MINUTES MALIBU CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT SPECIAL MEETING NOVEMBER 13, 2017 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4:30 P.M.

Transcription

1 CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL MINUTES MALIBU CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT SPECIAL MEETING NOVEMBER 13, 2017 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4:30 P.M. Mayor Peak called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m. The following persons were recorded in attendance by the Recording Secretary: PRESENT: Mayor Skylar Peak; Mayor Pro Tern Rick Mullen; Councilmembers Lou La Monte, Laura Rosenthal and Jefferson Wagner; Chair Mikke Pierson; Vice Chair Chris Marx and Commissioners Jeffrey Jennings, John Mazza and Steve Uhring ALSO PRESENT: Reva Feldman, City Manager; Trevor Rusin, Assistant City Attorney; Lisa Soghor, Assistant City Manager; Heather Glaser, City Clerk; Bonnie Blue, Planning Director; and Kelsey Pettijohn, Deputy City Clerk PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Marianne Riggins led the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION Mayor Peak moved and Councilmember Wagner seconded a motion to approve the agenda. The motion carried unanimously. REPORT ON POSTING OF AGENDA Deputy City Clerk Pettijohn reported that the agenda for the meeting was properly posted on November 3,2017. PUBLIC COMMENT None. ITEM 1 NEW BUSINESS A. Neighborhood Character Finding for Residential Coastal Development Permits Requesting Site Plan Review or Minor Modification Recommended Action: Receive report and provide direction to staff. Mayor Peak stated public comment would be limited to two minutes per speaker.

2 Page 2 of 8 Planning Director Blue presented the staff report. Lloyd Ahern stated Councilmember Wagner should recuse himself because he would move out of the City after his term was over and would not have to live under a policy change. Marianne Riggins discussed what neighborhood character means beyond the square footage of houses. She stated the City had larger lot sizes compared to other coastal cities. She discussed set-back limits and total development square footage (TDSF). Walt Keller deferred his time to Lucile Keller. Lucile Keller, Malibu Township Council, indicated support for the current development standards. She expressed concern regarding short-term rentals throughout the City. Andy Stem indicated opposition to any change to development standards. Jo Ruggles discussed the original development of the neighborhood standards. She stated neighborhood standards were never intended to limit development. Norm Haynie stated the neighborhood standards provision was intended to provide relief from other development standards so a house would fit into the neighborhood. He stated development in the City was not comparable to the other coastal cities referenced in the staff report. He indicated support for Ms. Riggins comments. Steve Yett indicated support for Ms. Riggins comments. He stated strict limits on development square footage motivated property owners to build as large as possible. Candis Duke stated neighborhood character was not determined by square footage. She stated putting stricter limits on TDSF would decrease property values. Ted Vail!, Malibu Democratic Club, discussed his experience with neighborhood character while on the Planning Commission. Michael McDonnell stated there was confusion about the neighborhood standards provision among real estate and development professionals. He expressed concern that strict limits on development square footage would decrease property values. He discussed the procedures required for the Council to create a new law.

3 Page 3 of 8 Doug Burdge discussed the length of the permitting process in the City and the larger lot sizes in the City compared to other coastal cities. Peter Doerken discussed his property in the City and his experience as a real estate agent. He expressed opposition to stricter limits on development square footage. Gene Zilinskas deferred his time to Beatrix Zilinskas. Dagmar Zilinskas deferred her time to Beatrix Zilinskas. Beate Nugen deferred her time to Beatrix Zilinskas. Bill Sampson deferred his time to Beatrix Zilinskas. Ten Marx deferred her time to Beatrix Zilinskas Richard Lawrence deferred his time to Beatrix Zilinskas. Lotte Cherin deferred her time to Beatrix Zilinskas. Beatrix Zilinskas discussed the size of houses in the City over time. She discussed the cost of houses in Malibu compared to other coastal cities with mansionization policies. She stated anti-mansionization policies did not negatively impact property values. She discussed the Mission Statement. She stated TDSF and other development standards were insufficient. A. Thomas Torres discussed the creation of the development standards. He discussed the unique development conditions of the City compared to other coastal cities. Richard Holmes discussed his property in the City. He indicated opposition to any change in development standards for projects already in development. Michael Osterman was not present at the time of the hearing. Don Schmitz discussed the Via Acero, appeal which brought the issue of neighborhood standards and neighborhood character to the Council s attention. He discussed the financial burden on the applicant to require neighborhood standards analysis for all projects. He discussed overlay districts as an option to regulate neighborhood character in certain areas. Fred Gaines indicated support for local control and stated the law had to be followed until it was changed.

