that the land on, oh, I don
t
have it in front of me, so it
s
gonna not stay in my head.
Let
s see this right. The city
acknowledges that the land on
which we gather and that is
currently known as the city of
West Hollywood is the occupied,
unseeded, seized territory of
the Gabriella Tova and the
Gabrielinoquih people, uh,
we
ll get started with a call
to order. And the Pledge of
Allegiance. We
ll just stand.
I
ll leave this in the pledge.
I. The United States of America
and to the republic for which
it stands. And Oh City clerk,
MAY we please get a roll call
of this fabulous joint study
session of the planning
commission and city council.
Yes, Mary, thank you. Mayor
Byers. PRESIDENT. Vice Mayor
Heilman. Here Councilmember
Erickson, Council member Hang.
Councilmember Meister, uh,
planning commission Chair
Lombardi Planning Commission
Vice Chair David Gregoire.
Commissioner Hoop and Garner,
Commissioner Jones,
Commissioner Mattos,
Commissioner Solomon, here we
have all members of the city
council, noting the absence of
Rosilio Carbajaro. I will note
for the record that Roggerio is
listening to the meeting via
Zoom, however, he will not be
participating. Thank you.
Terrific. And as we get to the
approval of the agenda, I will
just note that tonight we have
one item on the agenda, which
is why we do not have a general
public comment period. All
public comment will be about
the one item on the agenda, so
we will take that as part of
the agenda item later in the
meeting. Um, are there any
other notes that we need to
make for the approval of the
agenda? No, Mayor. We
re all
set. Um, so tonight we have
before us a study session on
development agreements and
public benefits policy. We
re
here as a city council and a
planning commission, sort of an
odd but exciting format for us
to get to this discussion. I
m
gonna turn it over to staff for
what will be. First a
presentation, then a set of
questions before we move into
our public comment and then
come back to this body for our
comments and deliberation, um,
but just to sort of set the
tone so people understand
what
s going on tonight. Um,
this is really a matter of
education for this group of
people, uh, getting us all on
the same page. We all have
unique roles we play between
the public, the planning
commission, city council, and
staff. And tonight is about us
creating a shared understanding
of what that is, so I
appreciate staff
s, uh,
presentation that you
ve put
together towards that end. Um,
and we
ll end tonight with some
comments and deliberation, not
necessarily direction, we
re
not creating new polonight.
I just want to make that very
clear to folks. Uh, this is
really just a matter of us
getting all on the same page,
so I
m gonna turn it over to
staff, uh, to begin the
presentation. Thank you. Good
evening. Can you everybody hear
me ok? Is this on? Ok, great.
Thank you. Good evening, Mayor,
Vice Mayor, uh, and members of
the council, chair, vice chair,
and members of the planning
commission, um, we, I
m
Jennifer Alca. I
m the
assistant director of.
Community development. I
m here
with David Wilson, our city
manager, Lauren Langer, City
attorney, Nick Marisic,
director of Community
Development, and Brian Lee, our
property development manager.
We appreciate everyone taking
the time tonight to come
together this evening for a
conversation about some of the
expectations around development
agreements, public benefits and
for billboards as well as major
projects. Uh, over the last few
years, the city council has
been asked, oh, sorry, has been
asked to make decisions on a
number of billboard or
development projects that have
had development agreements and
public benefit components and
in some of those projects
specific hearings, we
ve heard
before the planning commission
and before the city council, um,
some questions regarding, um,
How the development agreements
are negotiated, what is the
role of each of these bodies,
and we
ve done the best we can
to answer, but it
s tricky to
address those topics broadly
and take direction for the
future in a project-specific
meeting. And so that
s why we
wanted to have this meeting
tonight with no specific
project on the table so we can
have these dig into these
topics a little bit more, um,
and receive feedback on how we
might make the process better.
So to accomplish this, we have
an agenda here, um, we
re gonna
go through a lot of information.
Upfront. We
re going to try to
get through our whole
presentation and then we
ll
take public comment and then we
will dig into conversation, so,
um, we
re going to walk through
the legal framework for
development agreement and the
roles of each of the bodies in
that process. We
ll walk
through the sunset, arts and
advertising program giving a
general overview of how the
development agreements are
negotiated there and how we get
got to the point where we take
them to commission and to
council. We
re gonna go through
the public benefits related to
development projects. Separate
from billboards. We
re going to
take public comment like I said,
and then we
re gonna finally
tee up some questions for the
group, um, about first about
the Billboard projects then
about development agreements
for major projects and our goal
is to get some direction on
what the city council is
expecting from the planning
commission, from staff, and
from these projects, um, moving
forward and how each body is
expecting to engage on these
projects, and now I will kick
it over to Lauren Laer to
address the next few slides.
Yep Oh, did did not work. There
we go. There we go. Ok. Good
evening, everybody. Um, just to
finish off Jennifer
s
introduction. I just wanted to
point out that the purpose that
we feel of this study session
is for information, education,
so that everybody who functions
on these projects has is
operating off the same
information. Staff, commission,
counsel, and the public. These
are complicated projects.
There
s a lot of moving parts
and you
ll see it
s gonna take
us a long time just to get
through the explanation of all
the different parts to the
whole. So we really are glad
everybody
s here and members of
the public too to, so this can
be educational and we can all
be operating off of the same
information. Um As the mayor
mentioned, a study session is
really just a special meeting
of the city council, and we
actually have an extra body
with us here tonight, the
planning commission. And so we
are here to focus on this one
particular topic. I know there
was some concerns about why
there wasn
t a general public
comment session on the agenda,
and that
s because we
re here
with two different bodies to
talk about one topic tonight,
so there
ll be plenty of
opportunities for public
comment later on. And then as
Jennifer mentioned, there
really is no action needed
tonight. Study sessions are for
discussion, and there
s no
action required. If there
s
some consensus or some
direction or requests for more
information at a later date
that can come at a later time.
We can memorialize it at a
later time, but we really want
to use this opportunity while
everybody
s in the room to
share information, share
feedback, like Jennifer said,
we have some questions at the
end that can help guide the
discussion. So I
m going to dig
in a little bit just to the
basics of development
agreements so that it
s a
little boring, but just so
everybody understands the
framework of what they are
because they
re, they
re a
unique thing that we do.
They
re different from regular
development permits and
conditional use permits. There
are a legislative act and so
development agreement it
s a,
it
s a legally binding contract
between a property developer
and a local government entity
that specifies the terms and
conditions for a development
project on a particular parcel
of land, including the
permitted uses, density. Design
standards required public
benefits in exchange for
certain approvals and
flexibility in zoning
regulations. The purpose of
having a development agreement
is to provide certainty and
stability to developers by
outlining the project
parameters while allowing local
governments to ensure that the
development aligns with
community goals and receives
necessary public amenities and
benefits. So it
s really about
that certainty before um before
a developer engages in a long
term project to know that the
laws aren
t going to change,
that if they start now, they
re
going to be able to complete it
all the way through to the end.
Next slide. And so the basis of
development agreements is
really about the vested rights,
the rights that are granted
through this process. So a
vested right is a legal right
to continue development under
the existing approvals despite
future changes in the law. Um,
the, the reason that the said,
again, this comes from state
law. The reason that the
legislature created development
agreements is because if you
don
t have vesting on a project,
if there
s not certainty that
the project can be built
throughout the entire lifetime
of construction. It can defer
it can deter large projects
because there
s just
uncertainty. Who
s going to
start a project if they think 5
years down the road the rules
are going to change in the
middle, and they
re not going
to know they can finish. So
it
s really about the certainty
and it locks in the regulations
at the time. Of the agreement.
So the statutes where we look
to that govern development
agreements are in the
government code 65864 to
865869.5, and that sets out the
legal framework, including the
required components and
procedures for adoption, and
those are enhanced in our local
municipal code. Um, did you
skip one? I think, yeah, so the
key provisions of a da that are
really set out in the statute
or you have to have a duration.
So the duration of the
agreement and the deadline for
completion and then the
timeline is crucial for
determining the term and
helping cities anticipate
project completion. I know we
have a lot of conversations
here about when are these
projects going to get done and
so one benefit of a project
with a development agreement is
you have a pretty certain
timeline of when projects will
be built. Uh, the permitted, I
mentioned this already, the
permitted uses on the land, the
maximum allowable development
density, intensity, height,
size, and then if there
s any
uh dedications for public
purposes. Slide. Other key
provisions that are going to be
included in the da are to, uh,
decide which subsequent actions
can be approved
administratively to facilitate
development while protecting
city interests, uh, it sets out
modification uh protocols. How
are these developments modified
over time because we over the
course of a long project,
you
re also going to see the
need for some flexibility and
some changes as um projects
move from design to
construction documents to
actually being on the ground
building. There
s, there
s
always some. You know,
modification that needs to be
made, and so you set out in
advance what that
s going to
look like so everybody knows
survivability of the terms,
phasing of the project,
assignment procedures. What if
this entity that
s building now
gets acquired by another
company down the road. So, so
you have to lay out all those
procedures, and then of course
the public benefits, the
negotiated advantages, DAs
allow cities to secure
community benefits that might
not be feasible through
standard approvals and so we
want to detail the nature,
scope, and time. Of benefits to
ensure that they align with all
of the phases of development.
So there are 2 public hearings
that are required for a
development agreement. The
first is that planning
commission. And this is
language from the municipal
code. Upon finding the
application complete, directors
shall schedule public hearing.
Well, there
s a lot that
happens in between that time
and that
s what we
re going to
talk to you about tonight and
explain that process. So it
s,
it
s not that quick, but that
s
what the code says. And then
the planning commission will
adopt a resolution with a
recommendation to the city
council to approve
conditionally approve or deny
the application. City Council
gets the recommendation,
schedules the public hearing,
and the council MAY approve,
conditionally approve or deny
the application. And if we
talked about this recently, if
significant modifications are
proposed by the council that
haven
t been considered by the
planning commission before.
Those modifications need to be
referred back to the planning
commission for review. Um, the
development agreement is a
legislative act, which means
it
s adopted by ordinance and
in West Hollywood we have an
extra layer to that, which is
we require a zone map amendment
with every development
agreement so that the parcel
where the development sits is
rezoned with an overlay for the
development agreement overlay
zone. And that means our zoning
map will show every parcel that
has a development agreement on
it, and there
s a lot of
reasons and benefit for that,
but, but one of the most
notable uh points is that you
can look at the zoning map and
you should be able to tell
which parcels have these
development agreements because
they
re timing their standards
might be a little bit different
than other things that you
ve
seen in the zone. I
ll turn it
back to Jennifer. Thank you. So
from a developer
s viewpoint,
what, what is the motivation to
do this? Why would somebody
come in and want to have a
development agreement. Well, uh,
similar to what Lauren was
saying, the developers seek
development agreements for a
number of reasons. First and
foremost, it gives them that
certainty that she was
explaining. It gives them
certainty about timing and
things like fees, development
standards and processes can be
locked for the period of time
in the term of the da. Um, and
finally, they also, what we see
as a driving factor in most of
the DAs we have, uh, especially
for major projects, is
negotiated regulatory
flexibility. And that
s again
part of, part of the. What goes
into the development agreement
here in West Hollywood and in
other words, that
s often
changes to things like height
density land uses and things
like that. Um, so what
s in it
for the city from the city
s
viewpoint, what do we get out
of this? We get the same
flexibility that allows
developers to ask for things
above and beyond the zoning
also gives the city the
opportunity to focus on
community priorities because
the agreement is completely
discretionary. The city has
more latitude to help define
the project and to request or
require project benefits and
contributions that wouldn
t be
allowed under normal, um, land
use laws. Typically, there has
to be some sort of reason why
we
re asking for a certain fees
or certain community benefits
that are related to the project
itself, um, in a development
agreement we have a lot more
flexibility there. This can,
this. This can take thank you.
This can take the shape of
things like more housing, more
parking, enhanced public
improvements, incentives for
valued land uses that promote
economic and social development
and other public benefits, um.
Like, like we see on all of our
projects, so I will turn it
back to Lauren for the next
slide. Ok. So the findings that
are required when a development
agreement is approved are
listed in the municipal code.
And generally speaking, they
re
looking at whether the
development as a whole and the
agreement is in the best
interests of the city,
consistent with the general
plan, specific plan and zoning
ordinance, and that it doesn
t
adversely affect people working
or residing in the area or
jeopardize the health, safety,
or general welfare. Um, what
s
going to be, I think one of the
themes we talk about tonight is
the general plan and the
specific plan and consistency
with those things. It
s a big
part of what is being looked at
with these big complicated
projects, um. The theme that
the city council really gives
their their broad land use
direction through these
planning documents. The general
plan, the sunset specific plan,
other specific plans and on
what they want to see and the
central role for the planning
commission in implementing that
plan because that
s the guiding
document. That
s what the
commission looks at when
they
re making decisions. Uh,
next slide please. Um,
generally speaking, the role of
the planning commission comes
from the planning and zoning
law and the government code, um,
and it says that planning
commissions provide insight and
allow councils to make more
fully informed decisions on
land use and other planning
issues. And then the city in
its ordinances assigns the
functions to the planning
commission is deemed
appropriate and necessary. So
land use power sits with the
elected body, the city council,
and then it
s delegated down to
the planning commission and
generally planning commissions
help city councils make the
best land use decisions that
they can. Um, the Institute for
Local Government is, it
s an
organization that promotes good
government at the local level,
and they had a really good
explanation of planning
commission
s roles. And they
say that planning commissions
play a central role in the
planning process in 3 ways. One,
acting as an, as an advisory
board to the main governing
body here, the city council on
all planning and development
issues. 2, here
s the theme
again, assures that the general
plan is implemented by
reviewing development
applications on a case by case
basis, just as you build a
building one brick at a time,
you implement a community one
vision at a time or one project
at a time and then 3 functions
as the decision making body for
many approvals, but not all. So
when West Hollywood development
permits, variances, CUPs, those
are all decisions that are made
by the city council, um, and
those decisions can be appealed
up to the city council, who can
then uphold overturn, modify,
or send it back, and other
matters, mostly legislative
matters, uh, such as amendments
to the general plan, the zoning
ordinance. And of course
development agreements, the
planning commission makes
recommendations to the city
council, not final decisions.
