[0:22] that the land on, oh, I don
[0:22] t
[0:23] have it in front of me, so it
[0:24] s
[0:24] gonna not stay in my head.
[0:25] Let
[0:26] s see this right. The city
[0:27] acknowledges that the land on
[0:28] which we gather and that is
[0:29] currently known as the city of
[0:32] West Hollywood is the occupied,
[0:34] unseeded, seized territory of
[0:37] the Gabriella Tova and the
[0:38] Gabrielinoquih people, uh,
[0:38] we
[0:39] ll get started with a call
[0:44] to order. And the Pledge of
[0:45] Allegiance. We
[0:46] ll just stand.
[0:46] I
[0:54] ll leave this in the pledge.
[0:59] I. The United States of America
[1:02] and to the republic for which
[1:11] it stands. And Oh City clerk,
[1:13] MAY we please get a roll call
[1:15] of this fabulous joint study
[1:16] session of the planning
[1:17] commission and city council.
[1:19] Yes, Mary, thank you. Mayor
[1:23] Byers. PRESIDENT. Vice Mayor
[1:27] Heilman. Here Councilmember
[1:32] Erickson, Council member Hang.
[1:35] Councilmember Meister, uh,
[1:36] planning commission Chair
[1:38] Lombardi Planning Commission
[1:41] Vice Chair David Gregoire.
[1:44] Commissioner Hoop and Garner,
[1:46] Commissioner Jones,
[1:48] Commissioner Mattos,
[1:49] Commissioner Solomon, here we
[1:51] have all members of the city
[1:54] council, noting the absence of
[1:56] Rosilio Carbajaro. I will note
[1:58] for the record that Roggerio is
[1:59] listening to the meeting via
[2:02] Zoom, however, he will not be
[2:03] participating. Thank you.
[2:05] Terrific. And as we get to the
[2:07] approval of the agenda, I will
[2:08] just note that tonight we have
[2:09] one item on the agenda, which
[2:12] is why we do not have a general
[2:14] public comment period. All
[2:15] public comment will be about
[2:17] the one item on the agenda, so
[2:19] we will take that as part of
[2:20] the agenda item later in the
[2:22] meeting. Um, are there any
[2:23] other notes that we need to
[2:24] make for the approval of the
[2:26] agenda? No, Mayor. We
[2:26] re all
[2:28] set. Um, so tonight we have
[2:30] before us a study session on
[2:31] development agreements and
[2:32] public benefits policy. We
[2:32] re
[2:34] here as a city council and a
[2:36] planning commission, sort of an
[2:37] odd but exciting format for us
[2:38] to get to this discussion. I
[2:38] m
[2:39] gonna turn it over to staff for
[2:41] what will be. First a
[2:43] presentation, then a set of
[2:44] questions before we move into
[2:46] our public comment and then
[2:48] come back to this body for our
[2:49] comments and deliberation, um,
[2:51] but just to sort of set the
[2:52] tone so people understand
[2:52] what
[2:53] s going on tonight. Um,
[2:55] this is really a matter of
[2:56] education for this group of
[2:57] people, uh, getting us all on
[2:59] the same page. We all have
[3:00] unique roles we play between
[3:02] the public, the planning
[3:03] commission, city council, and
[3:05] staff. And tonight is about us
[3:06] creating a shared understanding
[3:08] of what that is, so I
[3:08] appreciate staff
[3:09] s, uh,
[3:09] presentation that you
[3:09] ve put
[3:11] together towards that end. Um,
[3:12] and we
[3:13] ll end tonight with some
[3:14] comments and deliberation, not
[3:15] necessarily direction, we
[3:16] re
[3:17] not creating new polonight.
[3:18] I just want to make that very
[3:19] clear to folks. Uh, this is
[3:20] really just a matter of us
[3:21] getting all on the same page,
[3:22] so I
[3:23] m gonna turn it over to
[3:25] staff, uh, to begin the
[3:26] presentation. Thank you. Good
[3:28] evening. Can you everybody hear
[3:30] me ok? Is this on? Ok, great.
[3:32] Thank you. Good evening, Mayor,
[3:34] Vice Mayor, uh, and members of
[3:35] the council, chair, vice chair,
[3:37] and members of the planning
[3:39] commission, um, we, I
[3:39] m
[3:39] Jennifer Alca. I
[3:40] m the
[3:40] assistant director of.
[3:41] Community development. I
[3:42] m here
[3:43] with David Wilson, our city
[3:45] manager, Lauren Langer, City
[3:47] attorney, Nick Marisic,
[3:47] director of Community
[3:49] Development, and Brian Lee, our
[3:52] property development manager.
[3:53] We appreciate everyone taking
[3:55] the time tonight to come
[3:56] together this evening for a
[3:59] conversation about some of the
[4:00] expectations around development
[4:01] agreements, public benefits and
[4:03] for billboards as well as major
[4:06] projects. Uh, over the last few
[4:07] years, the city council has
[4:09] been asked, oh, sorry, has been
[4:11] asked to make decisions on a
[4:12] number of billboard or
[4:13] development projects that have
[4:15] had development agreements and
[4:16] public benefit components and
[4:18] in some of those projects
[4:18] specific hearings, we
[4:19] ve heard
[4:20] before the planning commission
[4:23] and before the city council, um,
[4:25] some questions regarding, um,
[4:27] How the development agreements
[4:28] are negotiated, what is the
[4:29] role of each of these bodies,
[4:30] and we
[4:31] ve done the best we can
[4:32] to answer, but it
[4:34] s tricky to
[4:35] address those topics broadly
[4:37] and take direction for the
[4:38] future in a project-specific
[4:39] meeting. And so that
[4:40] s why we
[4:42] wanted to have this meeting
[4:43] tonight with no specific
[4:45] project on the table so we can
[4:46] have these dig into these
[4:48] topics a little bit more, um,
[4:49] and receive feedback on how we
[4:51] might make the process better.
[4:53] So to accomplish this, we have
[4:54] an agenda here, um, we
[4:55] re gonna
[4:55] go through a lot of information.
[4:56] Upfront. We
[4:57] re going to try to
[4:59] get through our whole
[4:59] presentation and then we
[5:00] ll
[5:02] take public comment and then we
[5:05] will dig into conversation, so,
[5:05] um, we
[5:06] re going to walk through
[5:07] the legal framework for
[5:08] development agreement and the
[5:10] roles of each of the bodies in
[5:11] that process. We
[5:12] ll walk
[5:14] through the sunset, arts and
[5:15] advertising program giving a
[5:16] general overview of how the
[5:17] development agreements are
[5:18] negotiated there and how we get
[5:20] got to the point where we take
[5:22] them to commission and to
[5:22] council. We
[5:24] re gonna go through
[5:25] the public benefits related to
[5:27] development projects. Separate
[5:28] from billboards. We
[5:28] re going to
[5:29] take public comment like I said,
[5:30] and then we
[5:30] re gonna finally
[5:32] tee up some questions for the
[5:34] group, um, about first about
[5:36] the Billboard projects then
[5:37] about development agreements
[5:38] for major projects and our goal
[5:40] is to get some direction on
[5:42] what the city council is
[5:43] expecting from the planning
[5:44] commission, from staff, and
[5:46] from these projects, um, moving
[5:47] forward and how each body is
[5:48] expecting to engage on these
[5:50] projects, and now I will kick
[5:52] it over to Lauren Laer to
[5:57] address the next few slides.
[6:00] Yep Oh, did did not work. There
[6:05] we go. There we go. Ok. Good
[6:08] evening, everybody. Um, just to
[6:08] finish off Jennifer
[6:08] s
[6:09] introduction. I just wanted to
[6:11] point out that the purpose that
[6:13] we feel of this study session
[6:15] is for information, education,
[6:17] so that everybody who functions
[6:18] on these projects has is
[6:20] operating off the same
[6:22] information. Staff, commission,
[6:24] counsel, and the public. These
[6:25] are complicated projects.
[6:25] There
[6:27] s a lot of moving parts
[6:27] and you
[6:27] ll see it
[6:28] s gonna take
[6:31] us a long time just to get
[6:32] through the explanation of all
[6:32] the different parts to the
[6:34] whole. So we really are glad
[6:34] everybody
[6:35] s here and members of
[6:37] the public too to, so this can
[6:38] be educational and we can all
[6:40] be operating off of the same
[6:43] information. Um As the mayor
[6:45] mentioned, a study session is
[6:46] really just a special meeting
[6:47] of the city council, and we
[6:48] actually have an extra body
[6:50] with us here tonight, the
[6:51] planning commission. And so we
[6:53] are here to focus on this one
[6:54] particular topic. I know there
[6:55] was some concerns about why
[6:55] there wasn
[6:57] t a general public
[6:59] comment session on the agenda,
[6:59] and that
[6:59] s because we
[7:00] re here
[7:01] with two different bodies to
[7:02] talk about one topic tonight,
[7:03] so there
[7:04] ll be plenty of
[7:05] opportunities for public
[7:07] comment later on. And then as
[7:08] Jennifer mentioned, there
[7:09] really is no action needed
[7:11] tonight. Study sessions are for
[7:12] discussion, and there
[7:13] s no
[7:14] action required. If there
[7:14] s
[7:16] some consensus or some
[7:17] direction or requests for more
[7:18] information at a later date
[7:20] that can come at a later time.
[7:21] We can memorialize it at a
[7:23] later time, but we really want
[7:25] to use this opportunity while
[7:25] everybody
[7:26] s in the room to
[7:27] share information, share
[7:28] feedback, like Jennifer said,
[7:29] we have some questions at the
[7:31] end that can help guide the
[7:32] discussion. So I
[7:33] m going to dig
[7:35] in a little bit just to the
[7:36] basics of development
[7:37] agreements so that it
[7:37] s a
[7:38] little boring, but just so
[7:39] everybody understands the
[7:40] framework of what they are
[7:41] because they
[7:41] re, they
[7:41] re a
[7:43] unique thing that we do.
[7:43] They
[7:45] re different from regular
[7:45] development permits and
[7:47] conditional use permits. There
[7:49] are a legislative act and so
[7:49] development agreement it
[7:50] s a,
[7:50] it
[7:52] s a legally binding contract
[7:53] between a property developer
[7:55] and a local government entity
[7:57] that specifies the terms and
[7:58] conditions for a development
[8:00] project on a particular parcel
[8:01] of land, including the
[8:04] permitted uses, density. Design
[8:05] standards required public
[8:07] benefits in exchange for
[8:08] certain approvals and
[8:09] flexibility in zoning
[8:13] regulations. The purpose of
[8:15] having a development agreement
[8:17] is to provide certainty and
[8:18] stability to developers by
[8:20] outlining the project
[8:21] parameters while allowing local
[8:23] governments to ensure that the
[8:24] development aligns with
[8:26] community goals and receives
[8:27] necessary public amenities and
[8:28] benefits. So it
[8:31] s really about
[8:32] that certainty before um before
[8:34] a developer engages in a long
[8:35] term project to know that the
[8:36] laws aren
[8:37] t going to change,
[8:37] that if they start now, they
[8:38] re
[8:39] going to be able to complete it
[8:40] all the way through to the end.
[8:44] Next slide. And so the basis of
[8:45] development agreements is
[8:46] really about the vested rights,
[8:48] the rights that are granted
[8:49] through this process. So a
[8:52] vested right is a legal right
[8:53] to continue development under
[8:54] the existing approvals despite
[8:57] future changes in the law. Um,
[8:59] the, the reason that the said,
[9:00] again, this comes from state
[9:03] law. The reason that the
[9:05] legislature created development
[9:06] agreements is because if you
[9:06] don
[9:08] t have vesting on a project,
[9:08] if there
[9:09] s not certainty that
[9:11] the project can be built
[9:11] throughout the entire lifetime
[9:13] of construction. It can defer
[9:15] it can deter large projects
[9:15] because there
[9:15] s just
[9:16] uncertainty. Who
[9:17] s going to
[9:18] start a project if they think 5
[9:19] years down the road the rules
[9:20] are going to change in the
[9:21] middle, and they
[9:21] re not going
[9:22] to know they can finish. So
[9:23] it
[9:25] s really about the certainty
[9:25] and it locks in the regulations
[9:29] at the time. Of the agreement.
[9:31] So the statutes where we look
[9:32] to that govern development
[9:34] agreements are in the
[9:37] government code 65864 to
[9:39] 865869.5, and that sets out the
[9:41] legal framework, including the
[9:41] required components and
[9:43] procedures for adoption, and
[9:44] those are enhanced in our local
[9:48] municipal code. Um, did you
[9:50] skip one? I think, yeah, so the
[9:52] key provisions of a da that are
[9:53] really set out in the statute
[9:55] or you have to have a duration.
[9:57] So the duration of the
[9:59] agreement and the deadline for
[10:00] completion and then the
[10:01] timeline is crucial for
[10:03] determining the term and
[10:04] helping cities anticipate
[10:05] project completion. I know we
[10:06] have a lot of conversations
[10:07] here about when are these
[10:09] projects going to get done and
[10:11] so one benefit of a project
[10:12] with a development agreement is
[10:13] you have a pretty certain
[10:15] timeline of when projects will
[10:17] be built. Uh, the permitted, I
[10:18] mentioned this already, the
[10:21] permitted uses on the land, the
[10:22] maximum allowable development
[10:23] density, intensity, height,
[10:24] size, and then if there
[10:27] s any
[10:27] uh dedications for public
[10:31] purposes. Slide. Other key
[10:33] provisions that are going to be
[10:35] included in the da are to, uh,
[10:37] decide which subsequent actions
[10:38] can be approved
[10:39] administratively to facilitate
[10:41] development while protecting
[10:44] city interests, uh, it sets out
[10:45] modification uh protocols. How
[10:47] are these developments modified
[10:48] over time because we over the
[10:49] course of a long project,
[10:49] you
[10:50] re also going to see the
[10:53] need for some flexibility and
[10:55] some changes as um projects
[10:57] move from design to
[10:57] construction documents to
[10:58] actually being on the ground
[10:59] building. There
[10:59] s, there
[11:00] s
[11:01] always some. You know,
[11:02] modification that needs to be
[11:03] made, and so you set out in
[11:04] advance what that
[11:04] s going to
[11:07] look like so everybody knows
[11:09] survivability of the terms,
[11:10] phasing of the project,
[11:13] assignment procedures. What if
[11:14] this entity that
[11:15] s building now
[11:15] gets acquired by another
[11:16] company down the road. So, so
[11:18] you have to lay out all those
[11:20] procedures, and then of course
[11:22] the public benefits, the
[11:24] negotiated advantages, DAs
[11:25] allow cities to secure
[11:26] community benefits that might
[11:28] not be feasible through
[11:29] standard approvals and so we
[11:30] want to detail the nature,
[11:32] scope, and time. Of benefits to
[11:33] ensure that they align with all
[11:38] of the phases of development.
[11:39] So there are 2 public hearings
[11:40] that are required for a
[11:41] development agreement. The
[11:42] first is that planning
[11:45] commission. And this is
[11:46] language from the municipal
[11:48] code. Upon finding the
[11:50] application complete, directors
[11:51] shall schedule public hearing.
[11:51] Well, there
[11:52] s a lot that
[11:53] happens in between that time
[11:53] and that
[11:53] s what we
[11:54] re going to
[11:56] talk to you about tonight and
[11:57] explain that process. So it
[11:57] s,
[11:58] it
[11:58] s not that quick, but that
[11:59] s
[12:00] what the code says. And then
[12:01] the planning commission will
[12:03] adopt a resolution with a
[12:05] recommendation to the city
[12:06] council to approve
[12:07] conditionally approve or deny
[12:10] the application. City Council
[12:12] gets the recommendation,
[12:13] schedules the public hearing,
[12:15] and the council MAY approve,
[12:16] conditionally approve or deny
[12:17] the application. And if we
[12:20] talked about this recently, if
[12:21] significant modifications are
[12:22] proposed by the council that
[12:23] haven
[12:24] t been considered by the
[12:25] planning commission before.
[12:26] Those modifications need to be
[12:28] referred back to the planning
[12:30] commission for review. Um, the
[12:32] development agreement is a
[12:33] legislative act, which means
[12:33] it
[12:35] s adopted by ordinance and
[12:36] in West Hollywood we have an
[12:38] extra layer to that, which is
[12:40] we require a zone map amendment
[12:41] with every development
[12:43] agreement so that the parcel
[12:45] where the development sits is
[12:47] rezoned with an overlay for the
[12:48] development agreement overlay
[12:50] zone. And that means our zoning
[12:52] map will show every parcel that
[12:53] has a development agreement on
[12:53] it, and there
[12:54] s a lot of
[12:56] reasons and benefit for that,
[12:58] but, but one of the most
[12:59] notable uh points is that you
[13:00] can look at the zoning map and
[13:01] you should be able to tell
[13:04] which parcels have these
[13:06] development agreements because
[13:06] they
[13:07] re timing their standards
[13:08] might be a little bit different
[13:09] than other things that you
[13:09] ve
[13:14] seen in the zone. I
[13:14] ll turn it
[13:19] back to Jennifer. Thank you. So
[13:20] from a developer
[13:20] s viewpoint,
[13:23] what, what is the motivation to
[13:24] do this? Why would somebody
[13:26] come in and want to have a
[13:28] development agreement. Well, uh,
[13:29] similar to what Lauren was
[13:31] saying, the developers seek
[13:32] development agreements for a
[13:33] number of reasons. First and
[13:34] foremost, it gives them that
[13:35] certainty that she was
[13:38] explaining. It gives them
[13:39] certainty about timing and
[13:41] things like fees, development
[13:41] standards and processes can be
[13:42] locked for the period of time
[13:45] in the term of the da. Um, and
[13:47] finally, they also, what we see
[13:48] as a driving factor in most of
[13:50] the DAs we have, uh, especially
[13:52] for major projects, is
[13:52] negotiated regulatory
[13:54] flexibility. And that
[13:54] s again
[13:57] part of, part of the. What goes
[13:58] into the development agreement
[13:59] here in West Hollywood and in
[14:00] other words, that
[14:01] s often
[14:02] changes to things like height
[14:04] density land uses and things
[14:05] like that. Um, so what
[14:06] s in it
[14:07] for the city from the city
[14:08] s
[14:09] viewpoint, what do we get out
[14:11] of this? We get the same
[14:12] flexibility that allows
[14:13] developers to ask for things
[14:14] above and beyond the zoning
[14:16] also gives the city the
[14:17] opportunity to focus on
[14:19] community priorities because
[14:21] the agreement is completely
[14:22] discretionary. The city has
[14:24] more latitude to help define
[14:25] the project and to request or
[14:26] require project benefits and
[14:27] contributions that wouldn
[14:28] t be
[14:30] allowed under normal, um, land
[14:31] use laws. Typically, there has
[14:34] to be some sort of reason why
[14:34] we
[14:37] re asking for a certain fees
[14:38] or certain community benefits
[14:39] that are related to the project
[14:41] itself, um, in a development
[14:43] agreement we have a lot more
[14:44] flexibility there. This can,
[14:46] this. This can take thank you.
[14:47] This can take the shape of
[14:49] things like more housing, more
[14:51] parking, enhanced public
[14:52] improvements, incentives for
[14:55] valued land uses that promote
[14:57] economic and social development
[14:59] and other public benefits, um.
[15:01] Like, like we see on all of our
[15:03] projects, so I will turn it
[15:04] back to Lauren for the next
[15:11] slide. Ok. So the findings that
[15:13] are required when a development
[15:14] agreement is approved are
[15:17] listed in the municipal code.
[15:18] And generally speaking, they
[15:20] re
[15:21] looking at whether the
[15:22] development as a whole and the
[15:23] agreement is in the best
[15:25] interests of the city,
[15:26] consistent with the general
[15:27] plan, specific plan and zoning
[15:29] ordinance, and that it doesn
[15:29] t
[15:30] adversely affect people working
[15:32] or residing in the area or
[15:33] jeopardize the health, safety,
[15:35] or general welfare. Um, what
[15:35] s
[15:37] going to be, I think one of the
[15:38] themes we talk about tonight is
[15:41] the general plan and the
[15:41] specific plan and consistency
[15:42] with those things. It
[15:43] s a big
[15:44] part of what is being looked at
[15:47] with these big complicated
[15:51] projects, um. The theme that
[15:54] the city council really gives
[15:55] their their broad land use
[15:56] direction through these
[15:57] planning documents. The general
[16:00] plan, the sunset specific plan,
[16:01] other specific plans and on
[16:03] what they want to see and the
[16:05] central role for the planning
[16:06] commission in implementing that
[16:06] plan because that
[16:07] s the guiding
[16:07] document. That
[16:08] s what the
[16:09] commission looks at when
[16:09] they
[16:12] re making decisions. Uh,
[16:14] next slide please. Um,
[16:15] generally speaking, the role of
[16:16] the planning commission comes
[16:17] from the planning and zoning
[16:19] law and the government code, um,
[16:21] and it says that planning
[16:22] commissions provide insight and
[16:24] allow councils to make more
[16:25] fully informed decisions on
[16:26] land use and other planning
[16:28] issues. And then the city in
[16:29] its ordinances assigns the
[16:30] functions to the planning
[16:32] commission is deemed
[16:33] appropriate and necessary. So
[16:34] land use power sits with the
[16:36] elected body, the city council,
[16:37] and then it
[16:39] s delegated down to
[16:40] the planning commission and
[16:41] generally planning commissions
[16:42] help city councils make the
[16:43] best land use decisions that
[16:47] they can. Um, the Institute for
[16:48] Local Government is, it
[16:49] s an
[16:50] organization that promotes good
[16:51] government at the local level,
[16:54] and they had a really good
[16:55] explanation of planning
[16:55] commission
[16:57] s roles. And they
[16:57] say that planning commissions
[16:58] play a central role in the
[17:01] planning process in 3 ways. One,
[17:02] acting as an, as an advisory
[17:04] board to the main governing
[17:06] body here, the city council on
[17:08] all planning and development
[17:09] issues. 2, here
[17:09] s the theme
[17:11] again, assures that the general
[17:13] plan is implemented by
[17:13] reviewing development
[17:14] applications on a case by case
[17:16] basis, just as you build a
[17:17] building one brick at a time,
[17:18] you implement a community one
[17:20] vision at a time or one project
[17:23] at a time and then 3 functions
[17:24] as the decision making body for
[17:27] many approvals, but not all. So
[17:28] when West Hollywood development
[17:30] permits, variances, CUPs, those
[17:32] are all decisions that are made
[17:33] by the city council, um, and
[17:34] those decisions can be appealed
[17:38] up to the city council, who can
[17:39] then uphold overturn, modify,
[17:41] or send it back, and other
[17:42] matters, mostly legislative
[17:44] matters, uh, such as amendments
[17:45] to the general plan, the zoning
[17:46] ordinance. And of course
[17:48] development agreements, the
[17:48] planning commission makes
[17:50] recommendations to the city
[17:54] council, not final decisions.
[17:59] Next time. Thank you. So that
[18:01] was the background super quick
[18:02] background on development
[18:02] agreements and the framework
[18:04] and the findings. And so now
[18:04] we
[18:07] re gonna dive into a more
[18:08] specifically the sunset
[18:09] specific plan, arts and
[18:11] advertising program and then
[18:13] major development projects. So
[18:14] I think we
[18:14] re all basically
[18:15] familiar with how the billboard
[18:16] policy worked up to this point,
[18:18] but I will give a very brief
[18:19] recap because I know there
[18:19] s a
[18:21] lot of people in this room that
[18:21] maybe don
[18:21] t don
[18:22] t know the
[18:24] whole full history. Um, there
[18:26] was a design excellent
[18:26] screening process that was set
[18:30] out in the Sunset Boulevard
[18:31] off-site signage policy, uh,
[18:33] there was a first round that
[18:36] was uh awarded design
[18:37] Excellence Awards in 2020 with
[18:39] the two subsequent rounds, one
[18:41] in 2021, which is called 1.5
[18:43] and 1 in 22, which is called
[18:46] Round 2. The projects were
[18:47] granted design excellence
[18:48] awards, and that means they
[18:50] were allowed to apply for
[18:51] entitlements. Um, that wasn
[18:51] t
[18:52] an approval for an entitlement,
[18:53] so they were allowed to go
[18:55] through the approval process by
[18:57] applying for a development
[18:58] agreement negotiating design
[18:59] and public benefits and going
[19:00] through a public hearings
[19:01] process before the planning
[19:02] commission and the city council.
