Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
07/19/2005, PH 5 - APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION DENYING A SCHOOL TENANT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE SLO BEAUTY C
council "'�°`°� 7 iq/os agcnaa Repom h.N..b. N� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director PREPARED BY: Jaime Hill, Associate Planner SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION DENYING A SCHOOL TENANT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE SLO BEAUTY COLLEGE AT PACHECO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, 165 GRAND AVENUE(AP-CC 72-05). CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution, denying the appeal, and upholding the Planning Commission's denial of the School Tenant Permit, based on findings. REPORT4N-BRIEF The San Luis Coastal Unified School District has signed a master lease with Colmer Construction to manage the former Pacheco Elementary School campus at 165 Grand Avenue. Under that agreement, Colmer Construction is responsible for leasing to tenants, following the terms of a Master Use Permit for the site approved by the City. The Community Development Director and Planning Commission have dented a request to establish the SLO Beauty College (a beauty school— classified as specialized education/training) at the former school location. The SLO Beauty College had applied for a School Tenant Permit in order to lease several classrooms and the library at the former elementary school. It was determined that the use is inappropriate at the site, due to traffic impacts and insufficient parking. The Director also found that the beauty school would use utilities in amounts greater than normally provided for school use, contrary to standards established in the City's Zoning Regulations. The Director and Planning Commission's decision is being appealed by Morris Goatley, applicant and owner of the SLO Beauty College. The appellant believes that the beauty school use is compatible with the neighborhood, there will be no adverse impact on traffic, and there is sufficient parking on-site to accommodate the facility. Further arguments are presented in his appeal (Attachment 13). The Council has been provided with a record of the Director's and Planning Commission's decision and with several letters from the neighborhood raising concerns regarding uses at the former elementary school (Attachment 14). Staff is recommending that the City Council deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission's determination. DISCUSSION Situation In April 2004, the San Luis Coastal Unified School District applied for a Master Use Permit to allow the leasing of Pacheco Elementary School to multiple tenants, as the facility has not been in use by the district as a school since 2000. On May 25, 2004 the Hearing Officer approved the Council Agenda Report—Planning Commission Appeal of Use Permit 72-05 165 Grand.Avenue Page 2 Master Use Permit for possible tenants at Pacheco School, establishing what uses would be appropriate at the site, parking requirements, and performance standards (see Master Use Permit A 83-05, Attachment 2). Subsequent to the approval of this permit, the School District assigned a master lease for the site to Colmer Construction, who is currently responsible for all aspects of managing the site. Pursuant to the approved Master Use Permit, on April 7, 2005, the applicant, Morris Goatley of the SLO Beauty College, applied for a public school tenant permit to allow a private educational program (the SLO Beauty College) at the former elementary school (see business description, Attachment 3). Based on an evaluation of the application, the Director determined that the proposed beauty school would be unable to comply with the required standards, including Requirement #1 that parking be provided as required in the Zoning Regulations; Requirement#4, that there will be minimal customer, client or delivery traffic; and #9, which states that utilities will not be used in amounts greater than normally provided for school use. The Director found that the use could adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of persons living or working in the vicinity because of its inability to reasonably meet standards designed to reduce impacts of public school tenant uses on the surrounding neighborhood and denied the request on April 21, 2005. On May 2, 2005, Mr. Goatley filed an appeal of the Director's denial of the use (see Director's Determination letter and appeal, Attachments 6 and 8). On June 8, 2005, the Planning Commission heard the appeal and upheld the Director's determination with modifications to findings striking reference to excessive utility use (see Attachments 10, 11 and 12, Planning Commission meeting minutes (draft), resolution and staff report). On June 17, 2005, the applicant; Morris Goately, filed an appeal of this decision. Mr. Goatley has included an attachment to his appeal form which provides a detailed discussion of why