Next time. Thank you. So that
was the background super quick
background on development
agreements and the framework
and the findings. And so now
we
re gonna dive into a more
specifically the sunset
specific plan, arts and
advertising program and then
major development projects. So
I think we
re all basically
familiar with how the billboard
policy worked up to this point,
but I will give a very brief
recap because I know there
s a
lot of people in this room that
maybe don
t don
t know the
whole full history. Um, there
was a design excellent
screening process that was set
out in the Sunset Boulevard
off-site signage policy, uh,
there was a first round that
was uh awarded design
Excellence Awards in 2020 with
the two subsequent rounds, one
in 2021, which is called 1.5
and 1 in 22, which is called
Round 2. The projects were
granted design excellence
awards, and that means they
were allowed to apply for
entitlements. Um, that wasn
t
an approval for an entitlement,
so they were allowed to go
through the approval process by
applying for a development
agreement negotiating design
and public benefits and going
through a public hearings
process before the planning
commission and the city council.
There were 2 main types of
billboards that we talk about.
One is the traditional or
static, which is just the, but
you
d imagine the printed vinyl
posted on a frame uplet or
downlet with standard lights.
The second and the one we talk
about the most when we see
development agreements for
billboard projects are the full
motion animated boards which
have also been called digital
boards in the past. Um, and
these, so the arts component
for these full motion digital
boards is part of the sunset
Boulevard offsite signage
program, and that is 17.5% of
the content where the, the
requirement for arts in the
traditional static is 1% of the
valuation of the project
similar to any development
project, uh, subject to the
urban arts program. In addition
for these projects, we
re
negotiating site improvements,
public realm enhancements, and
for alternative standards
projects, we
re looking at
extraordinary public benefit.
Um, We also have a provision in
the in the policy for historic
preservation for cultural
resources and that historic
preservation or the
rehabilitation of those sites
can be considered part of the
public realm enhancements or
the extraordinary benefit, um,
but the bulk of the public
benefit that we
re seeing in
these projects is coming from
the revenue share and Brian
League property development Man
is here to walk us through how
that works. Thank you, Jennifer,
um, I mean, the, the question
we always get is, How does the
city calculate revenue for a
30-year agreement and um You
know, to do that, what we, we,
we engage a consultant who
s an
expert in this field. Oh, I
m
sorry, we engage a consultant
who
s an expert in this field.
And they come up with a
valuation. It
s an estimated
evaluation for the first year
of that billboard and it
s
based on on three components,
the first being reach and
impressions. The second is cost
per thousands and that that
s
how many eyeballs we
ll see the,
the boards in in cars and um
pedestrians and, and, you know,
traffic and traffic patterns
come into play on that. And the
third is, is a lot more
subjective. It
s value driving
pre premium. And this is
related to these boards that
are um. Creative, full motion
and, and the type of content
they could show on some of
those full motion boards. We
had a three dimensional board
with a force perspective that
will have a higher evaluation
because it it captures more
eyeballs, um, the other thing
is these full motion boards,
they
re also able to um run
static advertisements over the,
over a 28 day campaign, and
they could run multiple static.
They could run up to 30
different campaigns during that
28 day period. Where a
traditional board is running
one campaign, so that
s why we
see that the main value in
these full motion digital
boards. They
re not often
running animation, but they
re
running multiple campaigns. And,
and the third, um, some of
these boards just because of
where they
re at on the strip,
they command a premium just
based on their location. Um,
Next slide. Next thing, um, is
the revenue share and um I mean,
we
re asked often, where do we
get these percentages from, um,
and how, how do we come up with
this formula. Uh, to justify
why what developer x is paying
something and another
developer
s paying something
else. And and all these
projects are unique and they
re
all different. They all have
different settings. They have
different costs associated with
the public realm enhancements
or site improvements. And, and
some of, you know, some of them
would rather pay a little more
upfront. I mean, so we, we, we
have to be flexible with these
operators or they won
t be
bringing a project forward, so
we
re always trying to achieve
that balance. Uh, on What
s
feasible and if we push too
hard, you know, they might walk
away. The second question is,
um, We, we favor the approached
where we get a fixed revenue
per year, um, and we get this
and it escalates at a 3%
escalation for the life of the
board. And, and we feel this is
a better a better agreement for
the city because it provides
certainty in the budgeting
process. You know, we
re able
to to see that cash flow and
capture it and budget over 30
years of the life of the
agreement. Um, the, the other
approach would be an audit
audited revenue share, um, You
know, these billboard operators
have multiple boards. They
could move campaigns around.
And, and we
re just not
comfortable or confident that
we would have a good good shot
at auditing that revenue and
it
s, it would just be a lot
more intensive, a lot more
questions, so we have chosen a
more conservative path which is
just to provide the city some
certainty. And it also avoids
disruptions in the future, um,
this is a broad program if, you
know, there there
s gonna be
many more signs and if there
s
saturation, our revenue is
guaranteed over the life of the
agreement. Next slide, um. The
Public realm enhancements, as
Jennifer mentioned, they
re all
required um for each of these
signs, you know, to qualify,
they need a public development
enhancement, a site improvement.
And, you know, we go through
that process in the public
realm enhancement is often
proposed with the initial
design of the billboard, they
were proposed during the Sign
Excellence process. So staff is
here to refine that public
realm. Design, um, and we do
that in a number of ways and we,
you know, we work with our, our,
our city architect Udas, our
designers, and at one point we
feel comfortable enough, we
ll
bring that that billboard
design to the planning
commission subcommittee with
the public realm enhancement. I
see, you know, many of you sit
on that subcommittee and you
provide feedback. And you know,
sometimes that feedback
s
enough and we get it to
planning commission soon.
Sometimes it takes 8, 10 months.
For the, the project to, to
evolve to a point where it
s
comfortable and I think they
ve,
um, You know, acted towards
those recommendations. Um, next
slide. Then we
re asked about
these alternative standards
project. I want to use the term
standards because these, these
are projects that are proposed
that That are exceed the height
or size standards of of the
billboard policy. And, and
we
re asked, well, how many of
these boards are alternative
standard projects, and the
answer is about 3/4 of them.
And you know, why is that? I
mean, I mean, I could say
because they can, uh, and they
are allowed to under the policy,
and I think it
s, it
s for two
reasons. There
s a lot more
creativity with these larger
signs, and the second is, is
the revenue on these larger
signs is, is, it
s exponential,
um, there
s a lot more
creativity and the city not
only benefits with this
extraordinary revenue payment.
It also participates in that
increased revenue. Um, with
that, um, one more, that
s you.
Thank you. All right, am I? So
what we
ve heard and what the
council can confirm or add to
when we get to the discussion
portion is that the planning
commission is relied upon to
hear. And consider the totality
of the project for these sunset
Billboard projects. Is this
project a good idea in general?
Is this what is in the
interests of the city based on
the guiding documents, vision,
and past direction. And in this
case, we
re not just talking
about the official public
benefits, but other general
benefits of the project as well
as any particular drawbacks.
What is the balance that we
re
striking with these projects,
um. And that is what is at the
heart of the recommendation
that
s coming from staff and
that we
re expecting to see
from the city from the planning
commission as well. And, and
you ask how do we get to this
recommendation, um. It
s, it
s
evolved process, but uh, you
know, the public realm is the
first part of it that came with
the design excellence staff
when they feel comfortable with
that public realm. Enhancement
is moves it forward to, um, the,
the subcommittee of planning
commission and in that review
we brought in engineering to
see if they
re feasible public
works, udas and all the
different divisions within the
city. As I said, the, the, the
subcommittee gives us input.
And at that point is when we
feel comfortable enough with
the design and the public realm
enhancements that will engage
our valuation expert and that
valuation expert prepares that
estimated annual fair market
value, which is a showed you
how they, they evolved to that,
um, estimate, and that
s when
we start negotiating the
revenue share. The revenue
share is a percentage of that
annual fair market value plus
extraordinary benefit and we
also factor in if there
s
extensive capital costs to
build that sign. And the cash
flow, I mean, there
s a, these
signs are expensive and we give
them credit in the first couple
of years of the agreements and
they pay us back, and I think
you
ve seen that at council. So
once we
ve come up with these
terms, we work with the city
attorney
s office and that
s
where we draft the actual
development agreement. Thank
you. Oops. Yes ok. So, um, when
the agreement gets to the point
of the public hearing, there
has been a lot of back and
forth. We
ve, um, we
ve gone
through the whole process that
Brian just outlined. And like I
said before, the city team
negotiates the agreement using
our best understanding of the
city
s priorities from our
vision documents and from past
direction that we
ve gotten at
city council, and it
s really
tricky to throw new things into
that balance. Once we strike
the balance, they, you know,
it
s it
s sort of an ecosystem,
and once you throw some
something new at the last stage
that gets difficult, um. But
that said, the city has
improved our internal processes
through these conversations.
We
ve we
ve um, improved our
processes to provide clearer
documents, and we
ve, um,
updated some of our standard
terms and, and, um, deal points
based on what we
ve heard from
the commission and council
through this process. So the
conversation does have, uh, a
lot of benefit and it does
improve the process. Ok, so
we
re gonna move the
conversation so we
ve really
been talking about billboards
for the first part of this kind
of revenue and public benefit
conversation and as we know,
the Sunset Arts and advertising
program has revenue share
component, public realm
enhancements, and extraordinary
public benefits. But for other
larger development projects,
whether or not they have a sign,
that
s also part of this
conversation tonight because
they
re usually subject to DAs
and the thing that I most
wanted to point out was where
the public benefit requirement
comes from in West Hollywood.
So When you all adopted your
general plan, um, I don
t
remember how many years ago,
maybe 10 years ago. The city
did something really smart, and
it put this language in the
general plan, which explains to
anyone who wants to do uh
development in West Hollywood
and they want to do something
above and beyond what these
stand uh standards call for
that the city will only
consider increases in permitted
far density and height for
projects in the commercial
designations that provides
significant benefits. To the
city. So this is the language
we turn to when a developer
comes in and says, but I want
to go much higher and I want to
do this and I want to do that.
The city has the grounds to be
able to say, well, if, if you
even want the city to consider
that, you have to provide
significant benefits to the
city and the community, and
that
s the language that we
turn to through the development
agreement process. Thank you.
So While we did adopt that
language in our, in 2011 in our
general plan 2035, um, it that
we have projects that predated
that that still used this
process. And so for years
through those projects, it was,
it was case by case. We didn
t
have a regulated uniform way of
applying a public benefit.
Evaluation to a project and so,
um, in 2018, the city
established a public benefit
policy to standardize this
process and we contracted with
3 economic consulting firms and
had them analyze what our
options were to try to capture
that the best target public
benefit amount, and they all
unanimously agreed that the
residual land value method was
the way to go and so that
s
what we use now for our public
benefits target. So in addition
to standardizing the approach
to the value of the public
benefits package. The policy
establishes a process to
involve the public early on to
get community input into what
that public benefits package
MAY include, um, we also I lost
my spot sorry and it um and it
provides Um Just, uh, it
provides a set of steps that we
go through. So we have the
community benefit, we have the
community meeting. Thank you,
this was what I was looking for.
We had the project planner gets
the project, um, evaluates it.
Has a required public
neighborhood meeting to discuss
what But the potential impacts
or benefits of the projects are
and to solicit input from the
community on public benefit
scope, um, after that point,
the city staff will hire an
independent economic analyst to
evaluate the, the residual land
value like I mentioned, um,
using the standardized public
benefits tool the Economic
consultant that we engage works
with the city only, um, any
input or any meetings that have
to be had with the developer in,
in the room, always includes
city staff. This is how we
engage all of our consultants
from sqqla to, to public
benefits and other things as
well. Um, so there
s never
direct communication. And some
of the inputs into the tool are
things that the applicant. Oh,
no, I
m still there. Um, are
things that the applicant knows
that we couldn
t know that it
s,
it
s unique to the project and
so they do give some input into
that process, but all of that
is vetted by the consultant to
make sure that it is consistent
with industry practices that
it
s a reasonable approach, it
fits the project and so forth.
Then the consultant reviews
everything and once we have
that target amount, the city
manager and the city staff
negotiate the deal points of
the da, including the public
benefits package that is a
conversation with the developer.
Sometimes they have ideas of
what they would like to propose.
It
s part of their project.
They can design it into their
project. I know we
ve seen, for
instance, on the arts or the
former arts club project they
have an art gallery that would
be open to the public. It was
also a, a performing arts
rehearsal space, and so there
are certain things that can be
developed into the project and
the applicant kind of has to
have control over that, and
then there can be parts of it
that are more monetary, um,
that we can ask for as well.