[19:05] There were 2 main types of
[19:06] billboards that we talk about.
[19:08] One is the traditional or
[19:11] static, which is just the, but
[19:11] you
[19:14] d imagine the printed vinyl
[19:16] posted on a frame uplet or
[19:17] downlet with standard lights.
[19:19] The second and the one we talk
[19:20] about the most when we see
[19:22] development agreements for
[19:24] billboard projects are the full
[19:25] motion animated boards which
[19:26] have also been called digital
[19:28] boards in the past. Um, and
[19:30] these, so the arts component
[19:32] for these full motion digital
[19:36] boards is part of the sunset
[19:36] Boulevard offsite signage
[19:40] program, and that is 17.5% of
[19:42] the content where the, the
[19:44] requirement for arts in the
[19:45] traditional static is 1% of the
[19:46] valuation of the project
[19:48] similar to any development
[19:49] project, uh, subject to the
[19:51] urban arts program. In addition
[19:53] for these projects, we
[19:53] re
[19:54] negotiating site improvements,
[19:55] public realm enhancements, and
[19:56] for alternative standards
[19:57] projects, we
[19:58] re looking at
[19:59] extraordinary public benefit.
[20:04] Um, We also have a provision in
[20:07] the in the policy for historic
[20:08] preservation for cultural
[20:10] resources and that historic
[20:11] preservation or the
[20:12] rehabilitation of those sites
[20:13] can be considered part of the
[20:15] public realm enhancements or
[20:16] the extraordinary benefit, um,
[20:18] but the bulk of the public
[20:18] benefit that we
[20:19] re seeing in
[20:22] these projects is coming from
[20:24] the revenue share and Brian
[20:24] League property development Man
[20:25] is here to walk us through how
[20:30] that works. Thank you, Jennifer,
[20:32] um, I mean, the, the question
[20:35] we always get is, How does the
[20:37] city calculate revenue for a
[20:39] 30-year agreement and um You
[20:42] know, to do that, what we, we,
[20:43] we engage a consultant who
[20:43] s an
[20:45] expert in this field. Oh, I
[20:45] m
[20:46] sorry, we engage a consultant
[20:47] who
[20:49] s an expert in this field.
[20:50] And they come up with a
[20:51] valuation. It
[20:52] s an estimated
[20:54] evaluation for the first year
[20:55] of that billboard and it
[20:55] s
[20:57] based on on three components,
[20:59] the first being reach and
[21:01] impressions. The second is cost
[21:02] per thousands and that that
[21:03] s
[21:04] how many eyeballs we
[21:05] ll see the,
[21:09] the boards in in cars and um
[21:11] pedestrians and, and, you know,
[21:12] traffic and traffic patterns
[21:14] come into play on that. And the
[21:17] third is, is a lot more
[21:17] subjective. It
[21:18] s value driving
[21:20] pre premium. And this is
[21:21] related to these boards that
[21:25] are um. Creative, full motion
[21:27] and, and the type of content
[21:28] they could show on some of
[21:30] those full motion boards. We
[21:32] had a three dimensional board
[21:33] with a force perspective that
[21:35] will have a higher evaluation
[21:37] because it it captures more
[21:38] eyeballs, um, the other thing
[21:40] is these full motion boards,
[21:40] they
[21:44] re also able to um run
[21:45] static advertisements over the,
[21:47] over a 28 day campaign, and
[21:48] they could run multiple static.
[21:51] They could run up to 30
[21:52] different campaigns during that
[21:53] 28 day period. Where a
[21:55] traditional board is running
[21:56] one campaign, so that
[21:57] s why we
[21:59] see that the main value in
[22:00] these full motion digital
[22:01] boards. They
[22:02] re not often
[22:04] running animation, but they
[22:04] re
[22:07] running multiple campaigns. And,
[22:09] and the third, um, some of
[22:10] these boards just because of
[22:10] where they
[22:12] re at on the strip,
[22:13] they command a premium just
[22:16] based on their location. Um,
[22:22] Next slide. Next thing, um, is
[22:24] the revenue share and um I mean,
[22:24] we
[22:26] re asked often, where do we
[22:28] get these percentages from, um,
[22:30] and how, how do we come up with
[22:33] this formula. Uh, to justify
[22:36] why what developer x is paying
[22:37] something and another
[22:37] developer
[22:37] s paying something
[22:39] else. And and all these
[22:40] projects are unique and they
[22:40] re
[22:42] all different. They all have
[22:44] different settings. They have
[22:46] different costs associated with
[22:48] the public realm enhancements
[22:50] or site improvements. And, and
[22:51] some of, you know, some of them
[22:52] would rather pay a little more
[22:54] upfront. I mean, so we, we, we
[22:57] have to be flexible with these
[22:58] operators or they won
[22:58] t be
[22:59] bringing a project forward, so
[22:59] we
[23:00] re always trying to achieve
[23:04] that balance. Uh, on What
[23:04] s
[23:06] feasible and if we push too
[23:07] hard, you know, they might walk
[23:09] away. The second question is,
[23:12] um, We, we favor the approached
[23:15] where we get a fixed revenue
[23:17] per year, um, and we get this
[23:19] and it escalates at a 3%
[23:20] escalation for the life of the
[23:24] board. And, and we feel this is
[23:25] a better a better agreement for
[23:26] the city because it provides
[23:27] certainty in the budgeting
[23:29] process. You know, we
[23:29] re able
[23:32] to to see that cash flow and
[23:33] capture it and budget over 30
[23:34] years of the life of the
[23:37] agreement. Um, the, the other
[23:39] approach would be an audit
[23:41] audited revenue share, um, You
[23:43] know, these billboard operators
[23:45] have multiple boards. They
[23:47] could move campaigns around.
[23:48] And, and we
[23:48] re just not
[23:49] comfortable or confident that
[23:52] we would have a good good shot
[23:53] at auditing that revenue and
[23:53] it
[23:55] s, it would just be a lot
[23:57] more intensive, a lot more
[24:00] questions, so we have chosen a
[24:01] more conservative path which is
[24:02] just to provide the city some
[24:05] certainty. And it also avoids
[24:07] disruptions in the future, um,
[24:08] this is a broad program if, you
[24:10] know, there there
[24:10] s gonna be
[24:12] many more signs and if there
[24:13] s
[24:14] saturation, our revenue is
[24:15] guaranteed over the life of the
[24:21] agreement. Next slide, um. The
[24:22] Public realm enhancements, as
[24:23] Jennifer mentioned, they
[24:24] re all
[24:26] required um for each of these
[24:27] signs, you know, to qualify,
[24:29] they need a public development
[24:29] enhancement, a site improvement.
[24:33] And, you know, we go through
[24:34] that process in the public
[24:37] realm enhancement is often
[24:38] proposed with the initial
[24:39] design of the billboard, they
[24:41] were proposed during the Sign
[24:43] Excellence process. So staff is
[24:44] here to refine that public
[24:47] realm. Design, um, and we do
[24:48] that in a number of ways and we,
[24:51] you know, we work with our, our,
[24:52] our city architect Udas, our
[24:54] designers, and at one point we
[24:56] feel comfortable enough, we
[24:56] ll
[24:58] bring that that billboard
[24:59] design to the planning
[25:00] commission subcommittee with
[25:01] the public realm enhancement. I
[25:03] see, you know, many of you sit
[25:04] on that subcommittee and you
[25:07] provide feedback. And you know,
[25:08] sometimes that feedback
[25:08] s
[25:09] enough and we get it to
[25:10] planning commission soon.
[25:11] Sometimes it takes 8, 10 months.
[25:15] For the, the project to, to
[25:16] evolve to a point where it
[25:16] s
[25:17] comfortable and I think they
[25:17] ve,
[25:21] um, You know, acted towards
[25:22] those recommendations. Um, next
[25:27] slide. Then we
[25:28] re asked about
[25:29] these alternative standards
[25:31] project. I want to use the term
[25:32] standards because these, these
[25:33] are projects that are proposed
[25:38] that That are exceed the height
[25:39] or size standards of of the
[25:41] billboard policy. And, and
[25:41] we
[25:44] re asked, well, how many of
[25:45] these boards are alternative
[25:47] standard projects, and the
[25:48] answer is about 3/4 of them.
[25:50] And you know, why is that? I
[25:52] mean, I mean, I could say
[25:54] because they can, uh, and they
[25:55] are allowed to under the policy,
[25:56] and I think it
[25:57] s, it
[25:57] s for two
[25:58] reasons. There
[25:59] s a lot more
[26:01] creativity with these larger
[26:04] signs, and the second is, is
[26:05] the revenue on these larger
[26:07] signs is, is, it
[26:08] s exponential,
[26:08] um, there
[26:09] s a lot more
[26:11] creativity and the city not
[26:14] only benefits with this
[26:16] extraordinary revenue payment.
[26:17] It also participates in that
[26:21] increased revenue. Um, with
[26:22] that, um, one more, that
[26:30] s you.
[26:35] Thank you. All right, am I? So
[26:35] what we
[26:36] ve heard and what the
[26:37] council can confirm or add to
[26:39] when we get to the discussion
[26:41] portion is that the planning
[26:42] commission is relied upon to
[26:46] hear. And consider the totality
[26:49] of the project for these sunset
[26:50] Billboard projects. Is this
[26:52] project a good idea in general?
[26:54] Is this what is in the
[26:55] interests of the city based on
[26:57] the guiding documents, vision,
[26:58] and past direction. And in this
[26:59] case, we
[27:00] re not just talking
[27:01] about the official public
[27:02] benefits, but other general
[27:05] benefits of the project as well
[27:06] as any particular drawbacks.
[27:07] What is the balance that we
[27:08] re
[27:08] striking with these projects,
[27:11] um. And that is what is at the
[27:12] heart of the recommendation
[27:12] that
[27:13] s coming from staff and
[27:13] that we
[27:14] re expecting to see
[27:16] from the city from the planning
[27:20] commission as well. And, and
[27:22] you ask how do we get to this
[27:25] recommendation, um. It
[27:25] s, it
[27:26] s
[27:27] evolved process, but uh, you
[27:28] know, the public realm is the
[27:31] first part of it that came with
[27:32] the design excellence staff
[27:33] when they feel comfortable with
[27:36] that public realm. Enhancement
[27:39] is moves it forward to, um, the,
[27:40] the subcommittee of planning
[27:41] commission and in that review
[27:43] we brought in engineering to
[27:44] see if they
[27:44] re feasible public
[27:46] works, udas and all the
[27:47] different divisions within the
[27:50] city. As I said, the, the, the
[27:52] subcommittee gives us input.
[27:54] And at that point is when we
[27:55] feel comfortable enough with
[27:58] the design and the public realm
[28:00] enhancements that will engage
[28:02] our valuation expert and that
[28:04] valuation expert prepares that
[28:05] estimated annual fair market
[28:08] value, which is a showed you
[28:10] how they, they evolved to that,
[28:11] um, estimate, and that
[28:12] s when
[28:13] we start negotiating the
[28:15] revenue share. The revenue
[28:17] share is a percentage of that
[28:20] annual fair market value plus
[28:21] extraordinary benefit and we
[28:23] also factor in if there
[28:23] s
[28:24] extensive capital costs to
[28:26] build that sign. And the cash
[28:28] flow, I mean, there
[28:28] s a, these
[28:29] signs are expensive and we give
[28:32] them credit in the first couple
[28:33] of years of the agreements and
[28:35] they pay us back, and I think
[28:35] you
[28:37] ve seen that at council. So
[28:37] once we
[28:39] ve come up with these
[28:41] terms, we work with the city
[28:42] attorney
[28:42] s office and that
[28:42] s
[28:43] where we draft the actual
[28:48] development agreement. Thank
[28:57] you. Oops. Yes ok. So, um, when
[28:58] the agreement gets to the point
[28:59] of the public hearing, there
[29:01] has been a lot of back and
[29:01] forth. We
[29:02] ve, um, we
[29:02] ve gone
[29:04] through the whole process that
[29:05] Brian just outlined. And like I
[29:08] said before, the city team
[29:09] negotiates the agreement using
[29:10] our best understanding of the
[29:10] city
[29:11] s priorities from our
[29:13] vision documents and from past
[29:14] direction that we
[29:15] ve gotten at
[29:17] city council, and it
[29:17] s really
[29:19] tricky to throw new things into
[29:21] that balance. Once we strike
[29:22] the balance, they, you know,
[29:22] it
[29:22] s it
[29:24] s sort of an ecosystem,
[29:26] and once you throw some
[29:28] something new at the last stage
[29:31] that gets difficult, um. But
[29:33] that said, the city has
[29:35] improved our internal processes
[29:36] through these conversations.
[29:36] We
[29:36] ve we
[29:38] ve um, improved our
[29:39] processes to provide clearer
[29:40] documents, and we
[29:41] ve, um,
[29:43] updated some of our standard
[29:45] terms and, and, um, deal points
[29:45] based on what we
[29:46] ve heard from
[29:47] the commission and council
[29:49] through this process. So the
[29:51] conversation does have, uh, a
[29:52] lot of benefit and it does
[30:00] improve the process. Ok, so
[30:00] we
[30:01] re gonna move the
[30:02] conversation so we
[30:04] ve really
[30:04] been talking about billboards
[30:07] for the first part of this kind
[30:08] of revenue and public benefit
[30:09] conversation and as we know,
[30:12] the Sunset Arts and advertising
[30:12] program has revenue share
[30:14] component, public realm
[30:16] enhancements, and extraordinary
[30:18] public benefits. But for other
[30:19] larger development projects,
[30:22] whether or not they have a sign,
[30:22] that
[30:24] s also part of this
[30:24] conversation tonight because
[30:24] they
[30:26] re usually subject to DAs
[30:28] and the thing that I most
[30:29] wanted to point out was where
[30:31] the public benefit requirement
[30:32] comes from in West Hollywood.
[30:35] So When you all adopted your
[30:36] general plan, um, I don
[30:36] t
[30:38] remember how many years ago,
[30:40] maybe 10 years ago. The city
[30:41] did something really smart, and
[30:43] it put this language in the
[30:45] general plan, which explains to
[30:47] anyone who wants to do uh
[30:48] development in West Hollywood
[30:50] and they want to do something
[30:51] above and beyond what these
[30:53] stand uh standards call for
[30:56] that the city will only
[30:58] consider increases in permitted
[31:00] far density and height for
[31:02] projects in the commercial
[31:03] designations that provides
[31:04] significant benefits. To the
[31:06] city. So this is the language
[31:07] we turn to when a developer
[31:08] comes in and says, but I want
[31:09] to go much higher and I want to
[31:11] do this and I want to do that.
[31:13] The city has the grounds to be
[31:14] able to say, well, if, if you
[31:15] even want the city to consider
[31:17] that, you have to provide
[31:18] significant benefits to the
[31:19] city and the community, and
[31:20] that
[31:22] s the language that we
[31:24] turn to through the development
[31:27] agreement process. Thank you.
[31:31] So While we did adopt that
[31:35] language in our, in 2011 in our
[31:39] general plan 2035, um, it that
[31:40] we have projects that predated
[31:41] that that still used this
[31:43] process. And so for years
[31:45] through those projects, it was,
[31:48] it was case by case. We didn
[31:48] t
[31:50] have a regulated uniform way of
[31:52] applying a public benefit.
[31:55] Evaluation to a project and so,
[31:57] um, in 2018, the city
[31:59] established a public benefit
[32:00] policy to standardize this
[32:03] process and we contracted with
[32:07] 3 economic consulting firms and
[32:08] had them analyze what our
[32:10] options were to try to capture
[32:12] that the best target public
[32:13] benefit amount, and they all
[32:16] unanimously agreed that the
[32:16] residual land value method was
[32:18] the way to go and so that
[32:18] s
[32:20] what we use now for our public
[32:23] benefits target. So in addition
[32:24] to standardizing the approach
[32:26] to the value of the public
[32:28] benefits package. The policy
[32:29] establishes a process to
[32:30] involve the public early on to
[32:32] get community input into what
[32:34] that public benefits package
[32:40] MAY include, um, we also I lost
[32:43] my spot sorry and it um and it
[32:49] provides Um Just, uh, it
[32:50] provides a set of steps that we
[32:51] go through. So we have the
[32:53] community benefit, we have the
[32:54] community meeting. Thank you,
[32:56] this was what I was looking for.
[32:57] We had the project planner gets
[33:01] the project, um, evaluates it.
[33:04] Has a required public
[33:04] neighborhood meeting to discuss
[33:07] what But the potential impacts
[33:09] or benefits of the projects are
[33:12] and to solicit input from the
[33:13] community on public benefit
[33:16] scope, um, after that point,
[33:19] the city staff will hire an
[33:22] independent economic analyst to
[33:23] evaluate the, the residual land
[33:26] value like I mentioned, um,
[33:28] using the standardized public
[33:31] benefits tool the Economic
[33:32] consultant that we engage works
[33:34] with the city only, um, any
[33:36] input or any meetings that have
[33:38] to be had with the developer in,
[33:40] in the room, always includes
[33:42] city staff. This is how we
[33:43] engage all of our consultants
[33:46] from sqqla to, to public
[33:47] benefits and other things as
[33:49] well. Um, so there
[33:49] s never
[33:50] direct communication. And some
[33:53] of the inputs into the tool are
[33:55] things that the applicant. Oh,
[33:56] no, I
[33:57] m still there. Um, are
[33:59] things that the applicant knows
[33:59] that we couldn
[34:00] t know that it
[34:00] s,
[34:00] it
[34:01] s unique to the project and
[34:04] so they do give some input into
[34:05] that process, but all of that
[34:07] is vetted by the consultant to
[34:10] make sure that it is consistent
[34:11] with industry practices that
[34:11] it
[34:12] s a reasonable approach, it
[34:16] fits the project and so forth.
[34:17] Then the consultant reviews
[34:19] everything and once we have
[34:20] that target amount, the city
[34:22] manager and the city staff
[34:23] negotiate the deal points of
[34:26] the da, including the public
[34:27] benefits package that is a
[34:29] conversation with the developer.
[34:30] Sometimes they have ideas of
[34:31] what they would like to propose.
[34:32] It
[34:33] s part of their project.
[34:34] They can design it into their
[34:35] project. I know we
[34:35] ve seen, for
[34:37] instance, on the arts or the
[34:38] former arts club project they
[34:39] have an art gallery that would
[34:42] be open to the public. It was
[34:44] also a, a performing arts
[34:45] rehearsal space, and so there
[34:46] are certain things that can be
[34:47] developed into the project and
[34:49] the applicant kind of has to
[34:50] have control over that, and
[34:51] then there can be parts of it
[34:53] that are more monetary, um,
[34:57] that we can ask for as well.
[34:59] And then once that is done and
[35:00] the city council, I
[35:01] m sorry,
[35:03] the attorney, and the
[35:04] applicant
[35:04] s legal counsel will
[35:06] work out the terms of the
[35:07] development agreement, then
[35:11] once the project is ready, um,
[35:12] including the sqa, the design
[35:14] review, all of that stuff. It
[35:15] all comes forward to public
[35:20] hearings. So the public benefit
[35:22] policy staff report included
[35:23] this language with respect to
[35:23] the planning commission
[35:24] s role,
[35:25] and it says in the yellow here,
[35:27] this will allow for the
[35:29] planning commission to weigh in
[35:30] on whether proposed benefits
[35:32] are appropriate for the
[35:33] proposed project while ensuring
[35:35] that the project is being
[35:37] reviewed based on the necessary
[35:39] findings required to be made
[35:39] for the specified permit
[35:42] requested. So what that has
[35:45] been taken to mean over the
[35:46] years, um, is that the planning
[35:47] commission can and should
[35:50] provide feedback on whether the
[35:51] requested legislative changes
[35:53] make for a good project. That
[35:53] s,
[35:53] that
[35:54] s the biggest question,
[35:56] right? Is this project a good
[35:59] project? All of it included. Uh,
[36:00] whether the public benefits
[36:02] package makes sense from a land
[36:04] use perspective is the public
[36:05] benefits package making sense
[36:07] relative to the legislative
[36:09] changes being asked for, and
[36:11] generally the commission is not
[36:13] asked or tasked with evaluating
[36:14] the inputs into the evaluation
[36:18] tool. Um, things like The
[36:19] construction costs or, you know,
[36:19] if it
[36:20] s a hotel project, the
[36:22] room rates or things like that.
[36:25] The inputs into the tool, but
[36:26] to provide overall land use
[36:28] related feedback on the package
[36:29] and provide recommendation to
[36:31] counsel on whether the
[36:32] components of the package make
[36:34] sense. Does the project in its
[36:35] whole in its totality moved the
[36:37] city in the direction of
[36:38] achieving its goals and its
[36:40] vision. Uh, and finally, the
[36:42] planning commission is asked to
[36:44] take an action and make a
[36:45] recommendation forward, move a
[36:47] recommendation forward to the
[36:49] city council and whether that
[36:51] is yes, no, or somewhere in
[36:52] between the recommendation goes
[36:54] to the city council. The city
[36:55] council then evaluates it and
[36:58] can send back, send staff back
[36:59] to re-evaluate things or
[37:01] something along those lines, um,
[37:02] but the, the role of the
[37:04] planning commission is to move
[37:05] a recommendation forward. And
[37:07] so with that, I will give you a
[37:08] preview of the questions that
[37:08] we
[37:10] re going to seek. Guidance
[37:11] on and then, um, like I said,
[37:12] we
[37:12] ll take public comment and
[37:13] come back to this slide, and so
[37:14] I
[37:15] ll turn it over to Lauren to
[37:19] go through those questions. So
[37:20] with all of that information in
[37:24] mind. In order to, you know,
[37:24] use everybody
[37:25] s time
[37:26] efficiently, um, we
[37:27] re gonna
[37:28] end with some proposed
[37:30] questions for the council and
[37:32] the commission to discuss after
[37:33] public comment that we think
[37:35] will help everybody, um, guide
[37:36] expectations through this
[37:38] process because I think the
[37:40] reality is with the Billboard
[37:40] program and other developments
[37:41] on the horizon, there
[37:41] s going
[37:44] to be a lot of development
[37:45] agreements coming through over
[37:47] the next many years and so I
[37:50] think um answering some of
[37:51] these questions during this,
[37:52] this joint meeting would be
[37:54] helpful in having the council
[37:56] provide their expectations. So,
[37:58] um, as Jennifer had noted, the
[37:59] process has been improved
[38:00] through the discussion at the
[38:02] commission and the point of all
[38:03] these public hearings is to get
[38:05] to the best document possible
[38:07] for the city. So some things
[38:09] that the um. Council can
[38:10] discuss tonight is what, what
[38:13] is the best way to use meetings
[38:13] efficiently and effectively.
