consideration, but,

[1:11:38] and to Vice Mayor Hellman

[1:11:38] s

[1:11:40] point is the project a good

[1:11:41] idea if you

[1:11:42] re thinking of the,

[1:11:45] the project itself, the package

[1:11:46] of public benefits and, and all

[1:11:47] of the pieces and parts that go

[1:11:48] into it that have been

[1:11:50] negotiated in that very length.

[1:11:52] The process, um, understanding

[1:11:54] that there is also a value to

[1:11:57] time and to, you know, wanting

[1:11:59] to get projects forward,

[1:11:59] particularly when we

[1:12:00] re talking

[1:12:02] about the sunset Arts and

[1:12:02] advertising and we

[1:12:03] ve had

[1:12:05] direction to keep them moving

[1:12:07] forward and going back to the

[1:12:08] drawing board on some of these

[1:12:10] things can take time, um, and

[1:12:11] can delay projects from moving

[1:12:12] forward. So does that cover

[1:12:15] what? Ok. Thank you. Thank you

[1:12:16] so much. I wanted to, um, I

[1:12:16] m

[1:12:17] gonna pick up the comments and

[1:12:17] then I

[1:12:18] m going to move us to

[1:12:20] the planning commission.

[1:12:21] Council will have another

[1:12:23] opportunity to speak at the end,

[1:12:24] um, or towards the end because

[1:12:25] he knows if that will be the

[1:12:26] end, we MAY come back to

[1:12:27] planning, but I do want to just

[1:12:30] say for myself, um, there was

[1:12:31] this idea of certainty, and I

[1:12:32] think that MAY have also been

[1:12:33] what you were talking about,

[1:12:35] Vice Mayor Heilman. Um, I

[1:12:36] certainly understand that there

[1:12:38] is certainty through these

[1:12:38] evaluation tools, and it was, I

[1:12:40] think, a question of what sort

[1:12:42] of certainty the council is

[1:12:43] getting based on these projects.

[1:12:44] We have no certainty what the

[1:12:45] future will hold, but I think

[1:12:47] the idea is when we lock in

[1:12:48] these uh development agreements,

[1:12:49] that

[1:12:49] s the certainty we

[1:12:50] re

[1:12:51] committing to at that time.

[1:12:53] That is the best understanding,

[1:12:55] the best set of certainties we

[1:12:57] can uh share with confidence to

[1:12:58] the community. And, and that

[1:12:58] s,

[1:12:58] that

[1:12:59] s the reality. Everything

[1:13:01] else is sort of unknown as

[1:13:01] we

[1:13:02] ve learned with our own

[1:13:03] projects that we

[1:13:05] ve taken up on

[1:13:06] our own city dime that it

[1:13:07] s

[1:13:08] hard to project certainty when

[1:13:09] we

[1:13:09] re talking about developing

[1:13:10] something big and massive, and

[1:13:11] that

[1:13:12] s sort of an ok reality

[1:13:14] and the the best opportunity

[1:13:15] have to create certainty is in

[1:13:16] these development agreements,

[1:13:16] so I just wanted to speak to

[1:13:18] that idea of certainty that I

[1:13:19] understand. And then the other

[1:13:21] piece, getting back to the

[1:13:22] conversation we just had. I

[1:13:23] heard this when we were

[1:13:25] discussing slide 18, and it, it

[1:13:26] caught me in a way I had to

[1:13:28] write it down. Sometimes

[1:13:30] feedback at, you know, the

[1:13:31] Sunset Arts and advertisement

[1:13:33] subcommittee takes 8 to 10

[1:13:34] months to process. Those are

[1:13:36] specific numbers, 8 to 10

[1:13:38] months to process, and if that

[1:13:39] information at that

[1:13:40] subcommittee level is going to

[1:13:42] a commission level then coming

[1:13:43] to us to who knows what. That

[1:13:44] s

[1:13:44] the thing I don

[1:13:45] t really

[1:13:45] understand and I

[1:13:46] m trying to

[1:13:47] wrap my head around. And when

[1:13:48] we ask ourselves what are

[1:13:49] council

[1:13:49] s priorities, I think

[1:13:51] our city shares the same

[1:13:53] priority and seeing things get

[1:13:56] done, and that sort of

[1:13:57] miredness down in process

[1:13:59] without a lot of understanding

[1:13:59] what

[1:14:01] s happening or why a set

[1:14:01] of recommendations from such a

[1:14:03] small group of people became

[1:14:05] such a huge scope of work and

[1:14:06] undertaking for, you know, one

[1:14:08] of our partners in the

[1:14:08] community that

[1:14:09] s coming to us

[1:14:10] to get the best value and

[1:14:11] opportunity, not just for

[1:14:12] themselves but for our city.

[1:14:13] We

[1:14:14] re losing out. When

[1:14:15] something is sitting at a

[1:14:16] subcommittee or taking 8 to 10

[1:14:17] months after that point, just

[1:14:18] before it moves on in the

[1:14:19] process. So that

[1:14:19] s the part of

[1:14:20] it I

[1:14:21] m trying to wrap my head

[1:14:21] around when we

[1:14:22] re asking what

[1:14:23] we want out of this long term

[1:14:24] and the part I

[1:14:24] m really sitting

[1:14:25] with when I

[1:14:26] m trying to

[1:14:27] understand what, you know, we

[1:14:29] want to see moving forward, so

[1:14:29] I

[1:14:30] ll leave it at that. I

[1:14:30] m

[1:14:31] going to move us to the

[1:14:31] planning commission. You

[1:14:32] ve all

[1:14:33] been very patient waiting for

[1:14:35] your opportunity to speak, so I

[1:14:36] appreciate it. And if I can,

[1:14:36] I

[1:14:37] ll start with Cha Lombardi to

[1:14:38] get us started. You often don

[1:14:39] t

[1:14:40] get to speak first in your role

[1:14:40] as chair, so if that

[1:14:41] s ok, I

[1:14:41] ll

[1:14:42] start with you and then we

[1:14:42] ll

[1:14:47] move down the row. Great. Thank

[1:14:49] you, Mayor Byers, and um I, I

[1:14:51] first want to start out by

[1:14:51] saying I

[1:14:53] m really happy that

[1:14:53] we

[1:14:54] re having this conversation

[1:14:55] today. Um, I

[1:14:55] ve really been

[1:14:57] hoping for a while that my

[1:14:59] colleagues on the planning

[1:15:01] commission can get um some,

[1:15:02] some clarity on these very

[1:15:04] complicated matters, so I

[1:15:04] m

[1:15:05] really grateful um that we

[1:15:05] re

[1:15:06] having this conversation today

[1:15:07] with the mayor, Vice mayor,

[1:15:09] city council, and also I wanna

[1:15:12] thank staff for having a very

[1:15:13] nice presentation today to help

[1:15:15] the uh guide our discussion. Um,

[1:15:16] I

[1:15:18] ll just start with like a few

[1:15:20] sort of more high level um

[1:15:21] things and I guess I could also

[1:15:23] maybe ask a question that MAY

[1:15:25] lead to some discussion too.

[1:15:26] And then I

[1:15:27] ll let my colleagues

[1:15:29] handle the, the bulk of the

[1:15:32] conversation. Um, so first of

[1:15:34] all, um, it is hard for the

[1:15:36] planning commission when we

[1:15:37] re

[1:15:38] trying to review these

[1:15:39] complicated matters to

[1:15:40] understand where, where the

[1:15:43] line is. Um, one thing that has

[1:15:45] appeared to be of help to me is

[1:15:47] it the fact that we get that

[1:15:49] time with the community to hear

[1:15:50] from them, and they

[1:15:51] re usually

[1:15:52] more digestible meetings, um,

[1:15:54] in that our agenda tends to be

[1:15:57] smaller, so My thought to date

[1:15:59] has been that that actually is

[1:15:59] quite helpful for maybe queuing

[1:16:01] things up for city council. Or

[1:16:02] it gets complicated as some of

[1:16:03] the other matters we

[1:16:03] ve been

[1:16:04] talking about today, which is

[1:16:06] what are, what are we opining

[1:16:08] on and what is our, our purview.

[1:16:10] Um, I, I just want to make a

[1:16:13] note um on, on sassy. I think

[1:16:15] this is uh the Sunset Arts and

[1:16:16] advertising subcommittee, one

[1:16:17] of the challenges just so that

[1:16:19] everyone here is uh reminded

[1:16:20] and most of you probably are

[1:16:22] aware, there are a lot of times

[1:16:25] where projects will come to the

[1:16:26] subcommittee that are very,

[1:16:28] very different than uh the

[1:16:30] award that was granted. And so

[1:16:32] sometimes it can be on the

[1:16:34] applicants and that things get

[1:16:34] delayed, although I

[1:16:35] m sure

[1:16:35] there

[1:16:36] s both sides to many of

[1:16:38] these stories, but in some of

[1:16:39] the extreme instances, I know

[1:16:40] we

[1:16:41] ve seen a couple of projects

[1:16:43] that have come back in

[1:16:44] completely different iterations

[1:16:46] from the first round, which was

[1:16:49] different than the awarded. To

[1:16:51] the updated round again. Um, so

[1:16:51] that

[1:16:52] s something that can

[1:16:55] sometimes cause delay in those

[1:16:56] ultimately development

[1:16:57] agreements happening, but if

[1:16:57] there

[1:16:58] s a way to streamline

[1:17:01] some of this, I would be really,

[1:17:02] um, would be really helpful, I

[1:17:03] think for us to understand what

[1:17:04] we should look at and what we

[1:17:07] should defer to. Um, and then

[1:17:10] there was 11, question that MAY

[1:17:11] be of particular relevance at

[1:17:13] the moment, but just to speak

[1:17:15] broadly or ask us a question. I

[1:17:17] know that in the memo that was

[1:17:19] attached this evening, um, I

[1:17:22] was, I was on page 45, I

[1:17:24] believe. Uh, there was a note

[1:17:25] about development agreements

[1:17:27] and specific plans and that

[1:17:28] they must include language to

[1:17:29] specify what happens with

[1:17:31] public benefits of a project is

[1:17:33] not built. And I

[1:17:34] m just curious,

[1:17:36] um, broadly how this would

[1:17:39] apply to current projects, um,

[1:17:41] and, and for that matter, our

[1:17:42] foresight into the future when

[1:17:43] we

[1:17:44] re reviewing uh development

[1:17:45] agreements as well. So I just

[1:17:46] wanted to put that out there

[1:17:47] and um I

[1:17:47] ll, I

[1:17:48] ll hand this

[1:17:50] back to the mayor now. Thank

[1:17:51] you. I think you have a

[1:17:52] microphone over there we can

[1:17:53] share and if it

[1:17:53] s ok, we

[1:17:53] ll

[1:17:56] just move in this order unless

[1:17:56] you

[1:17:59] re not prepared to speak.

[1:18:01] So everybody, uh, thank you so

[1:18:02] much for setting this up

[1:18:02] tonight I don

[1:18:02] t think it

[1:18:03] s

[1:18:06] working. Keep it close. Hello,

[1:18:10] hello. There it is. Uh, thank

[1:18:11] you so much for setting this up

[1:18:12] tonight. I think this is a

[1:18:14] great opportunity for us in the

[1:18:16] planning commission to get

[1:18:18] guidance from our elected city

[1:18:19] council members about these

[1:18:19] issues. I don

[1:18:20] t have a lot to

[1:18:23] say at this point, obviously.

[1:18:25] As a commissioner, the question

[1:18:27] like in my mind is always the

[1:18:27] extent to which you

[1:18:28] re wanting

[1:18:31] us to evaluate the adequacy of

[1:18:33] the public benefits because it,

[1:18:33] it

[1:18:34] s been noted tonight, you

[1:18:35] know. These development

[1:18:36] agreements have been negotiated

[1:18:41] for many, many months, um. So

[1:18:41] I

[1:18:43] m looking forward to getting

[1:18:44] hearing your thoughts about

[1:18:46] that, um. Something that does

[1:18:49] come up. Probably at every

[1:18:51] meeting where we consider a

[1:18:53] development agreement is

[1:18:55] questions about the negotiated

[1:18:58] language, the legalese used in

[1:18:59] the development agreement, um.

[1:19:02] And uh That

[1:19:03] s posed some

[1:19:05] challenges for some of my

[1:19:06] fellow commissioners, you know,

[1:19:06] there

[1:19:07] s always a question of

[1:19:10] what is reasonable mean?

[1:19:12] Reasonable steps, force majeure,

[1:19:13] how is that defined? What does

[1:19:17] it mean to be extraordinary or

[1:19:20] exceptional or whatever, um.