And then once that is done and
the city council, I
m sorry,
the attorney, and the
applicant
s legal counsel will
work out the terms of the
development agreement, then
once the project is ready, um,
including the sqa, the design
review, all of that stuff. It
all comes forward to public
hearings. So the public benefit
policy staff report included
this language with respect to
the planning commission
s role,
and it says in the yellow here,
this will allow for the
planning commission to weigh in
on whether proposed benefits
are appropriate for the
proposed project while ensuring
that the project is being
reviewed based on the necessary
findings required to be made
for the specified permit
requested. So what that has
been taken to mean over the
years, um, is that the planning
commission can and should
provide feedback on whether the
requested legislative changes
make for a good project. That
s,
that
s the biggest question,
right? Is this project a good
project? All of it included. Uh,
whether the public benefits
package makes sense from a land
use perspective is the public
benefits package making sense
relative to the legislative
changes being asked for, and
generally the commission is not
asked or tasked with evaluating
the inputs into the evaluation
tool. Um, things like The
construction costs or, you know,
if it
s a hotel project, the
room rates or things like that.
The inputs into the tool, but
to provide overall land use
related feedback on the package
and provide recommendation to
counsel on whether the
components of the package make
sense. Does the project in its
whole in its totality moved the
city in the direction of
achieving its goals and its
vision. Uh, and finally, the
planning commission is asked to
take an action and make a
recommendation forward, move a
recommendation forward to the
city council and whether that
is yes, no, or somewhere in
between the recommendation goes
to the city council. The city
council then evaluates it and
can send back, send staff back
to re-evaluate things or
something along those lines, um,
but the, the role of the
planning commission is to move
a recommendation forward. And
so with that, I will give you a
preview of the questions that
we
re going to seek. Guidance
on and then, um, like I said,
we
ll take public comment and
come back to this slide, and so
I
ll turn it over to Lauren to
go through those questions. So
with all of that information in
mind. In order to, you know,
use everybody
s time
efficiently, um, we
re gonna
end with some proposed
questions for the council and
the commission to discuss after
public comment that we think
will help everybody, um, guide
expectations through this
process because I think the
reality is with the Billboard
program and other developments
on the horizon, there
s going
to be a lot of development
agreements coming through over
the next many years and so I
think um answering some of
these questions during this,
this joint meeting would be
helpful in having the council
provide their expectations. So,
um, as Jennifer had noted, the
process has been improved
through the discussion at the
commission and the point of all
these public hearings is to get
to the best document possible
for the city. So some things
that the um. Council can
discuss tonight is what, what
is the best way to use meetings
efficiently and effectively.
What is the city council want
from the planning commission
and its recommendation. There
s
a couple options here. Does
this, does the council want the
planning commission reviewing
inputs into the economic
valuation tool. Does the
council want the planning
commission to recommend changes
on components of the benefit
package. Does the council want
planning commission to weigh in
on the overall sufficiency of
the public benefits and our
public realm enhancements. And
then additionally, are there
additional benefits? The
council would like to see from
Billboard and or public benefit
projects, um, as noted, a lot
of what guides staff through
this whole process is decisions
that have already been made and
the land use documents that the
council has adopted. So those
are the guiding documents um
for billboards, the terms and
benefits are based on past
development agreements that
have come through for
development projects, the terms
and the benefits are based on
public benefits policy and the
guiding documents. This, this
is the guidance and we really
want to know what are.
Council
s priorities. Are there
additional negotiations that
you want done, which, you know,
can have the other benefit of
delaying projects coming
through, so provide staff,
commission, you know, the
public, the guidance of what
you want to see, and that way
this process can work a lot
smoother for everybody who
s
involved. And then the last
question that was put up here
is, does the city council want
to revisit the framework for,
for the public benefit policy
and tool or billboard da terms,
which is something that would
happen at a later date. That
s
not decisions. That need to be
made tonight but just, you know,
the conversation. Is this
working the way you want it to,
or do you want it to look a
little bit different. Tell us,
and then, and then the process
can be improved and enhanced.
So that
s the goal for tonight.
Um, I
ll turn it back over to
the mayor if you want to open
it up for public comment and,
and we can navigate that
discussion. Thank you and As
we
re getting uh the public
prepared for your opportunity
to make comment, please make
sure you
ve, uh, submitted your
comment request to our city
clerk. Um, I
ll just let this
body know what my plan is, um,
so many of these questions are
directed at the council, so I
m
gonna come to the council for a
first pass. I
m sure we all
maybe have a need for question
clarity, that sort of thing on
the presentation. So we
ll do a
first pass for my council
colleagues go to planning
commission and then come back
to council if we need to do
another exchange, we can do it
at that time, but my hope is
that we can all sort of take a
moment. To digest, to get our
responses clear to some of
these questions. We have a need
for clarity, this is going to
be the moment. I
m gonna go to
the public now. Oh, maybe our
city clerk needs another moment,
uh, before we
re prepared, but
I understand we have a couple
of public commenters prepared,
and then we
ll come back to our
discussion. Sound good?
Terrific. Sorry about that. Are
we moving to public comment now?
Ok, um, we had Jonathan Wilson
signed up to speak, but I don
t
see him in chambers, so I will
move to Steve Martin. Come on
down, Steve Martin. Like. Well,
thank you and thank you, thank
everybody for coming. Ok, there
we go. I just wanted to make
sure it was on this. This is, I,
I was long overdue, but the the
staff presentation was very
good. And, and I think
informative. On the the most
immediate question, I think
most of the people of the
public. I would think that the
planning commission having a
Review and some input on the
development agreement kind of
gives the public. An
opportunity to be heard and
also gives you an opportunity
to have like a preview before
it comes to consul of what the
commission
s concerns are and
what the public
s concerns are,
um, I, I think we
ve, I mean,
over the, I mean for over the
many, many years, these
projects, these development
agreements have really become
way more sophisticated and
frankly I think more lucrative
for the city and better
negotiated, um. That
s just my
observation and it
s hard
because you guys are there all
the time. I
m only sort of
dropped parachuting in and out,
but You know, I, I guess for an
example, the the arts club.
Development agreement left a
lot to be desired. I thought it
was all kind of way to go about
doing it, uh, at the last
minute, um, Lauren Meister was
able to ask for a very large
contribution towards housing,
which wasn
t even on the table,
and within 30 seconds, the
developer said, yes, which left
a lot of people wondering. What
kind of, how rigorous was this
process and what was, what was
staff really negotiating. I
think we
ve we
ve evolved since
then, but, uh, I do think that
the planning commission having
a say is, is just a good idea.
So anyway, thank you for your
time and thank you for your
indulgence, and I saw you on tv.
Yeah, on the on the Thank you
very much. There
s one more
public comment. Wendy Goldman,
Wendy Goldman, you will have 2
minutes to be followed by David
Ecker. Good evening, Mayor,
council members, commissioners,
staff, uh, I have a question
regarding public benefit. Some
years ago as a long term
resident here, I have been to
many scoping meetings for
developments on Sunset Strip
and elsewhere in the city at
the meeting that I went to,
there were artists renderings
of the project that indicated a
garden that was going to be
established for the community,
um, somewhere down the line,
the developers sold the project
to a 2nd party and the public
benefit garden went away. I was
not aware of that until the
project completed and opened
and it wasn
t there. So I
m
just wondering how does someone
like myself track these things
when developers change
midstream and do not exactly
have a clear Definition of what
is going to be the public
benefit. So I
ll leave that to
you. Thank you. Thank you.
David Eckhart, I believe was
next. And it looks like we
re
still getting speaker slips.
Good evening, everyone. Uh,
just a quick question, and I
know it
s subjective, but the
word extraordinary uh public
benefits seems very broad
termed, and I just as a public
viewer and watching these
things, it
s very hard. For me
or as a layperson to know what
that definition means. And I
just wonder if that moving
forward can be a little more
defined of what that means for
the public, uh, but thank you
all for what you do. I think
you all do an incredible job
and keep doing the great work.
Thank you. Do you have other
folks. Thank you, David. We
have one additional speaker, Oz
Powers. So Thank you so much.
I
m, um, an advocate for uh
trans lgbtq, non-binary youth,
and I would love to see a
program that would help some of
the homeless youth that are in
the center or other places to
um teach them how to do. I
m,
I
m a designer, production
designer, art director. I was
the art director on Avatar and
Emmy Award-winning artist, but
I love to teach, um, especially
people in our community that
have been targeted or thrown
out of their home or, you know,
homeless or struggling craft
and skill of production design
and. Artwork, um, and I would
love to see that there
s
probably other programs out
there, but to coalesce to help
those youth produce some of the
art that is on the billboards
and showcase their work. That
s
all. Thank you. Thank you so
much. Were there any other
public commenters signed up in
person or in Zoom. We had one
individual signed up for Zoom,
but they are not in the meeting.
We can proceed here. Thank you
all so much for coming out and
delivering your public comments.
Um, I
m going to turn to my
colleagues on the council to
get the conversation started.
Ed unless there was any
extraordinary need for
extraordinary, that
ll be the
word, uh, need for clarity on
the presentation. It
s ok. Ok,
I
m gonna come over to this
side. Was anybody ready to
begin the discussion? We
re all
super eager, uh, Vice Mayor,
you said yes. Oh, ok, we
ll go
over there, councilmember my
COUNCILMAN Bermeister, we
ll
begin with you. Are they gonna
answer what extraordinary.
Would you like to help. I would
like them to answer what
extraordinary is. An
extraordinary benefit as a cash
payment for an alternative
standards project. So it
s
extraordinary means dollars at
this point. And what about
extraordinary design? That
s
subjective and uh Planning
commission and council, you
know, staff bring something
forward that we believe is
extraordinary, and that
s a
subjective definition, so then
City Attorney Langer then
planning commission can debate
whether something is
extraordinary design or not, is
that right? I think the term is
exceptional though that
s
exceptional used to be
extraordinary. The design
component in the land use
component is absolutely
something that the planning
commission should be reviewing.
I think it
s something that
s
sassy, it looks, that
s how we
would say it
s sassy, right?
The sassy subcommittee looks at
the design of the um, looks at
the design of the signs and if
it has that extraordinary
exceptional component to it.
The design is part of what
they
re reviewing. Ok, we
re
just doing like initial
comments and then, ok, so, um,
Wendy Goldman spoke about a
change in public benefits, uh,
midstream without the public
getting to You know, give some
input on that, um. I guess, I
guess my, I don
t know if it
s
a question or a comment, but
you know, we
ve had this issue
about major versus minor
changes. And I think that that
is something that has caused
grief to a lot of residents
when changes happen on the
staff at the staff level over
the counter on big projects, I
mean, even look at like the
sunset Millennium when they
took away, didn
t that happen
over the counter. They took
away all the terraces and, and
now it looks like a prison. Um.
What can we do? To Um Fix that.
So there
s a provision in every
development agreement that
talks about changes to the
project. And it, the way that
they
ve always been framed and
in the samples that we
ve used,
um, it explains what is minor
and oftentimes it lists
specific things that would be
considered minor, which means
just in the efficiency of
getting these projects going,
that the um amendment is
approved at a staff level. It
MAY also list things that are
major, for example, if it
requires additional sql review,
it would be major. And so It
s
that section of the development
agreement where you want to set
the expectations for both the
city, the staff, and the
developer of what is considered
major and minor and what can be
approved at the staff level and
what should come back because
of an amendment requires the
full process, right? It
requires the planning
commission public hearing, the
city council public hearing.
It
s, it
s a long process to do
a major amendment. So you want
to specify in the document what.
The council considers major and
minor. I guess what I would say
is that when you
re talking
about a project that has a da
it
s usually a very big project
and they
re probably very few
changes that could be
considered minor. Uh, where,
you know, where the public
wouldn
t be have an interest in
knowing what is changing. Um,
so I would suggest that that
minor versus major be made
extremely narrow. For DAs. Can
I just add one thing? Are we
not giving I think before we
re
not here to make suggestions so
much to sort of, right, we
re
not here to give direction or,
you know, change anything
specifically, just sort of
posit what our understanding of
things are, yeah, it
s a little
complicated, but yeah, so
rather than it
s there you go
that direction, it
s not
direction. It
s not direction,
it
s an emotion. Um, the other
thing I wanted to bring up, uh,
is, um, you know, it
s
interesting that we give DAs,
um, to create certainty for
developers, but somehow we
haven
t created certainty for
us. For the city, for residents
about getting projects built.
You know, there
s certainty for
them, but not certainty for us,
um, so I
m not going to go on
because then it would become a
direction. Um, the other thing
I
ll bring up is on public
input. Um, we talk about
community meetings and, and I,
and we just passed recently
passed an item to have
community meetings for all DAs,
not just DAs having to do with
development projects, but also
billboards. And one of the um
One of the points in uh the
public benefits, um, The public
benefits policy is public input,
input and community meetings
that staff will discuss the
potential public benefits of
the project at the initial
neighborhood meeting required
by the West Hollywood Municipal
code. Staff will present to the
community the above general
list of public benefit
categories, and there
s a whole
list and solicit and document
feedback regarding neighborhood
priorities. I don
t think
that
s ever been done. I don
t
think that
s ever been done. So,
i
ll just leave it there.
Councillor Murhang, are you
ready to go, or did you? Are we
providing commentary or if you
had if you had clarity, if you
had initial thoughts you
d like
to share now or we can come
back to you at the end. Um,
thank you, Mayor. You know, I,
I do think it
s important to
clarify the role of the
planning commission in the
development agreement process,
um, under the city
s governing
framework, DAs are legislative
actions that fall under the
exclusive authority of the city
council. While the planning
commission MAY review and
provide recommendations on land
use matters. It does not and
should not have the authority
to approve, modify, or impose
conditions on development
agreements. The, the city
council is the only
decision-making body with the
legal authority to negotiate,
amend, and approve development
agreements. Any conditions,
terms, or public benefits
associated with DAs are
determined solely by the city
council as part of its
legislative discretion. The
planning commission
s role is
strictly advisory in nature and
its recommendations are
non-binding as I head to the
city council for determination.