he disagrees with the Director and Planning Commissions denial (see applicant appeal, Attachment 13). Analysis The central issues with the proposed beauty school have been traffic and parking impacts to the neighborhood. These concerns along with utility usage, have been evaluated by both the Director and the Planning Commission, and are reflected in the findings for denial. The Planning Commission staff report provides additional background information and a thorough analysis of project issues (Attachment 12). The following analysis was prepared by staff addressing each appeal issue as stated (in bold italics) on the appeal form. A. Traffic: The impact of the SLO Beauty College will not exceed their proportion of the traffic impact that was so when 165 Grand was a school. Our traffic Impact is minimal. As discussed in detail in the staff report prepared for the Planning Commission, all public school tenant uses are subject to 11 standard conditions of approval. Condition number four reads "There will be minimal customer, client or delivery traffic". The SIA Beauty College currently has 49 students and 4 staff members, and attracts a daily average of 75 customer visits. It is important to S� Z Council Agenda Report—Planning_ Commission Appeal of Use Permit 72-05 165 Grand Avenue Page 3 note that a beauty college not only functions as an educational facility but as a salon with daily customer traffic. Students and faculty would be on-site Tuesday through Saturday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM, taking customers between 10:30 AM and 3:30 P.M. Although currently many of the students and customers take public transportation, carpool or vanpool; it must be considered that the SLO Beauty School is only one of many tenants either existing or planned at the site. They are seeking to occupy the library and two classrooms which have a total area 5,947 square feet of space. This represents only 15% of the total leasable space at the school site. To compare the traffic generated by the entire elementary school in the past to that generated by this one tenant would be a misrepresentation of its impact and the cumulative impact of traffic generated by the site. B. Parking 1. The parking requirement for the SLO Beauty College at its current site is 50 parking spaces (South St.) and at the proposed location with less space and the same use, it has become 87. We feel the parking was figured incorrectly for Grand Street.. Section 17.16.060 of the Municipal Code states that parking for schools offering specialized education/training shall be required at the rate of one space per 50 square feet per classroom area. Based on information provided by the applicant the beauty school would be occupying 5,947 square feet, 1,583 square feet of which would be used for office space, storage, and a break room, which has no parking requirement. The remaining 4,364 square feet would be classroom and lab space. The City's parking requirement for the use would be 92 spaces (see attached parking matrix, Attachment 5). The SLO Beauty College is currently located at.285 South Street, Suites M-1, N, and O. In January 1995 an Administrative Use Permit was approved for this location with the condition that 50-spaces be provided (see attached Use Permit A 2-95, Attachment 7). An attached parking calculation shows that parking for the use was calculated at the rate of one space per 50 square feet of classroom area, one space per 200 square feet haircutting space, and one space per 300 square feet support space (including offices; lab, supply, break room and restrooms). This use permit also had a second. condition of approval requiring the school management to submit a trip reduction plan to reduce vehicle use by students and customers. The applicant has not proposed a similar program at the new location or whether it would have similar success given the new location and existing bus service. When uses have unusual business practices or utilize large amounts of floor area at uncharacteristically low densities (such as medical offices that have exceptionally large equipment) the Community Development Department Director has the authority to determine a more appropriate parking requirement than that established in the Zoning Regulations. It is likely that a floor plan was submitted with the 1995 use permit application that justified the lesser parking. requirement for the hair cutting area than generally required. Currently no information exists on how space is used at the current location, and the applicant has not provided a floor plan showing how space would be used at the proposed location. Therefore there is no evidence to justify a less parking requirement for portions of the beauty school use. S3 Council Agenda Report—Planning Commission Appeal of Use Permit 72-05 165 Grand Avenue Page 4 2. SLO Beauty College is the only tenant/proposed tenant to submit the Tenant School Application and therefore they should be considered as the first applicant