[1:19:22] You know, so that language is

[1:19:24] usually best negotiated by our

[1:19:26] lawyers, um, but I guess it

[1:19:28] would be helpful to get

[1:19:30] guidance from you on whether

[1:19:32] you would like us the planning

[1:19:33] commission to be scrutinizing

[1:19:36] that legalese in that language

[1:19:37] and giving our thoughts on it.

[1:19:37] So that

[1:19:39] s all I have for now.

[1:19:42] Thank you, Commissioner Cre.

[1:19:44] Commissioner Hoppen Gardner,

[1:19:45] thank you, um, and thank you

[1:19:46] staff for doing this because,

[1:19:47] you know, we

[1:19:48] ve had this

[1:19:50] conversation many, many times,

[1:19:52] and I think my only real major

[1:19:54] question that I would love to

[1:19:55] have, uh, an answer from out of

[1:19:58] this meeting. And this I think

[1:19:59] is probably best directed to

[1:20:03] our city attorney. Is that each

[1:20:04] time either a billboard or a

[1:20:05] project with the development

[1:20:07] agreement comes to us. It comes

[1:20:09] to us as a development

[1:20:10] agreement with, uh, a

[1:20:13] resolution. And, and then a

[1:20:15] development permit with a

[1:20:16] resolution. Sometimes there

[1:20:17] s

[1:20:18] some additional resolutions, so

[1:20:20] we vote on 4 or 5 different

[1:20:22] resolutions. And each of those

[1:20:25] resolutions has a series of

[1:20:28] findings and importantly, um,

[1:20:31] the findings usually number one

[1:20:33] is that this development is in

[1:20:34] the best interest of the city

[1:20:36] as, as vice Mayor Heilman

[1:20:38] pointed out. But at the same

[1:20:40] time we are asked to vote for,

[1:20:45] to make a finding on a

[1:20:46] development development

[1:20:47] agreement. That

[1:20:48] s a separate

[1:20:50] resolution with a separate set

[1:20:52] of findings and the number one

[1:20:54] finding is that that

[1:20:56] development agreement is in the

[1:20:59] best interest of the city. So I,

[1:21:01] to me, the answer that I most

[1:21:02] want out of this, because we

[1:21:05] keep butting heads on this

[1:21:06] sometimes is, am I to, and my

[1:21:09] colleagues, are we to make that

[1:21:11] finding that that this is in

[1:21:13] the best interest of the city

[1:21:15] or not because for myself, I

[1:21:17] would find it very difficult to

[1:21:18] vote for something and say it

[1:21:18] s

[1:21:20] in the best into the city when

[1:21:24] I see things that are incorrect.

[1:21:24] There

[1:21:25] s language that

[1:21:25] s

[1:21:26] incorrect, or I just plain

[1:21:26] don

[1:21:26] t think it

[1:21:27] s in the best

[1:21:30] interest of the city. So To me,

[1:21:30] that

[1:21:31] s the single most

[1:21:33] important question to be

[1:21:36] answered out of tonight, um, um,

[1:21:38] are we to look at those

[1:21:39] benefits and determine if

[1:21:39] they

[1:21:40] re in the best interests

[1:21:46] of the city or not. I

[1:21:46] ll start

[1:21:46] and I

[1:21:47] ll give you my initial

[1:21:49] thought, but I think we also

[1:21:50] want to hear from the council

[1:21:52] on on where they want the

[1:21:53] planning commission to go with

[1:21:54] that. And I mentioned earlier,

[1:21:57] Jennifer had a, a good

[1:21:58] explanation of what we think

[1:21:59] the role is and what we think

[1:22:02] the role is is to look at the

[1:22:04] totality of the project, the

[1:22:05] guidance from the general plan,

[1:22:07] the specific plan, the zoning

[1:22:09] ordinance, past projects, past

[1:22:10] council decisions with

[1:22:12] something, a, a big topic of

[1:22:13] discussion at council when, you

[1:22:15] know, the next one comes

[1:22:17] through at Planning commission.

[1:22:17] Hopefully we

[1:22:17] ve changed it and

[1:22:18] we

[1:22:19] ve done, you know, the thing

[1:22:21] that counsel wants to, but it

[1:22:21] s

[1:22:23] more of those, more of the

[1:22:27] bigger totality and less on the,

[1:22:29] um, specific details of, of

[1:22:32] each specific piece is the

[1:22:33] public benefit sufficient and

[1:22:34] adequate and in the best

[1:22:36] interest of the city. I think

[1:22:36] that

[1:22:37] s, that

[1:22:37] s been staff

[1:22:37] s

[1:22:39] approach and then the ultimate

[1:22:40] decision of whether or not to

[1:22:42] enter into the development

[1:22:44] agreement sits with the city

[1:22:45] council and the recommendation

[1:22:46] from the land use. So from the

[1:22:47] planning commission is focused

[1:22:48] on from a land use perspective

[1:22:49] because that

[1:22:49] s what you

[1:22:50] re the

[1:22:51] experts on from a land use

[1:22:52] perspective, is this in the

[1:22:53] best interests of the city or

[1:22:55] not? Does it forward the city

[1:22:55] council

[1:22:56] s land use schools.

[1:22:58] Does it forward, um, all the

[1:22:59] things that the city is trying

[1:23:02] to achieve, or does it not from

[1:23:03] a bigger picture rather than a

[1:23:06] rather than a, um, a more

[1:23:07] finite picture. That that

[1:23:08] s,

[1:23:08] that

[1:23:09] s been staff

[1:23:09] s approach

[1:23:11] and, you know, counsel can

[1:23:12] confirm or expand on that later.

[1:23:17] So, so from a development

[1:23:19] agreement perspective, um. The

[1:23:20] finding that it

[1:23:20] s in the best

[1:23:23] interests of the city. Is based

[1:23:27] upon what? That it

[1:23:28] s furthering

[1:23:29] the goals of the city and not

[1:23:31] hindering the goals of land use,

[1:23:33] I mean, because land use and is

[1:23:35] this. You know, that that

[1:23:35] s

[1:23:36] what, that

[1:23:36] s what you

[1:23:36] re

[1:23:38] looking at. Are you meeting

[1:23:40] they meeting the design goals.

[1:23:41] Is this adding excitement? Is

[1:23:42] it adding pedestrian uses? Is

[1:23:44] it, is it going to activate an

[1:23:45] area that

[1:23:45] s otherwise been, you

[1:23:46] know, that

[1:23:47] s been dead on in a

[1:23:50] certain part of town. So

[1:23:51] generally furthering what the

[1:23:52] council has said they want to

[1:23:54] see in the city. Ok, thank you,

[1:23:54] but that

[1:23:55] s as relates to the

[1:23:57] development, not the

[1:23:58] development agreement. Well,

[1:24:00] the development agreement is

[1:24:01] memorializing the long term, ok.

[1:24:04] Project, both construction and

[1:24:06] sometimes it has operational

[1:24:07] components too for the

[1:24:10] long-term use of the site. Now,

[1:24:12] my last question is, to the

[1:24:14] extent that there is an error.

[1:24:17] For example, we had on the

[1:24:18] Viper Room project, a keys

[1:24:20] thing where it was 5 keys more

[1:24:22] instead of 5 keys less, and it

[1:24:24] was blatantly wrong. Everyone

[1:24:25] agreed it was blatantly wrong

[1:24:29] and needed to be fixed. If

[1:24:30] Planning commissioners are not.

[1:24:36] To bring up Those items. And we

[1:24:37] just go ahead and rubber stamp

[1:24:39] them and send them to council

[1:24:41] and let counsel catch them or

[1:24:43] should we just ignore them?

[1:24:45] What, what should we do as a

[1:24:46] planning commission? I don

[1:24:46] t

[1:24:48] think you should ignore them,

[1:24:50] and I think, you know, Jennifer

[1:24:51] even mentioned earlier that

[1:24:52] these documents have improved

[1:24:53] through this process, through

[1:24:54] all of these, you know, it gets

[1:24:56] better and better each time and

[1:24:56] we

[1:24:57] ve improved our internal

[1:24:59] process too, to catch some of

[1:25:00] these things and to make sure

[1:25:01] that they

[1:25:02] re, that the, the

[1:25:03] cleanest, most, you know,

[1:25:04] possible documents are getting,

[1:25:06] are getting on the agenda. I

[1:25:08] would say let staff know maybe

[1:25:09] before the meeting if you have

[1:25:10] some things that you

[1:25:10] ve caught

[1:25:12] because then we can come with a

[1:25:13] redline version to the meeting

[1:25:14] and say we

[1:25:15] ve identified these

[1:25:15] errors and then it

[1:25:16] s already

[1:25:18] part of the document that

[1:25:18] you

[1:25:19] re gonna approve of course

[1:25:20] sometimes with that particular

[1:25:22] one, I caught literally in the

[1:25:23] moment. I, I was reading it and

[1:25:24] I was like, well, wait, wait,

[1:25:27] what? What? So I agree and, and

[1:25:28] staff is used to my lengthy

[1:25:32] emails. And, you know, does

[1:25:33] send things through beforehand,

[1:25:35] but I, this is my question is

[1:25:36] if we see something, should we

[1:25:37] say something? If you see

[1:25:38] something, you should say

[1:25:40] something. Um, and then

[1:25:41] probably, like I said, probably

[1:25:42] better before the meeting so

[1:25:43] that we can review it because

[1:25:44] if we

[1:25:44] re reading it for the

[1:25:45] first time in the meeting, it

[1:25:47] takes us a second to read the

[1:25:48] language and make sure it

[1:25:48] s

[1:25:51] correct. And so, so earlier is

[1:25:51] always better. Of course. Ok,

[1:25:56] thank you. Commissioner Jones.

[1:25:58] Hi, can everybody hear me?

[1:25:59] Thank you. Well, first, I just

[1:26:02] want to thank staff, um, for

[1:26:02] this presentation. I

[1:26:03] m gonna

[1:26:04] pull a little card here and

[1:26:06] just say that I think I

[1:26:06] m

[1:26:07] heading about to round out my

[1:26:08] 9th year on planning commission,

[1:26:09] and I don

[1:26:09] t, I

[1:26:10] ve never had

[1:26:12] this thorough overview of this.

[1:26:13] So I really appreciate this and

[1:26:15] I think we kind of get this

[1:26:16] information piecemeal at

[1:26:17] meetings as we kind of work

[1:26:18] through these issues, but it

[1:26:18] s

[1:26:19] really helpful to have it all

[1:26:21] in one place and a handy guide

[1:26:21] that I

[1:26:22] m gonna genius scan

[1:26:23] later so that I don

[1:26:23] t have to

[1:26:26] have this. Paper, um, but I

[1:26:27] appreciate you putting it

[1:26:27] together because it

[1:26:27] s super

[1:26:31] important. So thank you. I also

[1:26:32] want to thank Councilmember

[1:26:34] Hang for kind of the portion of

[1:26:36] our policy that you uh recited

[1:26:40] just because I think That

[1:26:42] confirms for me, planning

[1:26:42] commission

[1:26:43] s role when we are

[1:26:44] reviewing projects, and it

[1:26:44] s

[1:26:45] not that there aren

[1:26:46] t nuances

[1:26:47] that I think are important and

[1:26:48] I think we

[1:26:49] re kind of working

[1:26:51] through those right now. It

[1:26:52] s

[1:26:54] always been my understanding

[1:26:55] that the terms, final terms of

[1:26:56] the development agreement if

[1:26:59] they are to be amended or

[1:27:01] adjusted, would be, you know,

[1:27:02] subject to council approval,

[1:27:03] and that

[1:27:04] s not really the

[1:27:05] province of of planning

[1:27:07] commission, so to speak. I

[1:27:08] think where we

[1:27:09] ve run into

[1:27:09] issues and I don

[1:27:10] t, maybe it

[1:27:10] s

[1:27:12] better to say confusion is at a

[1:27:13] planning commission meeting

[1:27:15] where You know, there have been

[1:27:15] questions about whether or not

[1:27:18] we can make a finding as

[1:27:20] relates to the public benefits

[1:27:22] component of a development

[1:27:24] agreement or a very large

[1:27:26] project. So I think one of my

[1:27:29] questions is, And maybe this is

[1:27:31] just a point of clarification.

[1:27:32] It didn

[1:27:33] t seem to me that we

[1:27:33] didn

[1:27:34] t have the ability to talk

[1:27:36] about public benefits or the

[1:27:36] terms. It

[1:27:38] s more just Because

[1:27:39] the questions that are coming

[1:27:41] up tonight really come from a

[1:27:43] place of wanting to make sure

[1:27:45] that the public has a say in

[1:27:46] this process. And it

[1:27:47] s clear to

[1:27:48] me from this, I think it

[1:27:48] s on

[1:27:49] slide 26, like, I didn

[1:27:49] t know

[1:27:50] there was a neighborhood

[1:27:52] meeting to talk about community

[1:27:52] benefits and public benefits.