Thank you, Mayor. Ok. Uh,
Councilor Erickson. Just Thank
you so much. Um, I have some
questions I
ll, I
ll talk about
some initial comments. So on
page 22 of your excellent
presentation. Congratulations.
Welcome, planning commissioners.
Last time I was on here with
some of you, I was vice chair
and I believe you were
commissioner of the, on the
commission, so it
s nice to
serve a table with you again.
Um. Page 22 regarding
complications, um, I
m aware
when I was a planning
commissioner, most commissions
are commissioners are asked to
bring complicated questions or
commentary to you prior. Are
you experiencing difficulties
with that. It sounds like you
are, but I just I
m trying to
understand better because if
questions were asked ahead of
time, then we wouldn
t be
having um Negotiation
strategies in front of
development. Second guessing
facts in detail, stuff like
that. I
m sounding like that
s
a challenge that you
ve been
facing. I think that there are
a lot of times that the
planning commissioners will
bring us questions ahead of
time and then sometimes
questions come out of the
deliberation and the, and the
presentation and the
applicant
s presentation, and
so I think there
s a little of
both, yeah. Great. So you are
having difficulty. Wonderful.
In regards to page 20 slide 24,
you talk about an independent
economic consultant. That
individual, I
m guessing is
certified, has credentials that
most if I
m I don
t know what
the commissioners have in terms
of their professional
credentials, but a way in which
they would be able to provide
expert expertise, correct?
Correct. That
s, that
s their
profession, yes was to be
dealing with. And you Thank you.
Um, if the planning commission
is supposed to be solely land
use, then why are we getting
into like economic Calculations
back and forth with some of the
commissioners. I
ve seen it
happen, but I
m just wondering
why that
s even an option in
their discussion and it
s not
shut down. Well, that
s the
direction that we
re trying to
get to you and I see that as
one of your questions. I
m just
clarifying for the public
because I
ve seen the public
s
time wasted as a result of that.
Um, additionally, on Page. Or
slide 29, um. Uh For the
evaluation tools. Um I
m
looking back on to some of the
conversations in the staff
report on page 5 and 4
regarding how we evaluate and
some confusion specifically.
For land use authority, why is
the commission talking about
public parks and open space. So,
for example, I believe it was
the Viper room project. There
was some conversation at the
planning commission that dealt
with hours of a museum at some
point. Why was that even
allowed to happen? I don
t, I
don
t think that
s land use
authority, and I
m reading this
as strictly the planning
commission deals with land use,
correct? Well, for instance
with a conditional use permit,
we talk about the hours of
operation. I think that that
s
part of, part of what we talk
about in a lot of land use
questions, yeah but at the end
of the day. The planning
commission should not be
negotiating a public benefit
that you all dealt with
regarding the hours of
operation. It just doesn
t seem
within their authority. I
m
guessing, and correct me if I
m
wrong, if it
s in their
authority and you would like
that, but I
m hearing that
s a
no. And yeah, I think that
s
part of the conversation
tonight is where do you want
the commission spending their
time? All of this in some way
or another can be connected to
land use design, some points
are purely financial and so the
council should set the
framework of what they want the
commission focusing and I
understand the planning
commission is not elected by
the people, that is us. Um, I
know there
s some conversations
there at times, but, um, my
final question um is just
regarding, I think the general
confusion of what we
re having
up. Right? Uh, we
ve. This was
a very great presentation. I
think it
s very thorough. When
I was a planning commissioner,
I understood this. I
ve
negotiated a few public
benefits and development
agreements. I
m just wondering,
is there a training component
when an individual gets put on
the planning commission to
understand that role. I believe
there is, but I
m just wanna
confirmation in that way. Yeah,
we, we train and we meet with
each new commissioner when they
come on and we get them, give
them all of this background,
and again, like part of what
comes out of this is gonna be
what goes into that onboarding
as well. Wonderful. So then in
terms of uh commentary on page
29 for questions. Um, I
m happy,
MADAM Mayor to say, uh, you
know, frankly, i
m happy to
have the planning direction
comments right now, we can go
back to it. I can if you like.
We
ll come to Vice Mayor
Heilman and they
ll come back
before we move on to the
planning commission. I
m sorry
to cut you off, COUNCILMAN
Burks. I just wanna be careful,
get into questions yet. Vice
Mayor Heilman, thank you, Mayor,
and, uh, thank you to the staff
for the great presentation.
Thank you to the commission and,
and the members of the public
who spoke, I wanna go back to
something that Jennifer
mentioned having to do with
what was happening before we
developed this framework and
this approach. What would
happen is a developer would
come to the city with a project
and ask for things above what
the zone. Ordinance allowed and
they would propose what they
thought was an ideal public
benefit. And then they would
chop around the community to
try to get other people in the
community to get on board. It
wasn
t necessarily a public
benefit that the city had
identified, it was a public
benefit that the developer
thought they could utilize to
get people to come out and
support the project. Um, and
frankly, we didn
t always know
what the value of that public
benefit was we didn
t know the
value of the extra, uh, density
or extra height. Um So this
approach actually is an
approach where the city has
identified in advance those
kind of public benefits that,
you know, the council listening
to the community because we did
have hearings on this. The
council has identified these as
the public benefits that we
re
looking for as part of a
development agreement and
bringing in the consultant
using the residual land value
which is standard in the
development community using
that methodology to determine
how much is the developer
getting from this extra height,
extra density or changes and
then having somebody with the
expertise to negotiate that
agreement, um, I think that
makes perfect sense. And the
question about whether the
planning commission should be
involved in that negotiation. I,
I
m not even sure the council
should really be involved in
that negotiation because our
role I see as setting the broad
parameters, making sure that we
have experts making those
decisions and having a policy
in place that is a broad public
policy with each development
that comes forward, I
m not
aware of the specific costs of
things that developer is doing.
Uh, I
m not aware of how much
in value is associated with
this greater height, and I
m
not, I, I don
t think it really
is our role to be involved in
that give and take, um, I think
our role is to establish the
broad broad parameters, so
maybe I agree with my
colleagues that it
s not the
commission
s role to be
involved in that negotiation,
but I also would add to it, I
m
not sure it
s our role. As the
council because we don
t have
that kind of expertise either
and frankly we don
t have all
of the information for those
negotiations. The other thing I
wanted to point out because you
brought up signage is what was
happening before we use the
development, uh, agreement
process for signs. Before that
happened, people would come in
and propose large signs, uh,
the tall balls The building
owner would get a lot of money
from the rental, the Sign
Company would get a lot of
money from the signage. And the
city would get a one-time
permit fee of about $1500. The
city didn
t get anything from
all of the signage that was
being approved. Now with the
development agreement process
for these signs, there are
signs where the city is getting
10 million over 30 years or 30
million over 30 years. Those
are extraordinary. Uh, it
s an
extraordinary change, um, and I
just want to make sure that as
we have this conversation about
development agreements,
particularly with respect to
signage, people really
understand the value that they
are providing from um
development. And then my final
point, uh, I have two final
points. One, first and foremost
is, I, I think always the
decision is Is this project
good for the city? Putting
aside the, the benefits,
putting aside the monetary, uh,
it
s always got to be, is this
an appropriate and good project
for the city and then the final
point is, uh, going back to
something Brian said, and that
is uh having this, this tension
between uh trying to find
consistency between projects,
but also making sure we
re
evaluating each project. For
the unique benefit it
s getting
and the unique cost of that, so
we can
t just say all projects.
This is the amount or this is
the percentage because it is
going to vary from project to
project based on the cost of
developing that particular
project. I would love to have
consistency, but I just don
t
think it
s possible. The
framework, however, does give
us consistency because it looks
at the residual land value for
this particular project and
these extra benefits and that
gives us the framework for
negotiating for that particular
project. Thank you very much.
Councilmember Meister, I
believe you had a question 2
questions. Thank you. Um, uh,
Lauren, um, First of all,
conditions of use, that is
something that planning
commission decides on?
Conditions of use. That that
s
in a project, conditions of use,
right? That
s in every project,
whether it
s a whether it
s a,
a, a da project or a or a just
a standard project, right? It
s
usually about compatibility to
make sure that the uses that
are going to be established on
the site are compatible and
done in a way that complies
with code and doesn
t create
harm, but also the conditions,
I mean, you know, a a a a store
is open from 9 A.M. Till 9:00
P.M. And this is open till 3
till. 7 and, and this is how
they have to drive in and, and
ingress, egress. So why would
that be any different for a
project that
s getting a
development agreement, for
example, uh, John
s example of
the how long the museum is open.
Why would that be any different
than if we were making or or
planning commission we
re
making a decision about whether,
you know, uh uh this the uh the
skate store should be open past
9. O
c lock at night. Well,
first of all, we
re, we
re not
here to talk about specific um
DAs or specific provisions of
specific projects that have
been hours of operation example.
You know, some uses in the code,
um, specifically have
restrictions in them, the time
that they
re open is regulated,
um, yes, we, we were always
looking at land use and
compatibility. I think the
point is that you
re looking at
the land use, and that is what
is in the planning commission
s
purview. How, how these things
function, how they look, how
it
s complying with the funeral
plan and the zoning ordinance.
That
s sort of the the greater
land use authority. Sometimes
that means that you
re imposing
conditions on operations.
Sometimes it means you
re
imposing conditions on how
something looks, but it
s in
the, it
s all under the broader
category of land it
s a project
with the da or a project that
doesn
t have a da, the, the
process should be the same and
the decision making abilities
of the planning commission
should be the same in terms of
that stuff. I
m not talking
about the the actual financial.
The only thing I would say is
that, um, I don
t know that we
regulate the hours of
operations of museums generally.
So in that context, it MAY have
been different if if it was
just a museum coming before the
planning commission. I don
t
know if there would have been a
discussion about hours of
operation because the code
doesn
t, doesn
t limit them.
The code doesn
t talk about
that. Again, I, I really don
t
want to get into specifics
about specific projects, that
s
just what comes to mind for me.
I don
t know if a, if a
standalone museum. Came before
the planning commission, would
there be a discussion of ours?
Depends what I
m just saying
whatever use it is, that would
be a consideration of the
planning commission when they
look at a project. I, I think
the issue was that the public
benefit was a museum open a
certain number of hours, not
really a, a regulation of how
many hours the museum could be
open, so I, I think it was a
condition of the development.
Agreement that they provide a
museum that was open to the
public during certain hours and
I think it is a little bit
tricky because it
s similar to
those kind of conditions where
we would limit the hours of
operation. This was about how
many hours would they be open
as a part of that public
benefit and wanting more, so it
was about the public benefit
piece, not actual land use
operations. Got it. All right,
well, thank you for clarifying
that. And then um, when the
planning commission looks at a
a project with the da. They are
not making the decision about
it, right? They are usually
making a recommendation.
They
re always making a
recommendation to us, so. So
then they are not deciding
something they are recommending
and That recommendation could
be we could take it or leave it,
but it
s not a final decision.
For a development agreement,
that is true. Ok, thank you.
Thank you, thank you.. 01 more
and then we
re moving on. I
think what I
m hearing in the
conflict and in the staff
report though is that that
disconnect isn
t clear. Correct
That yes, it is a
recommendation. However, what
I
m reading in your public
document is that you have
commissions, commissioners
engaging in potential page 20
whatever it is, I
m 29. Thank
you very much, Vice Mayor. Uh,
that, uh, you, you, you let me
down. Sorry, um, that, that
there is um is that you are
experiencing that difficulty
because I
m slide 22, you are,
and I
ve watched it happen, um,
dealing with potential
negotiation strategies out of
planning commission hearing
after months and months of
negotiations in the public
benefit that could weaken the
city
s position and financial
standing. And so I think that
s
what you
re asking us to give
you very clear direction on
here tonight. Right? I mean,
that
s one of your questions so
I can answer the question, yes,
for you, but I, I think one of
the points of this slide was to
point out that what is in a
agenda packet is the result of
a long process, right? And so
there
s lots of back and forth
that happens with negotiations.
Things are proposed, things are
rejected. City pushes back.
They, you know, developer
pushes back. So it
s, it
s a,
it
s a long process where
things have been considered and
rejected and so at the very end
to get questions, well why
didn
t you ask for this? Why
don
t you ask for that? It
s,
it, they
re hard things to
answer in the moment because of
the long process. And what
you
re saying to us and what
I
m reading here is they are
not involved in the
negotiations. They are involved
in recommendations on land use
policy, but they are not
involved with the planning
commission being the grand they,
the the negotiations you are
having with the developer and a
development agreement. I think
Jennifer gave a really good
discussion on one of the slides
of sort of a Overall, um,
description of how to look at
planning commission purview and
it might be helpful if she says
it again because I, I thought
she worded it really well. Um
So I think I, I
m gonna, I
m
gonna add like here. As long as
the mic
s on. Not yet. Almost.
How about now? Ok. So I think
what um what Lauren is
referring to is that The
planning commission is looking
at the totality of the project.
They
re looking at everything
that it took to get to the
place where we are. And we
re
looking for direction correct,
Councilmember Erickson from the
council and what that entails
and what pieces and parts to
take into consideration, but,
and to Vice Mayor Hellman
s
point is the project a good
idea if you
re thinking of the,
the project itself, the package
of public benefits and, and all
of the pieces and parts that go
into it that have been
negotiated in that very length.