for the 102 spaces available. The other tenants should be considered subsequent to them. The site is currently occupied by five tenants, including three day care centers, a religious facility and office, and an office for a service organization. An analysis of the impacts of the proposed school must consider the parking demands of the existing uses because they have an effect on the parking that will be available. Despite efforts by both the property manager, Colmer Construction, and City staff, existing uses have not applied to the City for a Business Tax Certificate at this location, which is necessary to legitimatize the business and properly count their demand on available parking. In addition to acquiring a Business Tax Certificate, the child day care facilities are also subject to approval of School Tenant Permit and the service organization is subject to Administrative Use Permit approval. Both the Finance Department and Building Code Enforcement Officer have been alerted that there are businesses operating at this location without required permits and they will be working with those businesses to ensure compliance. The existing businesses, which represent 33% of the total leaseable space have a cumulative parking requirement of approximately 91 spaces. Combining these uses with the proposed beauty college, the total parking demand comes to 183 spaces. The available parking currently on the site is 102 spaces and preliminary plans to expand the parking area.show a maximum potential of 161 spaces. Even if the applicant were successful in obtaining City approval of mixed and shared parking use reductions (see discussion below) it is clear that the amount of available parking on site falls short of the demand. In addition, considering the entire facility would still only be 50% leased out, future uses of the remaining classroom space would result in a significant parking burden to be bome by the limited on-street parking in the surrounding neighborhood. Colmer Construction, the master lease holder, has discussed submitting an application for architectural review to expand the parking area and request mixed-use and shared parking reductions. How these future requests may affect the availability of parking and ultimate tenant mix at the site is discussed in greater detail in the analysis section of this report. 3. The expansion of the parking by Colmer Construction should be taken into consideration. Although preliminary plans for expanding the parking at the site have been discussed, the City has not received the required application for architectural review necessary to expand current parking facilities and approve parking expansions made earlier. Preliminary plans include the addition of 59 parking spaces in the location of the existing basketball courts. Like the earlier modifications to the site's parking, the applicant's preliminary plans do not appear to meet City Parking and Driveway Standards (see attached preliminary parking expansion plans,, Attachment 9). Of the 102 spaces that are currently on site to serve the existing uses, 11 are available for new uses. Technically this means that approval of the beauty school would result in a parking shortfall of 81 spaces, assuming that the spaces previously added without permits were ultimately accepted as meeting City standards. Even if the Council wanted to consider a future expansion of parking, an additional 59 spaces would be insufficient to meet the demand generated by the beauty school. S Council Agenda Report—Planning Commission Appeal of Use Permit 72-05 165 Grand Avenue Page 5 Again, it is important to note that these additional spaces will address some of the parking need for the beauty college but none of the spaces needed for future leases of remaining classroom space. 4. The current tenants parking requirements do not accurately reflect their hours of operation. For instance, the Calvary Church, assigned 47 spaces, only operates on Sunday. This should be taken into consideration when determining parking. On this point staff is in agreement with the appellant. The consolidation of parking is appropriate because of the mixture of uses with differing hours of peak parking demand and the shared parking arrangement at the site, The Zoning Regulations allow the total number of parking spaces required to be reduced up to 10% where two or more uses share a common parking area, and upon finding that the times of maximum parking demand from various uses will not coincide the Hearing Officer can approve an additional 20% reduction, for a total of 30% parking reduction. These shared and mixed-use parking reductions are subject to approval of an Administrative Use Permit. Although Colmer has suggested that they would be interested in applying for shared and mixed-use parking reductions,no such application has been submitted. Conclusion The proposed beauty school, categorized as a private educational program, is subject to the approval of a School Tenant Permit. Both the