[38:15] What is the city council want
[38:16] from the planning commission
[38:17] and its recommendation. There
[38:17] s
[38:18] a couple options here. Does
[38:21] this, does the council want the
[38:22] planning commission reviewing
[38:23] inputs into the economic
[38:24] valuation tool. Does the
[38:25] council want the planning
[38:27] commission to recommend changes
[38:28] on components of the benefit
[38:30] package. Does the council want
[38:31] planning commission to weigh in
[38:33] on the overall sufficiency of
[38:35] the public benefits and our
[38:37] public realm enhancements. And
[38:37] then additionally, are there
[38:39] additional benefits? The
[38:41] council would like to see from
[38:42] Billboard and or public benefit
[38:45] projects, um, as noted, a lot
[38:48] of what guides staff through
[38:49] this whole process is decisions
[38:51] that have already been made and
[38:52] the land use documents that the
[38:53] council has adopted. So those
[38:55] are the guiding documents um
[38:56] for billboards, the terms and
[38:58] benefits are based on past
[38:59] development agreements that
[39:00] have come through for
[39:01] development projects, the terms
[39:04] and the benefits are based on
[39:05] public benefits policy and the
[39:07] guiding documents. This, this
[39:07] is the guidance and we really
[39:09] want to know what are.
[39:09] Council
[39:11] s priorities. Are there
[39:12] additional negotiations that
[39:13] you want done, which, you know,
[39:15] can have the other benefit of
[39:17] delaying projects coming
[39:18] through, so provide staff,
[39:20] commission, you know, the
[39:21] public, the guidance of what
[39:23] you want to see, and that way
[39:24] this process can work a lot
[39:26] smoother for everybody who
[39:26] s
[39:28] involved. And then the last
[39:28] question that was put up here
[39:30] is, does the city council want
[39:32] to revisit the framework for,
[39:34] for the public benefit policy
[39:35] and tool or billboard da terms,
[39:36] which is something that would
[39:37] happen at a later date. That
[39:37] s
[39:39] not decisions. That need to be
[39:41] made tonight but just, you know,
[39:42] the conversation. Is this
[39:43] working the way you want it to,
[39:44] or do you want it to look a
[39:46] little bit different. Tell us,
[39:47] and then, and then the process
[39:49] can be improved and enhanced.
[39:49] So that
[39:50] s the goal for tonight.
[39:51] Um, I
[39:51] ll turn it back over to
[39:52] the mayor if you want to open
[39:54] it up for public comment and,
[39:56] and we can navigate that
[39:58] discussion. Thank you and As
[39:58] we
[40:00] re getting uh the public
[40:00] prepared for your opportunity
[40:02] to make comment, please make
[40:02] sure you
[40:04] ve, uh, submitted your
[40:05] comment request to our city
[40:05] clerk. Um, I
[40:06] ll just let this
[40:08] body know what my plan is, um,
[40:10] so many of these questions are
[40:11] directed at the council, so I
[40:11] m
[40:13] gonna come to the council for a
[40:14] first pass. I
[40:14] m sure we all
[40:16] maybe have a need for question
[40:17] clarity, that sort of thing on
[40:18] the presentation. So we
[40:19] ll do a
[40:20] first pass for my council
[40:21] colleagues go to planning
[40:23] commission and then come back
[40:24] to council if we need to do
[40:25] another exchange, we can do it
[40:27] at that time, but my hope is
[40:28] that we can all sort of take a
[40:30] moment. To digest, to get our
[40:31] responses clear to some of
[40:32] these questions. We have a need
[40:33] for clarity, this is going to
[40:34] be the moment. I
[40:35] m gonna go to
[40:37] the public now. Oh, maybe our
[40:39] city clerk needs another moment,
[40:39] uh, before we
[40:40] re prepared, but
[40:42] I understand we have a couple
[40:42] of public commenters prepared,
[40:43] and then we
[40:44] ll come back to our
[40:45] discussion. Sound good?
[40:50] Terrific. Sorry about that. Are
[40:51] we moving to public comment now?
[40:54] Ok, um, we had Jonathan Wilson
[40:55] signed up to speak, but I don
[40:56] t
[40:59] see him in chambers, so I will
[41:02] move to Steve Martin. Come on
[41:11] down, Steve Martin. Like. Well,
[41:12] thank you and thank you, thank
[41:13] everybody for coming. Ok, there
[41:16] we go. I just wanted to make
[41:19] sure it was on this. This is, I,
[41:20] I was long overdue, but the the
[41:22] staff presentation was very
[41:23] good. And, and I think
[41:26] informative. On the the most
[41:27] immediate question, I think
[41:28] most of the people of the
[41:31] public. I would think that the
[41:34] planning commission having a
[41:36] Review and some input on the
[41:37] development agreement kind of
[41:40] gives the public. An
[41:43] opportunity to be heard and
[41:44] also gives you an opportunity
[41:46] to have like a preview before
[41:49] it comes to consul of what the
[41:49] commission
[41:50] s concerns are and
[41:51] what the public
[41:52] s concerns are,
[41:53] um, I, I think we
[41:54] ve, I mean,
[41:57] over the, I mean for over the
[42:00] many, many years, these
[42:01] projects, these development
[42:03] agreements have really become
[42:04] way more sophisticated and
[42:06] frankly I think more lucrative
[42:08] for the city and better
[42:10] negotiated, um. That
[42:10] s just my
[42:11] observation and it
[42:11] s hard
[42:12] because you guys are there all
[42:13] the time. I
[42:14] m only sort of
[42:15] dropped parachuting in and out,
[42:18] but You know, I, I guess for an
[42:21] example, the the arts club.
[42:22] Development agreement left a
[42:23] lot to be desired. I thought it
[42:25] was all kind of way to go about
[42:27] doing it, uh, at the last
[42:29] minute, um, Lauren Meister was
[42:32] able to ask for a very large
[42:33] contribution towards housing,
[42:33] which wasn
[42:35] t even on the table,
[42:37] and within 30 seconds, the
[42:39] developer said, yes, which left
[42:42] a lot of people wondering. What
[42:44] kind of, how rigorous was this
[42:46] process and what was, what was
[42:47] staff really negotiating. I
[42:48] think we
[42:48] ve we
[42:49] ve evolved since
[42:51] then, but, uh, I do think that
[42:52] the planning commission having
[42:54] a say is, is just a good idea.
[42:55] So anyway, thank you for your
[42:57] time and thank you for your
[42:58] indulgence, and I saw you on tv.
[43:03] Yeah, on the on the Thank you
[43:03] very much. There
[43:04] s one more
[43:08] public comment. Wendy Goldman,
[43:10] Wendy Goldman, you will have 2
[43:11] minutes to be followed by David
[43:15] Ecker. Good evening, Mayor,
[43:17] council members, commissioners,
[43:20] staff, uh, I have a question
[43:21] regarding public benefit. Some
[43:23] years ago as a long term
[43:25] resident here, I have been to
[43:27] many scoping meetings for
[43:28] developments on Sunset Strip
[43:30] and elsewhere in the city at
[43:32] the meeting that I went to,
[43:34] there were artists renderings
[43:37] of the project that indicated a
[43:39] garden that was going to be
[43:41] established for the community,
[43:42] um, somewhere down the line,
[43:46] the developers sold the project
[43:48] to a 2nd party and the public
[43:50] benefit garden went away. I was
[43:53] not aware of that until the
[43:55] project completed and opened
[43:55] and it wasn
[43:57] t there. So I
[43:57] m
[43:59] just wondering how does someone
[44:02] like myself track these things
[44:04] when developers change
[44:07] midstream and do not exactly
[44:10] have a clear Definition of what
[44:13] is going to be the public
[44:13] benefit. So I
[44:14] ll leave that to
[44:17] you. Thank you. Thank you.
[44:19] David Eckhart, I believe was
[44:20] next. And it looks like we
[44:21] re
[44:22] still getting speaker slips.
[44:23] Good evening, everyone. Uh,
[44:24] just a quick question, and I
[44:25] know it
[44:28] s subjective, but the
[44:30] word extraordinary uh public
[44:31] benefits seems very broad
[44:33] termed, and I just as a public
[44:34] viewer and watching these
[44:35] things, it
[44:37] s very hard. For me
[44:39] or as a layperson to know what
[44:41] that definition means. And I
[44:42] just wonder if that moving
[44:44] forward can be a little more
[44:46] defined of what that means for
[44:47] the public, uh, but thank you
[44:48] all for what you do. I think
[44:50] you all do an incredible job
[44:52] and keep doing the great work.
[44:54] Thank you. Do you have other
[44:56] folks. Thank you, David. We
[44:58] have one additional speaker, Oz
[45:01] Powers. So Thank you so much.
[45:01] I
[45:04] m, um, an advocate for uh
[45:05] trans lgbtq, non-binary youth,
[45:07] and I would love to see a
[45:08] program that would help some of
[45:10] the homeless youth that are in
[45:12] the center or other places to
[45:13] um teach them how to do. I
[45:14] m,
[45:14] I
[45:15] m a designer, production
[45:16] designer, art director. I was
[45:18] the art director on Avatar and
[45:20] Emmy Award-winning artist, but
[45:22] I love to teach, um, especially
[45:23] people in our community that
[45:24] have been targeted or thrown
[45:28] out of their home or, you know,
[45:29] homeless or struggling craft
[45:30] and skill of production design
[45:32] and. Artwork, um, and I would
[45:34] love to see that there
[45:35] s
[45:35] probably other programs out
[45:38] there, but to coalesce to help
[45:39] those youth produce some of the
[45:41] art that is on the billboards
[45:42] and showcase their work. That
[45:42] s
[45:43] all. Thank you. Thank you so
[45:45] much. Were there any other
[45:47] public commenters signed up in
[45:49] person or in Zoom. We had one
[45:49] individual signed up for Zoom,
[45:52] but they are not in the meeting.
[45:53] We can proceed here. Thank you
[45:56] all so much for coming out and
[45:56] delivering your public comments.
[45:57] Um, I
[45:58] m going to turn to my
[46:00] colleagues on the council to
[46:01] get the conversation started.
[46:04] Ed unless there was any
[46:04] extraordinary need for
[46:05] extraordinary, that
[46:05] ll be the
[46:07] word, uh, need for clarity on
[46:09] the presentation. It
[46:09] s ok. Ok,
[46:09] I
[46:10] m gonna come over to this
[46:13] side. Was anybody ready to
[46:15] begin the discussion? We
[46:15] re all
[46:16] super eager, uh, Vice Mayor,
[46:19] you said yes. Oh, ok, we
[46:19] ll go
[46:21] over there, councilmember my
[46:22] COUNCILMAN Bermeister, we
[46:22] ll
[46:24] begin with you. Are they gonna
[46:27] answer what extraordinary.
[46:28] Would you like to help. I would
[46:31] like them to answer what
[46:36] extraordinary is. An
[46:37] extraordinary benefit as a cash
[46:39] payment for an alternative
[46:43] standards project. So it
[46:44] s
[46:44] extraordinary means dollars at
[46:46] this point. And what about
[46:50] extraordinary design? That
[46:50] s
[46:52] subjective and uh Planning
[46:53] commission and council, you
[46:55] know, staff bring something
[46:57] forward that we believe is
[46:58] extraordinary, and that
[46:59] s a
[47:02] subjective definition, so then
[47:04] City Attorney Langer then
[47:06] planning commission can debate
[47:07] whether something is
[47:07] extraordinary design or not, is
[47:14] that right? I think the term is
[47:14] exceptional though that
[47:15] s
[47:19] exceptional used to be
[47:20] extraordinary. The design
[47:22] component in the land use
[47:22] component is absolutely
[47:24] something that the planning
[47:24] commission should be reviewing.
[47:25] I think it
[47:25] s something that
[47:26] s
[47:26] sassy, it looks, that
[47:27] s how we
[47:27] would say it
[47:29] s sassy, right?
[47:29] The sassy subcommittee looks at
[47:32] the design of the um, looks at
[47:34] the design of the signs and if
[47:36] it has that extraordinary
[47:37] exceptional component to it.
[47:38] The design is part of what
[47:38] they
[47:40] re reviewing. Ok, we
[47:40] re
[47:42] just doing like initial
[47:45] comments and then, ok, so, um,
[47:48] Wendy Goldman spoke about a
[47:51] change in public benefits, uh,
[47:52] midstream without the public
[47:55] getting to You know, give some
[48:01] input on that, um. I guess, I
[48:01] guess my, I don
[48:02] t know if it
[48:02] s
[48:04] a question or a comment, but
[48:05] you know, we
[48:06] ve had this issue
[48:08] about major versus minor
[48:13] changes. And I think that that
[48:15] is something that has caused
[48:19] grief to a lot of residents
[48:20] when changes happen on the
[48:22] staff at the staff level over
[48:24] the counter on big projects, I
[48:26] mean, even look at like the
[48:28] sunset Millennium when they
[48:29] took away, didn
[48:30] t that happen
[48:32] over the counter. They took
[48:33] away all the terraces and, and
[48:36] now it looks like a prison. Um.
[48:44] What can we do? To Um Fix that.
[48:44] So there
[48:46] s a provision in every
[48:47] development agreement that
[48:48] talks about changes to the
[48:50] project. And it, the way that
[48:50] they
[48:51] ve always been framed and
[48:53] in the samples that we
[48:55] ve used,
[48:57] um, it explains what is minor
[48:58] and oftentimes it lists
[48:59] specific things that would be
[49:01] considered minor, which means
[49:03] just in the efficiency of
[49:04] getting these projects going,
[49:06] that the um amendment is
[49:08] approved at a staff level. It
[49:09] MAY also list things that are
[49:11] major, for example, if it
[49:12] requires additional sql review,
[49:14] it would be major. And so It
[49:14] s
[49:15] that section of the development
[49:17] agreement where you want to set
[49:18] the expectations for both the
[49:20] city, the staff, and the
[49:22] developer of what is considered
[49:24] major and minor and what can be
[49:25] approved at the staff level and
[49:28] what should come back because
[49:29] of an amendment requires the
[49:31] full process, right? It
[49:31] requires the planning
[49:32] commission public hearing, the
[49:33] city council public hearing.
[49:34] It
[49:34] s, it
[49:35] s a long process to do
[49:37] a major amendment. So you want
[49:38] to specify in the document what.
[49:41] The council considers major and
[49:42] minor. I guess what I would say
[49:43] is that when you
[49:44] re talking
[49:46] about a project that has a da
[49:46] it
[49:48] s usually a very big project
[49:49] and they
[49:50] re probably very few
[49:51] changes that could be
[49:53] considered minor. Uh, where,
[49:55] you know, where the public
[49:55] wouldn
[49:56] t be have an interest in
[49:59] knowing what is changing. Um,
[50:02] so I would suggest that that
[50:04] minor versus major be made
[50:08] extremely narrow. For DAs. Can
[50:10] I just add one thing? Are we
[50:12] not giving I think before we
[50:12] re
[50:13] not here to make suggestions so
[50:14] much to sort of, right, we
[50:15] re
[50:17] not here to give direction or,
[50:18] you know, change anything
[50:20] specifically, just sort of
[50:21] posit what our understanding of
[50:21] things are, yeah, it
[50:22] s a little
[50:24] complicated, but yeah, so
[50:25] rather than it
[50:26] s there you go
[50:27] that direction, it
[50:28] s not
[50:28] direction. It
[50:29] s not direction,
[50:29] it
[50:32] s an emotion. Um, the other
[50:34] thing I wanted to bring up, uh,
[50:36] is, um, you know, it
[50:36] s
[50:40] interesting that we give DAs,
[50:42] um, to create certainty for
[50:44] developers, but somehow we
[50:45] haven
[50:45] t created certainty for
[50:49] us. For the city, for residents
[50:51] about getting projects built.
[50:51] You know, there
[50:52] s certainty for
[50:55] them, but not certainty for us,
[50:55] um, so I
[50:56] m not going to go on
[50:58] because then it would become a
[50:59] direction. Um, the other thing
[50:59] I
[51:01] ll bring up is on public
[51:04] input. Um, we talk about
[51:05] community meetings and, and I,
[51:06] and we just passed recently
[51:08] passed an item to have
[51:10] community meetings for all DAs,
[51:12] not just DAs having to do with
[51:14] development projects, but also
[51:16] billboards. And one of the um
[51:19] One of the points in uh the
[51:24] public benefits, um, The public
[51:26] benefits policy is public input,
[51:28] input and community meetings
[51:29] that staff will discuss the
[51:31] potential public benefits of
[51:34] the project at the initial
[51:34] neighborhood meeting required
[51:37] by the West Hollywood Municipal
[51:39] code. Staff will present to the
[51:41] community the above general
[51:42] list of public benefit
[51:43] categories, and there
[51:44] s a whole
[51:47] list and solicit and document
[51:48] feedback regarding neighborhood
[51:49] priorities. I don
[51:50] t think
[51:50] that
[51:51] s ever been done. I don
[51:51] t
[51:52] think that
[51:55] s ever been done. So,
[51:55] i
[51:59] ll just leave it there.
[52:00] Councillor Murhang, are you
[52:03] ready to go, or did you? Are we
[52:04] providing commentary or if you
[52:05] had if you had clarity, if you
[52:06] had initial thoughts you
[52:06] d like
[52:08] to share now or we can come
[52:10] back to you at the end. Um,
[52:12] thank you, Mayor. You know, I,
[52:13] I do think it
[52:14] s important to
[52:15] clarify the role of the
[52:17] planning commission in the
[52:18] development agreement process,
[52:19] um, under the city
[52:19] s governing
[52:21] framework, DAs are legislative
[52:23] actions that fall under the
[52:23] exclusive authority of the city
[52:25] council. While the planning
[52:26] commission MAY review and
[52:28] provide recommendations on land
[52:29] use matters. It does not and
[52:30] should not have the authority
[52:34] to approve, modify, or impose
[52:35] conditions on development
[52:36] agreements. The, the city
[52:37] council is the only
[52:39] decision-making body with the
[52:40] legal authority to negotiate,
[52:42] amend, and approve development
[52:43] agreements. Any conditions,
[52:45] terms, or public benefits
[52:46] associated with DAs are
[52:47] determined solely by the city
[52:48] council as part of its
[52:50] legislative discretion. The
[52:50] planning commission
[52:52] s role is
[52:54] strictly advisory in nature and
[52:55] its recommendations are
[52:56] non-binding as I head to the
[52:57] city council for determination.
[53:00] Thank you, Mayor. Ok. Uh,
[53:04] Councilor Erickson. Just Thank
[53:05] you so much. Um, I have some
[53:06] questions I
[53:06] ll, I
[53:07] ll talk about
[53:09] some initial comments. So on
[53:12] page 22 of your excellent
[53:13] presentation. Congratulations.
[53:14] Welcome, planning commissioners.
[53:15] Last time I was on here with
[53:16] some of you, I was vice chair
[53:18] and I believe you were
[53:19] commissioner of the, on the
[53:19] commission, so it
[53:20] s nice to
[53:22] serve a table with you again.
[53:27] Um. Page 22 regarding
[53:28] complications, um, I
[53:28] m aware
[53:30] when I was a planning
[53:32] commissioner, most commissions
[53:35] are commissioners are asked to
[53:37] bring complicated questions or
[53:40] commentary to you prior. Are
[53:41] you experiencing difficulties
[53:42] with that. It sounds like you
[53:43] are, but I just I
[53:45] m trying to
[53:46] understand better because if
[53:47] questions were asked ahead of
[53:49] time, then we wouldn
[53:49] t be
[53:51] having um Negotiation
[53:52] strategies in front of
[53:55] development. Second guessing
[53:56] facts in detail, stuff like
[53:57] that. I
[53:57] m sounding like that
[53:58] s
[53:58] a challenge that you
[53:58] ve been
[54:02] facing. I think that there are
[54:04] a lot of times that the
[54:05] planning commissioners will
[54:06] bring us questions ahead of
[54:07] time and then sometimes
[54:08] questions come out of the
[54:10] deliberation and the, and the
[54:12] presentation and the
[54:12] applicant
[54:13] s presentation, and
[54:13] so I think there
[54:15] s a little of
[54:18] both, yeah. Great. So you are
[54:20] having difficulty. Wonderful.
[54:22] In regards to page 20 slide 24,
[54:25] you talk about an independent
[54:26] economic consultant. That
[54:27] individual, I
[54:28] m guessing is
[54:30] certified, has credentials that
[54:30] most if I
[54:31] m I don
[54:32] t know what
[54:34] the commissioners have in terms
[54:34] of their professional
[54:35] credentials, but a way in which
[54:38] they would be able to provide
[54:40] expert expertise, correct?
[54:41] Correct. That
[54:41] s, that
[54:44] s their
[54:45] profession, yes was to be
[54:52] dealing with. And you Thank you.
[54:53] Um, if the planning commission
[54:55] is supposed to be solely land
[54:58] use, then why are we getting
[55:00] into like economic Calculations
[55:01] back and forth with some of the
[55:02] commissioners. I
[55:02] ve seen it
[55:04] happen, but I
[55:05] m just wondering
[55:05] why that
[55:06] s even an option in
[55:07] their discussion and it
[55:07] s not
[55:09] shut down. Well, that
[55:10] s the
[55:10] direction that we
[55:11] re trying to
[55:13] get to you and I see that as
[55:14] one of your questions. I
[55:14] m just
[55:15] clarifying for the public
[55:16] because I
[55:17] ve seen the public
[55:17] s
[55:19] time wasted as a result of that.
[55:26] Um, additionally, on Page. Or
[55:38] slide 29, um. Uh For the
[55:44] evaluation tools. Um I
[55:44] m
[55:46] looking back on to some of the
[55:48] conversations in the staff
[55:50] report on page 5 and 4
[55:52] regarding how we evaluate and
[55:55] some confusion specifically.
[55:57] For land use authority, why is
[55:58] the commission talking about
[56:02] public parks and open space. So,
[56:03] for example, I believe it was
[56:05] the Viper room project. There
[56:06] was some conversation at the
[56:07] planning commission that dealt
[56:09] with hours of a museum at some
[56:11] point. Why was that even
[56:15] allowed to happen? I don
[56:16] t, I
[56:16] don
[56:17] t think that
[56:17] s land use
[56:18] authority, and I
[56:19] m reading this
[56:20] as strictly the planning
[56:23] commission deals with land use,
[56:24] correct? Well, for instance
[56:25] with a conditional use permit,
[56:27] we talk about the hours of
[56:28] operation. I think that that
[56:28] s
[56:29] part of, part of what we talk
[56:30] about in a lot of land use
[56:32] questions, yeah but at the end
[56:34] of the day. The planning
[56:35] commission should not be
[56:38] negotiating a public benefit
[56:40] that you all dealt with
[56:40] regarding the hours of
[56:42] operation. It just doesn
[56:43] t seem
[56:44] within their authority. I
[56:44] m
[56:45] guessing, and correct me if I
[56:45] m
[56:45] wrong, if it
[56:46] s in their
[56:47] authority and you would like
[56:47] that, but I
[56:48] m hearing that
[56:48] s a
[56:51] no. And yeah, I think that
[56:51] s
[56:52] part of the conversation
[56:53] tonight is where do you want
[56:54] the commission spending their
[56:56] time? All of this in some way
[56:58] or another can be connected to
[57:01] land use design, some points
[57:02] are purely financial and so the
[57:03] council should set the
[57:05] framework of what they want the
[57:06] commission focusing and I
[57:07] understand the planning
[57:08] commission is not elected by
[57:10] the people, that is us. Um, I
[57:11] know there
[57:11] s some conversations
[57:15] there at times, but, um, my
[57:16] final question um is just
[57:18] regarding, I think the general
[57:18] confusion of what we
[57:19] re having
[57:20] up. Right? Uh, we
[57:25] ve. This was
[57:26] a very great presentation. I
[57:27] think it
[57:28] s very thorough. When
[57:29] I was a planning commissioner,
[57:31] I understood this. I
[57:31] ve
[57:33] negotiated a few public
[57:34] benefits and development
[57:34] agreements. I
[57:35] m just wondering,
[57:36] is there a training component
[57:39] when an individual gets put on
[57:39] the planning commission to
[57:40] understand that role. I believe
[57:42] there is, but I
[57:42] m just wanna
[57:45] confirmation in that way. Yeah,
[57:48] we, we train and we meet with
[57:49] each new commissioner when they
[57:50] come on and we get them, give
[57:52] them all of this background,
[57:53] and again, like part of what
[57:55] comes out of this is gonna be
[57:57] what goes into that onboarding
[58:00] as well. Wonderful. So then in
[58:03] terms of uh commentary on page
[58:04] 29 for questions. Um, I
[58:05] m happy,
[58:07] MADAM Mayor to say, uh, you
[58:08] know, frankly, i
[58:11] m happy to
[58:12] have the planning direction
[58:12] comments right now, we can go
[58:15] back to it. I can if you like.
