Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Good evening. I'd like to call the July 2nd uh planning commission meeting to order. Would you like to lead us in the pledge? Sure. over your heart. Begin to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible. Okay. Are you ready to take role? Commissioner Cho here. Commissioner Fresco here. Commissioner Landress here. Commissioner Reese here. Commissioner Wasserman here. And uh Chair Hamilton or Vice Chair Hamilton present. All right. I'd like to move to item 3A, the oath of office for a new commissioner, Jacob Wasserman. Okay. Uh I'll be administering the oath of office. So if you could raise your right hand, repeat after me. I, Jacob L. Wasserman, I, Jacob L. Wasserman, do solemnly swear do solemnly swear that I will support that I will support the Constitution of the United States constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California and the Constitution of the State of California and that I will faithfully discharge and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the planning commission. the duties of the planning commission. Congratulations. Congratulations. Um, we can move on to item 3B, which is the election of officers. I'd like to make a motion. I'd like to nominate uh Josh Hamilton as chair and Pier Choco as vice chair for 202526.

Second. Can we do that by acclamation? We can. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Nope. All right. We have our new chair and vice chair and then you can do your seat switching. Do we do our seat switching? Well, okay. Or or we could just keep it where we are right now. It was easier with the name blocks. The ceremonial changes of the name blocks. Okay. We'll get you next time. Okay, we're ready for the item number four, the planning director's report. Uh, Ethan. Hi everybody. Roxan Tanamorei, um, deputy director. Happy to be here with you this evening. Um, we have a lot to catch up on, um, in terms of updates. Um, let's first just go ahead and start with our upcoming planning commission meetings. Um, we see that we won't be meeting again likely until August 20th. Um we'll keep you posted if something does change based on the way um our long range agenda is shaping up. We'll have a little bit of a break. Um so August 20th, you can see on on the screen that we do have um a tenative for a text amendment to allow alcohol um at um 2001 Wilshire. And in terms of ARB, we have a full agenda coming up on July 21st. We have a series of housing projects. Um so that is um a busy and an important agenda. um happy to see those projects moving forward. Um we also have landmarks commission coming up on July 14. There's a structure of merit application um at 112518th Street. Um that is um a residential structure that's currently listed on the hri. And then we also have our annual Mills Act contract um monitoring um

update as well as new contracts going forward in August to the commission. Um, in terms of city council, we had um an important meeting on June 24th, which was the adoption of the um the two-year fiscal or the two fiscal year um budget. Um that was passed um after a fair amount of discussion in the preceding meetings to talk about council priorities and where they did want some adjustments made. Um that particular item did include some minor adjustments on the dis to address the need around public safety for a community service officer and one additional lieutenant. Um there is going to be more information presented about the budget um likely in one of our other items that I'll be updating you on um which is the state of the city. Also coming up on July 8th is an important meeting around the airport conversion project. The city council will be looking at um anformational presentation from staff around the three um scenarios that were put out for public input and comment. Um there will be a a large body of information around what the community um feedback was on those not only on which was a preferred not just one one of the three options but which components of each of the three scenarios um got the most pin drops and the other um survey tools that were utilized. So, that's going to be a good a good meeting and a good discussion. Um, the council did not um want to have a lot of other items on that meeting to give ample time for the discussion. Um, July 29th, you just heard about the RAND um DA amendment proposal at your last meeting that's going forward as well as an extension of an ADU ordinance in for um compliance with state law. And then finally, some other updates. Just on on a larger note, um our city council or excuse me, our new city manager, Oliver Chi, he will be starting on July 14th. So, we are excited to welcome him to Santa Monica. Um we are also hosting

a Palisades Malibu business resource fair on July 9th. That'll be at the main library from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. We'll be offering um information about temporary relocations, um limited term workspaces, that kind of information for folks who who would like to relocate to the Palisades or from the Palisades while the rebuild effort is underway. Um we are also going to be hosting a new format for the state of the city that's going to be on July 17th. that's going to be hosted at Reed Park u from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. Again, a new format for State of the City. There's going to be reception in Miles Playhouse. There will be um food. There will also be city and partner organization booths with activities for kids and for folks of all ages. Um it's also a kickoff uh to celebrate the community's 150th um anniversary celebration. So, that'll be a great event um in a new format and a new location. So, hope to see you folks there. Thank you. Any questions, Commissioner Landros? Um, thank you, Roxan. Um, could we potentially agendaize the housing package that just went through the legislature and takes effect today or yesterday? Um, I know it's all of what you're reading all night long trying to figure out how it impacts Santa Monica, but I think the sooner we can um explain why we've just been put out of business and everything will be coming across your desk um for administrative approval. Uh it just be great to to understand the contours of that. My other question, I'll just ask them both at once. In the spirit of us being the infrastructure people, which includes to a certain extent, the travel of vehicles around Santa Monica, um, parking meters have gone in in a variety of places, which is great, but I have

heard from the community that the time of the parking, like the limit is not great. uh a two-hour a two-hour segment along Ocean Park between about 18 um excuse me 17th and 16th I want to say used to be two-hour parking and the meters that went in are now 1 hour um which is causing problems for people with appointments that last longer than an hour for which they can't come out to add money to the meter. So, I'm just wondering um how that was arrived at and if it's possible to get a second look at that sooner rather than later and as and and to and to make sure that as meters are going in and I understand that that's council direction for this year's budget that they are actually responsive to the nature of the businesses that those meters are ultimately serving because I think in this case people are going to Pilates sessions, they're going to lunch meetings, they're going to other kinds of appointments where they can't just sort of duck out and and put money in the meter. Thank you for both of those requests. Um, as you know, we are reviewing um furiously the the new uh the new language that's been adopted and we anticipate that there will be interest from the community, the council, this commission, and others. Um, I will defer to our planning team, but we we will be preparing information that perhaps explains the the arc of the the changes and what that would mean in in some plain language for folks. Um and in terms of the parking meters and the changes to the hour limitations, um we will certainly um raise the the point to our colleagues in DOT and see if we can either bring some information to you sooner rather than later or if there's something that they can provide that explains the rationale for the changes and how they're making those decisions. Commissioner Fresco, did you have a question?