[1:27:53] It makes sense that there would

[1:27:55] be, right? So that

[1:27:56] s great for

[1:27:59] us to know that there is a

[1:28:01] process now for that, but I

[1:28:03] think for me, what would be

[1:28:05] helpful to know is And maybe

[1:28:05] I

[1:28:06] m just asking for some like

[1:28:08] confirmation here. It

[1:28:08] s not so

[1:28:08] much that you don

[1:28:09] t want us to

[1:28:10] talk about it or that we can

[1:28:11] t

[1:28:12] talk about it at all. It

[1:28:12] s not

[1:28:13] off limits. It

[1:28:14] s more just I

[1:28:14] don

[1:28:15] t want as a commissioner to

[1:28:16] give the public the impression

[1:28:17] like if someone

[1:28:17] s coming to a

[1:28:18] meeting for the first time,

[1:28:18] they

[1:28:20] re not here tonight, they

[1:28:20] don

[1:28:21] t know anything about our

[1:28:23] process, right? That we

[1:28:23] re

[1:28:25] giving an impression that we

[1:28:27] have any say in having an

[1:28:28] influence on the public

[1:28:30] benefits package. I think

[1:28:30] that

[1:28:31] s my, it

[1:28:32] s not that it

[1:28:32] s

[1:28:33] doesn

[1:28:33] t merit discussion, but I

[1:28:35] just want to make sure that

[1:28:35] we

[1:28:36] re always working within

[1:28:37] like what are clearly very

[1:28:39] specific kind of guardrails and

[1:28:41] parameters for our decision

[1:28:42] making process. And again, to

[1:28:44] me, this really confirms that

[1:28:47] it is about land use and that

[1:28:48] that that our comments and our

[1:28:49] recommendations because we

[1:28:49] re

[1:28:50] not really voting. We

[1:28:50] re voting,

[1:28:52] voting to move it forward.

[1:28:52] We

[1:28:54] re not voting to approve a

[1:28:55] project or not, or not approve

[1:28:58] a project, right? So I think um

[1:29:00] that was really just my like

[1:29:02] ask or point of clarification,

[1:29:03] um. I don

[1:29:04] t think I have any

[1:29:07] other comments here. I think

[1:29:07] that

[1:29:08] s everything. I think if,

[1:29:09] if anything, you know, again, I

[1:29:11] said this at our last planning

[1:29:12] commission meeting. A lot of

[1:29:14] bad stuff is happening in our

[1:29:16] country right now, especially

[1:29:17] as it relates to the way the

[1:29:18] government is supposed to work,

[1:29:18] and I don

[1:29:19] t ever want that to

[1:29:21] mean that our bar is lowered or

[1:29:21] that we

[1:29:22] re not upholding

[1:29:24] ourselves to like great

[1:29:26] standards and values, but I

[1:29:28] think this confirms like we

[1:29:29] have an excellent process in

[1:29:31] place and that I can trust that

[1:29:34] process, and I hope for

[1:29:35] everyone here tonight that the

[1:29:36] public also feels like they can

[1:29:37] trust the process as well. But

[1:29:38] again, the questions that I

[1:29:38] m

[1:29:41] hearing just to kind of say

[1:29:41] back what I

[1:29:43] m hearing really

[1:29:44] just stem from really just

[1:29:45] wanting to do right by the

[1:29:46] public and make sure that the

[1:29:47] community has a say. So those

[1:29:49] are my comments. Thanks. Thank

[1:29:51] you, Commissioner Jones.

[1:29:52] Commissioner Mattes. Thank you,

[1:29:53] Mayor Byers, council and city

[1:29:54] staff and my colleagues for

[1:29:55] being here tonight. I think

[1:29:57] that this is a very substantive

[1:29:57] to such discussion that

[1:29:58] s

[1:29:59] played out in a public hearing.

[1:29:59] Uh, it

[1:30:01] s great to have this

[1:30:02] kind of conversation in

[1:30:03] community so that everyone

[1:30:05] understands the role of their

[1:30:06] government and what we

[1:30:06] re here

[1:30:09] to do, um, first wanna just say

[1:30:10] a lot of this did affirm what I

[1:30:11] had already understood the

[1:30:12] planning commission

[1:30:13] s role to

[1:30:15] be looking for a general plan

[1:30:16] consistency. Consistency with

[1:30:18] city code, land use regulations,

[1:30:20] objective standards in state

[1:30:21] law, etc. Um, so I

[1:30:22] m grateful

[1:30:25] for that clarity, um, I think

[1:30:26] that in times of uncertainty on

[1:30:28] the body, my approach has been

[1:30:30] to defer to the duly elected

[1:30:32] body of the people. Um, as such,

[1:30:34] there have been certain

[1:30:36] instances on this body where

[1:30:38] questions have come into play,

[1:30:39] lengthy conversations on the

[1:30:40] dais relating to issues that

[1:30:42] MAY not even be within our

[1:30:43] purview. So I think that one

[1:30:44] discussion that would be very

[1:30:46] helpful to have and guidance

[1:30:47] from this council and from

[1:30:49] staff would be, what is the

[1:30:50] staff role of guiding

[1:30:52] conversation in a more

[1:30:54] productive way so that we can

[1:30:55] run an efficient meeting and

[1:30:57] not be opining on.

[1:30:58] Conversations that have

[1:30:59] absolutely no jurisdiction

[1:31:00] within the planning commission.

[1:31:03] I think that that would be

[1:31:04] really uh important for us to

[1:31:06] understand as a body, um, and

[1:31:08] then additionally, I wanted to

[1:31:10] talk about, uh, one thing

[1:31:11] related to public benefit. Um,

[1:31:14] when we look at public benefits,

[1:31:14] I

[1:31:15] ve always understood our

[1:31:17] place is absolutely not to

[1:31:19] negotiate any aspect of public

[1:31:21] benefit or DAs or extraordinary

[1:31:23] public benefits, um, one thing

[1:31:25] that has come up in the past,

[1:31:26] even before I was on this body.

[1:31:29] As a member of the public is,

[1:31:30] uh, the adequacy question, is

[1:31:32] the public benefit or

[1:31:33] extraordinary public benefit

[1:31:35] adequate or inadequate, rather

[1:31:36] than having that conversation

[1:31:37] at the planning commission

[1:31:38] level because I think that

[1:31:38] s

[1:31:40] highly inappropriate, and I

[1:31:42] actually agree with uh Vice

[1:31:44] Mayor Heilman that it should be

[1:31:45] more betterly suited with staff

[1:31:49] is. Does council think it is

[1:31:49] appropriate for a

[1:31:50] recommendation because that is

[1:31:51] what we

[1:31:53] re here to do, to

[1:31:56] counsel that asks counsel to

[1:31:57] assess the adequacy of said

[1:31:58] public benefit. Is that a

[1:31:59] recommendation that would be

[1:32:00] welcomed by the body, because

[1:32:00] that

[1:32:01] s something that has come

[1:32:03] up before that we have done.

[1:32:04] That way the conversation isn

[1:32:04] t

[1:32:05] playing out on a planning

[1:32:06] commission meeting. It

[1:32:06] s

[1:32:08] playing out with the duly

[1:32:10] elected body of the people. Uh,

[1:32:11] lastly is I just want to touch

[1:32:13] on one quick uh quick follow-up

[1:32:15] question regarding, uh, sassy

[1:32:17] feedback. Um, I do serve on

[1:32:17] that subcommittee. I think that

[1:32:18] there

[1:32:19] s a lot of really

[1:32:20] important design review that

[1:32:23] takes place in that body, um,

[1:32:24] and it actually helps move

[1:32:25] projects forward when those

[1:32:27] concerns are addressed on the

[1:32:29] front end versus going through

[1:32:30] a wholesale multiple public

[1:32:31] hearing process and then having

[1:32:34] to go back to revert for

[1:32:35] planning commission concurrence.

[1:32:37] So I wanna kind of get clarity

[1:32:41] on what the council sees as the

[1:32:44] role of sassy and design review

[1:32:45] given these changes to state

[1:32:46] law, given the will of the

[1:32:48] people. Uh, the duly elected

[1:32:49] representatives of the people

[1:32:51] and etc. But I want to thank

[1:32:53] everybody for giving this

[1:32:54] really thorough presentation

[1:32:55] for being here, uh, and I

[1:32:55] m

[1:32:57] excited to be with you and and

[1:32:59] to receive your direction and

[1:33:01] continue to serve the duly

[1:33:04] elected city. Thank you. Thank

[1:33:05] you. Did Steph, did you have

[1:33:06] any comments or feedback on

[1:33:07] that. I think there

[1:33:08] s a

[1:33:09] question about whose role it is

[1:33:11] to sort of manage the meeting

[1:33:12] conversation, and unfortunately,

[1:33:12] it

[1:33:13] s ours as chairs of the

[1:33:14] meeting, but I think that

[1:33:15] s

[1:33:16] where, you know, it gets

[1:33:16] challenging, frankly, I

[1:33:17] ll say

[1:33:18] it for my own role as I had to

[1:33:20] cut off my council member just

[1:33:21] a second ago in the middle of

[1:33:21] conversation, but it

[1:33:22] s that

[1:33:23] sort of balance I think that we

[1:33:25] all have to have and be

[1:33:26] supported by and understanding

[1:33:29] what our purpose and direction

[1:33:31] and role is in that meeting, um,

[1:33:32] is I think why we

[1:33:32] re here to

[1:33:33] help provide more clarity to

[1:33:35] empower. The chair to be able

[1:33:37] to manage those conversations,

[1:33:38] um, but that empowerment of the

[1:33:40] chair role, as I know well from

[1:33:41] my council support. It comes

[1:33:43] from the support of the rest of

[1:33:44] the commissioner body, right?

[1:33:45] And so just so you all can

[1:33:46] really trust in whoever is

[1:33:49] serving as chair of your

[1:33:51] commission to facilitate the

[1:33:51] conversation that

[1:33:52] s happening

[1:33:53] as a matter of the public

[1:33:53] s

[1:33:54] business to the best of your

[1:33:55] ability. I think that

[1:33:56] s really

[1:33:57] the role there, um, and you all

[1:33:59] should be able to support each

[1:34:00] other in doing that well.

[1:34:00] That

[1:34:01] s part of what we

[1:34:01] re here

[1:34:02] today. Were there other

[1:34:03] responses that we wanted to

[1:34:05] offer. And of course, the city

[1:34:05] attorney is always welcome to

[1:34:06] cut us off or if we

[1:34:08] re doing

[1:34:10] something like blainly illegal.

[1:34:11] Ok, great. We can move on to

[1:34:13] commissioner Solomon, and then

[1:34:13] we

[1:34:14] ll come back. Um, thank you,

[1:34:16] thank you for the presentation.

[1:34:18] Uh, I never get to go last, uh,

[1:34:19] so I

[1:34:21] ll try and be brief. I, I

[1:34:22] had one specific question I

[1:34:23] wanted to ask first, and then

[1:34:23] I

[1:34:24] ll make some sort of broad

[1:34:25] points or questions, but it

[1:34:26] s

[1:34:27] probably most appropriate for

[1:34:29] Brian. You mentioned this is

[1:34:30] regarding sunset billboards,

[1:34:32] and you mentioned sort of that

[1:34:33] application process, uh, in

[1:34:35] this present. Presentation I

[1:34:35] ll

[1:34:36] speak broadly so as not to

[1:34:38] speak to any specific project,

[1:34:43] but, uh, as an applicant is uh

[1:34:44] applying for a billboard. Uh,

[1:34:44] it

[1:34:47] s my understanding that they,

[1:34:48] their application states

[1:34:49] whether they

[1:34:50] re applying for

[1:34:53] vinyl or digital, but they

[1:34:53] re

[1:34:55] also only kind of allowed to

[1:34:58] apply for The grant that t

[1:35:00] have a determination has been

[1:35:01] made whether it

[1:35:02] s a vinyl or a

[1:35:04] digital billboard, uh, I guess

[1:35:08] my question is, what goes into

[1:35:09] the determination of whether or

[1:35:12] not an applicant will apply for

[1:35:14] one versus the other, and, uh,

[1:35:18] in, in light of uh recent

[1:35:19] billboard processes, is there

[1:35:22] any thought about Changing that

[1:35:27] initial. Award process. I, I

[1:35:28] m

[1:35:28] not sure I

[1:35:29] m the best answer.

[1:35:32] This is part of the sap policy,

[1:35:32] but the board you

[1:35:33] re referring

[1:35:35] to, they were awarded a static

[1:35:36] board. That

[1:35:37] s what they applied

[1:35:38] through the design Excellence.