Director's and Planning Commission's denials of the Public School Tenant Permit were based on specific findings that the use would not be able to comply with the standard conditions of approval, and would impact those living or working in the vicinity. Public school tenant uses are conditionally allowed in order to permit more complete use of space made available by declining school enrollment. The standard conditions of approval established in the Zoning Regulations are intended to address preservation of the integrity of the surrounding neighborhood, consistent with General Plan Policy, when commercial activities replace typical school uses. With demonstrated compliance with these standard.conditions, activities that are more appropriately located in commercial districts could locate in residential areas. Neither the Community Development Director nor the Planning Commission were able to make findings to support the proposed landuse at this location while maintaining consistency with the General Plan. Instead they found that the potential impacts on neighborhood traffic and parking of the use could negatively affect others living and working in the vicinity. Environmental Determination If the Council were to determine that the beauty school use would not substantially increase vehicle trips to the site or use utilities in excess of those normally provided for school use, and would have sufficient parking available, then use of the site for the beauty school could be determined to be categorically exempt from environmental review, consistent with Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15301 allows the leasing of existing private or public facilities involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination to be exempt from environmental review. The alternative resolution granting the appeal of the S=S � 1 Council Agenda Report—Planning Commission Appeal of Use Permit 72-05 165 Grand Avenue Page 6 Planning Commission's decision, approving the School Tenant Permit, adopts this environmental determination. CONCURRENCES Community Groups Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN), and through them,the Alta Vista Neighborhood Association (AVNA) were notified of the Planning Commission meeting when this issue was considered. RQN has verbally indicated support of denial, and comments from individual AVNA residents are attached as part of this report. Public Works The Public Works Department has reviewed the reportand concurs with the staff recommendation. The concern about traffic for this particular tenant is due to the SLO Beauty College's operation as a beauty salon in addition to a school. The salon use conflicts with the minimal customer traffic standard. If it was just a school in the true sense or if there were no standards regulating it,then Public Works would not be concerned by traffic impacts. Additionally, although there is a left turn pocket on Grand Ave., it accesses only a small parking lot. To reach the larger parking area vehicles must make their turning maneuver at the intersection of Grand Avenue and Slack Street, which will bring traffic across existing residences or which will impact residential traffic. The most recent date that traffic counts for the intersection of Grand Avenue and Slack Street are available for is 2001. At that time 3,412 cars were counted oft Slack and 25,333 cars on Grand. Although the City has contracted for new counts to be preformed, they will not be completed and available until after Cal Poly University is back in session in the fall. Building&Safety Public schools are regulated by the State of California,Division of State Architect- Structural Safety Division (DSA-SS).. With the approval of the Master Use Permit, the site is no longer in use as a public education facility, therefore DSA-SS no longer has authority to regulate the site. Any modifications to use or alterations to the buildings will now be regulated by our local Building Codes. It is important to note that some school tenant uses may change Building Code occupancies, therefore triggering building modifications, such as fire sprinklers, to conform to our City building regulations. FISCAL IMPACT When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, it may only have a neutral fiscal impact. ALTERNATIVES 1. Uphold the appeal, thereby overturning the action of Planning Commission and approving S�o Council Agenda Report—Planning Commission Appeal of Use Permit 72-05 165 Grand Avenue Page 7 the school tenant permit to allow the beauty school on the campus of the former elementary school based on findings of compatibility of the use with the site and conditions to minimize potential impacts to the neighborhood (Attachment 12). It is important to note that this action will require a subsequent application to expand on-site parking. It is also important to advise the master lease holder that future use of unleased classroom space may not be possible due to lack of sufficient on-site parking. 