Okay. We'll get to that in just one second. Any other questions? Um I have I have a question just about the um I know we have there's a there's a dashboard that the planning um group uh group has put together uh that lists the projects that have applied for entitlements and have been entitled. Is there can we get an update on where that stands because so many housing projects obviously don't come to us and I'm just would like to know kind of where where we're at in terms of number of projects and number of new units that are have been proposed. Yeah. AB: Absolutely. Um I'd be happy to send a link out to the commission after the the meeting um and then we can help you decipher. It's it's a very visual, easy to use. Okay. Uh dashboard. We update it. We try to do it probably quarterly. Um it was last updated beginning of May. Okay. Um for the purposes of that because it's it to be it's just so you know it's manual. Um you know so u but we do we did it for May because we we just did our um annual report. Okay. GHCD. That would be helpful. Y thank you. Can I ask a quick followup on that as you were asking it? I'm really I'm curious as we head into sort of a year. So I'm asking this in advance from the fires. Um sometimes discussions here have turned on occupancy rates, rental occupancy rates um as projects are developed and to the extent that we are start we are able to capture data about um postfire occupancy or whenever that might be possible to capture it just be really interesting. I don't think it needs a long conversation, but it could be useful for us to understand alongside the development pipeline.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I hear I mean like I in it's a positive question in the sense that I hear that a lot of the a lot of the projects that were taking a minute to fill filled and they're filling with families and they're filming filling with and they're bringing some of these streets to life in the what's available out there um to provide a a data point if it's available. Yeah. Okay. Let's move on to agenda item number five, planning commissioner announcements. Commissioner Fresco. Well, first I want to welcome our new commissioners. I'm glad you're here. Um, and I also wanted to let you all know that July 10th is the actual 150th birthday of our fair city. Uh, the map was recorded at 10:10 a.m. So, you can have a moment of joy at that moment on that day, which is a week from tomorrow. Um, so I just wanted to make sure every I tell people that's the birthday every year, but this year it was especially important and exciting. Um, that date you hear about July 15th, that was the day they started selling lots. Obviously, they had to record a map before they could sell lots. So, if anybody tells you it was founded on July 15th, you can feel free to correct them. So, happy birthday, Santa Monica. That's our cesques centennial, right? Okay. Any other announcements? Was just wanted to introduce myself. Um I'm Jacob. I um live in Wilmont with my wife and two young kids. Um today was actually my first day on parental leave.

My son was less happy to be with me than his mom. Um, my day job is I'm a transportation planning researcher at UCLA. We have a think tank there. Um, study transportation issues. Um, my email is, uh, new email is jacob.wassermanmanica.gov. Um, feel free to reach out anytime. I'm happy to chat, grab coffee, talk about issues. Thank you. Okay, let's move on to public input. This is for items that are not on the agenda. Have we received any requests? Okay. Um, Commissioner Landress, I have a question. Well, for for our cassette calendar, I have a question. Okay. If that's all right. Yeah, let's move on. I'm wondering um in view of the really limited um wiggle room. I mean, I read this resolution number 2513 and I'm trying like there wouldn't there even if I'd wanted to, there weren't words to change. Um, I'm wondering if we can put 11A onto the consent calendar or if we actually have to hold a public hearing. I think procedurally we would recommend that you hold the hearing. Okay. Yeah. Because you you have to make a recommendation to the council. We Okay. All right. Oh yeah. And and of course you could wave the staff report for elimination should you wish to do that at the time. Okay. Are there any commissioners who want to pull any items from the consent calendar? I would like to pull 7B. Okay. I'll be annoying on my first day and pull 7A because I wasn't there for the meeting. Yeah. Toain abstain. I don't think we

need to pull that from the consent. Okay. Okay. Are we pulling it or no? However, I can best abstain. You can abstain. Our practice is I mean you can tell him this, but uh generally if you're absent, what we're told is that we're voting on our faith in our staff in the accurate portrayal of the meeting. So, it doesn't actually matter if you were that case. Never mind. Ju just to clarify, uh, Deputy City Attorney Michelle Hugard, it's a vote of confidence um that the meetings were transcribed properly. Okay. Um, so we're going to pull um item 7B from the consent calendar. I'll move 7A. Second. All those in favor? 7 A. I I no opposed. Okay. Okay. Do we have any expartite communications for uh item 7B? Do we do we need the staff report or just timing wise? It's not critical for me. I do have a few questions. But I don't need the staff. Could I I'll move to wave the staff report. Okay. So that we can go straight to questions. Do we have any Okay. I second. Okay. All those in favor of waving the staff report for 7B. All those in favor say I. I. I. Thanks. Do we take public comments now? If there are if there are any if you have questions of staff, you can have that and then you can then move on to public comment. Y. Right.

Okay. Question time. Question time. Any questions from the commission? M. Commissioner Choco. Thank you. Based on one of the letters that we received from the public, I had a question to staff regarding uh past experience with limitations uh on the CUP for single serve alcohol and uh the ease of enforcement of those provisions. your your question is about the the ease of enforcement of single serve alcohol. Yeah. Um I mean to you know practically speaking it's obviously our enforcement system is complaint based. Um you know we don't have the resources to do kind of proactive or to be everywhere at every time. um you know so from that uh you know p perspective obviously the you know the city would respond to any complaints um around that uh I would say you know we I I don't think we've come across I guess that issue to our knowledge you know in terms of enforcement um of those kinds of particular conditions but I you know I would say practically speaking it it probably would be a challenge to to enforce you know consistently be just because of the nature, you know, and and and the ability of just the the availability of enforcement resources. Commissioner Fresco. Um, even though I didn't wasn't going to pull it from the consent calendar, I did look at other cups that we've granted over the many many years I've sat here. And I noted there were two conditions that often or one in particular that often repeats itself, which is that at

the end of the business day, the employees of the convenience store would walk a radius and make sure there wasn't trash. And I didn't see that condition in this and I was wondering why that was. Oh, it is in there. I just missed it. I'm sorry. And the other question I noted that most of them they say that they can't sell alcohol after 11 p.m. And this one goes until 12. So is there a reason for that or did I misread that one? Oh, there we go. So, the daily operational hours of the convenience market are 6:00 a.m. to midnight. And so, we felt that the sales could occur during the regular operational hours. Okay. So, Okay. Thank you. Um, so we had an exchange briefly about um the sale of alcohol at gas stations in Santa Monica. And I want to kind of put that on the record in the sense that it seems that there are other gas stations um where there are off-site sales with no restrictions. Uh I believe you had mentioned Cloverfield as one of them. Um, and then I don't remember the other one, but it was So, yeah, it's the Chevron at 1812 Cloverfield and the Arco at uh 332 Pico Boulevard at 332 Pico. So um so if we look at the arco that's actually essentially a precedent for not limiting this in the area around schools because that's within easily 500 ft of Santa Monica High School. So, I'm you know, we got some correspondents

expressing concern about the proximity of of SMC and I would note the proximity of John Adams and Will Rogers and um um it's not clear to me that there is any precedent for us placing additional restrictions on these off-site sales given the history of the cups in other locations. Is that accurate? Yeah. I mean, I I think to put a finer point on it, you know, where we allow off-site sales and, you know, I would be cautious about regulating just particularly on like one land use because we have, you know, 7-Elevens, we have CVS's, you can buy alcohol at grocery stores, right? um you can buy it in a lot of places that are all over the city and uh you know so I think if there was an interest in especially restricting alcohol sales associated with gas stations around schools especially when we already have existing places you know we would really need to establish you know the rational basis for treating one individual land use so differently when you have alcohol sales associated with many many other land uses in the city. No I I I I get that. I also am assuming that the same applies to the question of alcohol sales at gas stations given our interest in trying to prevent impaired driving. But there is I mean I'm assuming that if that data were there we would have banned g we would have banned alcohol sales at gas stations nationwide or and I mean you can you can drive to your grocery store and purchase alcohol. You know it's the same. It's not dissimilar in that regard. And every every alcohol application that we get, we run through the police department for their questions, comments, concerns, you know, and they did not express um concern with um the this this particular permit at this location. Okay, great. Thank you very much. Any further questions?