[1:35:42] Process And I know there was

[1:35:43] traction from council to change

[1:35:44] that and, and that

[1:35:44] s what we

[1:35:45] re

[1:35:48] doing at this point, but At the

[1:35:50] time that they had applied and

[1:35:51] submitted their application,

[1:35:53] the award was for that final

[1:35:55] board. I think your broader

[1:35:56] question is, what do they apply

[1:35:57] for? And that

[1:35:57] s up to the

[1:35:59] applicant. There was different

[1:36:00] categories if you had a

[1:36:01] historic building, if you

[1:36:02] wanted static, if you wanted

[1:36:04] digital, depending on your

[1:36:06] location, they chose which what

[1:36:08] they were applying for and

[1:36:09] which category to be part of. I

[1:36:12] mean this one building, I mean

[1:36:15] all the applicants to speak

[1:36:16] generally in applicant chooses

[1:36:18] just based upon their own

[1:36:20] determination, not because of

[1:36:23] an award from staff saying you

[1:36:24] should only apply for I have

[1:36:25] not, you know, this one

[1:36:27] applicant, I have a historic

[1:36:27] building. I

[1:36:28] m gonna apply for

[1:36:30] this type of sign because

[1:36:30] that

[1:36:30] s what I

[1:36:31] m gonna apply for.

[1:36:31] That

[1:36:32] s what I need, you know,

[1:36:34] in order to make this work. Ok,

[1:36:37] um. Then general thank you for

[1:36:39] that. Uh, general points, uh,

[1:36:42] as it relates to this, um, I, I

[1:36:43] think our point here is to kind

[1:36:45] of sit and listen and take

[1:36:47] direction from counsel, uh, so

[1:36:49] I am here, especially as the

[1:36:52] rookie on planning to, to take

[1:36:53] clear direction from council on

[1:36:53] what it is that we

[1:36:54] re supposed

[1:36:55] to be doing on dea

[1:36:59] s at. Yeah

[1:37:01] Being new to the commission and

[1:37:02] trying to understand my role

[1:37:04] and educate myself. I

[1:37:05] downloaded, I took Title 19,

[1:37:07] turned it into a pdf and

[1:37:08] downloaded it and it

[1:37:09] s 518

[1:37:09] pages. It

[1:37:11] s here in front of me

[1:37:12] on my iPad. And that

[1:37:12] s enough.

[1:37:12] That

[1:37:13] s, that

[1:37:14] s enough to know

[1:37:16] and understand, but then to

[1:37:19] jump into a commission meeting

[1:37:19] where we

[1:37:20] re also recent

[1:37:21] discussions have led us to try

[1:37:23] and unwind the months and

[1:37:24] months of confidential

[1:37:25] negotiations that you all have

[1:37:26] had and also have an

[1:37:29] understanding of that. I I

[1:37:30] think, um, to me, that

[1:37:31] s

[1:37:32] outside of our intended purview,

[1:37:33] uh, whether or not that

[1:37:33] s our

[1:37:34] stated purview, I guess that

[1:37:35] s

[1:37:35] why we

[1:37:36] re here tonight. What is,

[1:37:38] what is our purview? Uh, I

[1:37:38] don

[1:37:40] t think that we should be

[1:37:44] redlining, uh, development, uh,

[1:37:46] DAs on the on the dais. I mean,

[1:37:48] I, I do that enough every day

[1:37:49] in my day job. I don

[1:37:50] t think

[1:37:50] it

[1:37:51] s my role to do that as a

[1:37:53] planning commissioner. That is

[1:37:54] something that you all staff

[1:37:56] and a city attorney and as the

[1:37:58] city attorney. An assistant

[1:38:00] city attorney I spent months

[1:38:01] and months doing. I, I don

[1:38:02] t

[1:38:02] think it

[1:38:04] s my job to jump into

[1:38:05] your contract language and say

[1:38:07] whether or not it should read

[1:38:09] slightly differently in this

[1:38:11] clause, but I think that as it

[1:38:14] relates to this discussion, we

[1:38:16] do need clear direction, um. In

[1:38:19] a future item from council that

[1:38:20] actually does codify this. I

[1:38:21] mean, the question is whether

[1:38:22] or not we make a finding on the

[1:38:23] da. I don

[1:38:25] t think we should,

[1:38:25] but I don

[1:38:27] t think It

[1:38:27] s codified

[1:38:29] to say that we shouldn

[1:38:30] t. I

[1:38:31] come, uh, I

[1:38:31] ve been on the

[1:38:32] planning commission for 6

[1:38:34] months, but previous to that,

[1:38:37] uh, I came from the public

[1:38:38] facilities commission and I see

[1:38:40] her in the 2nd row over there,

[1:38:42] but Helen Collins was amazing

[1:38:44] and always letting us know what

[1:38:46] our purview was and also

[1:38:47] interrupting us whenever we got

[1:38:48] outside the bounds of what it

[1:38:50] is that we could do on the

[1:38:51] public facilities commission.

[1:38:52] And at times, uh, that was a

[1:38:54] struggle, and when it was too

[1:38:55] much of a struggle, we actually

[1:38:57] asked our council members.

[1:38:58] Councilmember Meister,

[1:38:59] COUNCILMAN Erickson brought

[1:39:02] forward an item to actually

[1:39:03] change uh the underlying

[1:39:05] language in the ordinance

[1:39:05] that

[1:39:07] s the uh establishing

[1:39:08] ordinance for the purview of

[1:39:09] that commission, I

[1:39:10] d ask

[1:39:12] counsel to do the same thing

[1:39:14] again as it relates here. I,

[1:39:14] I

[1:39:16] m of the opinion that the

[1:39:19] planning commission has far too

[1:39:20] much discretionary approval

[1:39:21] authority, especially as you

[1:39:23] compare the city of West

[1:39:24] Hollywood Planning Commission

[1:39:25] as compared to uh the Culver

[1:39:27] City Planning Commission. The

[1:39:29] Santa Monica, uh, planning

[1:39:30] commission, the city of la, I

[1:39:33] think that we have way too much

[1:39:34] discretionary approval as it is,

[1:39:36] just as it relates to land use

[1:39:37] and now throwing in this

[1:39:38] whether or not that we should

[1:39:40] be jumping into the da and the

[1:39:42] the public benefits, uh,

[1:39:44] rendered, uh, from your

[1:39:45] negotiations that have taken

[1:39:46] place, uh, I don

[1:39:47] t think we

[1:39:50] should do that, and I think

[1:39:52] that uh if counsel is of that

[1:39:53] mind rather than just having a

[1:39:54] discussion about it. I

[1:39:54] m a

[1:39:55] lawyer, so let

[1:39:55] s put it in

[1:39:57] black and white. Let

[1:39:57] s actually

[1:40:01] codify that. Um. Yeah, that

[1:40:03] concludes my comments. Thanks.

[1:40:04] Thank you, Planning

[1:40:06] commissioners. Was there any

[1:40:08] second responses, anything? Ok.

[1:40:09] Um, we

[1:40:10] ll move back to the

[1:40:12] council, uh, unless staff had

[1:40:16] any need for clarification

[1:40:19] clarifications questions. Yes.

[1:40:20] Correct specific question, yeah,

[1:40:22] answering the questions,

[1:40:23] providing commentary, providing

[1:40:25] your thoughts. If there

[1:40:25] s any

[1:40:26] direction, remember it

[1:40:26] s about

[1:40:27] a future item. There

[1:40:28] s nothing

[1:40:28] that

[1:40:30] s coming out tonight.

[1:40:30] There

[1:40:30] s no motions happening

[1:40:33] tonight. Did you want to, yeah,

[1:40:36] please, Vice Mayor, jump in.

[1:40:39] Jumped in. No I

[1:40:40] ll jump in.

[1:40:42] Maybe not. I

[1:40:43] ll jump in. I

[1:40:43] ll

[1:40:47] jump over. Um So one of the

[1:40:49] things that came up is, uh, and,

[1:40:53] and I think it was very helpful

[1:40:57] to learn how we actually

[1:41:00] negotiate and we first try to

[1:41:01] assess the extra value that

[1:41:01] they

[1:41:02] re getting, and then we

[1:41:05] use that as the basis for

[1:41:08] negotiation. I think that needs

[1:41:10] to be explained anytime there

[1:41:10] s

[1:41:12] a development agreement before

[1:41:13] the planning commission and

[1:41:15] before the council so that

[1:41:17] members of the public.

[1:41:19] Understand that we have

[1:41:22] professionals who determine the

[1:41:24] value and negotiate based on

[1:41:26] that value. I think it might

[1:41:29] also be useful. We have this

[1:41:31] package of community benefits

[1:41:33] and I was reviewing it. Maybe

[1:41:36] we need to say every 5 years,

[1:41:39] that needs to be reviewed and

[1:41:40] the planning commission should

[1:41:43] certainly have a role there as

[1:41:44] should the community looking at

[1:41:48] some of them. Parking resources

[1:41:50] still important, but maybe

[1:41:52] things change and that isn

[1:41:53] t as

[1:41:55] important to the community as a

[1:41:58] a community benefit. Um, in

[1:41:59] terms of the planning

[1:41:59] commission

[1:42:02] s role. I mean, part

[1:42:06] of me is kind of agreeing with

[1:42:07] Andrew that maybe they should

[1:42:10] have no role at all in

[1:42:11] recommending the development

[1:42:11] agreement and I

[1:42:12] m not sure

[1:42:12] that

[1:42:15] s what you were saying,

[1:42:16] but it

[1:42:18] s hard to evaluate a

[1:42:21] project without considering the

[1:42:22] benefits that are being

[1:42:24] provided as part of the

[1:42:26] development agreement. I, I, I

[1:42:27] don

[1:42:27] t think there

[1:42:28] s any way to

[1:42:31] do it, to completely separate

[1:42:32] because we

[1:42:33] re asking the

[1:42:35] commission to evaluate this

[1:42:38] project based on the eir based

[1:42:40] on consistency with the general

[1:42:41] plan based on transportation,

[1:42:43] employment, all of the other

[1:42:45] kind of benefits that are

[1:42:48] normally associated with the

[1:42:50] project, plus with these other

[1:42:51] benefits that have been

[1:42:52] negotiated as part of the

[1:42:54] development agreement and based

[1:42:55] on all of that is this a good

[1:42:56] project. So I don

[1:42:58] t think we

[1:42:59] can exclude the development

[1:43:02] agreement and at least the

[1:43:04] terms being uh shared with the

[1:43:05] commission, but it

[1:43:06] s sounding

[1:43:07] like my colleagues are, are of

[1:43:09] the mindset, at least some of

[1:43:11] them that maybe they don

[1:43:11] t have

[1:43:12] a role the commission doesn

[1:43:12] t

[1:43:15] have a role in actually

[1:43:18] recommending the um The da

[1:43:20] going to Lynn

[1:43:21] s Point, maybe

[1:43:21] they

[1:43:22] re just recommending the

[1:43:26] project. Along with uh uh

[1:43:28] assuming that all of these

[1:43:30] benefits in the development

[1:43:32] agreement are approved by the

[1:43:33] council that that MAY be the

[1:43:34] appropriate and I, I don

[1:43:36] t know

[1:43:36] if that

[1:43:37] s even possible, so I,

[1:43:37] I

[1:43:39] m. That

[1:43:40] s kind of where I

[1:43:40] m

[1:43:45] at with this, that. Um, the,

[1:43:46] the commission definitely needs

[1:43:47] to know about the development

[1:43:48] agreement. The public needs to

[1:43:50] know about it. The public needs

[1:43:53] to know the basis for the

[1:43:56] negotiation. I think our

[1:43:58] community benefit menu needs to

[1:44:00] be updated periodically, um,

[1:44:02] and we need the planning

[1:44:03] commission

[1:44:05] s input for that, um,

[1:44:07] and then one final point, um,

[1:44:09] there was mention to about

[1:44:10] several projects that aren

[1:44:11] t

[1:44:11] being built. I do want to point

[1:44:15] out. That two of the major

[1:44:16] projects that we have concerns

[1:44:18] about the Melrose Triangle, the

[1:44:20] Robertson Lane, neither one of

[1:44:21] them were development agreement

[1:44:23] projects, so I just want to

[1:44:24] make sure the public knows that

[1:44:26] as well. There certainly are

[1:44:28] others that were development

[1:44:29] agreements that didn

[1:44:30] t get

[1:44:32] built, but, uh, those two are

[1:44:34] not among them. Thank you, Vice

[1:44:36] Mayor. Councilorm Erickson. Oh,

[1:44:38] goody. Um, thank you so much.

[1:44:40] Um, I am in agreement with what

[1:44:42] Vice Mayor Heilman is saying,

[1:44:45] um, I know, uh Commissioner

[1:44:46] Mattos asked some questions of

[1:44:48] staff. I actually would like to

[1:44:51] hear those answers because I

[1:44:51] think that

[1:44:51] s very important. I

[1:44:52] don

[1:44:53] t know if you have those.