2. Continue the item for additional analysis or research. ATTACHWNTS Attachment 1: Vicinity Map Attachment 2: Master Use Permit A 83-04 (old Pacheco Elementary School, 165 Grand Avenue) Attachment 3: Business description Attachment 4: Site plan Attachment 5`. Parking Matrix for 165 Grand Avenue Attachment 6: Director's Determination Letter with Findings Attachment 7: Use Permit for SLO Beauty College at existing location, 385 South, A 2-95 Attachment 8: Administrative appeal letter Attachment 9: Preliminary plans for parking lot modifications Attachment 10: June 8, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes(Draft) Attachment 11: June 8, 2005 Planning Commission Follow Up Letter&Resolution Attachment 12: June 8, 2005 Planning Commission staff report Attachment 13: Planning Commission Appeal to City Council Attachment 14: Correspondence regarding school tenant uses Attachment 15: Draft Resolution upholding the Planning Commission and denying the School Tenant Permit Attachment 16: Draft Resolution upholding appeal and approving the School Tenant Permit G:UBritz\DA,TE,STPU 65 Graad(STP)\CC Appeat\AP CC 72-05(S10 Beauty College).doc 5- 7 ,111111 � ��.�! ,��`r I�,�',F;; Fj,•4i � �,- � ®1111 �} t s i YraY^ • moll ��►'� �® �'' ` $yi :CIII 1111■ ismWIN ■ ■11N■� X111111111 ®�■ 1�■.: ,�.�. ■ � , �I� ■■■ .� 1111 �11�; :111 = �' ��� . h -� ..CII■■ '®f VIII `� ® 1�� Q�■, moi■ 11= � 1 File No. 72mO5 . Attachment 2 hils Y of S- An OBISPO 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 May 25, 2004 Brad Parker, Facilities Director 1500 Uzzie Street San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 SUBJECT: Use Permit Appl. A 83-04 165 Grand Avenue Dear Mr. Parker. On Friday, May 21, 2004, 1 conducted a public hearing on your request to review the Master Use Permit for possible tenants of Pacheco School, at the above location. After reviewing the information presented, I approved, as modified, your request, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings 1. As conditioned, the proposed uses will not harm the general health, safety and welfare of people living or working in the vicinity because conditions on the permit approval will minimize noise and traffic impacts to residents in the vicinity. 2. The proposed uses are compatible with the project site and with other uses in the vicinity. Noise sensitive land uses in the vicinity-consist of residential and educational uses. The proposed uses are not expected to generate noise that. would disrupt nearby residents, as activities shall be conducted entirely within the school building or on established playing fields. 3. As conditioned, there will be adequate space for the proposed uses and supporting activities in addition to all other activities previously established at the school. Parking for the proposed uses shall be provided as required if! Section 17.16.060: Religious Facilities (one space per 40 square feet) Day Care Facilities (two spaces plus one per 14 diems) Social Service Org. (one space per 300 square feet) Public/Private Ed. Programs (one space per 50 square feet dassroom floor area) Employee Org. Offices (one space per 300 square feet) Government Offices (one space per 300 square feet) `� The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled In all of its services,programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the.Deaf(806)781-7410. �j Attachment 2 A 83-04, 165 Grand Ave. Page 2 Service Organizations (one space per 300 square feet office area & one space per 40 square feet seating without fixed seating in largest assembly room) Photography (one space per 200 square feet) 4. The uses will not require structural changes to the school buildings, inconsistent withfuture school use of the buildings, unless there is written guarantee the buildings will be restored for school use upon termination of the lease or permit, nor will- the proposed uses require that the appearance of the buildings or the playing fields be altered. 5. There will be minimal customer, client or delivery traffic. 6: There will be minimal employee activity at night and on weekends. 7. The proposed use is categorically exempt from environmental review (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15332). (`.renditions 1. Activities shall be in accordance with the following table: Proposed Review Activity Consistent-With Zoning Redulations PF Allowable Uses Religious Facility Yes,with approval of this Master Use Permit Office•Government Yes,with approval of this Master Use _ - Social Service Organizations Yes,with approval of this Master Use (offtoes with no client or Permit customer visits) _ -- Public School Tenant Permit Public duoational PEggrarn __- _ Yes _EPrivate ducational Pro-gram __Yes. -- Child-Day Care Directors Use Permit Em6layee ization Offloes Yes - Social Service Organizations Yes (offices with client or customer visits) - - Government Agency Admin. Yes Offices with infr uent visitation _ _ Youth,Adult and charitable Yes O aniza'ons - Ph . had Art Studios j Yes - S/� l r Attachment 2 A 83-04, 165 Grand Ave. Page 3 2. Activities conducted and materials or equipment used shall not change the fire- safety or occupancy classifications of the premises, nor use utilities in amounts greater than normally provided for school use. . 