[58:16] We
[58:17] ll come to Vice Mayor
[58:17] Heilman and they
[58:18] ll come back
[58:19] before we move on to the
[58:19] planning commission. I
[58:19] m sorry
[58:20] to cut you off, COUNCILMAN
[58:23] Burks. I just wanna be careful,
[58:26] get into questions yet. Vice
[58:27] Mayor Heilman, thank you, Mayor,
[58:30] and, uh, thank you to the staff
[58:31] for the great presentation.
[58:32] Thank you to the commission and,
[58:35] and the members of the public
[58:38] who spoke, I wanna go back to
[58:39] something that Jennifer
[58:42] mentioned having to do with
[58:44] what was happening before we
[58:46] developed this framework and
[58:47] this approach. What would
[58:50] happen is a developer would
[58:52] come to the city with a project
[58:53] and ask for things above what
[58:57] the zone. Ordinance allowed and
[58:59] they would propose what they
[59:00] thought was an ideal public
[59:03] benefit. And then they would
[59:04] chop around the community to
[59:06] try to get other people in the
[59:09] community to get on board. It
[59:09] wasn
[59:11] t necessarily a public
[59:13] benefit that the city had
[59:15] identified, it was a public
[59:17] benefit that the developer
[59:18] thought they could utilize to
[59:20] get people to come out and
[59:23] support the project. Um, and
[59:24] frankly, we didn
[59:25] t always know
[59:27] what the value of that public
[59:29] benefit was we didn
[59:31] t know the
[59:33] value of the extra, uh, density
[59:37] or extra height. Um So this
[59:40] approach actually is an
[59:43] approach where the city has
[59:44] identified in advance those
[59:46] kind of public benefits that,
[59:49] you know, the council listening
[59:50] to the community because we did
[59:54] have hearings on this. The
[59:56] council has identified these as
[59:58] the public benefits that we
[59:58] re
[1:00:01] looking for as part of a
[1:00:03] development agreement and
[1:00:04] bringing in the consultant
[1:00:05] using the residual land value
[1:00:09] which is standard in the
[1:00:12] development community using
[1:00:13] that methodology to determine
[1:00:15] how much is the developer
[1:00:19] getting from this extra height,
[1:00:21] extra density or changes and
[1:00:25] then having somebody with the
[1:00:27] expertise to negotiate that
[1:00:29] agreement, um, I think that
[1:00:31] makes perfect sense. And the
[1:00:33] question about whether the
[1:00:34] planning commission should be
[1:00:36] involved in that negotiation. I,
[1:00:36] I
[1:00:38] m not even sure the council
[1:00:41] should really be involved in
[1:00:43] that negotiation because our
[1:00:46] role I see as setting the broad
[1:00:49] parameters, making sure that we
[1:00:51] have experts making those
[1:00:53] decisions and having a policy
[1:00:57] in place that is a broad public
[1:00:58] policy with each development
[1:01:00] that comes forward, I
[1:01:01] m not
[1:01:05] aware of the specific costs of
[1:01:06] things that developer is doing.
[1:01:07] Uh, I
[1:01:10] m not aware of how much
[1:01:12] in value is associated with
[1:01:13] this greater height, and I
[1:01:13] m
[1:01:14] not, I, I don
[1:01:15] t think it really
[1:01:17] is our role to be involved in
[1:01:21] that give and take, um, I think
[1:01:23] our role is to establish the
[1:01:26] broad broad parameters, so
[1:01:27] maybe I agree with my
[1:01:29] colleagues that it
[1:01:29] s not the
[1:01:29] commission
[1:01:32] s role to be
[1:01:32] involved in that negotiation,
[1:01:35] but I also would add to it, I
[1:01:35] m
[1:01:35] not sure it
[1:01:37] s our role. As the
[1:01:38] council because we don
[1:01:39] t have
[1:01:41] that kind of expertise either
[1:01:41] and frankly we don
[1:01:43] t have all
[1:01:46] of the information for those
[1:01:48] negotiations. The other thing I
[1:01:51] wanted to point out because you
[1:01:54] brought up signage is what was
[1:01:56] happening before we use the
[1:01:59] development, uh, agreement
[1:02:01] process for signs. Before that
[1:02:04] happened, people would come in
[1:02:05] and propose large signs, uh,
[1:02:08] the tall balls The building
[1:02:10] owner would get a lot of money
[1:02:13] from the rental, the Sign
[1:02:15] Company would get a lot of
[1:02:17] money from the signage. And the
[1:02:19] city would get a one-time
[1:02:23] permit fee of about $1500. The
[1:02:24] city didn
[1:02:25] t get anything from
[1:02:27] all of the signage that was
[1:02:30] being approved. Now with the
[1:02:31] development agreement process
[1:02:34] for these signs, there are
[1:02:36] signs where the city is getting
[1:02:39] 10 million over 30 years or 30
[1:02:42] million over 30 years. Those
[1:02:45] are extraordinary. Uh, it
[1:02:45] s an
[1:02:46] extraordinary change, um, and I
[1:02:49] just want to make sure that as
[1:02:51] we have this conversation about
[1:02:52] development agreements,
[1:02:54] particularly with respect to
[1:02:56] signage, people really
[1:02:59] understand the value that they
[1:03:01] are providing from um
[1:03:03] development. And then my final
[1:03:05] point, uh, I have two final
[1:03:08] points. One, first and foremost
[1:03:10] is, I, I think always the
[1:03:11] decision is Is this project
[1:03:14] good for the city? Putting
[1:03:17] aside the, the benefits,
[1:03:18] putting aside the monetary, uh,
[1:03:18] it
[1:03:20] s always got to be, is this
[1:03:23] an appropriate and good project
[1:03:26] for the city and then the final
[1:03:27] point is, uh, going back to
[1:03:31] something Brian said, and that
[1:03:34] is uh having this, this tension
[1:03:37] between uh trying to find
[1:03:38] consistency between projects,
[1:03:40] but also making sure we
[1:03:40] re
[1:03:42] evaluating each project. For
[1:03:43] the unique benefit it
[1:03:44] s getting
[1:03:47] and the unique cost of that, so
[1:03:47] we can
[1:03:50] t just say all projects.
[1:03:53] This is the amount or this is
[1:03:54] the percentage because it is
[1:03:56] going to vary from project to
[1:03:58] project based on the cost of
[1:03:59] developing that particular
[1:04:01] project. I would love to have
[1:04:03] consistency, but I just don
[1:04:03] t
[1:04:04] think it
[1:04:05] s possible. The
[1:04:07] framework, however, does give
[1:04:09] us consistency because it looks
[1:04:11] at the residual land value for
[1:04:13] this particular project and
[1:04:14] these extra benefits and that
[1:04:16] gives us the framework for
[1:04:18] negotiating for that particular
[1:04:20] project. Thank you very much.
[1:04:21] Councilmember Meister, I
[1:04:25] believe you had a question 2
[1:04:29] questions. Thank you. Um, uh,
[1:04:32] Lauren, um, First of all,
[1:04:34] conditions of use, that is
[1:04:35] something that planning
[1:04:37] commission decides on?
[1:04:40] Conditions of use. That that
[1:04:40] s
[1:04:42] in a project, conditions of use,
[1:04:43] right? That
[1:04:44] s in every project,
[1:04:45] whether it
[1:04:46] s a whether it
[1:04:46] s a,
[1:04:50] a, a da project or a or a just
[1:04:52] a standard project, right? It
[1:04:53] s
[1:04:53] usually about compatibility to
[1:04:54] make sure that the uses that
[1:04:57] are going to be established on
[1:04:57] the site are compatible and
[1:04:59] done in a way that complies
[1:05:00] with code and doesn
[1:05:01] t create
[1:05:02] harm, but also the conditions,
[1:05:05] I mean, you know, a a a a store
[1:05:08] is open from 9 A.M. Till 9:00
[1:05:09] P.M. And this is open till 3
[1:05:11] till. 7 and, and this is how
[1:05:14] they have to drive in and, and
[1:05:16] ingress, egress. So why would
[1:05:18] that be any different for a
[1:05:18] project that
[1:05:19] s getting a
[1:05:21] development agreement, for
[1:05:24] example, uh, John
[1:05:24] s example of
[1:05:26] the how long the museum is open.
[1:05:28] Why would that be any different
[1:05:31] than if we were making or or
[1:05:32] planning commission we
[1:05:32] re
[1:05:34] making a decision about whether,
[1:05:37] you know, uh uh this the uh the
[1:05:39] skate store should be open past
[1:05:39] 9. O
[1:05:41] c lock at night. Well,
[1:05:42] first of all, we
[1:05:42] re, we
[1:05:43] re not
[1:05:47] here to talk about specific um
[1:05:48] DAs or specific provisions of
[1:05:50] specific projects that have
[1:05:53] been hours of operation example.
[1:05:58] You know, some uses in the code,
[1:05:58] um, specifically have
[1:06:00] restrictions in them, the time
[1:06:01] that they
[1:06:03] re open is regulated,
[1:06:04] um, yes, we, we were always
[1:06:05] looking at land use and
[1:06:06] compatibility. I think the
[1:06:07] point is that you
[1:06:08] re looking at
[1:06:09] the land use, and that is what
[1:06:12] is in the planning commission
[1:06:12] s
[1:06:13] purview. How, how these things
[1:06:15] function, how they look, how
[1:06:15] it
[1:06:16] s complying with the funeral
[1:06:18] plan and the zoning ordinance.
[1:06:18] That
[1:06:21] s sort of the the greater
[1:06:22] land use authority. Sometimes
[1:06:24] that means that you
[1:06:24] re imposing
[1:06:25] conditions on operations.
[1:06:26] Sometimes it means you
[1:06:26] re
[1:06:27] imposing conditions on how
[1:06:28] something looks, but it
[1:06:28] s in
[1:06:28] the, it
[1:06:31] s all under the broader
[1:06:32] category of land it
[1:06:33] s a project
[1:06:36] with the da or a project that
[1:06:36] doesn
[1:06:37] t have a da, the, the
[1:06:39] process should be the same and
[1:06:41] the decision making abilities
[1:06:42] of the planning commission
[1:06:45] should be the same in terms of
[1:06:45] that stuff. I
[1:06:45] m not talking
[1:06:49] about the the actual financial.
[1:06:50] The only thing I would say is
[1:06:52] that, um, I don
[1:06:53] t know that we
[1:06:55] regulate the hours of
[1:06:56] operations of museums generally.
[1:06:58] So in that context, it MAY have
[1:07:00] been different if if it was
[1:07:01] just a museum coming before the
[1:07:02] planning commission. I don
[1:07:02] t
[1:07:04] know if there would have been a
[1:07:05] discussion about hours of
[1:07:06] operation because the code
[1:07:06] doesn
[1:07:07] t, doesn
[1:07:07] t limit them.
[1:07:08] The code doesn
[1:07:09] t talk about
[1:07:10] that. Again, I, I really don
[1:07:10] t
[1:07:12] want to get into specifics
[1:07:13] about specific projects, that
[1:07:13] s
[1:07:14] just what comes to mind for me.
[1:07:14] I don
[1:07:15] t know if a, if a
[1:07:16] standalone museum. Came before
[1:07:17] the planning commission, would
[1:07:20] there be a discussion of ours?
[1:07:22] Depends what I
[1:07:22] m just saying
[1:07:25] whatever use it is, that would
[1:07:26] be a consideration of the
[1:07:28] planning commission when they
[1:07:30] look at a project. I, I think
[1:07:33] the issue was that the public
[1:07:35] benefit was a museum open a
[1:07:36] certain number of hours, not
[1:07:40] really a, a regulation of how
[1:07:42] many hours the museum could be
[1:07:45] open, so I, I think it was a
[1:07:47] condition of the development.
[1:07:48] Agreement that they provide a
[1:07:51] museum that was open to the
[1:07:52] public during certain hours and
[1:07:54] I think it is a little bit
[1:07:55] tricky because it
[1:07:56] s similar to
[1:07:59] those kind of conditions where
[1:08:01] we would limit the hours of
[1:08:03] operation. This was about how
[1:08:05] many hours would they be open
[1:08:07] as a part of that public
[1:08:09] benefit and wanting more, so it
[1:08:10] was about the public benefit
[1:08:13] piece, not actual land use
[1:08:14] operations. Got it. All right,
[1:08:15] well, thank you for clarifying
[1:08:19] that. And then um, when the
[1:08:20] planning commission looks at a
[1:08:23] a project with the da. They are
[1:08:24] not making the decision about
[1:08:27] it, right? They are usually
[1:08:30] making a recommendation.
[1:08:31] They
[1:08:31] re always making a
[1:08:33] recommendation to us, so. So
[1:08:36] then they are not deciding
[1:08:37] something they are recommending
[1:08:40] and That recommendation could
[1:08:42] be we could take it or leave it,
[1:08:42] but it
[1:08:44] s not a final decision.
[1:08:45] For a development agreement,
[1:08:47] that is true. Ok, thank you.
[1:08:49] Thank you, thank you.. 01 more
[1:08:50] and then we
[1:08:50] re moving on. I
[1:08:51] think what I
[1:08:52] m hearing in the
[1:08:54] conflict and in the staff
[1:08:56] report though is that that
[1:08:56] disconnect isn
[1:09:00] t clear. Correct
[1:09:02] That yes, it is a
[1:09:04] recommendation. However, what
[1:09:04] I
[1:09:05] m reading in your public
[1:09:09] document is that you have
[1:09:12] commissions, commissioners
[1:09:13] engaging in potential page 20
[1:09:14] whatever it is, I
[1:09:15] m 29. Thank
[1:09:18] you very much, Vice Mayor. Uh,
[1:09:21] that, uh, you, you, you let me
[1:09:24] down. Sorry, um, that, that
[1:09:28] there is um is that you are
[1:09:29] experiencing that difficulty
[1:09:30] because I
[1:09:32] m slide 22, you are,
[1:09:32] and I
[1:09:35] ve watched it happen, um,
[1:09:37] dealing with potential
[1:09:39] negotiation strategies out of
[1:09:40] planning commission hearing
[1:09:42] after months and months of
[1:09:43] negotiations in the public
[1:09:45] benefit that could weaken the
[1:09:45] city
[1:09:46] s position and financial
[1:09:48] standing. And so I think that
[1:09:48] s
[1:09:48] what you
[1:09:50] re asking us to give
[1:09:51] you very clear direction on
[1:09:53] here tonight. Right? I mean,
[1:09:53] that
[1:09:54] s one of your questions so
[1:09:55] I can answer the question, yes,
[1:09:58] for you, but I, I think one of
[1:10:01] the points of this slide was to
[1:10:03] point out that what is in a
[1:10:05] agenda packet is the result of
[1:10:06] a long process, right? And so
[1:10:06] there
[1:10:08] s lots of back and forth
[1:10:09] that happens with negotiations.
[1:10:10] Things are proposed, things are
[1:10:11] rejected. City pushes back.
[1:10:13] They, you know, developer
[1:10:13] pushes back. So it
[1:10:14] s, it
[1:10:15] s a,
[1:10:15] it
[1:10:16] s a long process where
[1:10:18] things have been considered and
[1:10:20] rejected and so at the very end
[1:10:21] to get questions, well why
[1:10:21] didn
[1:10:22] t you ask for this? Why
[1:10:22] don
[1:10:23] t you ask for that? It
[1:10:23] s,
[1:10:24] it, they
[1:10:25] re hard things to
[1:10:26] answer in the moment because of
[1:10:28] the long process. And what
[1:10:28] you
[1:10:29] re saying to us and what
[1:10:29] I
[1:10:30] m reading here is they are
[1:10:31] not involved in the
[1:10:35] negotiations. They are involved
[1:10:36] in recommendations on land use
[1:10:37] policy, but they are not
[1:10:38] involved with the planning
[1:10:40] commission being the grand they,
[1:10:43] the the negotiations you are
[1:10:44] having with the developer and a
[1:10:45] development agreement. I think
[1:10:47] Jennifer gave a really good
[1:10:48] discussion on one of the slides
[1:10:52] of sort of a Overall, um,
[1:10:54] description of how to look at
[1:10:55] planning commission purview and
[1:10:56] it might be helpful if she says
[1:10:57] it again because I, I thought
[1:11:03] she worded it really well. Um
[1:11:04] So I think I, I
[1:11:04] m gonna, I
[1:11:04] m
[1:11:07] gonna add like here. As long as
[1:11:07] the mic
[1:11:13] s on. Not yet. Almost.
[1:11:16] How about now? Ok. So I think
[1:11:18] what um what Lauren is
[1:11:20] referring to is that The
[1:11:21] planning commission is looking
[1:11:23] at the totality of the project.
[1:11:24] They
[1:11:24] re looking at everything
[1:11:25] that it took to get to the
[1:11:27] place where we are. And we
[1:11:27] re
[1:11:30] looking for direction correct,
[1:11:31] Councilmember Erickson from the
[1:11:32] council and what that entails
[1:11:35] and what pieces and parts to
[1:11:37] take into consideration, but,
[1:11:38] and to Vice Mayor Hellman
[1:11:38] s
[1:11:40] point is the project a good
[1:11:41] idea if you
[1:11:42] re thinking of the,
[1:11:45] the project itself, the package
[1:11:46] of public benefits and, and all
[1:11:47] of the pieces and parts that go
[1:11:48] into it that have been
[1:11:50] negotiated in that very length.
[1:11:52] The process, um, understanding
[1:11:54] that there is also a value to
[1:11:57] time and to, you know, wanting
[1:11:59] to get projects forward,
[1:11:59] particularly when we
[1:12:00] re talking
[1:12:02] about the sunset Arts and
[1:12:02] advertising and we
[1:12:03] ve had
[1:12:05] direction to keep them moving
[1:12:07] forward and going back to the
[1:12:08] drawing board on some of these
[1:12:10] things can take time, um, and
[1:12:11] can delay projects from moving
[1:12:12] forward. So does that cover
[1:12:15] what? Ok. Thank you. Thank you
[1:12:16] so much. I wanted to, um, I
[1:12:16] m
[1:12:17] gonna pick up the comments and
[1:12:17] then I
[1:12:18] m going to move us to
[1:12:20] the planning commission.
[1:12:21] Council will have another
[1:12:23] opportunity to speak at the end,
[1:12:24] um, or towards the end because
[1:12:25] he knows if that will be the
[1:12:26] end, we MAY come back to
[1:12:27] planning, but I do want to just
[1:12:30] say for myself, um, there was
[1:12:31] this idea of certainty, and I
[1:12:32] think that MAY have also been
[1:12:33] what you were talking about,
[1:12:35] Vice Mayor Heilman. Um, I
[1:12:36] certainly understand that there
[1:12:38] is certainty through these
[1:12:38] evaluation tools, and it was, I
[1:12:40] think, a question of what sort
[1:12:42] of certainty the council is
[1:12:43] getting based on these projects.
[1:12:44] We have no certainty what the
[1:12:45] future will hold, but I think
[1:12:47] the idea is when we lock in
[1:12:48] these uh development agreements,
[1:12:49] that
[1:12:49] s the certainty we
[1:12:50] re
[1:12:51] committing to at that time.
[1:12:53] That is the best understanding,
[1:12:55] the best set of certainties we
[1:12:57] can uh share with confidence to
[1:12:58] the community. And, and that
[1:12:58] s,
[1:12:58] that
[1:12:59] s the reality. Everything
[1:13:01] else is sort of unknown as
[1:13:01] we
[1:13:02] ve learned with our own
[1:13:03] projects that we
[1:13:05] ve taken up on
[1:13:06] our own city dime that it
[1:13:07] s
[1:13:08] hard to project certainty when
[1:13:09] we
[1:13:09] re talking about developing
[1:13:10] something big and massive, and
[1:13:11] that
[1:13:12] s sort of an ok reality
[1:13:14] and the the best opportunity
[1:13:15] have to create certainty is in
[1:13:16] these development agreements,
[1:13:16] so I just wanted to speak to
[1:13:18] that idea of certainty that I
[1:13:19] understand. And then the other
[1:13:21] piece, getting back to the
[1:13:22] conversation we just had. I
[1:13:23] heard this when we were
[1:13:25] discussing slide 18, and it, it
[1:13:26] caught me in a way I had to
[1:13:28] write it down. Sometimes
[1:13:30] feedback at, you know, the
[1:13:31] Sunset Arts and advertisement
[1:13:33] subcommittee takes 8 to 10
[1:13:34] months to process. Those are
[1:13:36] specific numbers, 8 to 10
[1:13:38] months to process, and if that
[1:13:39] information at that
[1:13:40] subcommittee level is going to
[1:13:42] a commission level then coming
[1:13:43] to us to who knows what. That
[1:13:44] s
[1:13:44] the thing I don
[1:13:45] t really
[1:13:45] understand and I
[1:13:46] m trying to
[1:13:47] wrap my head around. And when
[1:13:48] we ask ourselves what are
[1:13:49] council
[1:13:49] s priorities, I think
[1:13:51] our city shares the same
[1:13:53] priority and seeing things get
[1:13:56] done, and that sort of
[1:13:57] miredness down in process
[1:13:59] without a lot of understanding
[1:13:59] what
[1:14:01] s happening or why a set
[1:14:01] of recommendations from such a
[1:14:03] small group of people became
[1:14:05] such a huge scope of work and
[1:14:06] undertaking for, you know, one
[1:14:08] of our partners in the
[1:14:08] community that
[1:14:09] s coming to us
[1:14:10] to get the best value and
[1:14:11] opportunity, not just for
[1:14:12] themselves but for our city.
[1:14:13] We
[1:14:14] re losing out. When
[1:14:15] something is sitting at a
[1:14:16] subcommittee or taking 8 to 10
[1:14:17] months after that point, just
[1:14:18] before it moves on in the
[1:14:19] process. So that
[1:14:19] s the part of
[1:14:20] it I
[1:14:21] m trying to wrap my head
[1:14:21] around when we
[1:14:22] re asking what
[1:14:23] we want out of this long term
[1:14:24] and the part I
[1:14:24] m really sitting
[1:14:25] with when I
[1:14:26] m trying to
[1:14:27] understand what, you know, we
[1:14:29] want to see moving forward, so
[1:14:29] I
[1:14:30] ll leave it at that. I
[1:14:30] m
[1:14:31] going to move us to the
[1:14:31] planning commission. You
[1:14:32] ve all
[1:14:33] been very patient waiting for
[1:14:35] your opportunity to speak, so I
[1:14:36] appreciate it. And if I can,
[1:14:36] I
[1:14:37] ll start with Cha Lombardi to
[1:14:38] get us started. You often don
[1:14:39] t
[1:14:40] get to speak first in your role
[1:14:40] as chair, so if that
[1:14:41] s ok, I
[1:14:41] ll
[1:14:42] start with you and then we
[1:14:42] ll
[1:14:47] move down the row. Great. Thank
[1:14:49] you, Mayor Byers, and um I, I
[1:14:51] first want to start out by
[1:14:51] saying I
[1:14:53] m really happy that
[1:14:53] we
[1:14:54] re having this conversation
[1:14:55] today. Um, I
[1:14:55] ve really been
[1:14:57] hoping for a while that my
[1:14:59] colleagues on the planning
[1:15:01] commission can get um some,
[1:15:02] some clarity on these very
[1:15:04] complicated matters, so I
[1:15:04] m
[1:15:05] really grateful um that we
[1:15:05] re
[1:15:06] having this conversation today
[1:15:07] with the mayor, Vice mayor,
[1:15:09] city council, and also I wanna
[1:15:12] thank staff for having a very
[1:15:13] nice presentation today to help
[1:15:15] the uh guide our discussion. Um,
[1:15:16] I
[1:15:18] ll just start with like a few
[1:15:20] sort of more high level um
[1:15:21] things and I guess I could also
[1:15:23] maybe ask a question that MAY
[1:15:25] lead to some discussion too.