[1:44:53] You

[1:44:54] ve been taking Nick, of

[1:44:57] course. And I don

[1:44:58] t know if

[1:44:59] Commissioner Mattos is willing

[1:45:01] to repeat them if you didn

[1:45:01] t

[1:45:02] capture them all, but I think

[1:45:03] that helps with the purview

[1:45:13] conversation. Oh What we

[1:45:13] re

[1:45:14] talking about, we

[1:45:15] re talking

[1:45:17] about an assessment of adequacy

[1:45:20] on the public benefit and if a

[1:45:21] recommendation to counsel to

[1:45:23] assess the adequacy of the

[1:45:24] public benefit is even

[1:45:26] appropriate. Uh, so because

[1:45:28] that has been something that

[1:45:29] has been precedented by this

[1:45:29] body before we

[1:45:30] ve done that

[1:45:34] before. So, one of the ways

[1:45:34] we

[1:45:39] ve couched it in the past is

[1:45:39] that we

[1:45:41] ve said that the

[1:45:42] planning commission weighs in

[1:45:43] on the scope and the range of

[1:45:45] the public benefits, but not on

[1:45:47] the amount of the public

[1:45:48] benefits package. And so it

[1:45:49] s

[1:45:51] the land use components of the

[1:45:52] public benefit package and how

[1:45:54] they relate to the project

[1:45:55] versus the dollar amount. Yes,

[1:45:56] I mean, that

[1:45:57] s my understanding,

[1:45:59] but my question would be to

[1:46:02] counsel. Do you feel that that

[1:46:04] is a sufficient way to continue

[1:46:05] moving forward of reviewing

[1:46:07] these projects. I think one of

[1:46:09] the challenges that has led to

[1:46:11] some longer meetings than we

[1:46:13] anticipate is that there

[1:46:14] s a

[1:46:15] lengthy discussion about

[1:46:16] specific contents of the

[1:46:17] development agreements and

[1:46:18] dollar amounts and all of those

[1:46:21] things, but when we get to

[1:46:22] these specific types of

[1:46:24] Recommendations that go to you

[1:46:25] all for discussion. It takes

[1:46:27] the decision making and the

[1:46:28] discussion making out of the

[1:46:29] hands of the planning

[1:46:30] commission, which I think is a

[1:46:31] good thing and puts it to the

[1:46:32] city council. So I kind of

[1:46:34] wanted to see if that

[1:46:35] s

[1:46:36] something that you had, uh, as

[1:46:38] something that the body should

[1:46:40] continue to practice or if

[1:46:40] that

[1:46:42] s something that you think

[1:46:43] uh we should have absolutely 0

[1:46:47] say in Well, I, I think the

[1:46:49] commissioner makes a really

[1:46:50] excellent point because that

[1:46:51] brings about, and I think it

[1:46:53] was the mayor that maybe

[1:46:54] mentioned this about the

[1:46:55] confusion that happens in the

[1:46:57] public then. So people come to

[1:46:58] the planning commission meeting

[1:46:59] as a result and saying, well,

[1:47:01] no, you must renegotiate x

[1:47:03] because it should be worth

[1:47:05] actually why. And so you should

[1:47:07] do that right now. And then

[1:47:08] when they see a majority, if

[1:47:11] not all, of the commission vote

[1:47:12] in a different way. They think

[1:47:14] that they got screwed. And that

[1:47:14] they

[1:47:16] re not being listened to.

[1:47:18] And that false actually false

[1:47:20] news type of hope. It

[1:47:21] s

[1:47:22] actually detrimental to public

[1:47:23] trust in the process, and that

[1:47:27] has to stop. Period. Um, so I

[1:47:28] agree with the role that I

[1:47:30] think is being laid out. I

[1:47:30] think it

[1:47:31] s really confusing and

[1:47:32] actually unfortunate that the

[1:47:33] public, and I

[1:47:33] ve watched all

[1:47:35] the meetings. I was there when,

[1:47:36] you know, I, I see them, I

[1:47:38] review them, especially when

[1:47:39] there

[1:47:40] s an appeal, um, and I

[1:47:41] think that

[1:47:42] s a really big cause

[1:47:43] of confusion for the public.

[1:47:44] And I think we need to figure

[1:47:46] out a better way to do that,

[1:47:46] right? I

[1:47:47] m in agreement with

[1:47:48] what I think the vice mayor is

[1:47:49] talking about. I don

[1:47:50] t know how

[1:47:51] you we put that into a staff

[1:47:52] report. I think we

[1:47:54] ll maybe

[1:47:55] have a longer conversation, um,

[1:47:58] and I I think ultimately the

[1:47:59] issue is, is how much of the

[1:48:00] public

[1:48:03] s time are we wasting?

[1:48:03] And I

[1:48:04] m really struggling with

[1:48:07] that because I see planning

[1:48:12] commission meetings, um, Go on

[1:48:13] tangents for sometimes hours of

[1:48:15] questions that could have been

[1:48:17] answered in an email, um, that

[1:48:18] are answered in the way in the

[1:48:21] public that I think. Cause a

[1:48:22] lot of confusion in this

[1:48:26] process. When it It is very

[1:48:30] clearly laid out, and I want to

[1:48:31] thank Commissioner

[1:48:31] Councilmember Hang, formerly

[1:48:34] commissioner Hang, um,

[1:48:36] councilmemb Hang for laying

[1:48:37] that out in 5 succinct

[1:48:38] sentences at the beginning of

[1:48:39] his comments, and that

[1:48:39] s kind

[1:48:41] of been what he said because

[1:48:41] that

[1:48:43] s how I understood this

[1:48:44] commentary. So I

[1:48:45] m trying to

[1:48:46] understand where that rub in

[1:48:47] the road is actually happening.

[1:48:48] I think I know. I

[1:48:49] ll save it

[1:48:51] for later. Um, but additionally,

[1:48:55] um, I also think that we have

[1:48:56] to have a larger conversation

[1:48:57] of if we

[1:48:59] re not getting what?

[1:49:01] If the city is not getting what

[1:49:05] we need from a body that we

[1:49:07] appoint direct or at large. We

[1:49:08] have to look at that

[1:49:11] holistically as well. And I

[1:49:12] think holistically looks at,

[1:49:14] well, what does an at-large

[1:49:16] planning commission body look

[1:49:17] like? Because clearly we need

[1:49:20] to put in some different

[1:49:22] Rubicons and a rubric to better

[1:49:24] understand the training that is

[1:49:26] actually required. I know that

[1:49:27] they have the capabilities. I

[1:49:28] know Commissioner Jones has

[1:49:31] gone to a conference before on

[1:49:32] planning and land use, but

[1:49:33] that

[1:49:33] s really where it goes out.

[1:49:35] And I know they have that

[1:49:35] opportunity if I

[1:49:36] m wrong, to be

[1:49:38] able to pursue that type of

[1:49:39] educational outreach. So if

[1:49:41] there are commissioners that

[1:49:43] need that extra education. I

[1:49:44] would encourage them to to take

[1:49:46] to it, um. Happy to hear what

[1:49:48] my other colleagues have to say.

[1:49:51] Um, I For the public

[1:49:52] s benefit,

[1:49:52] I

[1:49:53] m frustrated tonight. And I

[1:49:55] want to be honest with that

[1:49:56] because I

[1:49:57] m very clear with

[1:49:58] what the planning commission

[1:50:00] should be doing. I understand

[1:50:01] the commissioner

[1:50:02] s frustration

[1:50:03] and not trying to figure out

[1:50:05] where we want them to be, so

[1:50:05] I

[1:50:06] m glad that we finally got

[1:50:07] here, but we don

[1:50:08] t need to have

[1:50:10] this conversation again. I

[1:50:12] think they should be reviewed

[1:50:13] every 5 years. Of course, I

[1:50:13] think that

[1:50:14] s an excellent

[1:50:16] suggestion. Um, But ultimately,

[1:50:18] if there are planning

[1:50:19] commissioners that don

[1:50:19] t

[1:50:20] understand their role, then I

[1:50:21] think that

[1:50:21] s a larger

[1:50:23] conversation. And, and that

[1:50:24] troubles me because I think

[1:50:24] that

[1:50:26] s a waste of public

[1:50:27] dollars and time, and I see

[1:50:29] that. In regards to the sassy

[1:50:31] conversation, um, that is

[1:50:32] troubling, and I think that

[1:50:32] s a

[1:50:34] point that we do need to

[1:50:36] address from the mayor. Um, I

[1:50:36] don

[1:50:37] t know the process. I never

[1:50:40] served on Sassy. I served on

[1:50:42] long range. Um, but

[1:50:44] specifically if a project is

[1:50:45] getting commentary by a

[1:50:46] commissioner or two

[1:50:48] commissioners. S How is that

[1:50:49] coming back as direction? What

[1:50:50] is it happening? And if it

[1:50:50] s

[1:50:52] taking 8 to 10 months, we do

[1:50:53] need to look into that because

[1:50:55] 8 to 10 months means hundreds

[1:50:57] of thousands of dollars,

[1:50:58] potential redesigns, and we

[1:50:59] want a good project. That

[1:51:00] s not

[1:51:00] what we

[1:51:02] re not saying. Housing

[1:51:03] laws have restricted, you know,

[1:51:04] what we can and cannot do, but

[1:51:06] I think we really need to get

[1:51:08] into how much of the public

[1:51:08] s

[1:51:10] time we are actually wasting in

[1:51:11] some of these processes that

[1:51:13] are taking long to, to

[1:51:15] essentially approve to build

[1:51:17] housing to build a. Affordable

[1:51:18] housing and housing at all

[1:51:20] levels, and to make sure our

[1:51:22] business community, who we love

[1:51:23] and want to support knows that

[1:51:25] when they submit something to

[1:51:26] the city staff who are very

[1:51:27] diligent and work very hard to

[1:51:29] get it through, aren

[1:51:29] t

[1:51:31] harangued at the last second at

[1:51:32] the planning commission level,

[1:51:33] um, when that

[1:51:33] s really not in

[1:51:35] the purview. So i

[1:51:35] m really

[1:51:35] think let

[1:51:38] s drill down on those

[1:51:40] points so that way when there

[1:51:41] is confusion at a planning

[1:51:42] commission level, staff, and I

[1:51:42] don

[1:51:43] t know how you manage this.

[1:51:44] Maybe it

[1:51:44] s our city attorney

[1:51:45] who was, I think the city

[1:51:48] attorney when. Was on planning

[1:51:49] commission tells us to know, no,

[1:51:51] no, no, and we have to listen

[1:51:53] to that. So those are all my

[1:51:54] comments right now and thank

[1:51:55] you very much for this diligent

[1:51:57] conversation. Thank you,

[1:51:58] Councilormber Erickson. Um, I

[1:52:00] just want to provide a few

[1:52:01] thoughts on the question about

[1:52:02] adequacy. For me, it doesn

[1:52:02] t

[1:52:04] make sense to get a

[1:52:05] recommendation from the

[1:52:05] planning commission to review

[1:52:07] the adequacy of the public

[1:52:08] benefits. It should be a no

[1:52:09] vote from the planning

[1:52:10] commission if it

[1:52:11] s moving

[1:52:12] forward in the consideration of

[1:52:14] the totality of the project. I

[1:52:14] don

[1:52:15] t understand why specific

[1:52:18] segment of the project would be

[1:52:19] considered a no, especially

[1:52:20] when the opportunity for

[1:52:22] council to deliberate, as we

[1:52:22] ve

[1:52:23] all shared, doesn

[1:52:23] t truly exist

[1:52:25] in that open body. So I think

[1:52:26] it

[1:52:26] s a no vote from the

[1:52:28] planning. Although it

[1:52:28] s hard

[1:52:29] and challenging to sometimes

[1:52:30] say that I think that

[1:52:30] s

[1:52:31] actually what we

[1:52:32] re looking at,

[1:52:33] and I see that, uh, with some

[1:52:35] confidence, just trying to wrap

[1:52:37] my head around so the community,

[1:52:39] the neighborhood, has an

[1:52:40] opportunity to review the scope

[1:52:41] of the public benefits before

[1:52:42] they

[1:52:44] re put into any sort of

[1:52:45] formal document uh agreement

[1:52:47] that would come back. So I

[1:52:47] m

[1:52:47] I

[1:52:49] m just understanding as soon

[1:52:51] as uh a project is deemed

[1:52:52] extraordinary beyond the

[1:52:54] general plan, you know,

[1:52:55] warranting a public benefit or

[1:52:56] a development agreement. The

[1:52:57] community has an opportunity to

[1:52:59] weigh in on what the scope of

[1:53:02] that is, correct? Yes, I

[1:53:02] ll say

[1:53:03] one thing, it

[1:53:04] s different for

[1:53:05] the billboard, so we

[1:53:05] re just

[1:53:06] talking general public benefit

[1:53:07] projects. I believe there

[1:53:08] s

[1:53:08] only been one project that

[1:53:09] s

[1:53:11] actually gone through the full

[1:53:13] policy so far, and I will let

[1:53:15] Jennifer confirm that, but so

[1:53:16] there

[1:53:18] s only been one. Ok, good.