4 Page 4 of 8 Dru Anne Jacobson, Malibu Township Council, read a letter sent to the Council by Marilyn Dove. Ann Doneen was not present at the time of the hearing. Paul Gristanti discussed the creation of the development standards and zoning map. He discussed property setbacks and the letter sent to the Council from the Board of Realtors. Councilmember Wagner stated his permanent residence was a house he owned within City limits. In response to Councilmember Rosenthal, Planning Director Blue stated the maximum TDSF was 11,172 square feet for non-beachfront property and there was no TDSF limit for beachfront property. In response to Commissioner Uhring, Planning Director Blue stated square footage was not the only factor that impacted neighborhood character. She stated larger houses could be designed to mitigate negative impacts. In response to Commissioner Mazza, Planning Director Blue discussed requirements for a site plan review or minor modification. She stated if a project did not request one of these reviews, the neighborhood character finding was not required. In response to Mayor Peak, Planning Director Blue discussed revisions to the original neighborhood character finding to be more specific to size, bulk and height. She stated the neighborhood standard provision was not related to the neighborhood character finding. In response to Vice Chair Marx, Planning Director Blue stated staff did not find any evidence that neighborhood standards were analyzed for all projects at any point in the City s history. She stated staff research showed the neighborhood standards were used for relief from other development standards. Commissioner Jennings discussed the creation of the development standards. He discussed relief provisions in the Malibu Municipal Code (MMC), including the neighborhood standards provision. He stated the neighborhood standards provision was rarely used because of the expense of research and many applicants applied for a minor modification instead. He discussed the Council s power to change the law. He stated the development standards should be as objective as possible. He discussed the original process for building project approvals in the City while the development standards were being created. He discussed the creation of the development envelope to allow simple approvals for projects that did not require discretionary review. He expressed opposition to limiting

5 Page 5 of 8 neighborhoods to their original development square footage. He stated the expensive and long permitting process motivated property owners to build the largest house possible. He suggested ordering an economic study before changing the law. Commissioner Mazza stated limiting property use impacted property value. He stated Ordinance No. 174 defined what a neighborhood was. He indicated support for the Planning Commission assessing neighborhood character. He stated it was easy to gather data on the square footage of neighboring houses. He requested direction from the Council on what development was reasonable in a neighborhood. He stated many developers applied for a permit for a larger house on a property and, when the property was sold with the development permit, the new owner would apply for an amendment for a smaller house. Commissioner Ubring discussed mansionization in the General Plan. He stated there was no evidence to support that property values would drop if there were stricter limits on development square footage. He stated any financial impacts would be minimal. He stated large houses in neighborhoods with smaller houses would have negative impacts on the neighborhood. He stated houses would get bigger over time, but it should be slow growth. Vice Chair Marx discussed the project permitting process. He discussed neighborhood character in the General Plan. He discussed the impact houses built out of the character of the neighborhood had on the neighbors. He stated large houses had fewer interested buyers and would be more likely to be repurposed for commercial uses. He stated a simple process could be developed for approval of projects for the neighborhood character finding. Chair Pierson indicated support for the other Commission comments. He stated the Planning Commission should not exercise too much discretion when making its findings. He requested direction from the Council. He stated any neighborhood character standards should be able to be analyzed early in the application process. He stated the Council should consider limiting TDSF to limit house size. He discussed the importance of defining neighborhood character. Councilmember La Monte stated Big Rock residents had expressed concern to him that additional restrictions on development square footage would negatively impact property values. He stated the City already had laws to limit development. He expressed opposition to laws that would negatively impact property values for longtime residents. Councilmember Rosenthal encouraged the community to submit any written comments the week before the meeting to allow the Council time to review. She discussed other coastal communities where houses were closer together, and where larger houses created many negative impacts for neighbors. She expressed