I do have a follow. Um just to dig a little deeper on the advent of the Santa Monica College facility opposite this the street from this uh proposed use. Um I think I'm picking up from the previous response that we have not in any other instance where um such a use has been proposed directly or very close to a school. We've not typically introduced different conditions from what we have proposed today. Is that did I understand that right? No. Um we we haven't I think introduce you know anything particular just because of proximity um you know to to a school. Um and we're certainly happy to to walk through you know some of the operational conditions just highlighting some of the key ones if you know like if you're interested in hearing that. I think just prepared to do that. Well, as a sort of a related question, then it would seem that rather than requiring an a cup, in such instances, it might make sense just to have a standard limitation of the use rather than actually having a public hearing each time and raising the expectation that there might be something different. Is that something that's been considered before? Uh, absolutely. Um, you know, that that's probably a different topic uh alto together you know that we can certainly agendaize and discuss another time but generally speaking you know we do have uh streamlined alcohol you know permits uh for different kinds of uses especially in the downtown where there's been a hyperfocus on econom economic recovery that kind of a streamlined permit exists for like restaurants throughout the city um you know because it's generally incidental um you know so

uh to kind of eliminate the cup for the stand standalone off-site uh or offsale uses, you know, would be a policy shift. Um but like I said, if there was interest, we could certainly agendaize and discuss that at a different. So my last question um and I think it's in as a followup to a response I received from staff. Um the there is a provision in the code for a compliance report to be done on a particular use after a specified period of time. Um could you speak on that having been you whether or not it's been used recently in a similar situation just to provide some additional guidance. Yeah, it it has been um I'm just remembering it may it was imposed I think on a it was a convenience store. I can just think of like two or three. This is in the last five years. It's not super super frequent. Um I think we have like it's been used for some daycare centers. you can remember a more recent one. You want to speak to I'm just thinking about your question and we have um required you know periodic reporting and I can think of one for a restaurant with alcohol um and there were a variety of concerns that had been raised by the neighborhood and so that was considered by this commission. The an the reporting requirement was imposed and we do get those reports and I reviewed one recently and it also provides the the vehicle if there's any concerns, you know, the community knows that they can um provide that to the operator and then also through that reporting we will have a a chance to review it as well. So there the the the code section, you know, that kind of like speaks to this is 94108B. Um and that's essentially associated with the conditional use permit part of the zoning ordinance. So, it contemplates this, you know, where in response to issues or concerns raised

from the community or just um, you know, concerns from the commission itself, you do have the ability to, you know, kind of ask for, you know, I'm just making it up like, you know, after a year of operations, write a report back to the commission on, you know, were there any code enforcement complaints received, you know, any um, you know, police, you know, calls for service essentially, you know, for many of the city's agencies with regards to this. just to understand, you know, whether the allowance of alcohol, you know, influence that. And it's not that it would be a means to say like, okay, this stops, right? Because the conditional use permit runs with the land. What it does allow is the imposition of potentially additional operating conditions to mitigate those those issues. Right. And as a followup, I was going to ask if in the past situations where we have um required a compliance report, has it resulted in changes in conditions or is it typically just causes better behavior as a result of the conditions? Yeah, I haven't. I mean, and ever so ever since this particular provision was included in the code, we we've I would say sparingly added it as as a condition in some conditional use permits. I can't think of an instance where we've had to bring something back to the commission um for additional conditions to be added on. Thank you. Okay, there are no further questions. Um do we have a presentation from the applicant? Good evening, honorable chair, vice chair, commissioners. Jennifer Odin, on behalf of the applicant, I'll be brief and I can answer any questions. Certainly, I think I can hit on maybe some of the commentary and questions that came up, but um as you know, I'm representing the applicant. The applicant has been here at this location since 1985 is the landowner. Um business owner and operator since the early

1990s, um when it took over the gas station, service station, converted service bays into the convenience store, um that we now see today as the Chevron Extra Mile. and um takes this application very seriously with respect to the off-site sale of beer and wine and is a responsible existing responsible California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Lency at other locations, other gas station for off-site and actually on-site locations as well. So certainly familiar with all of the rules, laws, regulations regarding the off-site sale of alcoholic beverages, in this case beer and wine. To answer your question, Commissioner, there's not an intent to sell singles at the location. Um, for beer, the intent is to sell threeack, six-pack, 12-pack, your multi-ack for beer. Um, because really it is a 2100 square foot convenience store and wants to serve the neighborhood with respect to coming in, grabbing a few items, and that ancillary beer or wine with those few items. It's only four cooler doors, roughly about 70 linear feet, uh, allocated. So it is a very ancillary use to the food mart. Um pretty common place with respect to convenience stores, gas stations um in this day and age in in the state of California and one that customers um generally expect and and request to see and that's why uh Mr. Mace and and his brother Mr. Mace brought this application is is really in a result of um the customer base that they have and that they want to continue to serve and better serve. So we're available for any questions. There's also two members of the public that are here uh in support, business owners across the street from the mechanic shop and from the uh tire shop if you want to hear support. But overwhelmingly it's been um supportive non-opposition from the law enforcement and it's as we all know very heavily regulated of course with the with respect to the conditional use permit and also by the state ABC right an ABC license has to be um applied for and

approved and consideration factors including but not limited to uh schools nearby will be considered by the state ABC. So, um, we look forward to the opportunity and we respectfully request that you approve the conditional use permit and we can answer any questions. So, the applicant has uh other stores like this that do sell alcohol, correct? Um, okay. In the Los Angeles area. Correct. In the greater Los Angeles area. Okay. Have there been any complaints raised or any actions brought against those other locations? No. No. Um I have the applicant Albert Macei here, an officer, director and shareholder of the the corporate entity uh Masco Investments Inc. and um no revocations of those ABC licenses, no suspensions, um up to date on their responsible beverage service and training and um good good business stewards in the communities as far as I understand it. Okay. Thank you. Are there any further questions of the applicant? We have no public comment. Actually, I have I do have one question. I'm not sure I I heard correctly, but could you repeat uh how long the present business has been in operation, the community? Sure. It's been a to my knowledge, it's been a gas station since 1965. I see. Um, my client purchased the location in 1985 roughly. There was a tenant that was operating, purchased the land. There was a tenant that was operating. It closed for a period of time. Uh, in the early 1990s, 1994, there was some remodel, reopening of the gas station that took place. There was a cup at that time. And then in 2004, there was a cup for the conversion of the auto service bays into what we now see fully the convenience

store food mart no longer having any service bays at the location. So since 2004 it's been a convenience store. Correct. Under the current ownership under the current own and and the current ownership actually since land ownership since 1985 and operate business operational since the early 1990s. I see. So, one last question regarding the timing is uh since it's been operating as a convenience store, the timing of this cup for alcohol sales, is it by any chance part of the consideration the new development across the street? No, not at all. Um, actually, it's been something that was contemplated in years past. There are other um, as I mentioned, other ABC licensed locations, gas stations that the Masachi brothers own and operate. It's a common request from the patrons that come in um and has become something, you know, in our consumer-driven world, I guess, that that is expected um at these at these locations. And it's really just to better serve the um existing clientele and future clientele. And that was the the reasoning behind it. Your mic is on. Do you have a question? I'm sorry. Okay. Um, okay. Well, I think that, um, there are no further questions. Um, and I think we've had a good discussion. Do we want to move to a vote? Do we have public comments? I don't think so. Yeah. Want to mention that didn't I think we can move to a vote. We'll we'll close the public hearing and move to a vote. Second.