[1:53:23] Ok, um, and then with that said,

[1:53:24] um, because the public has in

[1:53:25] this process that

[1:53:26] s set out has

[1:53:28] an opportunity to do that. The

[1:53:30] planning commission is then

[1:53:32] given this. Agreement, you have

[1:53:34] the opportunity to say no, it

[1:53:34] doesn

[1:53:35] t work in service of the

[1:53:36] larger totality of the project

[1:53:38] in accordance with the goals of

[1:53:39] the city or not and move it

[1:53:40] forward to the city which has

[1:53:42] or the council which has the

[1:53:43] same opportunity to say, yes,

[1:53:45] this is going to serve the city

[1:53:47] in the largest way of our goals

[1:53:49] or not, and staff then can take

[1:53:51] it back, work with the

[1:53:52] developer to amend the project

[1:53:54] and bring it back to a process,

[1:53:54] right? I think that

[1:53:55] s sort of

[1:53:57] the question is what happens if

[1:53:57] there

[1:53:57] s a no, no, it

[1:53:58] s not

[1:54:00] going to move forward to city,

[1:54:00] right? We want to see this

[1:54:02] project. Move forward, but if

[1:54:02] we

[1:54:03] re getting no

[1:54:03] s, they

[1:54:03] re

[1:54:08] stuck. Are you It

[1:54:08] s frustrating.

[1:54:17] Just give it a second battery.

[1:54:17] They

[1:54:18] re, they

[1:54:18] re turning them

[1:54:19] off so we don

[1:54:22] t get. Ok, so let

[1:54:27] me, um, Reframe the question.

[1:54:27] So you

[1:54:28] re saying if the project

[1:54:29] goes to the planning commission,

[1:54:30] and the planning commission

[1:54:33] does not agree. Then the

[1:54:34] planning commission would, what

[1:54:37] would Recommend denial, so

[1:54:37] they

[1:54:40] d still move a

[1:54:43] recommendation forward, um, but,

[1:54:45] but be recommending for denial.

[1:54:46] Ok. So I think that

[1:54:46] s the

[1:54:47] answer that you

[1:54:47] re looking for.

[1:54:47] You don

[1:54:49] t have to tell us that

[1:54:49] it

[1:54:50] s an inadequate public

[1:54:52] benefits project you recommend

[1:54:53] denial. We have that

[1:54:55] understanding of why that

[1:54:55] recommendation for denial

[1:54:57] happened based on public

[1:55:00] benefit concerns, right? Versus

[1:55:01] moving forward with yes, a

[1:55:03] recommendation, but looking at

[1:55:04] the public benefits. I think

[1:55:04] that

[1:55:05] s the sort of detail on

[1:55:05] the concerns that we

[1:55:06] re getting

[1:55:07] into. Why would they look into

[1:55:09] that level of detail and say

[1:55:09] it

[1:55:10] s inadequate, but then move

[1:55:12] it forward with a yes, but just

[1:55:14] make sure you look at the

[1:55:15] public benefits, right? So

[1:55:15] we

[1:55:16] re saying don

[1:55:17] t piece out

[1:55:18] that one component. Look at,

[1:55:20] look at everything together on

[1:55:23] the whole, ok. Does that make

[1:55:23] sense to everybody that makes

[1:55:24] sense and there

[1:55:24] s clarity there.

[1:55:26] Thank you, Mayor. Great,

[1:55:27] terrific. That was something I

[1:55:32] wanted to drill in on. In the

[1:55:34] Can you is, and correct me if

[1:55:34] I

[1:55:37] m wrong, are you allowed to

[1:55:38] deny recommending a project

[1:55:39] based on public benefits, not

[1:55:45] based on the land use. Well,

[1:55:46] the development agreements are

[1:55:48] 100% discretionary, right? And

[1:55:48] then as we

[1:55:50] ve talked about, one

[1:55:52] of the um all the findings are,

[1:55:53] are in the best interests of

[1:55:53] the city. It would have, we

[1:55:55] would tie it to findings. We

[1:55:56] would always tell the

[1:55:58] commission, tell us what your

[1:55:59] reasons for denial are. We

[1:55:59] d

[1:56:00] probably have to come back and

[1:56:01] write a resolution because it

[1:56:03] would be very different and we

[1:56:04] would want to memorialize what

[1:56:05] the commission was saying, and

[1:56:07] it would have to be tied to

[1:56:08] these specific findings. So

[1:56:08] tell us why it

[1:56:08] s not in the

[1:56:10] best interest of the city, or

[1:56:10] tell us why it

[1:56:12] s not consistent

[1:56:12] with the general plan or why it

[1:56:14] has this impact. So we would

[1:56:17] tie it to the findings, always.

[1:56:19] Terrific. That makes sense. Is

[1:56:20] that clear to everybody in

[1:56:21] response to that question? Ok,

[1:56:23] terrific. Councilmemb Hang, did

[1:56:26] you want to jump in? Thank you,

[1:56:27] Mayor. Just a couple of

[1:56:31] thoughts, um. As a rookie

[1:56:34] myself, um, you know, uh, I

[1:56:34] believe commissioner Solomon

[1:56:35] mentioned something earlier,

[1:56:38] you know, like, what is staff

[1:56:39] s

[1:56:41] role in ensuring that

[1:56:43] commissioners are not stepping

[1:56:45] outside of their purview. I

[1:56:47] think that should be sort of

[1:56:53] recognized and um Come to an

[1:56:55] agreement on stepping outside

[1:56:56] their purview on development

[1:56:58] agreements and other

[1:57:00] non-discretionary items. And

[1:57:02] are there acceptable standards

[1:57:03] or protocols for

[1:57:04] recommendations proposed by

[1:57:05] planning commissioners. Um, if

[1:57:08] not, I think. At a later time

[1:57:09] we could provide direction to

[1:57:11] sort of create that. That way

[1:57:13] it just prevents, you know,

[1:57:16] various proposals and changes

[1:57:17] related to unfounded concerns

[1:57:20] that are personal in nature to

[1:57:22] commissioners, um. You know,

[1:57:27] for example, tree species or

[1:57:28] Double lines going into

[1:57:30] establishments, um, so I think

[1:57:34] that. Should be recognized. And

[1:57:35] also I understand that the

[1:57:36] public benefits payments are

[1:57:39] negotiated um. My city staff,

[1:57:42] which is made clear by tonight.

[1:57:42] And it

[1:57:43] s based on direction

[1:57:46] from the city council, um, to

[1:57:47] me, it would make the most

[1:57:50] sense that the city council

[1:57:51] provides direction on what

[1:57:53] amounts we want to see. Uh,

[1:57:57] both today and also during

[1:57:58] specific development agreement

[1:57:59] discussions when they come

[1:58:02] before us as a body, um, as an

[1:58:04] agenda item. Um, does the

[1:58:06] planning commission have a role

[1:58:08] in debating the merits of the

[1:58:10] negotiated dollar amounts. It

[1:58:12] seems to me that that

[1:58:12] s

[1:58:13] specific issues outside of

[1:58:14] their purview, which is what

[1:58:15] we

[1:58:16] re discussing tonight. And I

[1:58:17] also think it

[1:58:17] s important that

[1:58:19] we as a city council provide

[1:58:22] direction at a later meeting,

[1:58:23] um, to the planning commission,

[1:58:24] uh, so that they can spend

[1:58:26] their important time focused on

[1:58:28] what is actually within their

[1:58:30] purview and not on things that

[1:58:32] straight outside of what their

[1:58:34] purview actually is. Uh, they

[1:58:38] have a very important role, um,

[1:58:39] and looking at what

[1:58:40] s required,

[1:58:40] that

[1:58:42] s required a lot of them,

[1:58:44] right? And not only will this

[1:58:47] clear up and provide direction

[1:58:49] uh to allow planning

[1:58:51] commissioners to focus on their

[1:58:52] important time on their rules,

[1:58:55] but it also helps city staff

[1:58:56] better prepare for planning

[1:58:58] commission meetings. It helps

[1:59:00] staff to not get super

[1:59:02] overwhelmed by working on

[1:59:03] unrelated issues brought at the

[1:59:06] last. Minute by commissioners

[1:59:08] and hopefully it will make the

[1:59:09] meetings run smoother and not

[1:59:12] like 567 hours sometimes. I

[1:59:14] mean, I was in Japan and I

[1:59:14] watched that planning

[1:59:15] commission meeting that went

[1:59:17] till 2 in the morning, um, so I,

[1:59:19] I think. It

[1:59:22] s a lot of fun. So,

[1:59:23] uh, you know, those are my

[1:59:25] comments. Uh, thank you, Mayor.

[1:59:26] Thank you, Councillormermeister.

[1:59:32] Thank you, Mayor. So I have a

[1:59:34] few comments, um, I

[1:59:34] ve been

[1:59:37] watching planning commission

[1:59:39] meetings since 1998 and there

[1:59:41] were DAs that were discussed

[1:59:43] during that time and somehow

[1:59:44] the planning commission managed

[1:59:47] to get through it. Um, We had a

[1:59:49] city attorney, Christie Hogan,

[1:59:53] who when we got out of our lane

[1:59:55] would shut us down. She

[1:59:55] d say

[1:59:56] that

[1:59:58] s not in your purview. So

[1:59:58] if that

[1:59:59] s not happening in

[2:00:02] planning commission, that is

[2:00:02] the city attorney

[2:00:02] s role, and

[2:00:04] that is something the city

[2:00:06] attorney needs to look at.

[2:00:07] Something was said here tonight.

[2:00:13] Uh, Lauren, you said, why is,

[2:00:16] why is legal, uh, you said

[2:00:16] sometimes we

[2:00:18] re seeing it for

[2:00:19] the first time when we

[2:00:20] re there.

[2:00:23] That should never be happening.

[2:00:26] Legal should be reading the

[2:00:28] planning commission agenda from

[2:00:30] from top to bottom before the

[2:00:33] meeting. The whole thing and

[2:00:34] the contracts, you know, some

[2:00:36] of, no. That

[2:00:39] s a correction for

[2:00:41] the ok, but there have been

[2:00:42] times when somebody said he

[2:00:42] hadn

[2:00:45] t read it the day of the

[2:00:46] planning commission meeting, ok?

[2:00:47] And that shouldn

[2:00:48] t be happening

[2:00:52] and especially with the da. If

[2:00:56] a commissioner Who just happens

[2:00:59] to have, uh you know,

[2:01:00] concentrated uh in contracts,

[2:01:01] so she

[2:01:02] s very, very

[2:01:04] commissioner Hoopen Garner,

[2:01:06] very, very familiar with

[2:01:08] contracts, hadn

[2:01:09] t read the

[2:01:10] contract and brought things up,

[2:01:12] the contract would have been

[2:01:15] wrong. So if we are going to

[2:01:17] take away the the specifics of

[2:01:19] looking at a da from planning

[2:01:20] commission

[2:01:21] s purview, then I

[2:01:23] want to know that the city

[2:01:23] attorney

[2:01:26] s office is going to

[2:01:27] be looking at those contracts

[2:01:31] with a fine tooth comb. It is

[2:01:32] not acceptable for those

[2:01:34] contracts to be going to

[2:01:36] planning commission and not

[2:01:39] being looked at very, very

[2:01:41] carefully because this is uh 20

[2:01:44] year contract or a 30 year

[2:01:45] contract and those contracts

[2:01:51] have to be looked at. Um, If,

[2:01:51] if it

[2:01:53] s not under pc

[2:01:53] s purview,

[2:01:55] then maybe there shouldn

[2:01:55] t be a

[2:01:57] resolution for the da. There

[2:02:00] should not be a resolution that

[2:02:01] that the planning commission

[2:02:05] has to sign to say that they

[2:02:07] have the findings that they are

[2:02:09] ok with the da if they don

[2:02:09] t

[2:02:10] have the purview to make

[2:02:12] comments about it. It makes no

[2:02:14] sense to have a resolution that

[2:02:17] they have to sign. There should

[2:02:19] be then one resolution and one

[2:02:21] of the findings of the many

[2:02:24] findings can be. We like the da

[2:02:27] or whatever, we, we find that

[2:02:29] the da is acceptable or, or

[2:02:30] adequate or whatever word you

[2:02:33] want to use, but, um, they

[2:02:33] shouldn

[2:02:35] t have to sign a

[2:02:35] resolution that says they

[2:02:36] re

[2:02:37] good with it. If they don

[2:02:37] t get

[2:02:38] to do it. If they don

[2:02:39] t get to

[2:02:40] look at it, if they don

[2:02:40] t get

[2:02:44] to criticize it. The fact that

[2:02:45] Some of my colleagues think

[2:02:45] that we shouldn

[2:02:46] t even be

[2:02:50] looking at it. If there are no

[2:02:51] checks and balances in this

[2:02:54] city with regard to whatever

[2:02:54] whether it

[2:02:55] s approval of a

[2:02:57] project, approval of a da,

[2:03:00] whatever it is. Then we are

[2:03:01] done. There

[2:03:02] s no purpose. There

[2:03:04] has to be checks and balances.