The process, um, understanding
that there is also a value to
time and to, you know, wanting
to get projects forward,
particularly when we
re talking
about the sunset Arts and
advertising and we
ve had
direction to keep them moving
forward and going back to the
drawing board on some of these
things can take time, um, and
can delay projects from moving
forward. So does that cover
what? Ok. Thank you. Thank you
so much. I wanted to, um, I
m
gonna pick up the comments and
then I
m going to move us to
the planning commission.
Council will have another
opportunity to speak at the end,
um, or towards the end because
he knows if that will be the
end, we MAY come back to
planning, but I do want to just
say for myself, um, there was
this idea of certainty, and I
think that MAY have also been
what you were talking about,
Vice Mayor Heilman. Um, I
certainly understand that there
is certainty through these
evaluation tools, and it was, I
think, a question of what sort
of certainty the council is
getting based on these projects.
We have no certainty what the
future will hold, but I think
the idea is when we lock in
these uh development agreements,
that
s the certainty we
re
committing to at that time.
That is the best understanding,
the best set of certainties we
can uh share with confidence to
the community. And, and that
s,
that
s the reality. Everything
else is sort of unknown as
we
ve learned with our own
projects that we
ve taken up on
our own city dime that it
s
hard to project certainty when
we
re talking about developing
something big and massive, and
that
s sort of an ok reality
and the the best opportunity
have to create certainty is in
these development agreements,
so I just wanted to speak to
that idea of certainty that I
understand. And then the other
piece, getting back to the
conversation we just had. I
heard this when we were
discussing slide 18, and it, it
caught me in a way I had to
write it down. Sometimes
feedback at, you know, the
Sunset Arts and advertisement
subcommittee takes 8 to 10
months to process. Those are
specific numbers, 8 to 10
months to process, and if that
information at that
subcommittee level is going to
a commission level then coming
to us to who knows what. That
s
the thing I don
t really
understand and I
m trying to
wrap my head around. And when
we ask ourselves what are
council
s priorities, I think
our city shares the same
priority and seeing things get
done, and that sort of
miredness down in process
without a lot of understanding
what
s happening or why a set
of recommendations from such a
small group of people became
such a huge scope of work and
undertaking for, you know, one
of our partners in the
community that
s coming to us
to get the best value and
opportunity, not just for
themselves but for our city.
We
re losing out. When
something is sitting at a
subcommittee or taking 8 to 10
months after that point, just
before it moves on in the
process. So that
s the part of
it I
m trying to wrap my head
around when we
re asking what
we want out of this long term
and the part I
m really sitting
with when I
m trying to
understand what, you know, we
want to see moving forward, so
I
ll leave it at that. I
m
going to move us to the
planning commission. You
ve all
been very patient waiting for
your opportunity to speak, so I
appreciate it. And if I can,
I
ll start with Cha Lombardi to
get us started. You often don
t
get to speak first in your role
as chair, so if that
s ok, I
ll
start with you and then we
ll
move down the row. Great. Thank
you, Mayor Byers, and um I, I
first want to start out by
saying I
m really happy that
we
re having this conversation
today. Um, I
ve really been
hoping for a while that my
colleagues on the planning
commission can get um some,
some clarity on these very
complicated matters, so I
m
really grateful um that we
re
having this conversation today
with the mayor, Vice mayor,
city council, and also I wanna
thank staff for having a very
nice presentation today to help
the uh guide our discussion. Um,
I
ll just start with like a few
sort of more high level um
things and I guess I could also
maybe ask a question that MAY
lead to some discussion too.
And then I
ll let my colleagues
handle the, the bulk of the
conversation. Um, so first of
all, um, it is hard for the
planning commission when we
re
trying to review these
complicated matters to
understand where, where the
line is. Um, one thing that has
appeared to be of help to me is
it the fact that we get that
time with the community to hear
from them, and they
re usually
more digestible meetings, um,
in that our agenda tends to be
smaller, so My thought to date
has been that that actually is
quite helpful for maybe queuing
things up for city council. Or
it gets complicated as some of
the other matters we
ve been
talking about today, which is
what are, what are we opining
on and what is our, our purview.
Um, I, I just want to make a
note um on, on sassy. I think
this is uh the Sunset Arts and
advertising subcommittee, one
of the challenges just so that
everyone here is uh reminded
and most of you probably are
aware, there are a lot of times
where projects will come to the
subcommittee that are very,
very different than uh the
award that was granted. And so
sometimes it can be on the
applicants and that things get
delayed, although I
m sure
there
s both sides to many of
these stories, but in some of
the extreme instances, I know
we
ve seen a couple of projects
that have come back in
completely different iterations
from the first round, which was
different than the awarded. To
the updated round again. Um, so
that
s something that can
sometimes cause delay in those
ultimately development
agreements happening, but if
there
s a way to streamline
some of this, I would be really,
um, would be really helpful, I
think for us to understand what
we should look at and what we
should defer to. Um, and then
there was 11, question that MAY
be of particular relevance at
the moment, but just to speak
broadly or ask us a question. I
know that in the memo that was
attached this evening, um, I
was, I was on page 45, I
believe. Uh, there was a note
about development agreements
and specific plans and that
they must include language to
specify what happens with
public benefits of a project is
not built. And I
m just curious,
um, broadly how this would
apply to current projects, um,
and, and for that matter, our
foresight into the future when
we
re reviewing uh development
agreements as well. So I just
wanted to put that out there
and um I
ll, I
ll hand this
back to the mayor now. Thank
you. I think you have a
microphone over there we can
share and if it
s ok, we
ll
just move in this order unless
you
re not prepared to speak.
So everybody, uh, thank you so
much for setting this up
tonight I don
t think it
s
working. Keep it close. Hello,
hello. There it is. Uh, thank
you so much for setting this up
tonight. I think this is a
great opportunity for us in the
planning commission to get
guidance from our elected city
council members about these
issues. I don
t have a lot to
say at this point, obviously.
As a commissioner, the question
like in my mind is always the
extent to which you
re wanting
us to evaluate the adequacy of
the public benefits because it,
it
s been noted tonight, you
know. These development
agreements have been negotiated
for many, many months, um. So
I
m looking forward to getting
hearing your thoughts about
that, um. Something that does
come up. Probably at every
meeting where we consider a
development agreement is
questions about the negotiated
language, the legalese used in
the development agreement, um.
And uh That
s posed some
challenges for some of my
fellow commissioners, you know,
there
s always a question of
what is reasonable mean?
Reasonable steps, force majeure,
how is that defined? What does
it mean to be extraordinary or
exceptional or whatever, um.
You know, so that language is
usually best negotiated by our
lawyers, um, but I guess it
would be helpful to get
guidance from you on whether
you would like us the planning
commission to be scrutinizing
that legalese in that language
and giving our thoughts on it.
So that
s all I have for now.
Thank you, Commissioner Cre.
Commissioner Hoppen Gardner,
thank you, um, and thank you
staff for doing this because,
you know, we
ve had this
conversation many, many times,
and I think my only real major
question that I would love to
have, uh, an answer from out of
this meeting. And this I think
is probably best directed to
our city attorney. Is that each
time either a billboard or a
project with the development
agreement comes to us. It comes
to us as a development
agreement with, uh, a
resolution. And, and then a
development permit with a
resolution. Sometimes there
s
some additional resolutions, so
we vote on 4 or 5 different
resolutions. And each of those
resolutions has a series of
findings and importantly, um,
the findings usually number one
is that this development is in
the best interest of the city
as, as vice Mayor Heilman
pointed out. But at the same
time we are asked to vote for,
to make a finding on a
development development
agreement. That
s a separate
resolution with a separate set
of findings and the number one
finding is that that
development agreement is in the
best interest of the city. So I,
to me, the answer that I most
want out of this, because we
keep butting heads on this
sometimes is, am I to, and my
colleagues, are we to make that
finding that that this is in
the best interest of the city
or not because for myself, I
would find it very difficult to
vote for something and say it
s
in the best into the city when
I see things that are incorrect.
There
s language that
s
incorrect, or I just plain
don
t think it
s in the best
interest of the city. So To me,
that
s the single most
important question to be
answered out of tonight, um, um,
are we to look at those
benefits and determine if
they
re in the best interests
of the city or not. I
ll start
and I
ll give you my initial
thought, but I think we also
want to hear from the council
on on where they want the
planning commission to go with
that. And I mentioned earlier,
Jennifer had a, a good
explanation of what we think
the role is and what we think
the role is is to look at the
totality of the project, the
guidance from the general plan,
the specific plan, the zoning
ordinance, past projects, past
council decisions with
something, a, a big topic of
discussion at council when, you
know, the next one comes
through at Planning commission.
Hopefully we
ve changed it and
we
ve done, you know, the thing
that counsel wants to, but it
s
more of those, more of the
bigger totality and less on the,
um, specific details of, of
each specific piece is the
public benefit sufficient and
adequate and in the best
interest of the city. I think
that
s, that
s been staff
s
approach and then the ultimate
decision of whether or not to
enter into the development
agreement sits with the city
council and the recommendation
from the land use. So from the
planning commission is focused
on from a land use perspective
because that
s what you
re the
experts on from a land use
perspective, is this in the
best interests of the city or
not? Does it forward the city
council
s land use schools.
Does it forward, um, all the
things that the city is trying
to achieve, or does it not from
a bigger picture rather than a
rather than a, um, a more
finite picture. That that
s,
that
s been staff
s approach
and, you know, counsel can
confirm or expand on that later.
So, so from a development
agreement perspective, um. The
finding that it
s in the best
interests of the city. Is based
upon what? That it
s furthering
the goals of the city and not
hindering the goals of land use,
I mean, because land use and is
this. You know, that that
s
what, that
s what you
re
looking at. Are you meeting
they meeting the design goals.
Is this adding excitement? Is
it adding pedestrian uses? Is
it, is it going to activate an
area that
s otherwise been, you
know, that
s been dead on in a
certain part of town. So
generally furthering what the
council has said they want to
see in the city. Ok, thank you,
but that
s as relates to the
development, not the
development agreement. Well,
the development agreement is
memorializing the long term, ok.
Project, both construction and
sometimes it has operational
components too for the
long-term use of the site. Now,
my last question is, to the
extent that there is an error.
For example, we had on the
Viper Room project, a keys
thing where it was 5 keys more
instead of 5 keys less, and it
was blatantly wrong. Everyone
agreed it was blatantly wrong
and needed to be fixed. If
Planning commissioners are not.
To bring up Those items. And we
just go ahead and rubber stamp
them and send them to council
and let counsel catch them or
should we just ignore them?
What, what should we do as a
planning commission? I don
t
think you should ignore them,
and I think, you know, Jennifer
even mentioned earlier that
these documents have improved
through this process, through
all of these, you know, it gets
better and better each time and
we
ve improved our internal
process too, to catch some of
these things and to make sure
that they
re, that the, the
cleanest, most, you know,
possible documents are getting,
are getting on the agenda. I
would say let staff know maybe
before the meeting if you have
some things that you
ve caught
because then we can come with a
redline version to the meeting
and say we
ve identified these
errors and then it
s already
part of the document that
you
re gonna approve of course
sometimes with that particular
one, I caught literally in the
moment. I, I was reading it and
I was like, well, wait, wait,
what? What? So I agree and, and
staff is used to my lengthy
emails. And, you know, does
send things through beforehand,
but I, this is my question is
if we see something, should we
say something? If you see
something, you should say
something. Um, and then
probably, like I said, probably
better before the meeting so
that we can review it because
if we
re reading it for the
first time in the meeting, it
takes us a second to read the
language and make sure it
s
correct. And so, so earlier is
always better. Of course. Ok,
thank you. Commissioner Jones.
Hi, can everybody hear me?
Thank you. Well, first, I just
want to thank staff, um, for
this presentation. I
m gonna
pull a little card here and
just say that I think I
m
heading about to round out my
9th year on planning commission,
and I don
t, I
ve never had
this thorough overview of this.
So I really appreciate this and
I think we kind of get this
information piecemeal at
meetings as we kind of work
through these issues, but it
s
really helpful to have it all
in one place and a handy guide
that I
m gonna genius scan
later so that I don
t have to
have this. Paper, um, but I
appreciate you putting it
together because it
s super
important. So thank you. I also
want to thank Councilmember
Hang for kind of the portion of
our policy that you uh recited
just because I think That
confirms for me, planning
commission
s role when we are
reviewing projects, and it
s
not that there aren
t nuances
that I think are important and
I think we
re kind of working
through those right now. It
s
always been my understanding
that the terms, final terms of
the development agreement if
they are to be amended or
adjusted, would be, you know,
subject to council approval,
and that
s not really the
province of of planning
commission, so to speak. I
think where we
ve run into
issues and I don
t, maybe it
s
better to say confusion is at a
planning commission meeting
where You know, there have been
questions about whether or not
we can make a finding as
relates to the public benefits
component of a development
agreement or a very large
project. So I think one of my
questions is, And maybe this is
just a point of clarification.
It didn
t seem to me that we
didn
t have the ability to talk
about public benefits or the
terms. It
s more just Because
the questions that are coming
up tonight really come from a
place of wanting to make sure
that the public has a say in
this process. And it
s clear to
me from this, I think it
s on
slide 26, like, I didn
t know
there was a neighborhood
meeting to talk about community
benefits and public benefits.