Uh, Commissioner Czecho. Hi, Commissioner Fresco. Yes. Commissioner Landress, yes. Commissioner Reese, yes. Commissioner Wasserman, yes. And Chair Hamilton, yes. Okay, let's move on to the uh study session item eight in the agenda. Um an overview and discussion regarding Santa Monica sign code from city planning staff. Um so the the bulk of our brief presentation will be actually given by Michelle Hugard. Um, I'll just give an overview and uh, you know, the reason this is um, on the agenda tonight is actually um, a couple uh, of commissioners reached out and had questions. You know, just different ideas around the sign code. Um, and uh, you know, it occurred to us that I don't the commission um, some of you are have been here a long time, some of you are brand new. You know, it's probably a great time just to do kind of sign code 101. So, the purpose of this tonight is kind of just an overview primer on the sign code. um you know how it works, its limitations um and the like and really just to take your questions um you know it's meant to be high level um not a super detailed discussion about any particular program or anything like that. Um so with that I'm going to turn it over to Michelle. Um I also want to mention we have Stephanie Reich from our ARB team who obviously um implements you know a lot of the sign code um works with the board on reviewing signs and things like that. So happy to also answer your questions. All right, thanks Jen. Uh again, Deputy City Attorney Michelle Hugard. I'm stepping in the shoes of Heidi today and as I told Jen earlier today, I am the standin for the

standin. So this is going to be very high level. Um so let's start. So the city can regulate signs through its land use controls. Um and and before I get into that, there there's no action before you here today. This is really just a high level overview um to answer your questions and then staff is here to um answer questions about actual implementation at the city level. Uh I'm going to provide the legal underpinnings for why there are certain regulations and certain legal considerations that we have with respect to signs in general. Um so first of all, the city can regulate signs through its land use controls and this can be done in a variety of ways. Um, one way is something that's happened recently and that's establishing districts in which creative signage is appropriate and uh, earlier this year in March and also in June um, council gave some direction with respect to this. So um, in March there was some direction given regarding animated and supergraphic signs on the prominade. So allowing more flexibility on the prominade for uh, particular reasons of economic uh, growth and sustainability of the prominade. And there's been also some discussions about the allowance of large format digital billboards um that have been prohibited in the city for quite some time. Um the city can also regulate signs in purposes of uh proprietary capacities. So uh wayfinding signs we we've have those in the downtown area. Also bus advertising and this is a great way for the city to have a source of revenue. Um and we can also regulate the city can regulate uh to avoid overp proliferation and blight um within the city. So although the city can regulate signs um such regulations are more limited than some of the other land use controls that the city may have under its general

police power. And there's a good reason for that because signs are protected by the first amendment and um regulation of signs can be considered a prior restraint on speech. So because of that um if the sign is regulating content, so if it's a contentbased, it's not contentneutral regulation, it has to pass strict scrutiny, which is the highest level of scrutiny. Um, and if you have to read a sign to determine if a regulation applies, then that's a good indication that it could be a contentbased as opposed to contentneutral regulation. So, an example of contentbased regulation would be if there were different regulations for say a hotel or a political sign than there are for others. Um, and another issue that comes up with this in particular is uh the allowance of on-site versus off-site advertising. um that's come up quite a bit in recent uh juristprudence. So on-site advertising is, you know, advertising goods and services at a particular location. Off-site would be advertising um goods or services that are at a completely different location. Um, and there has been, as I said, recent juristprudence in the last couple years from the Supreme Court as to whether that on-site versus off-site is contentneutral or content um based and what regulations apply to that. And the Supreme Court has said that it is not um a contentbased distinction. And I I will say this is very very nuanced. So there is a lot of case law as to all of these different points um that we probably won't be able to get in here today. Um but this is again just a very very high level overview. So the city's um sign code is content neutral. Oh sorry one second. The pro yeah the

provisions of the city sign code is content neutral. regulates time, place, manner um in which the message is displayed. All the regulations are contentneutral. They must advance a substantial governmental intest. They must be narrowly tailored to that interest and they must leave open alternative channels for the information to be communicated. Um courts have held that aesthetics and traffic safety are substantial government interests that can be regulated and that would justify um sign code regulations. And the specific provisions of the sign code um are in chapter 961 of the municipal code. Again, it regulates the time, place, and manner um size of signs, potential illuminations allowed for signs of temporary and permanent signs in the city. It exempts certain signs um non-commercial signs and special event signs uh in the city. it uh off-site advertising has been um prohibited since about 1985, although there were some billboards that were grandfathered in. Um and there are discussions of potentially amending that in the future. Um it's also kind of important to note that the uh sign code lives outside of the zoning code. So, um any potential changes to the sign code would not require a um resolution of recommendation from the planning commission um to be made. Of course, if there are uh advisory um statements that the PC would like to make to uh the city council, they can do so, but it's not going to require a stop at PC before it would go to city council. That being said, um and Stephanie is here to provide some more intricacies of the things that you may see. um to the extent that there are signs that have to be reviewed by the

architectural review board or if it's a historic site that requires a um cert certificate of appropriateness for signs, any appeals of those decisions would come to you all. Um also, if there's any development agreements that maybe have implications involving signs, those would all come to you as well. And with that, that's my highle overview. Um staff is here to answer any specific questions regarding implementation. Um that's all I have. Great. Thank you so much. Do we have any public comment on this? Okay. Um we can move now to open discussion amongst the uh commissioners. Mr. Landress. Yeah. I I guess I have question. This came to us when Hilton uh wanted to put a sign up on the building and we couldn't say yes. Um because the code clearly forbade it. Um I'm I appreciate the study session. What I'm trying to understand is um where we are headed. I know this is on the minds of many particularly because of the prominade, right? Um but I'm also well aware that um with the advent of mega events um with I mean there's a whole politics of signage now right and sponsors and things like that that there may be revenue opportunities for private property owners in the city but also for the city itself. Um, so I I guess my questions are whether or not part of that conversation is driven by that. Um, uh, with some sensitivity to our own