[2:03:04] We can

[2:03:05] t expect that it

[2:03:05] s only

[2:03:07] staff that looks at something

[2:03:08] with a consultant, with a

[2:03:12] developer. We have to be able

[2:03:13] to look at that and say, you

[2:03:15] know what, this is not good

[2:03:18] enough for our city. Yes, we do

[2:03:20] need $1 million more. Yes, we

[2:03:22] do need this public benefit.

[2:03:26] And the idea, like I that I

[2:03:27] read about the um community,

[2:03:29] the public input, and the fact

[2:03:31] that the community at a

[2:03:33] community meeting is supposed

[2:03:36] to be able to give feedback on

[2:03:38] the community benefits menu. I

[2:03:39] know for a fact that

[2:03:39] s not

[2:03:41] happening. That you is not

[2:03:42] going to community meetings. By

[2:03:44] the time it goes to a community

[2:03:47] meeting, the, the idea of

[2:03:48] whatever the the developer has

[2:03:50] decided we want to give. This

[2:03:52] is what we are going to give in

[2:03:53] exchange for that. That is what

[2:03:55] is presented to the community.

[2:03:56] So when they come to the

[2:03:57] planning commission, are you

[2:04:00] going to tell the community?

[2:04:00] Sorry, you can

[2:04:03] t talk about the

[2:04:03] public benefits because we

[2:04:03] re

[2:04:05] not in charge of the public

[2:04:05] benefits. We

[2:04:06] re, I mean, not in

[2:04:07] charge. We don

[2:04:08] t recommend

[2:04:09] about the public benefits, and

[2:04:09] I think that

[2:04:11] s kind of a

[2:04:12] slippery slope when you

[2:04:13] re

[2:04:14] going to basically have people

[2:04:16] coming from the public saying

[2:04:19] yeah or nay or whatever, and,

[2:04:20] and just in response to

[2:04:23] councilmember. Erickson

[2:04:23] s

[2:04:25] comments about, you know, what

[2:04:26] service or disservice are we

[2:04:28] doing to the public? I have

[2:04:30] only had residents call me

[2:04:33] after a meeting to say thank

[2:04:35] GOD this person asks questions.

[2:04:36] If we don

[2:04:39] t ask the questions,

[2:04:41] then we are basically this

[2:04:43] commission is a rubber stamp

[2:04:43] and that

[2:04:44] s all they are is a

[2:04:47] rubber stamp for whatever staff

[2:04:49] recommends, um, is my head

[2:04:51] exploding yet? No, ok, um.

[2:04:56] Exception. Thank you. Uh, yes,

[2:04:59] extraordinary. I, I know it

[2:04:59] s

[2:05:01] just extraordinary, um, so, so

[2:05:05] I think that As, as, as the

[2:05:06] mayor said, if we don

[2:05:07] t want

[2:05:11] the da to be as as the

[2:05:12] specifics of the da to be in

[2:05:14] the purview, then they should

[2:05:15] be looking at it as an entire

[2:05:17] project. If a commissioner

[2:05:19] thinks that the that the da

[2:05:21] sucks, then just vote no. Vote

[2:05:22] no, but then don

[2:05:23] t have a

[2:05:25] resolution that they have to

[2:05:28] vote for that talks about the

[2:05:29] specifics of that da because

[2:05:29] that

[2:05:30] s not fair and it

[2:05:30] s not

[2:05:36] right. Um Again, contract

[2:05:37] issues have to be, that has to

[2:05:39] be dealt with by, uh, with our

[2:05:41] city attor with our lawyers

[2:05:43] with bbk. They have to be

[2:05:46] looking at those, at those uh

[2:05:46] da

[2:05:48] s much more carefully and,

[2:05:48] and I

[2:05:50] m also just gonna say by

[2:05:52] the time the public benefits

[2:05:55] package comes to us, the train

[2:05:57] has left the station. And so

[2:05:57] it

[2:06:00] s very hard at that point

[2:06:01] then to negotiate something

[2:06:03] else, especially since the

[2:06:06] community has not really had

[2:06:07] that opportunity, especially if

[2:06:07] they don

[2:06:10] t get to talk about it

[2:06:11] at the community meeting. So

[2:06:13] that means that at the

[2:06:15] community meeting, they have to

[2:06:17] be given that community

[2:06:19] benefits menu and be asked,

[2:06:21] what would you like to see as

[2:06:22] your community benefits. This

[2:06:25] is, this is our list. Any of

[2:06:26] these look good? Any other?

[2:06:28] That you want to add because if

[2:06:29] you don

[2:06:30] t let the community

[2:06:30] speak then, it

[2:06:31] s sort of like,

[2:06:34] well, you know, speak now or

[2:06:34] forever hold your peace because

[2:06:37] by the time it comes to us,

[2:06:37] it

[2:06:37] s, it

[2:06:39] s left the station.

[2:06:39] That

[2:06:42] s it. Thank you. Thank you.

[2:06:43] Um, I want to pick up on a

[2:06:45] couple of pieces that were just

[2:06:48] laid down, um, first, uh, as I

[2:06:50] look at the community benefits

[2:06:51] conversation, we have to name

[2:06:53] that these public benefits,

[2:06:54] these benefits that get

[2:06:55] delivered to the public on

[2:06:58] behalf of a project that is

[2:06:58] deemed exceptional

[2:07:01] extraordinary, something beyond

[2:07:02] the general land code that

[2:07:05] exists, um, cost the project

[2:07:06] things. And so I think that

[2:07:06] s

[2:07:07] important to name because what

[2:07:08] we

[2:07:10] re doing is trying to find a

[2:07:12] balance in what becomes uh

[2:07:13] Exceptional public offering on

[2:07:15] the back of a project that is

[2:07:16] already potentially in line

[2:07:17] with our city

[2:07:17] s goals and

[2:07:19] values, um, and that

[2:07:20] s an

[2:07:21] amazing opportunity we have,

[2:07:22] but a delicate balance to

[2:07:24] strike, and I think there

[2:07:24] s a

[2:07:25] sense that comes with the

[2:07:27] community benefits that we get

[2:07:28] to squeeze these projects for

[2:07:31] every last dime, and I think

[2:07:32] that mentality becomes

[2:07:34] troubling because we do invest

[2:07:36] our resources as a city and

[2:07:38] making sure that professional

[2:07:39] economic evaluation can happen

[2:07:40] and that we are getting the

[2:07:42] best ultimate deal possible.

[2:07:43] And so we do have to have a

[2:07:45] certain level of trust with our

[2:07:47] processes, and I really

[2:07:47] appreciate what Vice Mayor

[2:07:49] Heilman brought up as an

[2:07:50] opportunity in the future for

[2:07:52] us to evaluate the community

[2:07:54] benefits table that we have,

[2:07:54] but I think that

[2:07:55] s a balance

[2:07:57] that we have to have. We can

[2:07:58] t,

[2:07:59] um, uh, enable the public to

[2:08:01] unleash their best visions onto

[2:08:04] each project, hoping and sort

[2:08:06] of um asking for everything in

[2:08:07] the moon possible from our

[2:08:09] development, uh, to the point

[2:08:10] that we become so under

[2:08:12] pressure that we are unable to

[2:08:13] deliver anything, not just the

[2:08:14] benefits, but the project

[2:08:15] itself, right? And so that

[2:08:15] s

[2:08:17] sort of the balance I believe

[2:08:18] we

[2:08:18] ve looked to professionals

[2:08:20] to help us best strike. So the

[2:08:22] process, as I understand it,

[2:08:24] allows for the public to have

[2:08:26] an early voice, uh, engaged

[2:08:27] with the developer and maybe

[2:08:27] that

[2:08:28] s not happening as well as

[2:08:29] it could. I think there

[2:08:30] s some

[2:08:31] room for conversation there and

[2:08:32] as we

[2:08:32] re having these

[2:08:33] conversations, the public

[2:08:35] becomes more aware of what

[2:08:36] their opportunities are

[2:08:37] certainly, um, but I wanna make

[2:08:39] sure that the development

[2:08:40] community is engaging best in

[2:08:40] what we

[2:08:41] re hoping. To see

[2:08:43] happen, which are early

[2:08:44] conversations, right, about,

[2:08:45] hey, what does this

[2:08:46] neighborhood need more of? Hey,

[2:08:48] how can we think about some of

[2:08:49] these opportunities differently.

[2:08:52] I believe that when those

[2:08:53] conversations happen early and

[2:08:54] well, it enables a project to

[2:08:56] move forward in the best way

[2:08:56] possible, and we

[2:08:57] ve seen when

[2:08:58] they don

[2:08:58] t happen well that

[2:08:59] they can also tank a project,

[2:09:01] but I do want to just make sure

[2:09:02] that we

[2:09:03] re understanding any

[2:09:05] benefit that comes out of a

[2:09:06] project for the community cost

[2:09:07] that development money, and

[2:09:07] that

[2:09:08] s sort of what we

[2:09:08] re

[2:09:09] ultimately trying to find the

[2:09:10] balance with is how to get the

[2:09:13] best. Value for our city, uh,

[2:09:14] and to ensure that the project

[2:09:16] can move forward that gives the

[2:09:17] public its best opportunity. So

[2:09:17] I just want to name that. I

[2:09:18] don

[2:09:19] t want that to get lost and

[2:09:20] how we

[2:09:20] re thinking about this,

[2:09:23] and I think that is exactly why

[2:09:24] and where I

[2:09:24] m troubled or or

[2:09:26] trying to figure out the best

[2:09:27] role for not only the planning

[2:09:29] commission, but city council

[2:09:30] itself, because I believe that

[2:09:31] we have a full opportunity to

[2:09:34] say no to a project should we

[2:09:35] not believe that by the many

[2:09:37] months and years and moons it

[2:09:39] takes for a project ultimately

[2:09:40] reach us from the time it

[2:09:42] started, which we know could be

[2:09:44] years, many years, um, that it

[2:09:45] is maybe fair for us to say,

[2:09:47] you know, things have changed.

[2:09:49] The conversation way back when

[2:09:49] didn

[2:09:49] t have, you know, wasn

[2:09:50] t

[2:09:50] the best. It didn

[2:09:51] t get the

[2:09:52] best public benefits possible,

[2:09:52] but we wouldn

[2:09:54] t dig into that

[2:09:56] on the council dais and try to

[2:09:57] find what other value we could

[2:09:59] have, we would encourage that

[2:10:00] project to probably be tabled

[2:10:02] to go back to staff and to have

[2:10:03] conversations that way. We

[2:10:03] wouldn

[2:10:04] t need to get into any

[2:10:06] sort of arduous in the weeds

[2:10:07] lengthy conversations, we

[2:10:07] d, no,

[2:10:08] we

[2:10:09] re ready to, you know, send

[2:10:10] this back to staff, table the

[2:10:11] project, and give. Something

[2:10:13] about her. I think that is

[2:10:14] exactly why I

[2:10:14] m so concerned

[2:10:16] about how much time things take,

[2:10:18] because from the point that we

[2:10:19] start this conversation with

[2:10:21] the community to the time it

[2:10:23] actually shows up at the

[2:10:23] council

[2:10:24] s table for ultimate

[2:10:25] decision. It

[2:10:25] s, it

[2:10:26] s too much

[2:10:27] time and it MAY be too much

[2:10:28] time to really understand if we

[2:10:30] did get the best value in the

[2:10:31] long run. So I think it

[2:10:31] s in

[2:10:32] everyone

[2:10:32] s best interest that

[2:10:35] we find ways to accelerate

[2:10:36] these processes to deliver what

[2:10:38] is as close to that earliest

[2:10:40] vision the community had onto

[2:10:42] our council days as quickly.