3. All uses must meet Fre Department standards for access, hydrant locations, and fire flow prior to occupancy. 4. No use shall cause noise, dust, vibration, offensive smell, smoke, glare or electrical interference, or other hazard or nuisance. 5. Clients or customers shall not visit the leased space between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 6. No vehicle larger than a three-quarter-ton truck may be used by the tenant At the lease site. 7. The parking area along Grand Avenue shall be designated for short-term parking only. Signage to this effect shall be posted that is visible from both Grand Avenue and from within the parking area. 8. Staff recommends that the driveways exiting the two parking areas along Grand Avenue be stenciled with the words "Watch for Bicycles" to alert exiting traffic to the possible presence of bicyclists in the adjacent bike lane. 9. The School District is encouraged to work with City Transportation staff on on- site circulation improvements. 10. The San Luis Coastal Unified School District is aware that there are limited available parking spaces available and that City parking standards must be met. The proposed 102-parking spaces may be less than required for full occupancy of the site or significant change of tenant requirements. To ensure that the mixture of tenants does not exceed that which could be adequately served on the site, the property owner shall provide a running total of the site's parldng requirements (showing compliance with City standards) with tho submittal of any business tax certificate or application for City permit. My decision is final unless appealed to the Planning Commission within 10 days of the action. Any person aggrieved by the decision may file an appeal. Appeal fortes are available in the Community Development Department, or on the City's website (www.slocity.org). The fee for filing an appeal is $100.00, and must accompany the appeal documentation. S/r y Attachment 2 A 83-04, 165 Grand Ave. Page 4 If you have any questions, please call Jaime Britz at(805) 781-7165. Sincerely, Ro d Whisen d Hearing Officer cc: SLO County Assessor's Office Project File S'-1Z Attachment 3 g PO Box.5257 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 January 28, 2005 Colmer Construction 5000 Parkway Calabasas Suite 110 Calabasas,California 91302 Re: San Luis Obispo Beauty College Grand Learning Center . 165 Grand Ave. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Russell: Background on San Luis.Obispo Beauty College . The San Luis Obispo Beauty College opened for business in Santa Maria in 1969. In 1972 it expanded to San Luis Obispo and has been located at its current location for the last nine years. The school.is part of an accredited degree program through Alan Hancock College. This allows the students who complete the program to receive credits toward an Associate Degree at Alan.Hancock. SLO Beauty College produces students whose test scores are in the top 5 of every 100 who take the State Boards and these students remain employed. Hours of Operation,parking and traffic flow Hours of.Operation: San Luis Obispo Beauty College operates Tuesday through Saturday,opening at 8:30 AM and closing at 5:00 PM. Students start the day with a class on Theory from 8:30 to 930,then take a break from 9:30 to 10:00 and prepare for customer services. The school is open to customers from 10:00 AM to 230 or 3:00 PM. On Saturday customers are seen from 8:30 AM to 3:30 PM Students: On a daily basis,the college has an attendance of 49 students. Of these students 21 drive and park each day. There are seven car pools with 2 students each. The balance of the students are dropped off or ride the bus [about 10 are dropped off individually]. Students remain on the premise all day from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM. Instructors: On n a daily basis the instructors drive and park,remaining on the premises all day from 8:30 AM.to 5:00 PM Customers: Customers start arriving at 10:30 AM,Tuesday through Friday and;10:30 AM on Saturday and 8:30 AM on Saturday.The average patron is served in one hour.. The average number of patrons per hour is 15 and of these at least 6 are dropped off. This continues hourly unti1.2:30/3:00 PM Monday through Friday and until 3:30 on Saturday. Following this narrative there are charts provided that will help you to picture our explanation. If you need any additional information,please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Patricia A:MacCasland Sia Attachment 4 WG rtL Zw M 17 COD 44i5��t +p`y:• ^ v' c • .a w 7 'O o m m m 1693 m w 1724 J v.yy?;:•i7•§t'✓: {G 'ya".'••.43..:2•x.� .. i 1744 w � �• 1764 8 t � 8 i is ..