6 Page 6 of 8 doubt that further development restrictions were needed. She discussed the lot sizes of houses built to the largest allowable TDSF. She expressed doubt that property values would be negatively impacted. She indicated support for an economic study. She stated any new standard must be clearly defined. She discussed decreasing the TDSF limit to further limit house size. She indicated support for grandfathering-in any projects in the pipeline. Councilmember Wagner discussed the importance of having clear development standards. He discussed overlay districts as an option to regulate neighborhood character. Mayor Pro Tern Mullen discussed the masionization regulations of other coastal cities. He discussed the history of neighborhood standards and thanked Ms. Ruggles and Ms. Keller for their comments. He thanked the real estate and building professionals for their comments. He discussed the Mission Statement. He discussed long-term Malibu residents opinions on developing larger houses. He indicated support for using the neighborhood standards to analyze neighborhood character for all projects. Mayor Peak discussed property owners concerns about property values. He apologized if the Council s actions created any uncertainty for property owners. He discussed the visual impact of larger houses. He indicated support for an item to limit TDSF on beachfront property. In response to Councilmember Rosenthal, Mayor Peak stated there were building restrictions that may limit house size on beachfront lots but there was no limit on TDSF. Mayor Peak discussed what square footage creates a mansion. He stated no new law was being considered but the Council was analyzing the interpretation of current law. He stated the neighborhood standards provision could be applied to exempt properties from other development standards. He discussed the difficulty of applying neighborhood standards to a neighborhood with different lot sizes. Councilmember Wagner indicated support for creating a new policy. Mayor Pro Tern Mullen discussed the need for a simple and objective calculation for any development standards. He indicated support for using the neighborhood standards provision as the foundation to analyze neighborhood character. Mayor Peak discussed the importance of looking at lot size in relation to development square footage in a neighborhood. Commissioner Mazza stated the Planning Commission could analyze a neighborhood accurately.

7 Page 7 of 8 Commissioner Jennings stated the Los Angeles County Tax Assessor data was the easiest to gather but differed from the City s data. He suggested choosing a consistent data source to use for all analyses. Councilmember Rosenthal stated many houses had illegal additions that should not be included in any neighborhood standards analysis. Mayor Peak discussed the importance of having easily accessible data for staff and applicants. Councilmember Rosenthal discussed the TDSF calculation and suggested adjusting that calculation before creating a new regulation. Mayor Peak stated no regulation would prevent a property owner from proposing a project at its maximum TDSF. Councilmember La Monte stated properties were already analyzed based on lot size to determine the TDSF. Mayor Peak stated the Planning Commission was required to find if a project fit into the neighborhood character and it was important to have a definition of neighborhood character. Vice Chair Marx discussed the difference between limiting TDSF and analyzing neighborhood character. Commissioner Jennings stated the neighborhood character finding was only necessary when a site plan review or minor modification was requested. Mayor Peak discussed the importance for property owners to know how to exempt themselves from the neighborhood standards review. Councilmember Rosenthal discussed unintended consequences of using the neighborhood standards provision to analyze the neighborhood character. Commissioner Mazza stated the Planning Commission had to analyze each project carefully because each property was different. He stated the Planning Commission did not make political decisions. In response to Mayor Peak, Assistant City Attorney Rusin stated staff was looking for direction on what type of item should be brought back to the Council. MOTION Mayor Peak moved and Mayor Pro Tern Mullen seconded a motion to direct staff to bring back an item to the Council on options for a policy interpreting the neighborhood character finding required for certain discretionary planning

8 Page 8 of 8 ADJOURNMENT ATTEStF: approvals, including site plan review, and including an option that references the neighborhood standards criteria detailed in LIP Chapter 3.6. The question was called and the motion carried 3-2, Councilmember La Monte and Councilmember Rosenthal dissenting. At 6:40 p.m., Mayor Peak adjourned the meeting. Approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Malibu on December 11, ~ /7~ //.~ I~ /1 1 / /1 ~/ I ~YLA~?TEAK, Ma3!or HEA.~HER GLASER~ity Clerk (seal)