[1:15:26] And then I
[1:15:27] ll let my colleagues
[1:15:29] handle the, the bulk of the
[1:15:32] conversation. Um, so first of
[1:15:34] all, um, it is hard for the
[1:15:36] planning commission when we
[1:15:37] re
[1:15:38] trying to review these
[1:15:39] complicated matters to
[1:15:40] understand where, where the
[1:15:43] line is. Um, one thing that has
[1:15:45] appeared to be of help to me is
[1:15:47] it the fact that we get that
[1:15:49] time with the community to hear
[1:15:50] from them, and they
[1:15:51] re usually
[1:15:52] more digestible meetings, um,
[1:15:54] in that our agenda tends to be
[1:15:57] smaller, so My thought to date
[1:15:59] has been that that actually is
[1:15:59] quite helpful for maybe queuing
[1:16:01] things up for city council. Or
[1:16:02] it gets complicated as some of
[1:16:03] the other matters we
[1:16:03] ve been
[1:16:04] talking about today, which is
[1:16:06] what are, what are we opining
[1:16:08] on and what is our, our purview.
[1:16:10] Um, I, I just want to make a
[1:16:13] note um on, on sassy. I think
[1:16:15] this is uh the Sunset Arts and
[1:16:16] advertising subcommittee, one
[1:16:17] of the challenges just so that
[1:16:19] everyone here is uh reminded
[1:16:20] and most of you probably are
[1:16:22] aware, there are a lot of times
[1:16:25] where projects will come to the
[1:16:26] subcommittee that are very,
[1:16:28] very different than uh the
[1:16:30] award that was granted. And so
[1:16:32] sometimes it can be on the
[1:16:34] applicants and that things get
[1:16:34] delayed, although I
[1:16:35] m sure
[1:16:35] there
[1:16:36] s both sides to many of
[1:16:38] these stories, but in some of
[1:16:39] the extreme instances, I know
[1:16:40] we
[1:16:41] ve seen a couple of projects
[1:16:43] that have come back in
[1:16:44] completely different iterations
[1:16:46] from the first round, which was
[1:16:49] different than the awarded. To
[1:16:51] the updated round again. Um, so
[1:16:51] that
[1:16:52] s something that can
[1:16:55] sometimes cause delay in those
[1:16:56] ultimately development
[1:16:57] agreements happening, but if
[1:16:57] there
[1:16:58] s a way to streamline
[1:17:01] some of this, I would be really,
[1:17:02] um, would be really helpful, I
[1:17:03] think for us to understand what
[1:17:04] we should look at and what we
[1:17:07] should defer to. Um, and then
[1:17:10] there was 11, question that MAY
[1:17:11] be of particular relevance at
[1:17:13] the moment, but just to speak
[1:17:15] broadly or ask us a question. I
[1:17:17] know that in the memo that was
[1:17:19] attached this evening, um, I
[1:17:22] was, I was on page 45, I
[1:17:24] believe. Uh, there was a note
[1:17:25] about development agreements
[1:17:27] and specific plans and that
[1:17:28] they must include language to
[1:17:29] specify what happens with
[1:17:31] public benefits of a project is
[1:17:33] not built. And I
[1:17:34] m just curious,
[1:17:36] um, broadly how this would
[1:17:39] apply to current projects, um,
[1:17:41] and, and for that matter, our
[1:17:42] foresight into the future when
[1:17:43] we
[1:17:44] re reviewing uh development
[1:17:45] agreements as well. So I just
[1:17:46] wanted to put that out there
[1:17:47] and um I
[1:17:47] ll, I
[1:17:48] ll hand this
[1:17:50] back to the mayor now. Thank
[1:17:51] you. I think you have a
[1:17:52] microphone over there we can
[1:17:53] share and if it
[1:17:53] s ok, we
[1:17:53] ll
[1:17:56] just move in this order unless
[1:17:56] you
[1:17:59] re not prepared to speak.
[1:18:01] So everybody, uh, thank you so
[1:18:02] much for setting this up
[1:18:02] tonight I don
[1:18:02] t think it
[1:18:03] s
[1:18:06] working. Keep it close. Hello,
[1:18:10] hello. There it is. Uh, thank
[1:18:11] you so much for setting this up
[1:18:12] tonight. I think this is a
[1:18:14] great opportunity for us in the
[1:18:16] planning commission to get
[1:18:18] guidance from our elected city
[1:18:19] council members about these
[1:18:19] issues. I don
[1:18:20] t have a lot to
[1:18:23] say at this point, obviously.
[1:18:25] As a commissioner, the question
[1:18:27] like in my mind is always the
[1:18:27] extent to which you
[1:18:28] re wanting
[1:18:31] us to evaluate the adequacy of
[1:18:33] the public benefits because it,
[1:18:33] it
[1:18:34] s been noted tonight, you
[1:18:35] know. These development
[1:18:36] agreements have been negotiated
[1:18:41] for many, many months, um. So
[1:18:41] I
[1:18:43] m looking forward to getting
[1:18:44] hearing your thoughts about
[1:18:46] that, um. Something that does
[1:18:49] come up. Probably at every
[1:18:51] meeting where we consider a
[1:18:53] development agreement is
[1:18:55] questions about the negotiated
[1:18:58] language, the legalese used in
[1:18:59] the development agreement, um.
[1:19:02] And uh That
[1:19:03] s posed some
[1:19:05] challenges for some of my
[1:19:06] fellow commissioners, you know,
[1:19:06] there
[1:19:07] s always a question of
[1:19:10] what is reasonable mean?
[1:19:12] Reasonable steps, force majeure,
[1:19:13] how is that defined? What does
[1:19:17] it mean to be extraordinary or
[1:19:20] exceptional or whatever, um.
[1:19:22] You know, so that language is
[1:19:24] usually best negotiated by our
[1:19:26] lawyers, um, but I guess it
[1:19:28] would be helpful to get
[1:19:30] guidance from you on whether
[1:19:32] you would like us the planning
[1:19:33] commission to be scrutinizing
[1:19:36] that legalese in that language
[1:19:37] and giving our thoughts on it.
[1:19:37] So that
[1:19:39] s all I have for now.
[1:19:42] Thank you, Commissioner Cre.
[1:19:44] Commissioner Hoppen Gardner,
[1:19:45] thank you, um, and thank you
[1:19:46] staff for doing this because,
[1:19:47] you know, we
[1:19:48] ve had this
[1:19:50] conversation many, many times,
[1:19:52] and I think my only real major
[1:19:54] question that I would love to
[1:19:55] have, uh, an answer from out of
[1:19:58] this meeting. And this I think
[1:19:59] is probably best directed to
[1:20:03] our city attorney. Is that each
[1:20:04] time either a billboard or a
[1:20:05] project with the development
[1:20:07] agreement comes to us. It comes
[1:20:09] to us as a development
[1:20:10] agreement with, uh, a
[1:20:13] resolution. And, and then a
[1:20:15] development permit with a
[1:20:16] resolution. Sometimes there
[1:20:17] s
[1:20:18] some additional resolutions, so
[1:20:20] we vote on 4 or 5 different
[1:20:22] resolutions. And each of those
[1:20:25] resolutions has a series of
[1:20:28] findings and importantly, um,
[1:20:31] the findings usually number one
[1:20:33] is that this development is in
[1:20:34] the best interest of the city
[1:20:36] as, as vice Mayor Heilman
[1:20:38] pointed out. But at the same
[1:20:40] time we are asked to vote for,
[1:20:45] to make a finding on a
[1:20:46] development development
[1:20:47] agreement. That
[1:20:48] s a separate
[1:20:50] resolution with a separate set
[1:20:52] of findings and the number one
[1:20:54] finding is that that
[1:20:56] development agreement is in the
[1:20:59] best interest of the city. So I,
[1:21:01] to me, the answer that I most
[1:21:02] want out of this, because we
[1:21:05] keep butting heads on this
[1:21:06] sometimes is, am I to, and my
[1:21:09] colleagues, are we to make that
[1:21:11] finding that that this is in
[1:21:13] the best interest of the city
[1:21:15] or not because for myself, I
[1:21:17] would find it very difficult to
[1:21:18] vote for something and say it
[1:21:18] s
[1:21:20] in the best into the city when
[1:21:24] I see things that are incorrect.
[1:21:24] There
[1:21:25] s language that
[1:21:25] s
[1:21:26] incorrect, or I just plain
[1:21:26] don
[1:21:26] t think it
[1:21:27] s in the best
[1:21:30] interest of the city. So To me,
[1:21:30] that
[1:21:31] s the single most
[1:21:33] important question to be
[1:21:36] answered out of tonight, um, um,
[1:21:38] are we to look at those
[1:21:39] benefits and determine if
[1:21:39] they
[1:21:40] re in the best interests
[1:21:46] of the city or not. I
[1:21:46] ll start
[1:21:46] and I
[1:21:47] ll give you my initial
[1:21:49] thought, but I think we also
[1:21:50] want to hear from the council
[1:21:52] on on where they want the
[1:21:53] planning commission to go with
[1:21:54] that. And I mentioned earlier,
[1:21:57] Jennifer had a, a good
[1:21:58] explanation of what we think
[1:21:59] the role is and what we think
[1:22:02] the role is is to look at the
[1:22:04] totality of the project, the
[1:22:05] guidance from the general plan,
[1:22:07] the specific plan, the zoning
[1:22:09] ordinance, past projects, past
[1:22:10] council decisions with
[1:22:12] something, a, a big topic of
[1:22:13] discussion at council when, you
[1:22:15] know, the next one comes
[1:22:17] through at Planning commission.
[1:22:17] Hopefully we
[1:22:17] ve changed it and
[1:22:18] we
[1:22:19] ve done, you know, the thing
[1:22:21] that counsel wants to, but it
[1:22:21] s
[1:22:23] more of those, more of the
[1:22:27] bigger totality and less on the,
[1:22:29] um, specific details of, of
[1:22:32] each specific piece is the
[1:22:33] public benefit sufficient and
[1:22:34] adequate and in the best
[1:22:36] interest of the city. I think
[1:22:36] that
[1:22:37] s, that
[1:22:37] s been staff
[1:22:37] s
[1:22:39] approach and then the ultimate
[1:22:40] decision of whether or not to
[1:22:42] enter into the development
[1:22:44] agreement sits with the city
[1:22:45] council and the recommendation
[1:22:46] from the land use. So from the
[1:22:47] planning commission is focused
[1:22:48] on from a land use perspective
[1:22:49] because that
[1:22:49] s what you
[1:22:50] re the
[1:22:51] experts on from a land use
[1:22:52] perspective, is this in the
[1:22:53] best interests of the city or
[1:22:55] not? Does it forward the city
[1:22:55] council
[1:22:56] s land use schools.
[1:22:58] Does it forward, um, all the
[1:22:59] things that the city is trying
[1:23:02] to achieve, or does it not from
[1:23:03] a bigger picture rather than a
[1:23:06] rather than a, um, a more
[1:23:07] finite picture. That that
[1:23:08] s,
[1:23:08] that
[1:23:09] s been staff
[1:23:09] s approach
[1:23:11] and, you know, counsel can
[1:23:12] confirm or expand on that later.
[1:23:17] So, so from a development
[1:23:19] agreement perspective, um. The
[1:23:20] finding that it
[1:23:20] s in the best
[1:23:23] interests of the city. Is based
[1:23:27] upon what? That it
[1:23:28] s furthering
[1:23:29] the goals of the city and not
[1:23:31] hindering the goals of land use,
[1:23:33] I mean, because land use and is
[1:23:35] this. You know, that that
[1:23:35] s
[1:23:36] what, that
[1:23:36] s what you
[1:23:36] re
[1:23:38] looking at. Are you meeting
[1:23:40] they meeting the design goals.
[1:23:41] Is this adding excitement? Is
[1:23:42] it adding pedestrian uses? Is
[1:23:44] it, is it going to activate an
[1:23:45] area that
[1:23:45] s otherwise been, you
[1:23:46] know, that
[1:23:47] s been dead on in a
[1:23:50] certain part of town. So
[1:23:51] generally furthering what the
[1:23:52] council has said they want to
[1:23:54] see in the city. Ok, thank you,
[1:23:54] but that
[1:23:55] s as relates to the
[1:23:57] development, not the
[1:23:58] development agreement. Well,
[1:24:00] the development agreement is
[1:24:01] memorializing the long term, ok.
[1:24:04] Project, both construction and
[1:24:06] sometimes it has operational
[1:24:07] components too for the
[1:24:10] long-term use of the site. Now,
[1:24:12] my last question is, to the
[1:24:14] extent that there is an error.
[1:24:17] For example, we had on the
[1:24:18] Viper Room project, a keys
[1:24:20] thing where it was 5 keys more
[1:24:22] instead of 5 keys less, and it
[1:24:24] was blatantly wrong. Everyone
[1:24:25] agreed it was blatantly wrong
[1:24:29] and needed to be fixed. If
[1:24:30] Planning commissioners are not.
[1:24:36] To bring up Those items. And we
[1:24:37] just go ahead and rubber stamp
[1:24:39] them and send them to council
[1:24:41] and let counsel catch them or
[1:24:43] should we just ignore them?
[1:24:45] What, what should we do as a
[1:24:46] planning commission? I don
[1:24:46] t
[1:24:48] think you should ignore them,
[1:24:50] and I think, you know, Jennifer
[1:24:51] even mentioned earlier that
[1:24:52] these documents have improved
[1:24:53] through this process, through
[1:24:54] all of these, you know, it gets
[1:24:56] better and better each time and
[1:24:56] we
[1:24:57] ve improved our internal
[1:24:59] process too, to catch some of
[1:25:00] these things and to make sure
[1:25:01] that they
[1:25:02] re, that the, the
[1:25:03] cleanest, most, you know,
[1:25:04] possible documents are getting,
[1:25:06] are getting on the agenda. I
[1:25:08] would say let staff know maybe
[1:25:09] before the meeting if you have
[1:25:10] some things that you
[1:25:10] ve caught
[1:25:12] because then we can come with a
[1:25:13] redline version to the meeting
[1:25:14] and say we
[1:25:15] ve identified these
[1:25:15] errors and then it
[1:25:16] s already
[1:25:18] part of the document that
[1:25:18] you
[1:25:19] re gonna approve of course
[1:25:20] sometimes with that particular
[1:25:22] one, I caught literally in the
[1:25:23] moment. I, I was reading it and
[1:25:24] I was like, well, wait, wait,
[1:25:27] what? What? So I agree and, and
[1:25:28] staff is used to my lengthy
[1:25:32] emails. And, you know, does
[1:25:33] send things through beforehand,
[1:25:35] but I, this is my question is
[1:25:36] if we see something, should we
[1:25:37] say something? If you see
[1:25:38] something, you should say
[1:25:40] something. Um, and then
[1:25:41] probably, like I said, probably
[1:25:42] better before the meeting so
[1:25:43] that we can review it because
[1:25:44] if we
[1:25:44] re reading it for the
[1:25:45] first time in the meeting, it
[1:25:47] takes us a second to read the
[1:25:48] language and make sure it
[1:25:48] s
[1:25:51] correct. And so, so earlier is
[1:25:51] always better. Of course. Ok,
[1:25:56] thank you. Commissioner Jones.
[1:25:58] Hi, can everybody hear me?
[1:25:59] Thank you. Well, first, I just
[1:26:02] want to thank staff, um, for
[1:26:02] this presentation. I
[1:26:03] m gonna
[1:26:04] pull a little card here and
[1:26:06] just say that I think I
[1:26:06] m
[1:26:07] heading about to round out my
[1:26:08] 9th year on planning commission,
[1:26:09] and I don
[1:26:09] t, I
[1:26:10] ve never had
[1:26:12] this thorough overview of this.
[1:26:13] So I really appreciate this and
[1:26:15] I think we kind of get this
[1:26:16] information piecemeal at
[1:26:17] meetings as we kind of work
[1:26:18] through these issues, but it
[1:26:18] s
[1:26:19] really helpful to have it all
[1:26:21] in one place and a handy guide
[1:26:21] that I
[1:26:22] m gonna genius scan
[1:26:23] later so that I don
[1:26:23] t have to
[1:26:26] have this. Paper, um, but I
[1:26:27] appreciate you putting it
[1:26:27] together because it
[1:26:27] s super
[1:26:31] important. So thank you. I also
[1:26:32] want to thank Councilmember
[1:26:34] Hang for kind of the portion of
[1:26:36] our policy that you uh recited
[1:26:40] just because I think That
[1:26:42] confirms for me, planning
[1:26:42] commission
[1:26:43] s role when we are
[1:26:44] reviewing projects, and it
[1:26:44] s
[1:26:45] not that there aren
[1:26:46] t nuances
[1:26:47] that I think are important and
[1:26:48] I think we
[1:26:49] re kind of working
[1:26:51] through those right now. It
[1:26:52] s
[1:26:54] always been my understanding
[1:26:55] that the terms, final terms of
[1:26:56] the development agreement if
[1:26:59] they are to be amended or
[1:27:01] adjusted, would be, you know,
[1:27:02] subject to council approval,
[1:27:03] and that
[1:27:04] s not really the
[1:27:05] province of of planning
[1:27:07] commission, so to speak. I
[1:27:08] think where we
[1:27:09] ve run into
[1:27:09] issues and I don
[1:27:10] t, maybe it
[1:27:10] s
[1:27:12] better to say confusion is at a
[1:27:13] planning commission meeting
[1:27:15] where You know, there have been
[1:27:15] questions about whether or not
[1:27:18] we can make a finding as
[1:27:20] relates to the public benefits
[1:27:22] component of a development
[1:27:24] agreement or a very large
[1:27:26] project. So I think one of my
[1:27:29] questions is, And maybe this is
[1:27:31] just a point of clarification.
[1:27:32] It didn
[1:27:33] t seem to me that we
[1:27:33] didn
[1:27:34] t have the ability to talk
[1:27:36] about public benefits or the
[1:27:36] terms. It
[1:27:38] s more just Because
[1:27:39] the questions that are coming
[1:27:41] up tonight really come from a
[1:27:43] place of wanting to make sure
[1:27:45] that the public has a say in
[1:27:46] this process. And it
[1:27:47] s clear to
[1:27:48] me from this, I think it
[1:27:48] s on
[1:27:49] slide 26, like, I didn
[1:27:49] t know
[1:27:50] there was a neighborhood
[1:27:52] meeting to talk about community
[1:27:52] benefits and public benefits.
[1:27:53] It makes sense that there would
[1:27:55] be, right? So that
[1:27:56] s great for
[1:27:59] us to know that there is a
[1:28:01] process now for that, but I
[1:28:03] think for me, what would be
[1:28:05] helpful to know is And maybe
[1:28:05] I
[1:28:06] m just asking for some like
[1:28:08] confirmation here. It
[1:28:08] s not so
[1:28:08] much that you don
[1:28:09] t want us to
[1:28:10] talk about it or that we can
[1:28:11] t
[1:28:12] talk about it at all. It
[1:28:12] s not
[1:28:13] off limits. It
[1:28:14] s more just I
[1:28:14] don
[1:28:15] t want as a commissioner to
[1:28:16] give the public the impression
[1:28:17] like if someone
[1:28:17] s coming to a
[1:28:18] meeting for the first time,
[1:28:18] they
[1:28:20] re not here tonight, they
[1:28:20] don
[1:28:21] t know anything about our
[1:28:23] process, right? That we
[1:28:23] re
[1:28:25] giving an impression that we
[1:28:27] have any say in having an
[1:28:28] influence on the public
[1:28:30] benefits package. I think
[1:28:30] that
[1:28:31] s my, it
[1:28:32] s not that it
[1:28:32] s
[1:28:33] doesn
[1:28:33] t merit discussion, but I
[1:28:35] just want to make sure that
[1:28:35] we
[1:28:36] re always working within
[1:28:37] like what are clearly very
[1:28:39] specific kind of guardrails and
[1:28:41] parameters for our decision
[1:28:42] making process. And again, to
[1:28:44] me, this really confirms that
[1:28:47] it is about land use and that
[1:28:48] that that our comments and our
[1:28:49] recommendations because we
[1:28:49] re
[1:28:50] not really voting. We
[1:28:50] re voting,
[1:28:52] voting to move it forward.
[1:28:52] We
[1:28:54] re not voting to approve a
[1:28:55] project or not, or not approve
[1:28:58] a project, right? So I think um
[1:29:00] that was really just my like
[1:29:02] ask or point of clarification,
[1:29:03] um. I don
[1:29:04] t think I have any
[1:29:07] other comments here. I think
[1:29:07] that
[1:29:08] s everything. I think if,
[1:29:09] if anything, you know, again, I
[1:29:11] said this at our last planning
[1:29:12] commission meeting. A lot of
[1:29:14] bad stuff is happening in our
[1:29:16] country right now, especially
[1:29:17] as it relates to the way the
[1:29:18] government is supposed to work,
[1:29:18] and I don
[1:29:19] t ever want that to
[1:29:21] mean that our bar is lowered or
[1:29:21] that we
[1:29:22] re not upholding
[1:29:24] ourselves to like great
[1:29:26] standards and values, but I
[1:29:28] think this confirms like we
[1:29:29] have an excellent process in
[1:29:31] place and that I can trust that
[1:29:34] process, and I hope for
[1:29:35] everyone here tonight that the
[1:29:36] public also feels like they can
[1:29:37] trust the process as well. But
[1:29:38] again, the questions that I
[1:29:38] m
[1:29:41] hearing just to kind of say
[1:29:41] back what I
[1:29:43] m hearing really
[1:29:44] just stem from really just
[1:29:45] wanting to do right by the
[1:29:46] public and make sure that the
[1:29:47] community has a say. So those
[1:29:49] are my comments. Thanks. Thank
[1:29:51] you, Commissioner Jones.
[1:29:52] Commissioner Mattes. Thank you,
[1:29:53] Mayor Byers, council and city
[1:29:54] staff and my colleagues for
[1:29:55] being here tonight. I think
[1:29:57] that this is a very substantive
[1:29:57] to such discussion that
[1:29:58] s
[1:29:59] played out in a public hearing.
[1:29:59] Uh, it
[1:30:01] s great to have this
[1:30:02] kind of conversation in
[1:30:03] community so that everyone
[1:30:05] understands the role of their
[1:30:06] government and what we
[1:30:06] re here
[1:30:09] to do, um, first wanna just say
[1:30:10] a lot of this did affirm what I
[1:30:11] had already understood the
[1:30:12] planning commission
[1:30:13] s role to
[1:30:15] be looking for a general plan
[1:30:16] consistency. Consistency with
[1:30:18] city code, land use regulations,
[1:30:20] objective standards in state
[1:30:21] law, etc. Um, so I
[1:30:22] m grateful
[1:30:25] for that clarity, um, I think
[1:30:26] that in times of uncertainty on
[1:30:28] the body, my approach has been
[1:30:30] to defer to the duly elected
[1:30:32] body of the people. Um, as such,
[1:30:34] there have been certain
[1:30:36] instances on this body where
[1:30:38] questions have come into play,
[1:30:39] lengthy conversations on the
[1:30:40] dais relating to issues that
[1:30:42] MAY not even be within our
[1:30:43] purview. So I think that one
[1:30:44] discussion that would be very
[1:30:46] helpful to have and guidance
[1:30:47] from this council and from
[1:30:49] staff would be, what is the
[1:30:50] staff role of guiding
[1:30:52] conversation in a more
[1:30:54] productive way so that we can
[1:30:55] run an efficient meeting and
[1:30:57] not be opining on.