city's precarious financial position. Um, but also whether there are distinctions in how the city how signs are regulated on city- owned property versus signs being regulated on non cityowned property. and the extent to which the city has the um authority to regulate signs on properties owned by other public entities such as the school district or the college just so that we can understand. I'll I'll address your your question about like public and private property. I think to to be clear the sign code applies to everything first like foundationally unless there's an exception. So one thing that is in there and an exemption to the sign code you know then this speaks then to you know the city's proprietary role versus its regulatory role right so um if we have uh events you know that fall under our definition of what is a community event on public property um those kinds of events are exempt from the sign code um so that that that is an exemption that is in our sign code um under sorry I'm just looking it up 961140 um as uh uh signs a special event sign. What's defined as a special event sign um and that is uh signs associated with you know an event approved through a community event permit or a temporary use permit. Um so in those instances you could have signage you know that is regulated and the reason for that is because it's regulated under the community around permit guidelines which is a whole another set of things. Just to be just to be super clear so I understand you. You you could put up a sign saying Fourth of July parade this Friday on our city-owned property at the civic center, but Rand could not. Yeah. So there and then this is so then there there's that's the distinction. There's

other regulations, you know, around like, you know, like some someone couldn't just put up a banner, you know, on one of our light poles, for example, or string it across the street, you know, for any reason. You know, the the sign code does regulate even that. Um, you know, where the city, you know, has the authority to do that. You know, it needs to be to advance a public purpose, a public event, something like that. Um, you know, so you'll often see that, you know, where it's promoting, you know, a a city event. And um I think the city's 150th, you know, this centennial, right, would be an example of that or other city events. Um the there's a city co-produced events or what have you like um I'll just like Main Street Solstice, right? You know, you kind of see that banner come up. So that's kind of an example. So there's I guess I say that with like there's many layers to to the sign code and and it's not sort of just like one size fits. Yeah. And also in addition there are temporary signs that are exempt for all properties. Right. Exactly. But again it's not it's it's not it has to be contentneutral. So Right. And the same and so we regul are are is the school district and the college and the and the courts are they exempt? Yes. School districts are Yeah. Yeah. They they're exempt. They're exempt from any review for the city. Okay. So that so they can put up their digital billboards and Um well there are certain there are certain schools that are within the jurisdiction of the city and the city's design review code but uh the schools uh such as LA USD or Santa Monica right Santa Monica and SMC that are regulated by the state uh we have no purview over them. Okay. Okay. And lastly we for forgive me for miss for not really

fully noticing this. When I drive in Los Angeles frequently on the street lights, you brought this up. We see, you know, coming to the Getty, coming to the LA County Museum of Art, such and such an exhibition. We do not permit that in Santa Monica because it's private. Those are private nonprofits or we do for some non-contentbased reason. We enable we do enable banners, but I believe they are p that has to be public. So, so the sign code at 961140 C um exempts pole banners or or over the street banners that are authorized pursuant to another code section. So, we do allow them in some situations. Commissioner Jacko, thank you. I have some questions regarding how the approval of signs through development agreements and how that works. Um so is the intent as you move forward with these uh changes is the intent to establish some broad uh standards that would apply to all the sites or would the intent be to allow specific standards on specific sites to be approved through development agreements? Uh it's a little bit of both. Um and I think we're not talking specifically about uh any projects tonight because they might Yeah. But in terms of the broad purpose the the direction that you've been given that's what I wanted to understand. Um I think we are doing some general studies to inform uh to to inform uh all of the development agreements. Uh and then they are each a separate matter. We're trying to develop we've been directed to develop a district. Um and

so we're trying to have a broad policy framework while we're also looking at specific agreements. Sorry, just to provide clarification. Sorry, I I thought you were talking about just a regular old DA, but um it it sounds like you're asking about um council's recent study session on the digital billboard development agreements. So, just to recap from that um from from that meeting, council gave direction to form a um special sign district for the third street prominade in Santa Monica Place as the kind of like only geographic area where digital billboards um could be considered through a development agreement process. Um, so we work we're working with the city attorney's office to bring back to council um that sign that special sign district ordinance um which would you know have to be uh you know in place uh you know before the development agreements um you know for a billboard proposal um could be authorized by the council. And um so is it possible for a development agreement approval of a sign on one site to be approved and not be approved on a another site with similar locationational considerations. So separate I I I think I kind of want to pause here because I just I want to make sure that we stay within the bounds of the agendaized item which is not specifically about those. Also those development agreements will require recommendation you know of this planning commission to the city council. Um you know we're very much working through the process of that you know at the moment. So, I think, you know, if you have questions, we're happy to answer and kind of recap council's direction, you know, but I don't want to get into a substantive discussion about any one of those development agreements. Yeah. And I I can just chime in here and that's, you know, we want to prevent the

appearance of a prejudgment bias so that you all can participate in um that discussion if a DA comes to you in the future. Thank you, Commissioner Wasserman. Thanks. Um just one question about um the content regulation. Um my understanding is that if it is sort of speech by the government, the government has more power to regulate it like they could reject a sign, you know, at city hall or something like that from certain content. Does that I guess how far does that extend? Does that extend to digital billboards on public or digital displays on public property uh like at Palates Park, things like that? So the city's the city sign code is really content neutral. I mean in the past there were more contentbased regulations and there was substantial renovations amendments done to the sign code to make it content neutral. And so um the way that the sign code reads now is that we really attempt to make all of the regulations time, place, manner and not on the content of the speech. So there's a lot of potential hypothetical situations that are very nuanced and happy to have some further discussion about that but the evaluation on that would be very fact specific. So I want to say uh thank you for a great uh presentation. Um, I coincidentally um had had a conversation with with planning staff just uh about a week before Commissioner Landress brought this idea up about wanting to revisit um that discussion that we had had regarding the Hilton um and wanted to better understand our you know what what room we have within the regulation to um

allow for businesses similar similar to the Hilton to uh have more flexibility about their signage. I think, you know, that conversation that we had um I think we I think we understood the applicant's request really well. I think it had a lot of merit. I think had it not been for the regulation, I think, you know, I at least would have voted for it. Um and I I think it's a I mean, I brought it up because I think it's a conversation that we just need to have. I mean, particularly for businesses. Um, and it I I want to also premise this by saying it's not that we Santa Monica does not allow signs. We do allow signs, but up to a certain height. And I think that was what um the applicant in the in the situation of the Hilton uh they just wanted to allow for the sign that they were allowed at 20 ft to be higher up on the building to allow for better wayfinding for their guests as they are crossing Fourth Street um or coming in from the freeway, the 10 freeway and exiting. Um, I will say that, you know, they they wanted just better signage to help people find their business. Um, and I I thought, you know, they also had mentioned that they had put a lot of investment into that building. Um, and they I want to find a way or you I'm curious about ways that we can see this also as like an economics revitalization concept where businesses who do make investments in our city, who do bring high quality, you know, uh, retail are given some flexibility about signage. So, that was the premise of just wanting to open this conversation a little bit further and revisit this. Um, but I have a question