It makes sense that there would
be, right? So that
s great for
us to know that there is a
process now for that, but I
think for me, what would be
helpful to know is And maybe
I
m just asking for some like
confirmation here. It
s not so
much that you don
t want us to
talk about it or that we can
t
talk about it at all. It
s not
off limits. It
s more just I
don
t want as a commissioner to
give the public the impression
like if someone
s coming to a
meeting for the first time,
they
re not here tonight, they
don
t know anything about our
process, right? That we
re
giving an impression that we
have any say in having an
influence on the public
benefits package. I think
that
s my, it
s not that it
s
doesn
t merit discussion, but I
just want to make sure that
we
re always working within
like what are clearly very
specific kind of guardrails and
parameters for our decision
making process. And again, to
me, this really confirms that
it is about land use and that
that that our comments and our
recommendations because we
re
not really voting. We
re voting,
voting to move it forward.
We
re not voting to approve a
project or not, or not approve
a project, right? So I think um
that was really just my like
ask or point of clarification,
um. I don
t think I have any
other comments here. I think
that
s everything. I think if,
if anything, you know, again, I
said this at our last planning
commission meeting. A lot of
bad stuff is happening in our
country right now, especially
as it relates to the way the
government is supposed to work,
and I don
t ever want that to
mean that our bar is lowered or
that we
re not upholding
ourselves to like great
standards and values, but I
think this confirms like we
have an excellent process in
place and that I can trust that
process, and I hope for
everyone here tonight that the
public also feels like they can
trust the process as well. But
again, the questions that I
m
hearing just to kind of say
back what I
m hearing really
just stem from really just
wanting to do right by the
public and make sure that the
community has a say. So those
are my comments. Thanks. Thank
you, Commissioner Jones.
Commissioner Mattes. Thank you,
Mayor Byers, council and city
staff and my colleagues for
being here tonight. I think
that this is a very substantive
to such discussion that
s
played out in a public hearing.
Uh, it
s great to have this
kind of conversation in
community so that everyone
understands the role of their
government and what we
re here
to do, um, first wanna just say
a lot of this did affirm what I
had already understood the
planning commission
s role to
be looking for a general plan
consistency. Consistency with
city code, land use regulations,
objective standards in state
law, etc. Um, so I
m grateful
for that clarity, um, I think
that in times of uncertainty on
the body, my approach has been
to defer to the duly elected
body of the people. Um, as such,
there have been certain
instances on this body where
questions have come into play,
lengthy conversations on the
dais relating to issues that
MAY not even be within our
purview. So I think that one
discussion that would be very
helpful to have and guidance
from this council and from
staff would be, what is the
staff role of guiding
conversation in a more
productive way so that we can
run an efficient meeting and
not be opining on.
Conversations that have
absolutely no jurisdiction
within the planning commission.
I think that that would be
really uh important for us to
understand as a body, um, and
then additionally, I wanted to
talk about, uh, one thing
related to public benefit. Um,
when we look at public benefits,
I
ve always understood our
place is absolutely not to
negotiate any aspect of public
benefit or DAs or extraordinary
public benefits, um, one thing
that has come up in the past,
even before I was on this body.
As a member of the public is,
uh, the adequacy question, is
the public benefit or
extraordinary public benefit
adequate or inadequate, rather
than having that conversation
at the planning commission
level because I think that
s
highly inappropriate, and I
actually agree with uh Vice
Mayor Heilman that it should be
more betterly suited with staff
is. Does council think it is
appropriate for a
recommendation because that is
what we
re here to do, to
counsel that asks counsel to
assess the adequacy of said
public benefit. Is that a
recommendation that would be
welcomed by the body, because
that
s something that has come
up before that we have done.
That way the conversation isn
t
playing out on a planning
commission meeting. It
s
playing out with the duly
elected body of the people. Uh,
lastly is I just want to touch
on one quick uh quick follow-up
question regarding, uh, sassy
feedback. Um, I do serve on
that subcommittee. I think that
there
s a lot of really
important design review that
takes place in that body, um,
and it actually helps move
projects forward when those
concerns are addressed on the
front end versus going through
a wholesale multiple public
hearing process and then having
to go back to revert for
planning commission concurrence.
So I wanna kind of get clarity
on what the council sees as the
role of sassy and design review
given these changes to state
law, given the will of the
people. Uh, the duly elected
representatives of the people
and etc. But I want to thank
everybody for giving this
really thorough presentation
for being here, uh, and I
m
excited to be with you and and
to receive your direction and
continue to serve the duly
elected city. Thank you. Thank
you. Did Steph, did you have
any comments or feedback on
that. I think there
s a
question about whose role it is
to sort of manage the meeting
conversation, and unfortunately,
it
s ours as chairs of the
meeting, but I think that
s
where, you know, it gets
challenging, frankly, I
ll say
it for my own role as I had to
cut off my council member just
a second ago in the middle of
conversation, but it
s that
sort of balance I think that we
all have to have and be
supported by and understanding
what our purpose and direction
and role is in that meeting, um,
is I think why we
re here to
help provide more clarity to
empower. The chair to be able
to manage those conversations,
um, but that empowerment of the
chair role, as I know well from
my council support. It comes
from the support of the rest of
the commissioner body, right?
And so just so you all can
really trust in whoever is
serving as chair of your
commission to facilitate the
conversation that
s happening
as a matter of the public
s
business to the best of your
ability. I think that
s really
the role there, um, and you all
should be able to support each
other in doing that well.
That
s part of what we
re here
today. Were there other
responses that we wanted to
offer. And of course, the city
attorney is always welcome to
cut us off or if we
re doing
something like blainly illegal.
Ok, great. We can move on to
commissioner Solomon, and then
we
ll come back. Um, thank you,
thank you for the presentation.
Uh, I never get to go last, uh,
so I
ll try and be brief. I, I
had one specific question I
wanted to ask first, and then
I
ll make some sort of broad
points or questions, but it
s
probably most appropriate for
Brian. You mentioned this is
regarding sunset billboards,
and you mentioned sort of that
application process, uh, in
this present. Presentation I
ll
speak broadly so as not to
speak to any specific project,
but, uh, as an applicant is uh
applying for a billboard. Uh,
it
s my understanding that they,
their application states
whether they
re applying for
vinyl or digital, but they
re
also only kind of allowed to
apply for The grant that t
have a determination has been
made whether it
s a vinyl or a
digital billboard, uh, I guess
my question is, what goes into
the determination of whether or
not an applicant will apply for
one versus the other, and, uh,
in, in light of uh recent
billboard processes, is there
any thought about Changing that
initial. Award process. I, I
m
not sure I
m the best answer.
This is part of the sap policy,
but the board you
re referring
to, they were awarded a static
board. That
s what they applied
through the design Excellence.
Process And I know there was
traction from council to change
that and, and that
s what we
re
doing at this point, but At the
time that they had applied and
submitted their application,
the award was for that final
board. I think your broader
question is, what do they apply
for? And that
s up to the
applicant. There was different
categories if you had a
historic building, if you
wanted static, if you wanted
digital, depending on your
location, they chose which what
they were applying for and
which category to be part of. I
mean this one building, I mean
all the applicants to speak
generally in applicant chooses
just based upon their own
determination, not because of
an award from staff saying you
should only apply for I have
not, you know, this one
applicant, I have a historic
building. I
m gonna apply for
this type of sign because
that
s what I
m gonna apply for.
That
s what I need, you know,
in order to make this work. Ok,
um. Then general thank you for
that. Uh, general points, uh,
as it relates to this, um, I, I
think our point here is to kind
of sit and listen and take
direction from counsel, uh, so
I am here, especially as the
rookie on planning to, to take
clear direction from council on
what it is that we
re supposed
to be doing on dea
s at. Yeah
Being new to the commission and
trying to understand my role
and educate myself. I
downloaded, I took Title 19,
turned it into a pdf and
downloaded it and it
s 518
pages. It
s here in front of me
on my iPad. And that
s enough.
That
s, that
s enough to know
and understand, but then to
jump into a commission meeting
where we
re also recent
discussions have led us to try
and unwind the months and
months of confidential
negotiations that you all have
had and also have an
understanding of that. I I
think, um, to me, that
s
outside of our intended purview,
uh, whether or not that
s our
stated purview, I guess that
s
why we
re here tonight. What is,
what is our purview? Uh, I
don
t think that we should be
redlining, uh, development, uh,
DAs on the on the dais. I mean,
I, I do that enough every day
in my day job. I don
t think
it
s my role to do that as a
planning commissioner. That is
something that you all staff
and a city attorney and as the
city attorney. An assistant
city attorney I spent months
and months doing. I, I don
t
think it
s my job to jump into
your contract language and say
whether or not it should read
slightly differently in this
clause, but I think that as it
relates to this discussion, we
do need clear direction, um. In
a future item from council that
actually does codify this. I
mean, the question is whether
or not we make a finding on the
da. I don
t think we should,
but I don
t think It
s codified
to say that we shouldn
t. I
come, uh, I
ve been on the
planning commission for 6
months, but previous to that,
uh, I came from the public
facilities commission and I see
her in the 2nd row over there,
but Helen Collins was amazing
and always letting us know what
our purview was and also
interrupting us whenever we got
outside the bounds of what it
is that we could do on the
public facilities commission.
And at times, uh, that was a
struggle, and when it was too
much of a struggle, we actually
asked our council members.
Councilmember Meister,
COUNCILMAN Erickson brought
forward an item to actually
change uh the underlying
language in the ordinance
that
s the uh establishing
ordinance for the purview of
that commission, I
d ask
counsel to do the same thing
again as it relates here. I,
I
m of the opinion that the
planning commission has far too
much discretionary approval
authority, especially as you
compare the city of West
Hollywood Planning Commission
as compared to uh the Culver
City Planning Commission. The
Santa Monica, uh, planning
commission, the city of la, I
think that we have way too much
discretionary approval as it is,
just as it relates to land use
and now throwing in this
whether or not that we should
be jumping into the da and the
the public benefits, uh,
rendered, uh, from your
negotiations that have taken
place, uh, I don
t think we
should do that, and I think
that uh if counsel is of that
mind rather than just having a
discussion about it. I
m a
lawyer, so let
s put it in
black and white. Let
s actually
codify that. Um. Yeah, that
concludes my comments. Thanks.
Thank you, Planning
commissioners. Was there any
second responses, anything? Ok.
Um, we
ll move back to the
council, uh, unless staff had
any need for clarification
clarifications questions. Yes.
Correct specific question, yeah,
answering the questions,
providing commentary, providing
your thoughts. If there
s any
direction, remember it
s about
a future item. There
s nothing
that
s coming out tonight.
There
s no motions happening
tonight. Did you want to, yeah,
please, Vice Mayor, jump in.
Jumped in. No I
ll jump in.
Maybe not. I
ll jump in. I
ll
jump over. Um So one of the
things that came up is, uh, and,
and I think it was very helpful
to learn how we actually
negotiate and we first try to
assess the extra value that
they
re getting, and then we
use that as the basis for
negotiation. I think that needs
to be explained anytime there
s
a development agreement before
the planning commission and
before the council so that
members of the public.
Understand that we have
professionals who determine the
value and negotiate based on
that value. I think it might
also be useful. We have this
package of community benefits
and I was reviewing it. Maybe
we need to say every 5 years,
that needs to be reviewed and
the planning commission should
certainly have a role there as
should the community looking at
some of them. Parking resources
still important, but maybe
things change and that isn
t as
important to the community as a
a community benefit. Um, in
terms of the planning
commission
s role. I mean, part
of me is kind of agreeing with
Andrew that maybe they should
have no role at all in
recommending the development
agreement and I
m not sure
that
s what you were saying,
but it
s hard to evaluate a
project without considering the
benefits that are being
provided as part of the
development agreement. I, I, I
don
t think there
s any way to
do it, to completely separate
because we
re asking the
commission to evaluate this
project based on the eir based
on consistency with the general
plan based on transportation,
employment, all of the other
kind of benefits that are
normally associated with the
project, plus with these other
benefits that have been
negotiated as part of the
development agreement and based
on all of that is this a good
project. So I don
t think we
can exclude the development
agreement and at least the
terms being uh shared with the
commission, but it
s sounding
like my colleagues are, are of
the mindset, at least some of
them that maybe they don
t have
a role the commission doesn
t
have a role in actually
recommending the um The da
going to Lynn
s Point, maybe
they
re just recommending the
project. Along with uh uh
assuming that all of these
benefits in the development
agreement are approved by the
council that that MAY be the
appropriate and I, I don
t know
if that
s even possible, so I,
I
m. That
s kind of where I
m
at with this, that. Um, the,
the commission definitely needs
to know about the development
agreement. The public needs to
know about it. The public needs
to know the basis for the
negotiation. I think our
community benefit menu needs to
be updated periodically, um,
and we need the planning
commission
s input for that, um,
and then one final point, um,
there was mention to about
several projects that aren
t
being built. I do want to point
out. That two of the major
projects that we have concerns
about the Melrose Triangle, the
Robertson Lane, neither one of
them were development agreement
projects, so I just want to
make sure the public knows that
as well. There certainly are
others that were development
agreements that didn
t get
built, but, uh, those two are
not among them. Thank you, Vice
Mayor. Councilorm Erickson. Oh,
goody. Um, thank you so much.
Um, I am in agreement with what
Vice Mayor Heilman is saying,
um, I know, uh Commissioner
Mattos asked some questions of
staff. I actually would like to
hear those answers because I
think that
s very important. I
don
t know if you have those.