[1:30:58] Conversations that have
[1:30:59] absolutely no jurisdiction
[1:31:00] within the planning commission.
[1:31:03] I think that that would be
[1:31:04] really uh important for us to
[1:31:06] understand as a body, um, and
[1:31:08] then additionally, I wanted to
[1:31:10] talk about, uh, one thing
[1:31:11] related to public benefit. Um,
[1:31:14] when we look at public benefits,
[1:31:14] I
[1:31:15] ve always understood our
[1:31:17] place is absolutely not to
[1:31:19] negotiate any aspect of public
[1:31:21] benefit or DAs or extraordinary
[1:31:23] public benefits, um, one thing
[1:31:25] that has come up in the past,
[1:31:26] even before I was on this body.
[1:31:29] As a member of the public is,
[1:31:30] uh, the adequacy question, is
[1:31:32] the public benefit or
[1:31:33] extraordinary public benefit
[1:31:35] adequate or inadequate, rather
[1:31:36] than having that conversation
[1:31:37] at the planning commission
[1:31:38] level because I think that
[1:31:38] s
[1:31:40] highly inappropriate, and I
[1:31:42] actually agree with uh Vice
[1:31:44] Mayor Heilman that it should be
[1:31:45] more betterly suited with staff
[1:31:49] is. Does council think it is
[1:31:49] appropriate for a
[1:31:50] recommendation because that is
[1:31:51] what we
[1:31:53] re here to do, to
[1:31:56] counsel that asks counsel to
[1:31:57] assess the adequacy of said
[1:31:58] public benefit. Is that a
[1:31:59] recommendation that would be
[1:32:00] welcomed by the body, because
[1:32:00] that
[1:32:01] s something that has come
[1:32:03] up before that we have done.
[1:32:04] That way the conversation isn
[1:32:04] t
[1:32:05] playing out on a planning
[1:32:06] commission meeting. It
[1:32:06] s
[1:32:08] playing out with the duly
[1:32:10] elected body of the people. Uh,
[1:32:11] lastly is I just want to touch
[1:32:13] on one quick uh quick follow-up
[1:32:15] question regarding, uh, sassy
[1:32:17] feedback. Um, I do serve on
[1:32:17] that subcommittee. I think that
[1:32:18] there
[1:32:19] s a lot of really
[1:32:20] important design review that
[1:32:23] takes place in that body, um,
[1:32:24] and it actually helps move
[1:32:25] projects forward when those
[1:32:27] concerns are addressed on the
[1:32:29] front end versus going through
[1:32:30] a wholesale multiple public
[1:32:31] hearing process and then having
[1:32:34] to go back to revert for
[1:32:35] planning commission concurrence.
[1:32:37] So I wanna kind of get clarity
[1:32:41] on what the council sees as the
[1:32:44] role of sassy and design review
[1:32:45] given these changes to state
[1:32:46] law, given the will of the
[1:32:48] people. Uh, the duly elected
[1:32:49] representatives of the people
[1:32:51] and etc. But I want to thank
[1:32:53] everybody for giving this
[1:32:54] really thorough presentation
[1:32:55] for being here, uh, and I
[1:32:55] m
[1:32:57] excited to be with you and and
[1:32:59] to receive your direction and
[1:33:01] continue to serve the duly
[1:33:04] elected city. Thank you. Thank
[1:33:05] you. Did Steph, did you have
[1:33:06] any comments or feedback on
[1:33:07] that. I think there
[1:33:08] s a
[1:33:09] question about whose role it is
[1:33:11] to sort of manage the meeting
[1:33:12] conversation, and unfortunately,
[1:33:12] it
[1:33:13] s ours as chairs of the
[1:33:14] meeting, but I think that
[1:33:15] s
[1:33:16] where, you know, it gets
[1:33:16] challenging, frankly, I
[1:33:17] ll say
[1:33:18] it for my own role as I had to
[1:33:20] cut off my council member just
[1:33:21] a second ago in the middle of
[1:33:21] conversation, but it
[1:33:22] s that
[1:33:23] sort of balance I think that we
[1:33:25] all have to have and be
[1:33:26] supported by and understanding
[1:33:29] what our purpose and direction
[1:33:31] and role is in that meeting, um,
[1:33:32] is I think why we
[1:33:32] re here to
[1:33:33] help provide more clarity to
[1:33:35] empower. The chair to be able
[1:33:37] to manage those conversations,
[1:33:38] um, but that empowerment of the
[1:33:40] chair role, as I know well from
[1:33:41] my council support. It comes
[1:33:43] from the support of the rest of
[1:33:44] the commissioner body, right?
[1:33:45] And so just so you all can
[1:33:46] really trust in whoever is
[1:33:49] serving as chair of your
[1:33:51] commission to facilitate the
[1:33:51] conversation that
[1:33:52] s happening
[1:33:53] as a matter of the public
[1:33:53] s
[1:33:54] business to the best of your
[1:33:55] ability. I think that
[1:33:56] s really
[1:33:57] the role there, um, and you all
[1:33:59] should be able to support each
[1:34:00] other in doing that well.
[1:34:00] That
[1:34:01] s part of what we
[1:34:01] re here
[1:34:02] today. Were there other
[1:34:03] responses that we wanted to
[1:34:05] offer. And of course, the city
[1:34:05] attorney is always welcome to
[1:34:06] cut us off or if we
[1:34:08] re doing
[1:34:10] something like blainly illegal.
[1:34:11] Ok, great. We can move on to
[1:34:13] commissioner Solomon, and then
[1:34:13] we
[1:34:14] ll come back. Um, thank you,
[1:34:16] thank you for the presentation.
[1:34:18] Uh, I never get to go last, uh,
[1:34:19] so I
[1:34:21] ll try and be brief. I, I
[1:34:22] had one specific question I
[1:34:23] wanted to ask first, and then
[1:34:23] I
[1:34:24] ll make some sort of broad
[1:34:25] points or questions, but it
[1:34:26] s
[1:34:27] probably most appropriate for
[1:34:29] Brian. You mentioned this is
[1:34:30] regarding sunset billboards,
[1:34:32] and you mentioned sort of that
[1:34:33] application process, uh, in
[1:34:35] this present. Presentation I
[1:34:35] ll
[1:34:36] speak broadly so as not to
[1:34:38] speak to any specific project,
[1:34:43] but, uh, as an applicant is uh
[1:34:44] applying for a billboard. Uh,
[1:34:44] it
[1:34:47] s my understanding that they,
[1:34:48] their application states
[1:34:49] whether they
[1:34:50] re applying for
[1:34:53] vinyl or digital, but they
[1:34:53] re
[1:34:55] also only kind of allowed to
[1:34:58] apply for The grant that t
[1:35:00] have a determination has been
[1:35:01] made whether it
[1:35:02] s a vinyl or a
[1:35:04] digital billboard, uh, I guess
[1:35:08] my question is, what goes into
[1:35:09] the determination of whether or
[1:35:12] not an applicant will apply for
[1:35:14] one versus the other, and, uh,
[1:35:18] in, in light of uh recent
[1:35:19] billboard processes, is there
[1:35:22] any thought about Changing that
[1:35:27] initial. Award process. I, I
[1:35:28] m
[1:35:28] not sure I
[1:35:29] m the best answer.
[1:35:32] This is part of the sap policy,
[1:35:32] but the board you
[1:35:33] re referring
[1:35:35] to, they were awarded a static
[1:35:36] board. That
[1:35:37] s what they applied
[1:35:38] through the design Excellence.
[1:35:42] Process And I know there was
[1:35:43] traction from council to change
[1:35:44] that and, and that
[1:35:44] s what we
[1:35:45] re
[1:35:48] doing at this point, but At the
[1:35:50] time that they had applied and
[1:35:51] submitted their application,
[1:35:53] the award was for that final
[1:35:55] board. I think your broader
[1:35:56] question is, what do they apply
[1:35:57] for? And that
[1:35:57] s up to the
[1:35:59] applicant. There was different
[1:36:00] categories if you had a
[1:36:01] historic building, if you
[1:36:02] wanted static, if you wanted
[1:36:04] digital, depending on your
[1:36:06] location, they chose which what
[1:36:08] they were applying for and
[1:36:09] which category to be part of. I
[1:36:12] mean this one building, I mean
[1:36:15] all the applicants to speak
[1:36:16] generally in applicant chooses
[1:36:18] just based upon their own
[1:36:20] determination, not because of
[1:36:23] an award from staff saying you
[1:36:24] should only apply for I have
[1:36:25] not, you know, this one
[1:36:27] applicant, I have a historic
[1:36:27] building. I
[1:36:28] m gonna apply for
[1:36:30] this type of sign because
[1:36:30] that
[1:36:30] s what I
[1:36:31] m gonna apply for.
[1:36:31] That
[1:36:32] s what I need, you know,
[1:36:34] in order to make this work. Ok,
[1:36:37] um. Then general thank you for
[1:36:39] that. Uh, general points, uh,
[1:36:42] as it relates to this, um, I, I
[1:36:43] think our point here is to kind
[1:36:45] of sit and listen and take
[1:36:47] direction from counsel, uh, so
[1:36:49] I am here, especially as the
[1:36:52] rookie on planning to, to take
[1:36:53] clear direction from council on
[1:36:53] what it is that we
[1:36:54] re supposed
[1:36:55] to be doing on dea
[1:36:59] s at. Yeah
[1:37:01] Being new to the commission and
[1:37:02] trying to understand my role
[1:37:04] and educate myself. I
[1:37:05] downloaded, I took Title 19,
[1:37:07] turned it into a pdf and
[1:37:08] downloaded it and it
[1:37:09] s 518
[1:37:09] pages. It
[1:37:11] s here in front of me
[1:37:12] on my iPad. And that
[1:37:12] s enough.
[1:37:12] That
[1:37:13] s, that
[1:37:14] s enough to know
[1:37:16] and understand, but then to
[1:37:19] jump into a commission meeting
[1:37:19] where we
[1:37:20] re also recent
[1:37:21] discussions have led us to try
[1:37:23] and unwind the months and
[1:37:24] months of confidential
[1:37:25] negotiations that you all have
[1:37:26] had and also have an
[1:37:29] understanding of that. I I
[1:37:30] think, um, to me, that
[1:37:31] s
[1:37:32] outside of our intended purview,
[1:37:33] uh, whether or not that
[1:37:33] s our
[1:37:34] stated purview, I guess that
[1:37:35] s
[1:37:35] why we
[1:37:36] re here tonight. What is,
[1:37:38] what is our purview? Uh, I
[1:37:38] don
[1:37:40] t think that we should be
[1:37:44] redlining, uh, development, uh,
[1:37:46] DAs on the on the dais. I mean,
[1:37:48] I, I do that enough every day
[1:37:49] in my day job. I don
[1:37:50] t think
[1:37:50] it
[1:37:51] s my role to do that as a
[1:37:53] planning commissioner. That is
[1:37:54] something that you all staff
[1:37:56] and a city attorney and as the
[1:37:58] city attorney. An assistant
[1:38:00] city attorney I spent months
[1:38:01] and months doing. I, I don
[1:38:02] t
[1:38:02] think it
[1:38:04] s my job to jump into
[1:38:05] your contract language and say
[1:38:07] whether or not it should read
[1:38:09] slightly differently in this
[1:38:11] clause, but I think that as it
[1:38:14] relates to this discussion, we
[1:38:16] do need clear direction, um. In
[1:38:19] a future item from council that
[1:38:20] actually does codify this. I
[1:38:21] mean, the question is whether
[1:38:22] or not we make a finding on the
[1:38:23] da. I don
[1:38:25] t think we should,
[1:38:25] but I don
[1:38:27] t think It
[1:38:27] s codified
[1:38:29] to say that we shouldn
[1:38:30] t. I
[1:38:31] come, uh, I
[1:38:31] ve been on the
[1:38:32] planning commission for 6
[1:38:34] months, but previous to that,
[1:38:37] uh, I came from the public
[1:38:38] facilities commission and I see
[1:38:40] her in the 2nd row over there,
[1:38:42] but Helen Collins was amazing
[1:38:44] and always letting us know what
[1:38:46] our purview was and also
[1:38:47] interrupting us whenever we got
[1:38:48] outside the bounds of what it
[1:38:50] is that we could do on the
[1:38:51] public facilities commission.
[1:38:52] And at times, uh, that was a
[1:38:54] struggle, and when it was too
[1:38:55] much of a struggle, we actually
[1:38:57] asked our council members.
[1:38:58] Councilmember Meister,
[1:38:59] COUNCILMAN Erickson brought
[1:39:02] forward an item to actually
[1:39:03] change uh the underlying
[1:39:05] language in the ordinance
[1:39:05] that
[1:39:07] s the uh establishing
[1:39:08] ordinance for the purview of
[1:39:09] that commission, I
[1:39:10] d ask
[1:39:12] counsel to do the same thing
[1:39:14] again as it relates here. I,
[1:39:14] I
[1:39:16] m of the opinion that the
[1:39:19] planning commission has far too
[1:39:20] much discretionary approval
[1:39:21] authority, especially as you
[1:39:23] compare the city of West
[1:39:24] Hollywood Planning Commission
[1:39:25] as compared to uh the Culver
[1:39:27] City Planning Commission. The
[1:39:29] Santa Monica, uh, planning
[1:39:30] commission, the city of la, I
[1:39:33] think that we have way too much
[1:39:34] discretionary approval as it is,
[1:39:36] just as it relates to land use
[1:39:37] and now throwing in this
[1:39:38] whether or not that we should
[1:39:40] be jumping into the da and the
[1:39:42] the public benefits, uh,
[1:39:44] rendered, uh, from your
[1:39:45] negotiations that have taken
[1:39:46] place, uh, I don
[1:39:47] t think we
[1:39:50] should do that, and I think
[1:39:52] that uh if counsel is of that
[1:39:53] mind rather than just having a
[1:39:54] discussion about it. I
[1:39:54] m a
[1:39:55] lawyer, so let
[1:39:55] s put it in
[1:39:57] black and white. Let
[1:39:57] s actually
[1:40:01] codify that. Um. Yeah, that
[1:40:03] concludes my comments. Thanks.
[1:40:04] Thank you, Planning
[1:40:06] commissioners. Was there any
[1:40:08] second responses, anything? Ok.
[1:40:09] Um, we
[1:40:10] ll move back to the
[1:40:12] council, uh, unless staff had
[1:40:16] any need for clarification
[1:40:19] clarifications questions. Yes.
[1:40:20] Correct specific question, yeah,
[1:40:22] answering the questions,
[1:40:23] providing commentary, providing
[1:40:25] your thoughts. If there
[1:40:25] s any
[1:40:26] direction, remember it
[1:40:26] s about
[1:40:27] a future item. There
[1:40:28] s nothing
[1:40:28] that
[1:40:30] s coming out tonight.
[1:40:30] There
[1:40:30] s no motions happening
[1:40:33] tonight. Did you want to, yeah,
[1:40:36] please, Vice Mayor, jump in.
[1:40:39] Jumped in. No I
[1:40:40] ll jump in.
[1:40:42] Maybe not. I
[1:40:43] ll jump in. I
[1:40:43] ll
[1:40:47] jump over. Um So one of the
[1:40:49] things that came up is, uh, and,
[1:40:53] and I think it was very helpful
[1:40:57] to learn how we actually
[1:41:00] negotiate and we first try to
[1:41:01] assess the extra value that
[1:41:01] they
[1:41:02] re getting, and then we
[1:41:05] use that as the basis for
[1:41:08] negotiation. I think that needs
[1:41:10] to be explained anytime there
[1:41:10] s
[1:41:12] a development agreement before
[1:41:13] the planning commission and
[1:41:15] before the council so that
[1:41:17] members of the public.
[1:41:19] Understand that we have
[1:41:22] professionals who determine the
[1:41:24] value and negotiate based on
[1:41:26] that value. I think it might
[1:41:29] also be useful. We have this
[1:41:31] package of community benefits
[1:41:33] and I was reviewing it. Maybe
[1:41:36] we need to say every 5 years,
[1:41:39] that needs to be reviewed and
[1:41:40] the planning commission should
[1:41:43] certainly have a role there as
[1:41:44] should the community looking at
[1:41:48] some of them. Parking resources
[1:41:50] still important, but maybe
[1:41:52] things change and that isn
[1:41:53] t as
[1:41:55] important to the community as a
[1:41:58] a community benefit. Um, in
[1:41:59] terms of the planning
[1:41:59] commission
[1:42:02] s role. I mean, part
[1:42:06] of me is kind of agreeing with
[1:42:07] Andrew that maybe they should
[1:42:10] have no role at all in
[1:42:11] recommending the development
[1:42:11] agreement and I
[1:42:12] m not sure
[1:42:12] that
[1:42:15] s what you were saying,
[1:42:16] but it
[1:42:18] s hard to evaluate a
[1:42:21] project without considering the
[1:42:22] benefits that are being
[1:42:24] provided as part of the
[1:42:26] development agreement. I, I, I
[1:42:27] don
[1:42:27] t think there
[1:42:28] s any way to
[1:42:31] do it, to completely separate
[1:42:32] because we
[1:42:33] re asking the
[1:42:35] commission to evaluate this
[1:42:38] project based on the eir based
[1:42:40] on consistency with the general
[1:42:41] plan based on transportation,
[1:42:43] employment, all of the other
[1:42:45] kind of benefits that are
[1:42:48] normally associated with the
[1:42:50] project, plus with these other
[1:42:51] benefits that have been
[1:42:52] negotiated as part of the
[1:42:54] development agreement and based
[1:42:55] on all of that is this a good
[1:42:56] project. So I don
[1:42:58] t think we
[1:42:59] can exclude the development
[1:43:02] agreement and at least the
[1:43:04] terms being uh shared with the
[1:43:05] commission, but it
[1:43:06] s sounding
[1:43:07] like my colleagues are, are of
[1:43:09] the mindset, at least some of
[1:43:11] them that maybe they don
[1:43:11] t have
[1:43:12] a role the commission doesn
[1:43:12] t
[1:43:15] have a role in actually
[1:43:18] recommending the um The da
[1:43:20] going to Lynn
[1:43:21] s Point, maybe
[1:43:21] they
[1:43:22] re just recommending the
[1:43:26] project. Along with uh uh
[1:43:28] assuming that all of these
[1:43:30] benefits in the development
[1:43:32] agreement are approved by the
[1:43:33] council that that MAY be the
[1:43:34] appropriate and I, I don
[1:43:36] t know
[1:43:36] if that
[1:43:37] s even possible, so I,
[1:43:37] I
[1:43:39] m. That
[1:43:40] s kind of where I
[1:43:40] m
[1:43:45] at with this, that. Um, the,
[1:43:46] the commission definitely needs
[1:43:47] to know about the development
[1:43:48] agreement. The public needs to
[1:43:50] know about it. The public needs
[1:43:53] to know the basis for the
[1:43:56] negotiation. I think our
[1:43:58] community benefit menu needs to
[1:44:00] be updated periodically, um,
[1:44:02] and we need the planning
[1:44:03] commission
[1:44:05] s input for that, um,
[1:44:07] and then one final point, um,
[1:44:09] there was mention to about
[1:44:10] several projects that aren
[1:44:11] t
[1:44:11] being built. I do want to point
[1:44:15] out. That two of the major
[1:44:16] projects that we have concerns
[1:44:18] about the Melrose Triangle, the
[1:44:20] Robertson Lane, neither one of
[1:44:21] them were development agreement
[1:44:23] projects, so I just want to
[1:44:24] make sure the public knows that
[1:44:26] as well. There certainly are
[1:44:28] others that were development
[1:44:29] agreements that didn
[1:44:30] t get
[1:44:32] built, but, uh, those two are
[1:44:34] not among them. Thank you, Vice
[1:44:36] Mayor. Councilorm Erickson. Oh,
[1:44:38] goody. Um, thank you so much.
[1:44:40] Um, I am in agreement with what
[1:44:42] Vice Mayor Heilman is saying,
[1:44:45] um, I know, uh Commissioner
[1:44:46] Mattos asked some questions of
[1:44:48] staff. I actually would like to
[1:44:51] hear those answers because I
[1:44:51] think that
[1:44:51] s very important. I
[1:44:52] don
[1:44:53] t know if you have those.
[1:44:53] You
[1:44:54] ve been taking Nick, of
[1:44:57] course. And I don
[1:44:58] t know if
[1:44:59] Commissioner Mattos is willing
[1:45:01] to repeat them if you didn
[1:45:01] t
[1:45:02] capture them all, but I think
[1:45:03] that helps with the purview
[1:45:13] conversation. Oh What we
[1:45:13] re
[1:45:14] talking about, we
[1:45:15] re talking
[1:45:17] about an assessment of adequacy
[1:45:20] on the public benefit and if a
[1:45:21] recommendation to counsel to
[1:45:23] assess the adequacy of the
[1:45:24] public benefit is even
[1:45:26] appropriate. Uh, so because
[1:45:28] that has been something that
[1:45:29] has been precedented by this
[1:45:29] body before we
[1:45:30] ve done that
[1:45:34] before. So, one of the ways
[1:45:34] we
[1:45:39] ve couched it in the past is
[1:45:39] that we
[1:45:41] ve said that the
[1:45:42] planning commission weighs in
[1:45:43] on the scope and the range of
[1:45:45] the public benefits, but not on
[1:45:47] the amount of the public
[1:45:48] benefits package. And so it
[1:45:49] s
[1:45:51] the land use components of the
[1:45:52] public benefit package and how
[1:45:54] they relate to the project
[1:45:55] versus the dollar amount. Yes,
[1:45:56] I mean, that
[1:45:57] s my understanding,
[1:45:59] but my question would be to
[1:46:02] counsel. Do you feel that that
[1:46:04] is a sufficient way to continue
[1:46:05] moving forward of reviewing
[1:46:07] these projects. I think one of
[1:46:09] the challenges that has led to
[1:46:11] some longer meetings than we
[1:46:13] anticipate is that there
[1:46:14] s a
[1:46:15] lengthy discussion about
[1:46:16] specific contents of the
[1:46:17] development agreements and
[1:46:18] dollar amounts and all of those
[1:46:21] things, but when we get to
[1:46:22] these specific types of
[1:46:24] Recommendations that go to you
[1:46:25] all for discussion. It takes
[1:46:27] the decision making and the
[1:46:28] discussion making out of the
[1:46:29] hands of the planning
[1:46:30] commission, which I think is a
[1:46:31] good thing and puts it to the
[1:46:32] city council. So I kind of
[1:46:34] wanted to see if that
[1:46:35] s
[1:46:36] something that you had, uh, as
[1:46:38] something that the body should
[1:46:40] continue to practice or if
[1:46:40] that
[1:46:42] s something that you think
[1:46:43] uh we should have absolutely 0
[1:46:47] say in Well, I, I think the
[1:46:49] commissioner makes a really
[1:46:50] excellent point because that
[1:46:51] brings about, and I think it
[1:46:53] was the mayor that maybe
[1:46:54] mentioned this about the
[1:46:55] confusion that happens in the
[1:46:57] public then. So people come to
[1:46:58] the planning commission meeting
[1:46:59] as a result and saying, well,
[1:47:01] no, you must renegotiate x
[1:47:03] because it should be worth
[1:47:05] actually why. And so you should
[1:47:07] do that right now. And then
[1:47:08] when they see a majority, if
[1:47:11] not all, of the commission vote
[1:47:12] in a different way. They think
[1:47:14] that they got screwed. And that
[1:47:14] they
[1:47:16] re not being listened to.