for staff and um so as I said before, we do Santa Monica does allow sight. It's just at a certain height. Um, and I'm thinking about say uh a business like let's just say a crass example, but like a standalone McDonald's, right? The business is a restaurant that is allowed signage because it is basically it's the building is the business. There is an identity of interest between the actual operation of that business and the ownership of that building. And um my my question would be, you know, in some ways the a hotel like Hilton is similar in a lot of respects where the building is owned by a single business. Um they're not subleasasing it. They're not selling that that space at the top of the the building for, you know, to you know, as a as an income generator. It is simply a sign that announces what business is in that building on a and that's the only business in the building. So, it's not like a typical high-rise, right, where you buy the rights to put the sign up. Um, is there I'm I'm asking is there some flexibility that we could we could put into the code that would allow a business say like the Rand building, right? It's one building. it's owned by Rand, they're the only tenant. Um, or a Hilton or not to be specific to hotels, but any business where there is a an identity of interest between the ownership of the building and the operation of the business. It's all one. Um, could we allow a waiver to allow

those businesses to have a higher sign to allow their their sign to be higher up on the building than the current standard. So, if I could just talk a little bit about sign the flexibility that's in the code. Yeah. Um, so the reason that the rooftop sign for the Hilton came to you is because they were asking for a sign adjustment and that sign adjustment went to be reviewed by the architectural review board and staff analyzed that request against all the other rooftop signs that we have in the city and analyze that against the findings that needed to be made. So, we analyzed the request and found that that request couldn't meet the findings. Um, and I have the findings in front of me, we could, you know, put them on the screen. Um if we thought the findings were too in if if the commission thought wanted to have a discussion about the findings that the findings are too inflexible um to allow the kind of flexibility that might be necessary. We you know the the planning commission or the council could modify the findings for example. I just wanted to clarify that there is flexibility in the code and there could be a possibility to make the findings for a difference um a different sign that's not within the code and we have that ability to do that. Okay. Um but this that particular project did not qualify for this. Well, staff felt that it didn't we couldn't make the findings. The ARB agreed with us and the applicant applied for applied for that adjustment um with a case to make the findings. I think I just want to pause

again that we're not getting into talking about obviously a decision that's been made already. I appreciate using it as an example, but I think um you know to answer your question about you know any way to think about flexibility I think your example there of like using you know a situation where you have a single owner associated like that this you know that that's kind of like a use based you know restriction um you know I don't think that that would be content neutral you know a time place manner restriction I'll throw an example out there you know you could for example think about, you know, within some distance of the freeway as an example, right? As something that is contentneutral, you know, and as a geographic, you know, restriction just just as as an idea. This is not talking about any one single situation, but that that's an example um of of, you know, a way to think about flexibility. I'll just speak kind of generally, you know, because I think this was brought up in the context of just the city's general um economic recovery approach. you know, we we are definitely looking at all kinds of different ways to provide flexibility, but as as you can see, sign codes are really tricky, you know, and there is a like tremendous amount of um judicial precedent, case law that informs all of it. And I would say just about every question I've ever asked the city attorney's office about signs is tremendously fact-specific and peppered with like first amendment craziness, you know, give the the attorney answer. It really depends, right? It really depends on the particular situation. So, right. Very much so. Yeah. I I don't want I don't mean to keep referring back to the Hilton because I don't want to revisit that, but it just happens to be the example. Um I think we can just as easily turn to the Rand building, you know, in and talk or or a any building

absolutely that's owned Yeah. by a single occupant for a single business. And I think like regulating in that way would probably be be it sounds like it would be trouble. Some are potentially not allowed. Um I think what we're trying to maybe the point here really is that you know if you think about allowing it for one one whatever the situation may be you know that it may be you may have to require it or allow it for everybody you know unless you can think of a distinction you know that would make it able you know to be restrictive in that way. So that's why you know geography like is an example you know of of that but it's very much like it is fact specific you know we would have to depending on whatever the proposal is it would have to be analyzed on whether the facts were there to support that regulation fair that's fair commissioner those findings they're generic findings right so Are we allowed to look at those? 96113 adjustment. Oh, interesting.

There. There you go. Oh, you got it. Okay, go back. sign adjustment. Practical difficulties are unnecessary hardships. Not a special privilege. Wait. And oh, you're making it bigger. Yeah, keep going. Almost there. Okay. Uh, and then incompatibility. Okay. So, um Okay. I think the so to keep this generic um it is hard to say that not putting up I mean I can think of things where it's an unnecessary hardship but the conversation we're having we're not talking about practical difficulties and necessary hardships we're talking about um enhancements and in the in the eyes of the applicant we're talking about enhancements um revenue generators uh things like that. So um my observation I don't know where you are chair Hamilton but you know my observation would be like to take a look at one and see let me go back take a look at one which is to evaluate the practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships um and whether or not that's too strict a standard. Um, the question of special privileges I think we need to keep because we want to have we have a vested interest in some kind of consistency across the city. I mean, we just had a whole conversation about alcohol permits and

gas stations and why we can't, you know, think about them differently. Um, and then the question of incompatibility. Uh yeah, that's I'm just going to say objectives, design standards, and and back slowly toward the door. Um and what's four? Sorry, the purposes of the chapter. Okay, so I I think I'm leaning on one and raising that question about practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. Um and I would raise the question particularly in the current economic environment as to whether denying the opportunity. This is a very challenging one but I would say if I'm a business owner trying to stay in my location and I'm looking to make money to make my rent and my payroll almost by any means necessary and I think oh I can rent I can do digital advertising or I can do something like that. Um, I think we have to do some really careful analysis to make sure that a the city has the right to regulate things so that we're not covered in advertisements and b that we are not overly preventing businesses from leveraging their properties to make money and stay in business. I'll stop there. Could you scroll down briefly to number four?

So, would it be possible to I'm trying to find a a contentneutral standard that would allow certain businesses to uh have a sign um higher up on their building uh than than what's currently allowed. And and um what what we're hearing is that we could look at it based on the geography and the location of the business. Um and then you said that there was also a a standard where if there was a certain like distinction or difference with the business that would not apply to a particular particular building or particular business but could be broadly applied that that's also an acceptable avenue of discussion and still stay within first amendment prohibitions. Yeah. Yeah, I mean I think you if if I mean I I think overall what you're looking for is just like flex flexibility not and and and particularly there's an interest in upper level science. I just kind of want to clarify kind of like desired out. Yeah. Um you know and I I I think we just Yeah. I think it's hard for us to kind of give like direct feedback on, you know, like, oh, would this work, would this work, you know, sort of like sort of on the fly just because, you know, the complexities of how how sign codes are are constructed. Um, you know, so I think that if you know, just kind of I I'm hearing some interest in it. You know, this is this is a study session, so yeah, you're not taking action. Um, but the commission could certainly, you know, give direction. You know, I expressed an interest in sort of like