You
ve been taking Nick, of
course. And I don
t know if
Commissioner Mattos is willing
to repeat them if you didn
t
capture them all, but I think
that helps with the purview
conversation. Oh What we
re
talking about, we
re talking
about an assessment of adequacy
on the public benefit and if a
recommendation to counsel to
assess the adequacy of the
public benefit is even
appropriate. Uh, so because
that has been something that
has been precedented by this
body before we
ve done that
before. So, one of the ways
we
ve couched it in the past is
that we
ve said that the
planning commission weighs in
on the scope and the range of
the public benefits, but not on
the amount of the public
benefits package. And so it
s
the land use components of the
public benefit package and how
they relate to the project
versus the dollar amount. Yes,
I mean, that
s my understanding,
but my question would be to
counsel. Do you feel that that
is a sufficient way to continue
moving forward of reviewing
these projects. I think one of
the challenges that has led to
some longer meetings than we
anticipate is that there
s a
lengthy discussion about
specific contents of the
development agreements and
dollar amounts and all of those
things, but when we get to
these specific types of
Recommendations that go to you
all for discussion. It takes
the decision making and the
discussion making out of the
hands of the planning
commission, which I think is a
good thing and puts it to the
city council. So I kind of
wanted to see if that
s
something that you had, uh, as
something that the body should
continue to practice or if
that
s something that you think
uh we should have absolutely 0
say in Well, I, I think the
commissioner makes a really
excellent point because that
brings about, and I think it
was the mayor that maybe
mentioned this about the
confusion that happens in the
public then. So people come to
the planning commission meeting
as a result and saying, well,
no, you must renegotiate x
because it should be worth
actually why. And so you should
do that right now. And then
when they see a majority, if
not all, of the commission vote
in a different way. They think
that they got screwed. And that
they
re not being listened to.
And that false actually false
news type of hope. It
s
actually detrimental to public
trust in the process, and that
has to stop. Period. Um, so I
agree with the role that I
think is being laid out. I
think it
s really confusing and
actually unfortunate that the
public, and I
ve watched all
the meetings. I was there when,
you know, I, I see them, I
review them, especially when
there
s an appeal, um, and I
think that
s a really big cause
of confusion for the public.
And I think we need to figure
out a better way to do that,
right? I
m in agreement with
what I think the vice mayor is
talking about. I don
t know how
you we put that into a staff
report. I think we
ll maybe
have a longer conversation, um,
and I I think ultimately the
issue is, is how much of the
public
s time are we wasting?
And I
m really struggling with
that because I see planning
commission meetings, um, Go on
tangents for sometimes hours of
questions that could have been
answered in an email, um, that
are answered in the way in the
public that I think. Cause a
lot of confusion in this
process. When it It is very
clearly laid out, and I want to
thank Commissioner
Councilmember Hang, formerly
commissioner Hang, um,
councilmemb Hang for laying
that out in 5 succinct
sentences at the beginning of
his comments, and that
s kind
of been what he said because
that
s how I understood this
commentary. So I
m trying to
understand where that rub in
the road is actually happening.
I think I know. I
ll save it
for later. Um, but additionally,
um, I also think that we have
to have a larger conversation
of if we
re not getting what?
If the city is not getting what
we need from a body that we
appoint direct or at large. We
have to look at that
holistically as well. And I
think holistically looks at,
well, what does an at-large
planning commission body look
like? Because clearly we need
to put in some different
Rubicons and a rubric to better
understand the training that is
actually required. I know that
they have the capabilities. I
know Commissioner Jones has
gone to a conference before on
planning and land use, but
that
s really where it goes out.
And I know they have that
opportunity if I
m wrong, to be
able to pursue that type of
educational outreach. So if
there are commissioners that
need that extra education. I
would encourage them to to take
to it, um. Happy to hear what
my other colleagues have to say.
Um, I For the public
s benefit,
I
m frustrated tonight. And I
want to be honest with that
because I
m very clear with
what the planning commission
should be doing. I understand
the commissioner
s frustration
and not trying to figure out
where we want them to be, so
I
m glad that we finally got
here, but we don
t need to have
this conversation again. I
think they should be reviewed
every 5 years. Of course, I
think that
s an excellent
suggestion. Um, But ultimately,
if there are planning
commissioners that don
t
understand their role, then I
think that
s a larger
conversation. And, and that
troubles me because I think
that
s a waste of public
dollars and time, and I see
that. In regards to the sassy
conversation, um, that is
troubling, and I think that
s a
point that we do need to
address from the mayor. Um, I
don
t know the process. I never
served on Sassy. I served on
long range. Um, but
specifically if a project is
getting commentary by a
commissioner or two
commissioners. S How is that
coming back as direction? What
is it happening? And if it
s
taking 8 to 10 months, we do
need to look into that because
8 to 10 months means hundreds
of thousands of dollars,
potential redesigns, and we
want a good project. That
s not
what we
re not saying. Housing
laws have restricted, you know,
what we can and cannot do, but
I think we really need to get
into how much of the public
s
time we are actually wasting in
some of these processes that
are taking long to, to
essentially approve to build
housing to build a. Affordable
housing and housing at all
levels, and to make sure our
business community, who we love
and want to support knows that
when they submit something to
the city staff who are very
diligent and work very hard to
get it through, aren
t
harangued at the last second at
the planning commission level,
um, when that
s really not in
the purview. So i
m really
think let
s drill down on those
points so that way when there
is confusion at a planning
commission level, staff, and I
don
t know how you manage this.
Maybe it
s our city attorney
who was, I think the city
attorney when. Was on planning
commission tells us to know, no,
no, no, and we have to listen
to that. So those are all my
comments right now and thank
you very much for this diligent
conversation. Thank you,
Councilormber Erickson. Um, I
just want to provide a few
thoughts on the question about
adequacy. For me, it doesn
t
make sense to get a
recommendation from the
planning commission to review
the adequacy of the public
benefits. It should be a no
vote from the planning
commission if it
s moving
forward in the consideration of
the totality of the project. I
don
t understand why specific
segment of the project would be
considered a no, especially
when the opportunity for
council to deliberate, as we
ve
all shared, doesn
t truly exist
in that open body. So I think
it
s a no vote from the
planning. Although it
s hard
and challenging to sometimes
say that I think that
s
actually what we
re looking at,
and I see that, uh, with some
confidence, just trying to wrap
my head around so the community,
the neighborhood, has an
opportunity to review the scope
of the public benefits before
they
re put into any sort of
formal document uh agreement
that would come back. So I
m
I
m just understanding as soon
as uh a project is deemed
extraordinary beyond the
general plan, you know,
warranting a public benefit or
a development agreement. The
community has an opportunity to
weigh in on what the scope of
that is, correct? Yes, I
ll say
one thing, it
s different for
the billboard, so we
re just
talking general public benefit
projects. I believe there
s
only been one project that
s
actually gone through the full
policy so far, and I will let
Jennifer confirm that, but so
there
s only been one. Ok, good.
Ok, um, and then with that said,
um, because the public has in
this process that
s set out has
an opportunity to do that. The
planning commission is then
given this. Agreement, you have
the opportunity to say no, it
doesn
t work in service of the
larger totality of the project
in accordance with the goals of
the city or not and move it
forward to the city which has
or the council which has the
same opportunity to say, yes,
this is going to serve the city
in the largest way of our goals
or not, and staff then can take
it back, work with the
developer to amend the project
and bring it back to a process,
right? I think that
s sort of
the question is what happens if
there
s a no, no, it
s not
going to move forward to city,
right? We want to see this
project. Move forward, but if
we
re getting no
s, they
re
stuck. Are you It
s frustrating.
Just give it a second battery.
They
re, they
re turning them
off so we don
t get. Ok, so let
me, um, Reframe the question.
So you
re saying if the project
goes to the planning commission,
and the planning commission
does not agree. Then the
planning commission would, what
would Recommend denial, so
they
d still move a
recommendation forward, um, but,
but be recommending for denial.
Ok. So I think that
s the
answer that you
re looking for.
You don
t have to tell us that
it
s an inadequate public
benefits project you recommend
denial. We have that
understanding of why that
recommendation for denial
happened based on public
benefit concerns, right? Versus
moving forward with yes, a
recommendation, but looking at
the public benefits. I think
that
s the sort of detail on
the concerns that we
re getting
into. Why would they look into
that level of detail and say
it
s inadequate, but then move
it forward with a yes, but just
make sure you look at the
public benefits, right? So
we
re saying don
t piece out
that one component. Look at,
look at everything together on
the whole, ok. Does that make
sense to everybody that makes
sense and there
s clarity there.
Thank you, Mayor. Great,
terrific. That was something I
wanted to drill in on. In the
Can you is, and correct me if
I
m wrong, are you allowed to
deny recommending a project
based on public benefits, not
based on the land use. Well,
the development agreements are
100% discretionary, right? And
then as we
ve talked about, one
of the um all the findings are,
are in the best interests of
the city. It would have, we
would tie it to findings. We
would always tell the
commission, tell us what your
reasons for denial are. We
d
probably have to come back and
write a resolution because it
would be very different and we
would want to memorialize what
the commission was saying, and
it would have to be tied to
these specific findings. So
tell us why it
s not in the
best interest of the city, or
tell us why it
s not consistent
with the general plan or why it
has this impact. So we would
tie it to the findings, always.
Terrific. That makes sense. Is
that clear to everybody in
response to that question? Ok,
terrific. Councilmemb Hang, did
you want to jump in? Thank you,
Mayor. Just a couple of
thoughts, um. As a rookie
myself, um, you know, uh, I
believe commissioner Solomon
mentioned something earlier,
you know, like, what is staff
s
role in ensuring that
commissioners are not stepping
outside of their purview. I
think that should be sort of
recognized and um Come to an
agreement on stepping outside
their purview on development
agreements and other
non-discretionary items. And
are there acceptable standards
or protocols for
recommendations proposed by
planning commissioners. Um, if
not, I think. At a later time
we could provide direction to
sort of create that. That way
it just prevents, you know,
various proposals and changes
related to unfounded concerns
that are personal in nature to
commissioners, um. You know,
for example, tree species or
Double lines going into
establishments, um, so I think
that. Should be recognized. And
also I understand that the
public benefits payments are
negotiated um. My city staff,
which is made clear by tonight.
And it
s based on direction
from the city council, um, to
me, it would make the most
sense that the city council
provides direction on what
amounts we want to see. Uh,
both today and also during
specific development agreement
discussions when they come
before us as a body, um, as an
agenda item. Um, does the
planning commission have a role
in debating the merits of the
negotiated dollar amounts. It
seems to me that that
s
specific issues outside of
their purview, which is what
we
re discussing tonight. And I
also think it
s important that
we as a city council provide
direction at a later meeting,
um, to the planning commission,
uh, so that they can spend
their important time focused on
what is actually within their
purview and not on things that
straight outside of what their
purview actually is. Uh, they
have a very important role, um,
and looking at what
s required,
that
s required a lot of them,
right? And not only will this
clear up and provide direction
uh to allow planning
commissioners to focus on their
important time on their rules,
but it also helps city staff
better prepare for planning
commission meetings. It helps
staff to not get super
overwhelmed by working on
unrelated issues brought at the
last. Minute by commissioners
and hopefully it will make the
meetings run smoother and not
like 567 hours sometimes. I
mean, I was in Japan and I
watched that planning
commission meeting that went
till 2 in the morning, um, so I,
I think. It
s a lot of fun. So,
uh, you know, those are my
comments. Uh, thank you, Mayor.
Thank you, Councillormermeister.
Thank you, Mayor. So I have a
few comments, um, I
ve been
watching planning commission
meetings since 1998 and there
were DAs that were discussed
during that time and somehow
the planning commission managed
to get through it. Um, We had a
city attorney, Christie Hogan,
who when we got out of our lane
would shut us down. She
d say
that
s not in your purview. So
if that
s not happening in
planning commission, that is
the city attorney
s role, and
that is something the city
attorney needs to look at.
Something was said here tonight.
Uh, Lauren, you said, why is,
why is legal, uh, you said
sometimes we
re seeing it for
the first time when we
re there.
That should never be happening.
Legal should be reading the
planning commission agenda from
from top to bottom before the
meeting. The whole thing and
the contracts, you know, some
of, no. That
s a correction for
the ok, but there have been
times when somebody said he
hadn
t read it the day of the
planning commission meeting, ok?
And that shouldn
t be happening
and especially with the da. If
a commissioner Who just happens
to have, uh you know,
concentrated uh in contracts,
so she
s very, very
commissioner Hoopen Garner,
very, very familiar with
contracts, hadn
t read the
contract and brought things up,
the contract would have been
wrong. So if we are going to
take away the the specifics of
looking at a da from planning
commission
s purview, then I
want to know that the city
attorney
s office is going to
be looking at those contracts
with a fine tooth comb. It is
not acceptable for those
contracts to be going to
planning commission and not
being looked at very, very
carefully because this is uh 20
year contract or a 30 year
contract and those contracts
have to be looked at. Um, If,
if it
s not under pc
s purview,
then maybe there shouldn
t be a
resolution for the da. There
should not be a resolution that
that the planning commission
has to sign to say that they
have the findings that they are
ok with the da if they don
t
have the purview to make
comments about it. It makes no
sense to have a resolution that
they have to sign. There should
be then one resolution and one
of the findings of the many
findings can be. We like the da
or whatever, we, we find that
the da is acceptable or, or
adequate or whatever word you
want to use, but, um, they
shouldn
t have to sign a
resolution that says they
re
good with it. If they don
t get
to do it. If they don
t get to
look at it, if they don
t get
to criticize it. The fact that
Some of my colleagues think
that we shouldn
t even be
looking at it. If there are no
checks and balances in this
city with regard to whatever
whether it
s approval of a
project, approval of a da,
whatever it is. Then we are
done. There
s no purpose. There
has to be checks and balances.