[1:47:18] And that false actually false
[1:47:20] news type of hope. It
[1:47:21] s
[1:47:22] actually detrimental to public
[1:47:23] trust in the process, and that
[1:47:27] has to stop. Period. Um, so I
[1:47:28] agree with the role that I
[1:47:30] think is being laid out. I
[1:47:30] think it
[1:47:31] s really confusing and
[1:47:32] actually unfortunate that the
[1:47:33] public, and I
[1:47:33] ve watched all
[1:47:35] the meetings. I was there when,
[1:47:36] you know, I, I see them, I
[1:47:38] review them, especially when
[1:47:39] there
[1:47:40] s an appeal, um, and I
[1:47:41] think that
[1:47:42] s a really big cause
[1:47:43] of confusion for the public.
[1:47:44] And I think we need to figure
[1:47:46] out a better way to do that,
[1:47:46] right? I
[1:47:47] m in agreement with
[1:47:48] what I think the vice mayor is
[1:47:49] talking about. I don
[1:47:50] t know how
[1:47:51] you we put that into a staff
[1:47:52] report. I think we
[1:47:54] ll maybe
[1:47:55] have a longer conversation, um,
[1:47:58] and I I think ultimately the
[1:47:59] issue is, is how much of the
[1:48:00] public
[1:48:03] s time are we wasting?
[1:48:03] And I
[1:48:04] m really struggling with
[1:48:07] that because I see planning
[1:48:12] commission meetings, um, Go on
[1:48:13] tangents for sometimes hours of
[1:48:15] questions that could have been
[1:48:17] answered in an email, um, that
[1:48:18] are answered in the way in the
[1:48:21] public that I think. Cause a
[1:48:22] lot of confusion in this
[1:48:26] process. When it It is very
[1:48:30] clearly laid out, and I want to
[1:48:31] thank Commissioner
[1:48:31] Councilmember Hang, formerly
[1:48:34] commissioner Hang, um,
[1:48:36] councilmemb Hang for laying
[1:48:37] that out in 5 succinct
[1:48:38] sentences at the beginning of
[1:48:39] his comments, and that
[1:48:39] s kind
[1:48:41] of been what he said because
[1:48:41] that
[1:48:43] s how I understood this
[1:48:44] commentary. So I
[1:48:45] m trying to
[1:48:46] understand where that rub in
[1:48:47] the road is actually happening.
[1:48:48] I think I know. I
[1:48:49] ll save it
[1:48:51] for later. Um, but additionally,
[1:48:55] um, I also think that we have
[1:48:56] to have a larger conversation
[1:48:57] of if we
[1:48:59] re not getting what?
[1:49:01] If the city is not getting what
[1:49:05] we need from a body that we
[1:49:07] appoint direct or at large. We
[1:49:08] have to look at that
[1:49:11] holistically as well. And I
[1:49:12] think holistically looks at,
[1:49:14] well, what does an at-large
[1:49:16] planning commission body look
[1:49:17] like? Because clearly we need
[1:49:20] to put in some different
[1:49:22] Rubicons and a rubric to better
[1:49:24] understand the training that is
[1:49:26] actually required. I know that
[1:49:27] they have the capabilities. I
[1:49:28] know Commissioner Jones has
[1:49:31] gone to a conference before on
[1:49:32] planning and land use, but
[1:49:33] that
[1:49:33] s really where it goes out.
[1:49:35] And I know they have that
[1:49:35] opportunity if I
[1:49:36] m wrong, to be
[1:49:38] able to pursue that type of
[1:49:39] educational outreach. So if
[1:49:41] there are commissioners that
[1:49:43] need that extra education. I
[1:49:44] would encourage them to to take
[1:49:46] to it, um. Happy to hear what
[1:49:48] my other colleagues have to say.
[1:49:51] Um, I For the public
[1:49:52] s benefit,
[1:49:52] I
[1:49:53] m frustrated tonight. And I
[1:49:55] want to be honest with that
[1:49:56] because I
[1:49:57] m very clear with
[1:49:58] what the planning commission
[1:50:00] should be doing. I understand
[1:50:01] the commissioner
[1:50:02] s frustration
[1:50:03] and not trying to figure out
[1:50:05] where we want them to be, so
[1:50:05] I
[1:50:06] m glad that we finally got
[1:50:07] here, but we don
[1:50:08] t need to have
[1:50:10] this conversation again. I
[1:50:12] think they should be reviewed
[1:50:13] every 5 years. Of course, I
[1:50:13] think that
[1:50:14] s an excellent
[1:50:16] suggestion. Um, But ultimately,
[1:50:18] if there are planning
[1:50:19] commissioners that don
[1:50:19] t
[1:50:20] understand their role, then I
[1:50:21] think that
[1:50:21] s a larger
[1:50:23] conversation. And, and that
[1:50:24] troubles me because I think
[1:50:24] that
[1:50:26] s a waste of public
[1:50:27] dollars and time, and I see
[1:50:29] that. In regards to the sassy
[1:50:31] conversation, um, that is
[1:50:32] troubling, and I think that
[1:50:32] s a
[1:50:34] point that we do need to
[1:50:36] address from the mayor. Um, I
[1:50:36] don
[1:50:37] t know the process. I never
[1:50:40] served on Sassy. I served on
[1:50:42] long range. Um, but
[1:50:44] specifically if a project is
[1:50:45] getting commentary by a
[1:50:46] commissioner or two
[1:50:48] commissioners. S How is that
[1:50:49] coming back as direction? What
[1:50:50] is it happening? And if it
[1:50:50] s
[1:50:52] taking 8 to 10 months, we do
[1:50:53] need to look into that because
[1:50:55] 8 to 10 months means hundreds
[1:50:57] of thousands of dollars,
[1:50:58] potential redesigns, and we
[1:50:59] want a good project. That
[1:51:00] s not
[1:51:00] what we
[1:51:02] re not saying. Housing
[1:51:03] laws have restricted, you know,
[1:51:04] what we can and cannot do, but
[1:51:06] I think we really need to get
[1:51:08] into how much of the public
[1:51:08] s
[1:51:10] time we are actually wasting in
[1:51:11] some of these processes that
[1:51:13] are taking long to, to
[1:51:15] essentially approve to build
[1:51:17] housing to build a. Affordable
[1:51:18] housing and housing at all
[1:51:20] levels, and to make sure our
[1:51:22] business community, who we love
[1:51:23] and want to support knows that
[1:51:25] when they submit something to
[1:51:26] the city staff who are very
[1:51:27] diligent and work very hard to
[1:51:29] get it through, aren
[1:51:29] t
[1:51:31] harangued at the last second at
[1:51:32] the planning commission level,
[1:51:33] um, when that
[1:51:33] s really not in
[1:51:35] the purview. So i
[1:51:35] m really
[1:51:35] think let
[1:51:38] s drill down on those
[1:51:40] points so that way when there
[1:51:41] is confusion at a planning
[1:51:42] commission level, staff, and I
[1:51:42] don
[1:51:43] t know how you manage this.
[1:51:44] Maybe it
[1:51:44] s our city attorney
[1:51:45] who was, I think the city
[1:51:48] attorney when. Was on planning
[1:51:49] commission tells us to know, no,
[1:51:51] no, no, and we have to listen
[1:51:53] to that. So those are all my
[1:51:54] comments right now and thank
[1:51:55] you very much for this diligent
[1:51:57] conversation. Thank you,
[1:51:58] Councilormber Erickson. Um, I
[1:52:00] just want to provide a few
[1:52:01] thoughts on the question about
[1:52:02] adequacy. For me, it doesn
[1:52:02] t
[1:52:04] make sense to get a
[1:52:05] recommendation from the
[1:52:05] planning commission to review
[1:52:07] the adequacy of the public
[1:52:08] benefits. It should be a no
[1:52:09] vote from the planning
[1:52:10] commission if it
[1:52:11] s moving
[1:52:12] forward in the consideration of
[1:52:14] the totality of the project. I
[1:52:14] don
[1:52:15] t understand why specific
[1:52:18] segment of the project would be
[1:52:19] considered a no, especially
[1:52:20] when the opportunity for
[1:52:22] council to deliberate, as we
[1:52:22] ve
[1:52:23] all shared, doesn
[1:52:23] t truly exist
[1:52:25] in that open body. So I think
[1:52:26] it
[1:52:26] s a no vote from the
[1:52:28] planning. Although it
[1:52:28] s hard
[1:52:29] and challenging to sometimes
[1:52:30] say that I think that
[1:52:30] s
[1:52:31] actually what we
[1:52:32] re looking at,
[1:52:33] and I see that, uh, with some
[1:52:35] confidence, just trying to wrap
[1:52:37] my head around so the community,
[1:52:39] the neighborhood, has an
[1:52:40] opportunity to review the scope
[1:52:41] of the public benefits before
[1:52:42] they
[1:52:44] re put into any sort of
[1:52:45] formal document uh agreement
[1:52:47] that would come back. So I
[1:52:47] m
[1:52:47] I
[1:52:49] m just understanding as soon
[1:52:51] as uh a project is deemed
[1:52:52] extraordinary beyond the
[1:52:54] general plan, you know,
[1:52:55] warranting a public benefit or
[1:52:56] a development agreement. The
[1:52:57] community has an opportunity to
[1:52:59] weigh in on what the scope of
[1:53:02] that is, correct? Yes, I
[1:53:02] ll say
[1:53:03] one thing, it
[1:53:04] s different for
[1:53:05] the billboard, so we
[1:53:05] re just
[1:53:06] talking general public benefit
[1:53:07] projects. I believe there
[1:53:08] s
[1:53:08] only been one project that
[1:53:09] s
[1:53:11] actually gone through the full
[1:53:13] policy so far, and I will let
[1:53:15] Jennifer confirm that, but so
[1:53:16] there
[1:53:18] s only been one. Ok, good.
[1:53:23] Ok, um, and then with that said,
[1:53:24] um, because the public has in
[1:53:25] this process that
[1:53:26] s set out has
[1:53:28] an opportunity to do that. The
[1:53:30] planning commission is then
[1:53:32] given this. Agreement, you have
[1:53:34] the opportunity to say no, it
[1:53:34] doesn
[1:53:35] t work in service of the
[1:53:36] larger totality of the project
[1:53:38] in accordance with the goals of
[1:53:39] the city or not and move it
[1:53:40] forward to the city which has
[1:53:42] or the council which has the
[1:53:43] same opportunity to say, yes,
[1:53:45] this is going to serve the city
[1:53:47] in the largest way of our goals
[1:53:49] or not, and staff then can take
[1:53:51] it back, work with the
[1:53:52] developer to amend the project
[1:53:54] and bring it back to a process,
[1:53:54] right? I think that
[1:53:55] s sort of
[1:53:57] the question is what happens if
[1:53:57] there
[1:53:57] s a no, no, it
[1:53:58] s not
[1:54:00] going to move forward to city,
[1:54:00] right? We want to see this
[1:54:02] project. Move forward, but if
[1:54:02] we
[1:54:03] re getting no
[1:54:03] s, they
[1:54:03] re
[1:54:08] stuck. Are you It
[1:54:08] s frustrating.
[1:54:17] Just give it a second battery.
[1:54:17] They
[1:54:18] re, they
[1:54:18] re turning them
[1:54:19] off so we don
[1:54:22] t get. Ok, so let
[1:54:27] me, um, Reframe the question.
[1:54:27] So you
[1:54:28] re saying if the project
[1:54:29] goes to the planning commission,
[1:54:30] and the planning commission
[1:54:33] does not agree. Then the
[1:54:34] planning commission would, what
[1:54:37] would Recommend denial, so
[1:54:37] they
[1:54:40] d still move a
[1:54:43] recommendation forward, um, but,
[1:54:45] but be recommending for denial.
[1:54:46] Ok. So I think that
[1:54:46] s the
[1:54:47] answer that you
[1:54:47] re looking for.
[1:54:47] You don
[1:54:49] t have to tell us that
[1:54:49] it
[1:54:50] s an inadequate public
[1:54:52] benefits project you recommend
[1:54:53] denial. We have that
[1:54:55] understanding of why that
[1:54:55] recommendation for denial
[1:54:57] happened based on public
[1:55:00] benefit concerns, right? Versus
[1:55:01] moving forward with yes, a
[1:55:03] recommendation, but looking at
[1:55:04] the public benefits. I think
[1:55:04] that
[1:55:05] s the sort of detail on
[1:55:05] the concerns that we
[1:55:06] re getting
[1:55:07] into. Why would they look into
[1:55:09] that level of detail and say
[1:55:09] it
[1:55:10] s inadequate, but then move
[1:55:12] it forward with a yes, but just
[1:55:14] make sure you look at the
[1:55:15] public benefits, right? So
[1:55:15] we
[1:55:16] re saying don
[1:55:17] t piece out
[1:55:18] that one component. Look at,
[1:55:20] look at everything together on
[1:55:23] the whole, ok. Does that make
[1:55:23] sense to everybody that makes
[1:55:24] sense and there
[1:55:24] s clarity there.
[1:55:26] Thank you, Mayor. Great,
[1:55:27] terrific. That was something I
[1:55:32] wanted to drill in on. In the
[1:55:34] Can you is, and correct me if
[1:55:34] I
[1:55:37] m wrong, are you allowed to
[1:55:38] deny recommending a project
[1:55:39] based on public benefits, not
[1:55:45] based on the land use. Well,
[1:55:46] the development agreements are
[1:55:48] 100% discretionary, right? And
[1:55:48] then as we
[1:55:50] ve talked about, one
[1:55:52] of the um all the findings are,
[1:55:53] are in the best interests of
[1:55:53] the city. It would have, we
[1:55:55] would tie it to findings. We
[1:55:56] would always tell the
[1:55:58] commission, tell us what your
[1:55:59] reasons for denial are. We
[1:55:59] d
[1:56:00] probably have to come back and
[1:56:01] write a resolution because it
[1:56:03] would be very different and we
[1:56:04] would want to memorialize what
[1:56:05] the commission was saying, and
[1:56:07] it would have to be tied to
[1:56:08] these specific findings. So
[1:56:08] tell us why it
[1:56:08] s not in the
[1:56:10] best interest of the city, or
[1:56:10] tell us why it
[1:56:12] s not consistent
[1:56:12] with the general plan or why it
[1:56:14] has this impact. So we would
[1:56:17] tie it to the findings, always.
[1:56:19] Terrific. That makes sense. Is
[1:56:20] that clear to everybody in
[1:56:21] response to that question? Ok,
[1:56:23] terrific. Councilmemb Hang, did
[1:56:26] you want to jump in? Thank you,
[1:56:27] Mayor. Just a couple of
[1:56:31] thoughts, um. As a rookie
[1:56:34] myself, um, you know, uh, I
[1:56:34] believe commissioner Solomon
[1:56:35] mentioned something earlier,
[1:56:38] you know, like, what is staff
[1:56:39] s
[1:56:41] role in ensuring that
[1:56:43] commissioners are not stepping
[1:56:45] outside of their purview. I
[1:56:47] think that should be sort of
[1:56:53] recognized and um Come to an
[1:56:55] agreement on stepping outside
[1:56:56] their purview on development
[1:56:58] agreements and other
[1:57:00] non-discretionary items. And
[1:57:02] are there acceptable standards
[1:57:03] or protocols for
[1:57:04] recommendations proposed by
[1:57:05] planning commissioners. Um, if
[1:57:08] not, I think. At a later time
[1:57:09] we could provide direction to
[1:57:11] sort of create that. That way
[1:57:13] it just prevents, you know,
[1:57:16] various proposals and changes
[1:57:17] related to unfounded concerns
[1:57:20] that are personal in nature to
[1:57:22] commissioners, um. You know,
[1:57:27] for example, tree species or
[1:57:28] Double lines going into
[1:57:30] establishments, um, so I think
[1:57:34] that. Should be recognized. And
[1:57:35] also I understand that the
[1:57:36] public benefits payments are
[1:57:39] negotiated um. My city staff,
[1:57:42] which is made clear by tonight.
[1:57:42] And it
[1:57:43] s based on direction
[1:57:46] from the city council, um, to
[1:57:47] me, it would make the most
[1:57:50] sense that the city council
[1:57:51] provides direction on what
[1:57:53] amounts we want to see. Uh,
[1:57:57] both today and also during
[1:57:58] specific development agreement
[1:57:59] discussions when they come
[1:58:02] before us as a body, um, as an
[1:58:04] agenda item. Um, does the
[1:58:06] planning commission have a role
[1:58:08] in debating the merits of the
[1:58:10] negotiated dollar amounts. It
[1:58:12] seems to me that that
[1:58:12] s
[1:58:13] specific issues outside of
[1:58:14] their purview, which is what
[1:58:15] we
[1:58:16] re discussing tonight. And I
[1:58:17] also think it
[1:58:17] s important that
[1:58:19] we as a city council provide
[1:58:22] direction at a later meeting,
[1:58:23] um, to the planning commission,
[1:58:24] uh, so that they can spend
[1:58:26] their important time focused on
[1:58:28] what is actually within their
[1:58:30] purview and not on things that
[1:58:32] straight outside of what their
[1:58:34] purview actually is. Uh, they
[1:58:38] have a very important role, um,
[1:58:39] and looking at what
[1:58:40] s required,
[1:58:40] that
[1:58:42] s required a lot of them,
[1:58:44] right? And not only will this
[1:58:47] clear up and provide direction
[1:58:49] uh to allow planning
[1:58:51] commissioners to focus on their
[1:58:52] important time on their rules,
[1:58:55] but it also helps city staff
[1:58:56] better prepare for planning
[1:58:58] commission meetings. It helps
[1:59:00] staff to not get super
[1:59:02] overwhelmed by working on
[1:59:03] unrelated issues brought at the
[1:59:06] last. Minute by commissioners
[1:59:08] and hopefully it will make the
[1:59:09] meetings run smoother and not
[1:59:12] like 567 hours sometimes. I
[1:59:14] mean, I was in Japan and I
[1:59:14] watched that planning
[1:59:15] commission meeting that went
[1:59:17] till 2 in the morning, um, so I,
[1:59:19] I think. It
[1:59:22] s a lot of fun. So,
[1:59:23] uh, you know, those are my
[1:59:25] comments. Uh, thank you, Mayor.
[1:59:26] Thank you, Councillormermeister.
[1:59:32] Thank you, Mayor. So I have a
[1:59:34] few comments, um, I
[1:59:34] ve been
[1:59:37] watching planning commission
[1:59:39] meetings since 1998 and there
[1:59:41] were DAs that were discussed
[1:59:43] during that time and somehow
[1:59:44] the planning commission managed
[1:59:47] to get through it. Um, We had a
[1:59:49] city attorney, Christie Hogan,
[1:59:53] who when we got out of our lane
[1:59:55] would shut us down. She
[1:59:55] d say
[1:59:56] that
[1:59:58] s not in your purview. So
[1:59:58] if that
[1:59:59] s not happening in
[2:00:02] planning commission, that is
[2:00:02] the city attorney
[2:00:02] s role, and
[2:00:04] that is something the city
[2:00:06] attorney needs to look at.
[2:00:07] Something was said here tonight.
[2:00:13] Uh, Lauren, you said, why is,
[2:00:16] why is legal, uh, you said
[2:00:16] sometimes we
[2:00:18] re seeing it for
[2:00:19] the first time when we
[2:00:20] re there.
[2:00:23] That should never be happening.
[2:00:26] Legal should be reading the
[2:00:28] planning commission agenda from
[2:00:30] from top to bottom before the
[2:00:33] meeting. The whole thing and
[2:00:34] the contracts, you know, some
[2:00:36] of, no. That
[2:00:39] s a correction for
[2:00:41] the ok, but there have been
[2:00:42] times when somebody said he
[2:00:42] hadn
[2:00:45] t read it the day of the
[2:00:46] planning commission meeting, ok?
[2:00:47] And that shouldn
[2:00:48] t be happening
[2:00:52] and especially with the da. If
[2:00:56] a commissioner Who just happens
[2:00:59] to have, uh you know,
[2:01:00] concentrated uh in contracts,
[2:01:01] so she
[2:01:02] s very, very
[2:01:04] commissioner Hoopen Garner,
[2:01:06] very, very familiar with
[2:01:08] contracts, hadn
[2:01:09] t read the
[2:01:10] contract and brought things up,
[2:01:12] the contract would have been
[2:01:15] wrong. So if we are going to
[2:01:17] take away the the specifics of
[2:01:19] looking at a da from planning
[2:01:20] commission
[2:01:21] s purview, then I
[2:01:23] want to know that the city
[2:01:23] attorney
[2:01:26] s office is going to
[2:01:27] be looking at those contracts
[2:01:31] with a fine tooth comb. It is
[2:01:32] not acceptable for those
[2:01:34] contracts to be going to
[2:01:36] planning commission and not
[2:01:39] being looked at very, very
[2:01:41] carefully because this is uh 20
[2:01:44] year contract or a 30 year
[2:01:45] contract and those contracts
[2:01:51] have to be looked at. Um, If,
[2:01:51] if it
[2:01:53] s not under pc
[2:01:53] s purview,
[2:01:55] then maybe there shouldn
[2:01:55] t be a
[2:01:57] resolution for the da. There
[2:02:00] should not be a resolution that
[2:02:01] that the planning commission
[2:02:05] has to sign to say that they
[2:02:07] have the findings that they are
[2:02:09] ok with the da if they don
[2:02:09] t
[2:02:10] have the purview to make
[2:02:12] comments about it. It makes no
[2:02:14] sense to have a resolution that
[2:02:17] they have to sign. There should
[2:02:19] be then one resolution and one
[2:02:21] of the findings of the many
[2:02:24] findings can be. We like the da
[2:02:27] or whatever, we, we find that
[2:02:29] the da is acceptable or, or
[2:02:30] adequate or whatever word you
[2:02:33] want to use, but, um, they
[2:02:33] shouldn
[2:02:35] t have to sign a
[2:02:35] resolution that says they
[2:02:36] re
[2:02:37] good with it. If they don
[2:02:37] t get
[2:02:38] to do it. If they don
[2:02:39] t get to
[2:02:40] look at it, if they don
[2:02:40] t get
[2:02:44] to criticize it. The fact that
[2:02:45] Some of my colleagues think
[2:02:45] that we shouldn
[2:02:46] t even be
[2:02:50] looking at it. If there are no
[2:02:51] checks and balances in this
[2:02:54] city with regard to whatever
[2:02:54] whether it
[2:02:55] s approval of a
[2:02:57] project, approval of a da,
[2:03:00] whatever it is. Then we are
[2:03:01] done. There
[2:03:02] s no purpose. There
[2:03:04] has to be checks and balances.
[2:03:04] We can
[2:03:05] t expect that it
[2:03:05] s only
[2:03:07] staff that looks at something
[2:03:08] with a consultant, with a
[2:03:12] developer. We have to be able
[2:03:13] to look at that and say, you
[2:03:15] know what, this is not good
[2:03:18] enough for our city. Yes, we do
[2:03:20] need $1 million more. Yes, we
[2:03:22] do need this public benefit.
[2:03:26] And the idea, like I that I
[2:03:27] read about the um community,
[2:03:29] the public input, and the fact
[2:03:31] that the community at a
[2:03:33] community meeting is supposed
[2:03:36] to be able to give feedback on
[2:03:38] the community benefits menu. I
[2:03:39] know for a fact that
[2:03:39] s not
[2:03:41] happening. That you is not
[2:03:42] going to community meetings. By
[2:03:44] the time it goes to a community
[2:03:47] meeting, the, the idea of
[2:03:48] whatever the the developer has
[2:03:50] decided we want to give. This
[2:03:52] is what we are going to give in
[2:03:53] exchange for that. That is what
[2:03:55] is presented to the community.