further exploration, you know, of of looking at upper level signage. Um, ultimately, it's the city council that sets, you know, policy um and and the like, you know, so it could be kind of part of that communication. You know, we don't have we don't have like wholesale changes to the sign code going to the council at the moment, right? You know, it's sort of kind of an ongoing piece of it. Um, you know, but It's something I think you expressed that interest you know it's something we could take into consideration and this kind of overall look of things and you know if there's council interest in doing something like that provided we could think about and you know see see options and avenues you know for looking at okay that would be I think helpful yeah and just so that the commission is aware we have provided that flexibility already on the prominant and so because that has a your geographical boundary right where that we can easily do. Okay. Yeah. And I you know another another distinction too is the sign itself would not be uh in way I would see it would not be a revenue source or generator for the building. It would simply be the business displaying its sign as to who it is. But it's not a it's a revenue neutral sign. Yeah. Yes. Commissioner Leandress, I'm not sure that's entirely true because if you have a building that is owned by company one and leased by company two and the company two is acquiring the right to put up a selfidentifying sign, it's still revenue to the owner. The owner is charging rent for the sign. So I just Right. the owner's interest in permitting or denying a sign might be revenue related relative to the lee that

wants to put up the sign, right? I mean, I guess if it if it helps drive if it helps people find your building easier and they're better able to, you know, use your use your business, I guess that's one I guess that's the way I would see it. But it wouldn't be like a a downtown high-rise that sells the signage rights to any business that wants to pay and advertise. That's off premise, right? So, we can make the distinction between on premise and off- premise, but I think there are revenue cases for on premise signage relative to a land owner and or property owner. It's actually right, but I think I think the distinction is offsite. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I mean, the other thing I just wanted to throw out there was um if I'm looking at the prohibited sign, and I'm not sure when this was Well, actually 2020 um we do not particularly do a great job of and I don't think this content I think this is content neutral of like light intensity and so we might want to consider strengthening prohibitions on light intensity or flashing lights um even on the prominade. I want to you know we should do we now have to put up warnings for people who are um who have epilepsy. Uh, are we going to start seeing digital signage that could potentially cause somebody to have a seizure? I don't know. Like, that's above my pay grade. But to your point about upper level signage, and we do have some limits on upper level signs or roof signs, these are A9 and 10 of 961 180. Um, I would be I I'm thinking about it in terms of like where could a sign be located on a larger on a taller building. Maybe not a larger building. I'm not sure I agree with you about a

building the size of the Rand building. Um, I'm much more interested in the buildings that are much much taller, including, you know, Hilton and Higher as our examples. um where there is no way that that sign could distract a driver or a cyclist um or you know right. So could we be more permissive on upper level signs whose intensity is sufficient to be legible but not not any ever at a level where you know you you could be caught off guard by it. I think the request was for a backlit sign, which I think is a tasteful and good example of the kind of thing we would want to allow if we could. Yeah. Yeah. And our ban on animation there would be would be sufficient to avoid a kind of Vegasy. Yeah. Come here. We're definitely trying to thread the needle there. Yeah. Okay. Well, is there any other um discussion amongst the commissioner regarding this? Okay. Um, what do you want? What should next steps be in terms of this conversation? I mean the you know this is a study session. You don't have to take any action you know at all. I think um you know we've certainly heard your questions. I I think as a commission you know you like I said you don't have to take any action. if you feel like you would like to make a motion to give some, you know, general direction, express an interest, write a letter to the council. I mean, there's sort of many different things for you, but it's not, yeah, it would need to be agendaized to do that. So, um, you're not you're not really taking any action. Okay. Can I ask a sense of the commission question? I just we don't even have to

vote but I think would be helpful because some of us were there at the prior hearing of the unnamed applicant about whom we are not thinking right now. Um are we as a body broadly interested in the kinds of adjustments that Chair Hamilton has alluded to. I mean, I think it would be helpful for staff to know if we're kind of open to that conversation or whether we'd really just rather leave things the way they are and that not with more specificity, but it sounds like it would be helpful for you to know and for council to know that we think there's something to work on here and we'd love to know your thinking or we really think that we're fine. I would describe myself as open but cautious. I think the world is changing and we always have to be open to reevaluating. Yeah, I'm I'm there too. Low priority in my life is signage. Put myself in Pierce camp. In in Pierce camp. Okay. All right. Well, it's been a good conversation. Um, I think staff, you've heard you've heard our feedback and and um we'll try to find an appropriate time, if any, to continue this conversation. Okay. Um, we have no continued items, no staff administrative items. We can move on to item 11, public 11A, recommendation from to the city council that the council

amend the text of the city's zoning ordinance to promote economic recovery and increase land use flexibility in the city's downtown area. And yes, with no doubt um just like Jesse, Steve prepared a deeply detailed and meaningful presentation that would have changed our lives forever. Uh, nevertheless, I move to wave it. I second. All those in favor of waving the staff report say I. I. I. Okay. Um, any public comment on this item? Oh, okay. Yes, sir. Um, thank you. I I just had some questions on I guess elements of the um interim zoning ordinance that were discussed in the resolution that put this on the agenda but not here um before us today. So what um have you evaluated the results of the uh by right changes that are in the on the prominade and surrounding area? Yeah. So I think uh those changes to land use um that's kind of what we're currently doing at the moment. So I think a lot of uh our experience with a lot of the ICOs that have come out is give it a little bit of time so um the public can engage um and then also through different examples we can then start to study and see what's working, what's not working. So in terms of the recent by right changes that we made back in October 2024, it's a little bit We're still seeing some u you know positive moves in that direction. But um so the plan is for um since we've made

so many changes to the land use table in the downtown area um instead of kind of a peace meal moving forward um we're looking at it more of a holistic and comprehensive approach to make sure that all of our land uses um kind of make sense. Uh it gives us correct things that may kind of come up based on kind of the situation of the business. Uh, but it also allows us to kind of jump right back in to make enhancements as we're kind of getting feedback from the public. Um, so that's kind of what our team is kind of going to be doing ongoing and we realize a lot of these are something that we're continuously evaluating because we're in that mode right now of economic recovery. Do you have a sense of if the fact that it's in an ICO as opposed to the permanent zoning ordinance affects ability to get a loan other abil willingness of a business to uh you know start up if it's allowed in an ICO but not in the permanent zoning ordinance? No. You know, in terms of um we have this uh open to 2028. Uh by no means I don't think that we're intending to wait that long, but um whether or not it's an ICO form if it's permanently adopted. It affects everybody the same. So they everyone's getting the same availability. But yeah, we we don't know. I don't think there's any connection between whether or not it's internal or not. Um and uh you know, working with our economic development team like uh we envision that these are changes that are either really just going to get more flexible if anything. So, as we're meeting with new businesses, we're letting them know this is kind of the direction. I would also make two two points on that. I think one is that we're, you