[2:10:43] Possible so that the value

[2:10:44] really feels like it

[2:10:45] s there

[2:10:46] and not lapsed by years and

[2:10:47] pandemics and all the many

[2:10:49] things that could happen. So,

[2:10:49] that

[2:10:50] s sort of what I

[2:10:51] m hoping

[2:10:52] we get to as a place where

[2:10:55] things are happening faster and

[2:10:56] clearer with greater trust

[2:10:58] happening, and we have all, you

[2:10:59] know, withered down trust with

[2:11:01] each other as part of these

[2:11:02] processes, but I think what

[2:11:03] s

[2:11:05] happening here is a sense of

[2:11:07] new confidence happening is

[2:11:08] shared understanding and a

[2:11:09] greater set of tools that MAY

[2:11:10] be possible moving forward

[2:11:11] again. No direction tonight but

[2:11:11] It sounds like there

[2:11:12] s been

[2:11:13] some really great ideas about

[2:11:15] what MAY need to happen moving

[2:11:16] forward. Vice Mayor is moving

[2:11:18] his mask, which means he is

[2:11:19] ready to talk. Ok, we

[2:11:20] re gonna

[2:11:21] give him the microphone for a

[2:11:27] second. Go ahead. Thank you,

[2:11:30] thank you, Mayor, and um I, I

[2:11:32] just wanted to add a couple of

[2:11:35] comments. I, I thought you, you

[2:11:37] really summarize things very

[2:11:39] well. I just wanted to point

[2:11:42] out that the community benefits

[2:11:45] are distinct from neighborhood

[2:11:47] mitigation and neighborhood

[2:11:49] benefits the community benefits

[2:11:51] are supposed to be broad-based

[2:11:53] community benefits. When you

[2:11:55] look at most of the things that

[2:11:58] we as a council agreed on,

[2:11:58] they

[2:11:59] re not really the kind of

[2:12:01] things that we would normally

[2:12:04] think of, oh, is this something

[2:12:05] the neighborhood would want,

[2:12:05] it

[2:12:08] s more, is this something

[2:12:08] the broader community would

[2:12:10] want, so I wanted to point that

[2:12:15] out, um. And just to respond to

[2:12:17] my colleague. I wasn

[2:12:18] t saying

[2:12:19] that we shouldn

[2:12:20] t review the

[2:12:22] development agreement. What I

[2:12:24] was trying to communicate is, I

[2:12:24] don

[2:12:27] t think we should be trying

[2:12:29] to negotiate the development

[2:12:31] agreement on the dais. I, I

[2:12:31] don

[2:12:33] t think we have adequate

[2:12:35] information to do that. We

[2:12:35] don

[2:12:38] t know the costs associated

[2:12:40] with um anything we would want

[2:12:41] to extract. We don

[2:12:42] t know the

[2:12:44] costs associated with the

[2:12:45] particular project. We don

[2:12:45] t

[2:12:46] necessarily know the costs

[2:12:49] associated it with the enhanced

[2:12:51] density or height that they

[2:12:52] have, so I, I don

[2:12:54] t think

[2:12:54] that

[2:12:55] s a wise approach. That

[2:12:56] s

[2:12:58] why I was saying we need to be

[2:13:00] setting broad parameters rather

[2:13:03] than trying to negotiate each

[2:13:04] specific development agreement

[2:13:06] as it comes to us and going

[2:13:08] back to something that I think

[2:13:11] the mayor said with respect to

[2:13:13] the commission is if you feel

[2:13:16] that the public benefits are

[2:13:18] not adequate for this

[2:13:19] particular project, then vote

[2:13:20] no. I mean, that

[2:13:21] s the thing to

[2:13:23] do and I think that

[2:13:25] s um uh

[2:13:26] what I would direct the

[2:13:29] commission to do as well. Um,

[2:13:31] and then just, you know, what

[2:13:33] Jennifer said about the scope

[2:13:35] versus the value. I don

[2:13:36] t think

[2:13:37] that makes sense cause I don

[2:13:38] t

[2:13:41] think you can ask the body to

[2:13:43] review the scope, but not the

[2:13:44] value because the scope is

[2:13:47] directly related to the value,

[2:13:51] uh, so I, I would prefer as uh

[2:13:52] Councilmember Meister said, if,

[2:13:52] if there

[2:13:54] s a way to legally do

[2:13:55] that, don

[2:13:56] t have the commission

[2:13:57] make a recommendation on the

[2:13:59] development agreement. Have

[2:14:01] them recommend the project with

[2:14:03] the development agreement that

[2:14:04] has been negotiated or not

[2:14:06] recommend the project. Um,

[2:14:08] however they feel about it, and

[2:14:09] then my final point, and we

[2:14:12] need to have a different

[2:14:14] discussion, not directed at

[2:14:15] development agreements, the

[2:14:18] time issue, because time in the

[2:14:19] development world they

[2:14:20] ll sell

[2:14:23] you time is money, um, and so

[2:14:26] every delay in a project

[2:14:28] results in less benefit for the

[2:14:31] community, higher rents, uh,

[2:14:33] higher charges that need to be

[2:14:34] passed on because the developer

[2:14:36] is trying to make a profit. So

[2:14:39] anything that we can do to

[2:14:41] protect the community, but

[2:14:42] expedite the process, I think

[2:14:47] is going to be valuable. Oh,

[2:14:49] perfect. Do any of the council

[2:14:50] members have any further

[2:14:53] comments? To any of the

[2:14:54] planning commissioners have

[2:14:55] questions, comments, need for

[2:14:57] clarity. Yes, Commissioner

[2:15:04] Hooper Gardner. Hello. Um, I

[2:15:05] think this is all great and

[2:15:07] thank you, thank you, thank you

[2:15:09] for this and so my question is,

[2:15:12] what does state law say because

[2:15:14] state law you said in the

[2:15:15] presentation, define the

[2:15:17] development agreement process.

[2:15:20] Does state law require that the

[2:15:22] planning commission approved

[2:15:24] the development agreement, or

[2:15:25] is there flexibility because I,

[2:15:25] that

[2:15:27] s the only thing I would

[2:15:28] want us to not run amok. It

[2:15:29] s a

[2:15:31] good question and I was just

[2:15:32] gonna make a suggestion, um,

[2:15:35] state sets out the process and

[2:15:37] the planning commission does

[2:15:39] review development agreements.

[2:15:41] What is not what what goes

[2:15:42] beyond the state law are our

[2:15:44] local findings in the West

[2:15:45] Hollywood municipal code. And

[2:15:47] so if these are a source of

[2:15:49] confusion, maybe we should

[2:15:50] narrow them to be more in line

[2:15:52] with what the council wants to

[2:15:53] see on development agreements

[2:15:55] and the role because it sounds

[2:15:57] to me like this is creating

[2:15:58] some confusion, and they don

[2:15:58] t

[2:16:00] need to be this broad and this

[2:16:01] subjective. They can be, you

[2:16:02] know, doesn

[2:16:02] t include all the

[2:16:04] mandatory requirements? Did You

[2:16:07] follow the process, really much

[2:16:09] more objectively looking at the

[2:16:10] development agreement process

[2:16:11] and and what we

[2:16:11] ve talked about

[2:16:14] here, but maybe a little less

[2:16:15] of all the subjective

[2:16:16] discussion. You

[2:16:16] re still always

[2:16:17] looking at the project as a

[2:16:18] whole. I, I want to be clear

[2:16:20] about that. You are looking at

[2:16:22] projects that come before you,

[2:16:23] but on this specific piece, not

[2:16:25] that I want to add another uh

[2:16:26] zone tax amendment to the work

[2:16:28] plan. Sorry, Nick. But that

[2:16:29] might be something we want to

[2:16:29] look at. You don

[2:16:30] t have to give

[2:16:31] direction on that tonight. Let

[2:16:33] us think about it, but that

[2:16:34] might be a way to respond to

[2:16:38] some of this feedback. Ok. Are

[2:16:40] there any other commissioner

[2:16:43] comments, questions, terrific

[2:16:43] counsel comments, Councilmemb

[2:16:45] Hang had his hand up first.

[2:16:51] Thank you. Thank you, Mayor.

[2:16:53] You know, um, there

[2:16:54] s something

[2:16:55] to be thought about what

[2:16:57] council member Erickson said

[2:16:58] earlier, um, and I just, I

[2:16:58] ve

[2:16:59] been, it

[2:17:01] s been festering in my

[2:17:03] mind. If we take the politics

[2:17:05] out of political appointments

[2:17:08] and this is such a. A this

[2:17:10] commission does a lot of work.

[2:17:12] And if we make the seats at

[2:17:15] large, we take the politics out

[2:17:15] of that

[2:17:16] s not a part of the

[2:17:18] agenda discussion tonight, so

[2:17:18] let

[2:17:19] s not talk about that if we

[2:17:21] got it. Thank you. Thank you,

[2:17:22] Councilmember Erickson, did you

[2:17:25] have any final comments? Yes, I

[2:17:26] want to follow up on something

[2:17:27] that counts remember Meister

[2:17:29] said that I thought is a good

[2:17:31] point too, and it sounds like

[2:17:33] that might be universal

[2:17:35] direction from the council, but

[2:17:37] it sounds like we are giving

[2:17:40] and Christie would do that, uh,

[2:17:41] um, I think the direction and

[2:17:42] mayor maybe you could do a

[2:17:42] straw poll. I don

[2:17:44] t know if

[2:17:44] that

[2:17:46] s formal, but if

[2:17:49] commissioners do Or if there is

[2:17:50] something that is going off the

[2:17:51] out of the tracks, out of the

[2:17:53] train, what did you use to

[2:17:55] train metaphor out of your lane,

[2:17:58] right? You know, um, it would

[2:18:00] be helpful fully knowing and it

[2:18:00] sounds like the commissioners

[2:18:02] are aware of that for, for the

[2:18:04] city attorney to step in and

[2:18:05] say, we understand you

[2:18:05] re going

[2:18:08] down this, this chart, this

[2:18:10] path, got us. You know, thank

[2:18:12] you. Um, however, Let

[2:18:12] s bring

[2:18:14] it back to this discussion at

[2:18:17] hand. I think that nice nudge

[2:18:18] you tell us all the time on

[2:18:19] Mondays, Lauren, in the nicest

[2:18:21] way to say, hey, you know, not

[2:18:23] tonight, um, but I think that

[2:18:23] s

[2:18:24] a clear direction and I think

[2:18:26] that will be helpful for the

[2:18:27] commission to help gear their

[2:18:30] conversations. Yeah, thank you

[2:18:31] for that because it

[2:18:32] s not fair

[2:18:36] to to put that. On to the

[2:18:37] commissioner to make that

[2:18:39] decision, which MAY or MAY not

[2:18:41] be right, whether or not

[2:18:43] somebody is in or out of their

[2:18:46] lane. That is what the city

[2:18:48] attorney is there for, so I

[2:18:49] agree and that

[2:18:49] s perfectly fair.

[2:18:51] I think there

[2:18:51] s been some

[2:18:53] disconnect on what the lane is.

[2:18:54] And so I think this

[2:18:56] conversation has helped define

[2:18:58] the lane because I think when,

[2:18:59] when staff and the assistant

[2:19:00] city attorney have tried.

[2:19:01] Sometimes there

[2:19:01] s pushback.

[2:19:02] Well, yes, this isn

[2:19:03] t our lane

[2:19:05] because so, so I think this

[2:19:06] conversation is really helpful

[2:19:07] to guide that discussion at the

[2:19:09] planning commission meeting.

[2:19:10] And I hope the chair always

[2:19:12] feels empowered to rein in

[2:19:12] conversations as needed, as

[2:19:13] you

[2:19:13] ve seen me have to do a

[2:19:16] couple of times tonight, um, ok,

[2:19:17] I think we

[2:19:18] re reaching a point

[2:19:19] of closure. People are packing

[2:19:22] their bags, so that

[2:19:22] s good,

[2:19:24] terrific. Um, I just want to

[2:19:25] thank the staff. I know there

[2:19:27] was a tremendous amount of leg

[2:19:28] work that went into preparing

[2:19:30] for this, um, making sure that

[2:19:32] this was going to be a valuable

[2:19:32] conversation in the long run,

[2:19:33] which is always strange when we

[2:19:34] don

[2:19:34] t have direction. I want to

[2:19:36] thank the members of the

[2:19:37] planning commission, Ruggerio,

[2:19:38] who

[2:19:38] s listening from afara

[2:19:40] commissioner cover. Uh, in our

[2:19:42] chair Lombardi, who typically

[2:19:43] steers your meetings. Thank you

[2:19:44] for letting me have the honor

[2:19:45] tonight and the members of the

[2:19:47] public for being here. You

[2:19:47] re a

[2:19:49] work to hold us accountable is

[2:19:50] extremely important, so thanks

[2:19:51] for listening into this

[2:19:52] conversation tonight. I think

[2:19:54] we are officially ready to

[2:19:56] adjourn our meeting to the next

[2:19:57] regular meeting of the city

[2:19:58] council. It

[2:19:59] d be nice to be

[2:20:00] regular again in that way

[2:20:03] Monday, MARCH 3rd, 2025 at 6

[2:20:05] P.M. Here at City Council

[2:20:07] Chambers in West Hollywood Park.

City Council & Planning Commission Study Session - Feb 24th, 2025

Agenda

Transcript