[2:03:56] So when they come to the
[2:03:57] planning commission, are you
[2:04:00] going to tell the community?
[2:04:00] Sorry, you can
[2:04:03] t talk about the
[2:04:03] public benefits because we
[2:04:03] re
[2:04:05] not in charge of the public
[2:04:05] benefits. We
[2:04:06] re, I mean, not in
[2:04:07] charge. We don
[2:04:08] t recommend
[2:04:09] about the public benefits, and
[2:04:09] I think that
[2:04:11] s kind of a
[2:04:12] slippery slope when you
[2:04:13] re
[2:04:14] going to basically have people
[2:04:16] coming from the public saying
[2:04:19] yeah or nay or whatever, and,
[2:04:20] and just in response to
[2:04:23] councilmember. Erickson
[2:04:23] s
[2:04:25] comments about, you know, what
[2:04:26] service or disservice are we
[2:04:28] doing to the public? I have
[2:04:30] only had residents call me
[2:04:33] after a meeting to say thank
[2:04:35] GOD this person asks questions.
[2:04:36] If we don
[2:04:39] t ask the questions,
[2:04:41] then we are basically this
[2:04:43] commission is a rubber stamp
[2:04:43] and that
[2:04:44] s all they are is a
[2:04:47] rubber stamp for whatever staff
[2:04:49] recommends, um, is my head
[2:04:51] exploding yet? No, ok, um.
[2:04:56] Exception. Thank you. Uh, yes,
[2:04:59] extraordinary. I, I know it
[2:04:59] s
[2:05:01] just extraordinary, um, so, so
[2:05:05] I think that As, as, as the
[2:05:06] mayor said, if we don
[2:05:07] t want
[2:05:11] the da to be as as the
[2:05:12] specifics of the da to be in
[2:05:14] the purview, then they should
[2:05:15] be looking at it as an entire
[2:05:17] project. If a commissioner
[2:05:19] thinks that the that the da
[2:05:21] sucks, then just vote no. Vote
[2:05:22] no, but then don
[2:05:23] t have a
[2:05:25] resolution that they have to
[2:05:28] vote for that talks about the
[2:05:29] specifics of that da because
[2:05:29] that
[2:05:30] s not fair and it
[2:05:30] s not
[2:05:36] right. Um Again, contract
[2:05:37] issues have to be, that has to
[2:05:39] be dealt with by, uh, with our
[2:05:41] city attor with our lawyers
[2:05:43] with bbk. They have to be
[2:05:46] looking at those, at those uh
[2:05:46] da
[2:05:48] s much more carefully and,
[2:05:48] and I
[2:05:50] m also just gonna say by
[2:05:52] the time the public benefits
[2:05:55] package comes to us, the train
[2:05:57] has left the station. And so
[2:05:57] it
[2:06:00] s very hard at that point
[2:06:01] then to negotiate something
[2:06:03] else, especially since the
[2:06:06] community has not really had
[2:06:07] that opportunity, especially if
[2:06:07] they don
[2:06:10] t get to talk about it
[2:06:11] at the community meeting. So
[2:06:13] that means that at the
[2:06:15] community meeting, they have to
[2:06:17] be given that community
[2:06:19] benefits menu and be asked,
[2:06:21] what would you like to see as
[2:06:22] your community benefits. This
[2:06:25] is, this is our list. Any of
[2:06:26] these look good? Any other?
[2:06:28] That you want to add because if
[2:06:29] you don
[2:06:30] t let the community
[2:06:30] speak then, it
[2:06:31] s sort of like,
[2:06:34] well, you know, speak now or
[2:06:34] forever hold your peace because
[2:06:37] by the time it comes to us,
[2:06:37] it
[2:06:37] s, it
[2:06:39] s left the station.
[2:06:39] That
[2:06:42] s it. Thank you. Thank you.
[2:06:43] Um, I want to pick up on a
[2:06:45] couple of pieces that were just
[2:06:48] laid down, um, first, uh, as I
[2:06:50] look at the community benefits
[2:06:51] conversation, we have to name
[2:06:53] that these public benefits,
[2:06:54] these benefits that get
[2:06:55] delivered to the public on
[2:06:58] behalf of a project that is
[2:06:58] deemed exceptional
[2:07:01] extraordinary, something beyond
[2:07:02] the general land code that
[2:07:05] exists, um, cost the project
[2:07:06] things. And so I think that
[2:07:06] s
[2:07:07] important to name because what
[2:07:08] we
[2:07:10] re doing is trying to find a
[2:07:12] balance in what becomes uh
[2:07:13] Exceptional public offering on
[2:07:15] the back of a project that is
[2:07:16] already potentially in line
[2:07:17] with our city
[2:07:17] s goals and
[2:07:19] values, um, and that
[2:07:20] s an
[2:07:21] amazing opportunity we have,
[2:07:22] but a delicate balance to
[2:07:24] strike, and I think there
[2:07:24] s a
[2:07:25] sense that comes with the
[2:07:27] community benefits that we get
[2:07:28] to squeeze these projects for
[2:07:31] every last dime, and I think
[2:07:32] that mentality becomes
[2:07:34] troubling because we do invest
[2:07:36] our resources as a city and
[2:07:38] making sure that professional
[2:07:39] economic evaluation can happen
[2:07:40] and that we are getting the
[2:07:42] best ultimate deal possible.
[2:07:43] And so we do have to have a
[2:07:45] certain level of trust with our
[2:07:47] processes, and I really
[2:07:47] appreciate what Vice Mayor
[2:07:49] Heilman brought up as an
[2:07:50] opportunity in the future for
[2:07:52] us to evaluate the community
[2:07:54] benefits table that we have,
[2:07:54] but I think that
[2:07:55] s a balance
[2:07:57] that we have to have. We can
[2:07:58] t,
[2:07:59] um, uh, enable the public to
[2:08:01] unleash their best visions onto
[2:08:04] each project, hoping and sort
[2:08:06] of um asking for everything in
[2:08:07] the moon possible from our
[2:08:09] development, uh, to the point
[2:08:10] that we become so under
[2:08:12] pressure that we are unable to
[2:08:13] deliver anything, not just the
[2:08:14] benefits, but the project
[2:08:15] itself, right? And so that
[2:08:15] s
[2:08:17] sort of the balance I believe
[2:08:18] we
[2:08:18] ve looked to professionals
[2:08:20] to help us best strike. So the
[2:08:22] process, as I understand it,
[2:08:24] allows for the public to have
[2:08:26] an early voice, uh, engaged
[2:08:27] with the developer and maybe
[2:08:27] that
[2:08:28] s not happening as well as
[2:08:29] it could. I think there
[2:08:30] s some
[2:08:31] room for conversation there and
[2:08:32] as we
[2:08:32] re having these
[2:08:33] conversations, the public
[2:08:35] becomes more aware of what
[2:08:36] their opportunities are
[2:08:37] certainly, um, but I wanna make
[2:08:39] sure that the development
[2:08:40] community is engaging best in
[2:08:40] what we
[2:08:41] re hoping. To see
[2:08:43] happen, which are early
[2:08:44] conversations, right, about,
[2:08:45] hey, what does this
[2:08:46] neighborhood need more of? Hey,
[2:08:48] how can we think about some of
[2:08:49] these opportunities differently.
[2:08:52] I believe that when those
[2:08:53] conversations happen early and
[2:08:54] well, it enables a project to
[2:08:56] move forward in the best way
[2:08:56] possible, and we
[2:08:57] ve seen when
[2:08:58] they don
[2:08:58] t happen well that
[2:08:59] they can also tank a project,
[2:09:01] but I do want to just make sure
[2:09:02] that we
[2:09:03] re understanding any
[2:09:05] benefit that comes out of a
[2:09:06] project for the community cost
[2:09:07] that development money, and
[2:09:07] that
[2:09:08] s sort of what we
[2:09:08] re
[2:09:09] ultimately trying to find the
[2:09:10] balance with is how to get the
[2:09:13] best. Value for our city, uh,
[2:09:14] and to ensure that the project
[2:09:16] can move forward that gives the
[2:09:17] public its best opportunity. So
[2:09:17] I just want to name that. I
[2:09:18] don
[2:09:19] t want that to get lost and
[2:09:20] how we
[2:09:20] re thinking about this,
[2:09:23] and I think that is exactly why
[2:09:24] and where I
[2:09:24] m troubled or or
[2:09:26] trying to figure out the best
[2:09:27] role for not only the planning
[2:09:29] commission, but city council
[2:09:30] itself, because I believe that
[2:09:31] we have a full opportunity to
[2:09:34] say no to a project should we
[2:09:35] not believe that by the many
[2:09:37] months and years and moons it
[2:09:39] takes for a project ultimately
[2:09:40] reach us from the time it
[2:09:42] started, which we know could be
[2:09:44] years, many years, um, that it
[2:09:45] is maybe fair for us to say,
[2:09:47] you know, things have changed.
[2:09:49] The conversation way back when
[2:09:49] didn
[2:09:49] t have, you know, wasn
[2:09:50] t
[2:09:50] the best. It didn
[2:09:51] t get the
[2:09:52] best public benefits possible,
[2:09:52] but we wouldn
[2:09:54] t dig into that
[2:09:56] on the council dais and try to
[2:09:57] find what other value we could
[2:09:59] have, we would encourage that
[2:10:00] project to probably be tabled
[2:10:02] to go back to staff and to have
[2:10:03] conversations that way. We
[2:10:03] wouldn
[2:10:04] t need to get into any
[2:10:06] sort of arduous in the weeds
[2:10:07] lengthy conversations, we
[2:10:07] d, no,
[2:10:08] we
[2:10:09] re ready to, you know, send
[2:10:10] this back to staff, table the
[2:10:11] project, and give. Something
[2:10:13] about her. I think that is
[2:10:14] exactly why I
[2:10:14] m so concerned
[2:10:16] about how much time things take,
[2:10:18] because from the point that we
[2:10:19] start this conversation with
[2:10:21] the community to the time it
[2:10:23] actually shows up at the
[2:10:23] council
[2:10:24] s table for ultimate
[2:10:25] decision. It
[2:10:25] s, it
[2:10:26] s too much
[2:10:27] time and it MAY be too much
[2:10:28] time to really understand if we
[2:10:30] did get the best value in the
[2:10:31] long run. So I think it
[2:10:31] s in
[2:10:32] everyone
[2:10:32] s best interest that
[2:10:35] we find ways to accelerate
[2:10:36] these processes to deliver what
[2:10:38] is as close to that earliest
[2:10:40] vision the community had onto
[2:10:42] our council days as quickly.
[2:10:43] Possible so that the value
[2:10:44] really feels like it
[2:10:45] s there
[2:10:46] and not lapsed by years and
[2:10:47] pandemics and all the many
[2:10:49] things that could happen. So,
[2:10:49] that
[2:10:50] s sort of what I
[2:10:51] m hoping
[2:10:52] we get to as a place where
[2:10:55] things are happening faster and
[2:10:56] clearer with greater trust
[2:10:58] happening, and we have all, you
[2:10:59] know, withered down trust with
[2:11:01] each other as part of these
[2:11:02] processes, but I think what
[2:11:03] s
[2:11:05] happening here is a sense of
[2:11:07] new confidence happening is
[2:11:08] shared understanding and a
[2:11:09] greater set of tools that MAY
[2:11:10] be possible moving forward
[2:11:11] again. No direction tonight but
[2:11:11] It sounds like there
[2:11:12] s been
[2:11:13] some really great ideas about
[2:11:15] what MAY need to happen moving
[2:11:16] forward. Vice Mayor is moving
[2:11:18] his mask, which means he is
[2:11:19] ready to talk. Ok, we
[2:11:20] re gonna
[2:11:21] give him the microphone for a
[2:11:27] second. Go ahead. Thank you,
[2:11:30] thank you, Mayor, and um I, I
[2:11:32] just wanted to add a couple of
[2:11:35] comments. I, I thought you, you
[2:11:37] really summarize things very
[2:11:39] well. I just wanted to point
[2:11:42] out that the community benefits
[2:11:45] are distinct from neighborhood
[2:11:47] mitigation and neighborhood
[2:11:49] benefits the community benefits
[2:11:51] are supposed to be broad-based
[2:11:53] community benefits. When you
[2:11:55] look at most of the things that
[2:11:58] we as a council agreed on,
[2:11:58] they
[2:11:59] re not really the kind of
[2:12:01] things that we would normally
[2:12:04] think of, oh, is this something
[2:12:05] the neighborhood would want,
[2:12:05] it
[2:12:08] s more, is this something
[2:12:08] the broader community would
[2:12:10] want, so I wanted to point that
[2:12:15] out, um. And just to respond to
[2:12:17] my colleague. I wasn
[2:12:18] t saying
[2:12:19] that we shouldn
[2:12:20] t review the
[2:12:22] development agreement. What I
[2:12:24] was trying to communicate is, I
[2:12:24] don
[2:12:27] t think we should be trying
[2:12:29] to negotiate the development
[2:12:31] agreement on the dais. I, I
[2:12:31] don
[2:12:33] t think we have adequate
[2:12:35] information to do that. We
[2:12:35] don
[2:12:38] t know the costs associated
[2:12:40] with um anything we would want
[2:12:41] to extract. We don
[2:12:42] t know the
[2:12:44] costs associated with the
[2:12:45] particular project. We don
[2:12:45] t
[2:12:46] necessarily know the costs
[2:12:49] associated it with the enhanced
[2:12:51] density or height that they
[2:12:52] have, so I, I don
[2:12:54] t think
[2:12:54] that
[2:12:55] s a wise approach. That
[2:12:56] s
[2:12:58] why I was saying we need to be
[2:13:00] setting broad parameters rather
[2:13:03] than trying to negotiate each
[2:13:04] specific development agreement
[2:13:06] as it comes to us and going
[2:13:08] back to something that I think
[2:13:11] the mayor said with respect to
[2:13:13] the commission is if you feel
[2:13:16] that the public benefits are
[2:13:18] not adequate for this
[2:13:19] particular project, then vote
[2:13:20] no. I mean, that
[2:13:21] s the thing to
[2:13:23] do and I think that
[2:13:25] s um uh
[2:13:26] what I would direct the
[2:13:29] commission to do as well. Um,
[2:13:31] and then just, you know, what
[2:13:33] Jennifer said about the scope
[2:13:35] versus the value. I don
[2:13:36] t think
[2:13:37] that makes sense cause I don
[2:13:38] t
[2:13:41] think you can ask the body to
[2:13:43] review the scope, but not the
[2:13:44] value because the scope is
[2:13:47] directly related to the value,
[2:13:51] uh, so I, I would prefer as uh
[2:13:52] Councilmember Meister said, if,
[2:13:52] if there
[2:13:54] s a way to legally do
[2:13:55] that, don
[2:13:56] t have the commission
[2:13:57] make a recommendation on the
[2:13:59] development agreement. Have
[2:14:01] them recommend the project with
[2:14:03] the development agreement that
[2:14:04] has been negotiated or not
[2:14:06] recommend the project. Um,
[2:14:08] however they feel about it, and
[2:14:09] then my final point, and we
[2:14:12] need to have a different
[2:14:14] discussion, not directed at
[2:14:15] development agreements, the
[2:14:18] time issue, because time in the
[2:14:19] development world they
[2:14:20] ll sell
[2:14:23] you time is money, um, and so
[2:14:26] every delay in a project
[2:14:28] results in less benefit for the
[2:14:31] community, higher rents, uh,
[2:14:33] higher charges that need to be
[2:14:34] passed on because the developer
[2:14:36] is trying to make a profit. So
[2:14:39] anything that we can do to
[2:14:41] protect the community, but
[2:14:42] expedite the process, I think
[2:14:47] is going to be valuable. Oh,
[2:14:49] perfect. Do any of the council
[2:14:50] members have any further
[2:14:53] comments? To any of the
[2:14:54] planning commissioners have
[2:14:55] questions, comments, need for
[2:14:57] clarity. Yes, Commissioner
[2:15:04] Hooper Gardner. Hello. Um, I
[2:15:05] think this is all great and
[2:15:07] thank you, thank you, thank you
[2:15:09] for this and so my question is,
[2:15:12] what does state law say because
[2:15:14] state law you said in the
[2:15:15] presentation, define the
[2:15:17] development agreement process.
[2:15:20] Does state law require that the
[2:15:22] planning commission approved
[2:15:24] the development agreement, or
[2:15:25] is there flexibility because I,
[2:15:25] that
[2:15:27] s the only thing I would
[2:15:28] want us to not run amok. It
[2:15:29] s a
[2:15:31] good question and I was just
[2:15:32] gonna make a suggestion, um,
[2:15:35] state sets out the process and
[2:15:37] the planning commission does
[2:15:39] review development agreements.
[2:15:41] What is not what what goes
[2:15:42] beyond the state law are our
[2:15:44] local findings in the West
[2:15:45] Hollywood municipal code. And
[2:15:47] so if these are a source of
[2:15:49] confusion, maybe we should
[2:15:50] narrow them to be more in line
[2:15:52] with what the council wants to
[2:15:53] see on development agreements
[2:15:55] and the role because it sounds
[2:15:57] to me like this is creating
[2:15:58] some confusion, and they don
[2:15:58] t
[2:16:00] need to be this broad and this
[2:16:01] subjective. They can be, you
[2:16:02] know, doesn
[2:16:02] t include all the
[2:16:04] mandatory requirements? Did You
[2:16:07] follow the process, really much
[2:16:09] more objectively looking at the
[2:16:10] development agreement process
[2:16:11] and and what we
[2:16:11] ve talked about
[2:16:14] here, but maybe a little less
[2:16:15] of all the subjective
[2:16:16] discussion. You
[2:16:16] re still always
[2:16:17] looking at the project as a
[2:16:18] whole. I, I want to be clear
[2:16:20] about that. You are looking at
[2:16:22] projects that come before you,
[2:16:23] but on this specific piece, not
[2:16:25] that I want to add another uh
[2:16:26] zone tax amendment to the work
[2:16:28] plan. Sorry, Nick. But that
[2:16:29] might be something we want to
[2:16:29] look at. You don
[2:16:30] t have to give
[2:16:31] direction on that tonight. Let
[2:16:33] us think about it, but that
[2:16:34] might be a way to respond to
[2:16:38] some of this feedback. Ok. Are
[2:16:40] there any other commissioner
[2:16:43] comments, questions, terrific
[2:16:43] counsel comments, Councilmemb
[2:16:45] Hang had his hand up first.
[2:16:51] Thank you. Thank you, Mayor.
[2:16:53] You know, um, there
[2:16:54] s something
[2:16:55] to be thought about what
[2:16:57] council member Erickson said
[2:16:58] earlier, um, and I just, I
[2:16:58] ve
[2:16:59] been, it
[2:17:01] s been festering in my
[2:17:03] mind. If we take the politics
[2:17:05] out of political appointments
[2:17:08] and this is such a. A this
[2:17:10] commission does a lot of work.
[2:17:12] And if we make the seats at
[2:17:15] large, we take the politics out
[2:17:15] of that
[2:17:16] s not a part of the
[2:17:18] agenda discussion tonight, so
[2:17:18] let
[2:17:19] s not talk about that if we
[2:17:21] got it. Thank you. Thank you,
[2:17:22] Councilmember Erickson, did you
[2:17:25] have any final comments? Yes, I
[2:17:26] want to follow up on something
[2:17:27] that counts remember Meister
[2:17:29] said that I thought is a good
[2:17:31] point too, and it sounds like
[2:17:33] that might be universal
[2:17:35] direction from the council, but
[2:17:37] it sounds like we are giving
[2:17:40] and Christie would do that, uh,
[2:17:41] um, I think the direction and
[2:17:42] mayor maybe you could do a
[2:17:42] straw poll. I don
[2:17:44] t know if
[2:17:44] that
[2:17:46] s formal, but if
[2:17:49] commissioners do Or if there is
[2:17:50] something that is going off the
[2:17:51] out of the tracks, out of the
[2:17:53] train, what did you use to
[2:17:55] train metaphor out of your lane,
[2:17:58] right? You know, um, it would
[2:18:00] be helpful fully knowing and it
[2:18:00] sounds like the commissioners
[2:18:02] are aware of that for, for the
[2:18:04] city attorney to step in and
[2:18:05] say, we understand you
[2:18:05] re going
[2:18:08] down this, this chart, this
[2:18:10] path, got us. You know, thank
[2:18:12] you. Um, however, Let
[2:18:12] s bring
[2:18:14] it back to this discussion at
[2:18:17] hand. I think that nice nudge
[2:18:18] you tell us all the time on
[2:18:19] Mondays, Lauren, in the nicest
[2:18:21] way to say, hey, you know, not
[2:18:23] tonight, um, but I think that
[2:18:23] s
[2:18:24] a clear direction and I think
[2:18:26] that will be helpful for the
[2:18:27] commission to help gear their
[2:18:30] conversations. Yeah, thank you
[2:18:31] for that because it
[2:18:32] s not fair
[2:18:36] to to put that. On to the
[2:18:37] commissioner to make that
[2:18:39] decision, which MAY or MAY not
[2:18:41] be right, whether or not
[2:18:43] somebody is in or out of their
[2:18:46] lane. That is what the city
[2:18:48] attorney is there for, so I
[2:18:49] agree and that
[2:18:49] s perfectly fair.
[2:18:51] I think there
[2:18:51] s been some
[2:18:53] disconnect on what the lane is.
[2:18:54] And so I think this
[2:18:56] conversation has helped define
[2:18:58] the lane because I think when,
[2:18:59] when staff and the assistant
[2:19:00] city attorney have tried.
[2:19:01] Sometimes there
[2:19:01] s pushback.
[2:19:02] Well, yes, this isn
[2:19:03] t our lane
[2:19:05] because so, so I think this
[2:19:06] conversation is really helpful
[2:19:07] to guide that discussion at the
[2:19:09] planning commission meeting.
[2:19:10] And I hope the chair always
[2:19:12] feels empowered to rein in
[2:19:12] conversations as needed, as
[2:19:13] you
[2:19:13] ve seen me have to do a
[2:19:16] couple of times tonight, um, ok,
[2:19:17] I think we
[2:19:18] re reaching a point
[2:19:19] of closure. People are packing
[2:19:22] their bags, so that
[2:19:22] s good,
[2:19:24] terrific. Um, I just want to
[2:19:25] thank the staff. I know there
[2:19:27] was a tremendous amount of leg
[2:19:28] work that went into preparing
[2:19:30] for this, um, making sure that
[2:19:32] this was going to be a valuable
[2:19:32] conversation in the long run,
[2:19:33] which is always strange when we
[2:19:34] don
[2:19:34] t have direction. I want to
[2:19:36] thank the members of the
[2:19:37] planning commission, Ruggerio,
[2:19:38] who
[2:19:38] s listening from afara
[2:19:40] commissioner cover. Uh, in our
[2:19:42] chair Lombardi, who typically
[2:19:43] steers your meetings. Thank you
[2:19:44] for letting me have the honor
[2:19:45] tonight and the members of the
[2:19:47] public for being here. You
[2:19:47] re a
[2:19:49] work to hold us accountable is
[2:19:50] extremely important, so thanks
[2:19:51] for listening into this
[2:19:52] conversation tonight. I think
[2:19:54] we are officially ready to
[2:19:56] adjourn our meeting to the next
[2:19:57] regular meeting of the city
[2:19:58] council. It
[2:19:59] d be nice to be
[2:20:00] regular again in that way
[2:20:03] Monday, MARCH 3rd, 2025 at 6
[2:20:05] P.M. Here at City Council
[2:20:07] Chambers in West Hollywood Park.