We can
t expect that it
s only
staff that looks at something
with a consultant, with a
developer. We have to be able
to look at that and say, you
know what, this is not good
enough for our city. Yes, we do
need $1 million more. Yes, we
do need this public benefit.
And the idea, like I that I
read about the um community,
the public input, and the fact
that the community at a
community meeting is supposed
to be able to give feedback on
the community benefits menu. I
know for a fact that
s not
happening. That you is not
going to community meetings. By
the time it goes to a community
meeting, the, the idea of
whatever the the developer has
decided we want to give. This
is what we are going to give in
exchange for that. That is what
is presented to the community.
So when they come to the
planning commission, are you
going to tell the community?
Sorry, you can
t talk about the
public benefits because we
re
not in charge of the public
benefits. We
re, I mean, not in
charge. We don
t recommend
about the public benefits, and
I think that
s kind of a
slippery slope when you
re
going to basically have people
coming from the public saying
yeah or nay or whatever, and,
and just in response to
councilmember. Erickson
s
comments about, you know, what
service or disservice are we
doing to the public? I have
only had residents call me
after a meeting to say thank
GOD this person asks questions.
If we don
t ask the questions,
then we are basically this
commission is a rubber stamp
and that
s all they are is a
rubber stamp for whatever staff
recommends, um, is my head
exploding yet? No, ok, um.
Exception. Thank you. Uh, yes,
extraordinary. I, I know it
s
just extraordinary, um, so, so
I think that As, as, as the
mayor said, if we don
t want
the da to be as as the
specifics of the da to be in
the purview, then they should
be looking at it as an entire
project. If a commissioner
thinks that the that the da
sucks, then just vote no. Vote
no, but then don
t have a
resolution that they have to
vote for that talks about the
specifics of that da because
that
s not fair and it
s not
right. Um Again, contract
issues have to be, that has to
be dealt with by, uh, with our
city attor with our lawyers
with bbk. They have to be
looking at those, at those uh
da
s much more carefully and,
and I
m also just gonna say by
the time the public benefits
package comes to us, the train
has left the station. And so
it
s very hard at that point
then to negotiate something
else, especially since the
community has not really had
that opportunity, especially if
they don
t get to talk about it
at the community meeting. So
that means that at the
community meeting, they have to
be given that community
benefits menu and be asked,
what would you like to see as
your community benefits. This
is, this is our list. Any of
these look good? Any other?
That you want to add because if
you don
t let the community
speak then, it
s sort of like,
well, you know, speak now or
forever hold your peace because
by the time it comes to us,
it
s, it
s left the station.
That
s it. Thank you. Thank you.
Um, I want to pick up on a
couple of pieces that were just
laid down, um, first, uh, as I
look at the community benefits
conversation, we have to name
that these public benefits,
these benefits that get
delivered to the public on
behalf of a project that is
deemed exceptional
extraordinary, something beyond
the general land code that
exists, um, cost the project
things. And so I think that
s
important to name because what
we
re doing is trying to find a
balance in what becomes uh
Exceptional public offering on
the back of a project that is
already potentially in line
with our city
s goals and
values, um, and that
s an
amazing opportunity we have,
but a delicate balance to
strike, and I think there
s a
sense that comes with the
community benefits that we get
to squeeze these projects for
every last dime, and I think
that mentality becomes
troubling because we do invest
our resources as a city and
making sure that professional
economic evaluation can happen
and that we are getting the
best ultimate deal possible.
And so we do have to have a
certain level of trust with our
processes, and I really
appreciate what Vice Mayor
Heilman brought up as an
opportunity in the future for
us to evaluate the community
benefits table that we have,
but I think that
s a balance
that we have to have. We can
t,
um, uh, enable the public to
unleash their best visions onto
each project, hoping and sort
of um asking for everything in
the moon possible from our
development, uh, to the point
that we become so under
pressure that we are unable to
deliver anything, not just the
benefits, but the project
itself, right? And so that
s
sort of the balance I believe
we
ve looked to professionals
to help us best strike. So the
process, as I understand it,
allows for the public to have
an early voice, uh, engaged
with the developer and maybe
that
s not happening as well as
it could. I think there
s some
room for conversation there and
as we
re having these
conversations, the public
becomes more aware of what
their opportunities are
certainly, um, but I wanna make
sure that the development
community is engaging best in
what we
re hoping. To see
happen, which are early
conversations, right, about,
hey, what does this
neighborhood need more of? Hey,
how can we think about some of
these opportunities differently.
I believe that when those
conversations happen early and
well, it enables a project to
move forward in the best way
possible, and we
ve seen when
they don
t happen well that
they can also tank a project,
but I do want to just make sure
that we
re understanding any
benefit that comes out of a
project for the community cost
that development money, and
that
s sort of what we
re
ultimately trying to find the
balance with is how to get the
best. Value for our city, uh,
and to ensure that the project
can move forward that gives the
public its best opportunity. So
I just want to name that. I
don
t want that to get lost and
how we
re thinking about this,
and I think that is exactly why
and where I
m troubled or or
trying to figure out the best
role for not only the planning
commission, but city council
itself, because I believe that
we have a full opportunity to
say no to a project should we
not believe that by the many
months and years and moons it
takes for a project ultimately
reach us from the time it
started, which we know could be
years, many years, um, that it
is maybe fair for us to say,
you know, things have changed.
The conversation way back when
didn
t have, you know, wasn
t
the best. It didn
t get the
best public benefits possible,
but we wouldn
t dig into that
on the council dais and try to
find what other value we could
have, we would encourage that
project to probably be tabled
to go back to staff and to have
conversations that way. We
wouldn
t need to get into any
sort of arduous in the weeds
lengthy conversations, we
d, no,
we
re ready to, you know, send
this back to staff, table the
project, and give. Something
about her. I think that is
exactly why I
m so concerned
about how much time things take,
because from the point that we
start this conversation with
the community to the time it
actually shows up at the
council
s table for ultimate
decision. It
s, it
s too much
time and it MAY be too much
time to really understand if we
did get the best value in the
long run. So I think it
s in
everyone
s best interest that
we find ways to accelerate
these processes to deliver what
is as close to that earliest
vision the community had onto
our council days as quickly.
Possible so that the value
really feels like it
s there
and not lapsed by years and
pandemics and all the many
things that could happen. So,
that
s sort of what I
m hoping
we get to as a place where
things are happening faster and
clearer with greater trust
happening, and we have all, you
know, withered down trust with
each other as part of these
processes, but I think what
s
happening here is a sense of
new confidence happening is
shared understanding and a
greater set of tools that MAY
be possible moving forward
again. No direction tonight but
It sounds like there
s been
some really great ideas about
what MAY need to happen moving
forward. Vice Mayor is moving
his mask, which means he is
ready to talk. Ok, we
re gonna
give him the microphone for a
second. Go ahead. Thank you,
thank you, Mayor, and um I, I
just wanted to add a couple of
comments. I, I thought you, you
really summarize things very
well. I just wanted to point
out that the community benefits
are distinct from neighborhood
mitigation and neighborhood
benefits the community benefits
are supposed to be broad-based
community benefits. When you
look at most of the things that
we as a council agreed on,
they
re not really the kind of
things that we would normally
think of, oh, is this something
the neighborhood would want,
it
s more, is this something
the broader community would
want, so I wanted to point that
out, um. And just to respond to
my colleague. I wasn
t saying
that we shouldn
t review the
development agreement. What I
was trying to communicate is, I
don
t think we should be trying
to negotiate the development
agreement on the dais. I, I
don
t think we have adequate
information to do that. We
don
t know the costs associated
with um anything we would want
to extract. We don
t know the
costs associated with the
particular project. We don
t
necessarily know the costs
associated it with the enhanced
density or height that they
have, so I, I don
t think
that
s a wise approach. That
s
why I was saying we need to be
setting broad parameters rather
than trying to negotiate each
specific development agreement
as it comes to us and going
back to something that I think
the mayor said with respect to
the commission is if you feel
that the public benefits are
not adequate for this
particular project, then vote
no. I mean, that
s the thing to
do and I think that
s um uh
what I would direct the
commission to do as well. Um,
and then just, you know, what
Jennifer said about the scope
versus the value. I don
t think
that makes sense cause I don
t
think you can ask the body to
review the scope, but not the
value because the scope is
directly related to the value,
uh, so I, I would prefer as uh
Councilmember Meister said, if,
if there
s a way to legally do
that, don
t have the commission
make a recommendation on the
development agreement. Have
them recommend the project with
the development agreement that
has been negotiated or not
recommend the project. Um,
however they feel about it, and
then my final point, and we
need to have a different
discussion, not directed at
development agreements, the
time issue, because time in the
development world they
ll sell
you time is money, um, and so
every delay in a project
results in less benefit for the
community, higher rents, uh,
higher charges that need to be
passed on because the developer
is trying to make a profit. So
anything that we can do to
protect the community, but
expedite the process, I think
is going to be valuable. Oh,
perfect. Do any of the council
members have any further
comments? To any of the
planning commissioners have
questions, comments, need for
clarity. Yes, Commissioner
Hooper Gardner. Hello. Um, I
think this is all great and
thank you, thank you, thank you
for this and so my question is,
what does state law say because
state law you said in the
presentation, define the
development agreement process.
Does state law require that the
planning commission approved
the development agreement, or
is there flexibility because I,
that
s the only thing I would
want us to not run amok. It
s a
good question and I was just
gonna make a suggestion, um,
state sets out the process and
the planning commission does
review development agreements.
What is not what what goes
beyond the state law are our
local findings in the West
Hollywood municipal code. And
so if these are a source of
confusion, maybe we should
narrow them to be more in line
with what the council wants to
see on development agreements
and the role because it sounds
to me like this is creating
some confusion, and they don
t
need to be this broad and this
subjective. They can be, you
know, doesn
t include all the
mandatory requirements? Did You
follow the process, really much
more objectively looking at the
development agreement process
and and what we
ve talked about
here, but maybe a little less
of all the subjective
discussion. You
re still always
looking at the project as a
whole. I, I want to be clear
about that. You are looking at
projects that come before you,
but on this specific piece, not
that I want to add another uh
zone tax amendment to the work
plan. Sorry, Nick. But that
might be something we want to
look at. You don
t have to give
direction on that tonight. Let
us think about it, but that
might be a way to respond to
some of this feedback. Ok. Are
there any other commissioner
comments, questions, terrific
counsel comments, Councilmemb
Hang had his hand up first.
Thank you. Thank you, Mayor.
You know, um, there
s something
to be thought about what
council member Erickson said
earlier, um, and I just, I
ve
been, it
s been festering in my
mind. If we take the politics
out of political appointments
and this is such a. A this
commission does a lot of work.
And if we make the seats at
large, we take the politics out
of that
s not a part of the
agenda discussion tonight, so
let
s not talk about that if we
got it. Thank you. Thank you,
Councilmember Erickson, did you
have any final comments? Yes, I
want to follow up on something
that counts remember Meister
said that I thought is a good
point too, and it sounds like
that might be universal
direction from the council, but
it sounds like we are giving
and Christie would do that, uh,
um, I think the direction and
mayor maybe you could do a
straw poll. I don
t know if
that
s formal, but if
commissioners do Or if there is
something that is going off the
out of the tracks, out of the
train, what did you use to
train metaphor out of your lane,
right? You know, um, it would
be helpful fully knowing and it
sounds like the commissioners
are aware of that for, for the
city attorney to step in and
say, we understand you
re going
down this, this chart, this
path, got us. You know, thank
you. Um, however, Let
s bring
it back to this discussion at
hand. I think that nice nudge
you tell us all the time on
Mondays, Lauren, in the nicest
way to say, hey, you know, not
tonight, um, but I think that
s
a clear direction and I think
that will be helpful for the
commission to help gear their
conversations. Yeah, thank you
for that because it
s not fair
to to put that. On to the
commissioner to make that
decision, which MAY or MAY not
be right, whether or not
somebody is in or out of their
lane. That is what the city
attorney is there for, so I
agree and that
s perfectly fair.
I think there
s been some
disconnect on what the lane is.
And so I think this
conversation has helped define
the lane because I think when,
when staff and the assistant
city attorney have tried.
Sometimes there
s pushback.
Well, yes, this isn
t our lane
because so, so I think this
conversation is really helpful
to guide that discussion at the
planning commission meeting.
And I hope the chair always
feels empowered to rein in
conversations as needed, as
you
ve seen me have to do a
couple of times tonight, um, ok,
I think we
re reaching a point
of closure. People are packing
their bags, so that
s good,
terrific. Um, I just want to
thank the staff. I know there
was a tremendous amount of leg
work that went into preparing
for this, um, making sure that
this was going to be a valuable
conversation in the long run,
which is always strange when we
don
t have direction. I want to
thank the members of the
planning commission, Ruggerio,
who
s listening from afara
commissioner cover. Uh, in our
chair Lombardi, who typically
steers your meetings. Thank you
for letting me have the honor
tonight and the members of the
public for being here. You
re a
work to hold us accountable is
extremely important, so thanks
for listening into this
conversation tonight. I think
we are officially ready to
adjourn our meeting to the next
regular meeting of the city
council. It
d be nice to be
regular again in that way
Monday, MARCH 3rd, 2025 at 6
P.M. Here at City Council
Chambers in West Hollywood Park.