know, as we make these changes, um, one of the things we hear from a business community is like it's just hard to find information and we're trying not to put it in like three or four different places. So to a property owner broker to be able to be like look you know whether it's in like look either in this you know this permanent code or the ICO like we're trying to keep the regulations all in the same place number one but I think the practical effect of it is you know if a use starts up under an ICO it is vested it's not like you know because it expires like okay like you know it now terminates that's not the way land use works if you happen to get in you know under that IU umbrella it continues you know we have every intent so even if it's like codified lab it makes no difference, you know, practically speaking. So, you know, we're not seeing um believe me, if if there was concern in financing or uncertainty, we would hear about it immediately, you know, um but we've had nothing but overwhelmingly positive feedback from property owners and brokers who are liking the, you know, are very responsive, uh, you know, to to their issues, their ability, our ability to move quickly to address their leasing issues, their ability to turn it around and market it. um is huge, you know, for them. And I think the ability to know that they have an ICU and that we're able to continue to tweak, you know, that as things arise, particularly around the downtown and the prominade area. Um you know, we we're just not hearing kind of, you know, concern around like, you know, the fact that it's either impermanent or or IO, but for actually ease of looking at where things are, you know, we're trying to keep keep things kind of together. And then one more question. Um on let's see March 20th um there was an executive order uh the Palisades fire executive order that suspended enforcement of a number of things but limits on the gross revenues per year of alcohol sales restrictions on the number of televisions screens and screen size prohibitions on pool tables video games

amusements bowling darts and other similar activities. I mean the fact that these are prohibited I'll save it for comments. Have have you evaluated the effect of that executive order on businesses in the district? Yeah, I think we're starting to get feedback from that. That was intended to kind of be just in time for the March Madness uh tournament. So, uh it was a great time, but um you know, these are standards that used to make sense in the city. Uh but nowadays, we're really trying to relax these as much as possible. So from the EO standpoint, those suspensions in particular, we're going to kind of take a look at those and reevaluate those to see what's the best approach of trying to keep those moving forward. Do you have a timeline whether or not? Well, we have the emergency order for another two months, but I imagine we'll probably be back. Uh I mean, just you understand kind of the how the emergency order works. It's not obviously meant to be forever. um the council has to ratify, you know, the proclamation of the emergency every 60 days. Um so they last did that at their um June 20 June 10th, I think it was. And then so they're due to do it again, you know, in August, provided that the conditions of emergency still exist. Uh what we are actually seeing now is displaced Palisades businesses. So the schools initially, you know, very quickly contacted us. What we're seeing now is businesses um who were, you know, in the Palisades, you know, and now are ready to actually reopen again um and relocate to Santa Monica. So, it started a new wave of questions around am I allowed here? What can you do to assist, you know, as Roxan mentioned, we're holding the the small, you know, the business resource fair for Palisad's businesses on July 9th. So, it it has kind of established those continuing conditions for the council to continue the emergency. Um, and you know, because the questions we're receiving are kind of they're new, you know, it's like, oh, okay, like we didn't think about that. You know, as they look for different

spaces throughout the city and we look to match um, you know, business with tenants space, you know, what are the barriers? Having the tool of the EO in place allows us to really make that change very quickly and take effect immediately. The city manager has as a director of emergency services does have that authority and then the council ratifies that, you know, every every 60 days. So, when you think about a timeline, um you know, we've been we we definitely um that was council's direction and it's baked into the emergency order um around the relief for schools um displaced small businesses um and also around like suspensions around leasing regulations and the like. You know, it's it is in the order for staff to explore ways to evolve that into other mechanisms. So, that will be coming forward. you know, when it looks to us like the emergency looks like it's kind of like winding down. Um, you know, I think, you know, we're looking at that. I think finding opportunities to do that, um, you know, when it makes sense. Um, I would imagine probably somewhere around, you know, the end of summer, fall would be an ideal time, you know, for us to kind of package that together. Um, you know, and bring it forward to the council for for codification for this year. Yeah, for this year. Commissioner Leandress. Um, I really don't have anything to ask except I mean in honor of the 150th annivers iversary birthday of the city of Santa Monica. Could we please get rid of the ban on dancing citywide just for that one? Please. I mean I we learn to say web crows. Um no, I mean like I'm f Yeah, I'm happy to get rid of everything else, but we know I just we know the origins of that ban. They're not okay. We learned this from Commissioner Fresco a few years ago.

Thanks to her, I think the city made a lot of progress. But um the ban on dancing was racist. It was designed to harm African-American residents of the city of Santa Monica. Um so I'm happy to see them go. Um but I would like to see them go I mean I would like to see them go permanently citywide. I just wanted to say that. So I will vote for this. Um but like including but not limited to dancing like it's just still there. It was a different time. All right. Any other questions of staff? Do we have any public comment? No public comment. Um okay. We're open to commission discussion. Yes, sir. Yeah. I mean, I'll I'll just echo what Sean said. I I think that the the things in the the March Madness order for for one, you know, it it's its connection to the Palisades fire seems stretched to me. Um I will also say that, you know, the the ICO zoning distinction may not be that big, but an emergency order is different than the zoning ordinance. and to invest in a big TV, a pool table, it's not a huge investment, but you might not do it if 90 days from now you're going to have to throw it out. Um, so I'm pleased to hear that this is going to come soon. So, I I I don't think we need to do an amendment at this time, but um yeah, I I just want to see those kind of restrictions, which, you know, I think are ridiculous, especially at a time when people need third spaces. Um to, you know, that we prohibit pub crawls seems ridiculous to me. Um but I'll I'll leave it at that. I think the changes

proposed are are great and I'm happy to vote for them. Okay. Um I just have Oh yes. Uh now I've been triggered by Sean and I have to uh give a little historical perspective on these things. when I said earlier that times have really changed and you know that I'm open to reviewing things because times always change and you know when I think about the history of Santa Monica and you know in the old days it was the wild west and we were known as a saloon town and then we became one of the early prohibition towns to make up for it and then we realized that was silly and we went back the other way and I think when we implemented a lot of these rules we were trying to like really clean up our image and become fancy pants Santa Monica. And fancy pants Santa Monica is not working for us anymore. And so we're just evolving and we just need to be self-aware and continue to meet the needs of our community. I wholeheartedly agree with you about the fancy pants of Santa Monica. It needs to get We need to We need to loosen up a little bit. Yeah, we need to move on. Okay. Um, are we ready to have a vote on this item? I'll move the item. Second. Commissioner Cho, yes. Commissioner Fresco, yes. Commissioner Landreas, yes. Commissioner Reese, yes to dancing and TVs. Commissioner Wasserman, yes. And Chair Hamilton, yes. Okay. Well, um without any uh are there any planning commissioner discussion items? I don't

think so. So, I think we're ready to adjourn our meeting at is it 7:32? Shall we do so in honor of the 15 upcoming 150th anniversary of the of the map recording of the city of Santa Monica on July 10th, 18 75. And not to like make it all about me, but July 10th is also my birthday. And in honor of Commissioner Frasco's birthday, you're like Yankee Doodle Dandy. I am. You are Santa Monica's very own Yankee Doodle Dandy. I am.