•.... ....... ....... .y lAt ' 1818, .ifi..A:•:fi. t O s�� o -- Attachment b 0 m �a E z g . � Co oil � O Ol b T N M ONi• T T N N W G /pV T C IT OJ W n T P N r Lo in CC a a v T T T V L V V V + + CL n SILO00 1 a � N a�D N N T T T T W r C m 9 M o EOa Z OQ Q Q Q'Q'Q'Q b 3 3 `z 333.3 �ztO cocrm cr cc Q o tm CC CC ir C o c c c W $, ? o 0 o Z b Z. Z Z 0) N C-4tHi ..m � - s Al� e N r s m E $ LL m m m s CL Lu o � m aaC m IL s " c c gg U ca O z V. j5 WU S;{Si f r Attachment (? IUCIPL)l Of SAn WIS OBISPO 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 April 21,2005 Morris Goatley SLO Beauty College 423 West Silverado Santa Maria;Ca 93455 SUBJECT: School Tenant Permit at 165 Grand Avenue SLO Beauty College Dear Mr.Goatley: On April 21, 2005, I reviewed your application to locate the SLO Beauty College at the subject property. Private educational programs are an allowed use at the site with approval of a School Tenant Permit. However, because of the nature of the proposed business they will be unable to comply with the required standards. After careful consideration, I have denied your request based on the following findings: Findings 1. There is inadequate parking available to serve the proposed Beauty School,as current uses at the site have a cumulative parking requirement of approximately 76 spaces,where . 102 spaces are provided on-site.The remaining 26 parking spaces are inadequate to serve the proposed use,as it generates a parking requirement of 87 spaces. 5,947 square feet total(lease area) 1,583 sdnare feet(storage,breakroom.office) 4,364 square feet classroom area x 1 space150 square feet classroom area=87spaces required 2. The use will generate considerable traffic,with customer traffic anticipated at the rate of 15 customers per hour. 3. The Beauty School will use utilities in amounts greater than normally provided for school use,as documented by the lease proposal which requires the lessee's prorate share of utility costs to be adjusted for higher than average utility usage. 4. The proposed use will adversely affect the health,safety,or welfare of persons living or working in the vicinity because of its inability to reasonably meet standards designed to reduce impacts of public school tenant uses on the surrounding neighborhood. My action is final unless appealed within 10 calendar days of the date of this letter. Ahyone may appeal the action by submitting a letter to the Community Development Department within the time specified. The fee for filing an appeal is $100 and must accompany the appeal documentation. Appeals will be scheduled for the fust available Planning Commission meeting date. N an appeal is filed,you will be notified by mail of the date and time of the hearing. OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. L� Telecommunications Device for fiat Deaf(805)781-7410. . Minor Conforming Addition to Nv.sconforming Structure Page i Attachment 6 If you have any questions regarding this letter, or if you need additional information, please contact Jaime Hill at(805) 781-7165. Sincerely, Ro s Deputy DrReview unity Development Developm cc: Project File Russell &Wayne Colmer 5000 Parkway Calabasas, Suite 110 Calabasas,Ca 91302 Pat MacCasland Economic Vitality Commission - S=(7 . Attachment +7 1 � Cl � S�1'1 1S OBISPO 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo,CA 93403-8100 January 24, 1995 French Brothers Investments P.O. Box 1796 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 SUBJECT: Use Permit Appl. A 2=95 . 285 South Street, Suites M-1, N, and O Dear Mr. French: On Friday, January 20, 1995, 1 conducted a public hearing on your request to allow a beauty coflege, at the subject location. After reviewing the information presented, 1 approved your request, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: ndin s 1: The proposed use will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the Vicinity. , 2. The proposed use is appropriate at the proposed location because it.is a schoof that provides services to the community and therefore requires adequate parking, easy access to transit-, and good visibility, all of which are available at. . the site. The use will be compatible with surrounding land uses because it will not generate objectionable noise or other nuisance and the service use is consistent with other service commercial uses allowed in the C-S zone. 3. The.proposed Lite conforms to the general plan and meets zoning ordinance requirements, because beauty colleges are allowed in the C-S zone with approval of an administrative use permit and the parking requirement can be met at the site. 4. The proposed use is exempt from environmental review because it is the normal operation of an existing commercial building (Class 1, Section 15301). The City of San Luis Ob**-is committed to inducting the disabled in all of fts services,programs and activities. Y Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781.7410. Attachment 7 A 2-95 Page 2 Conditions 1. A minimum of.50 parking spaces shall be provided at the site or on the off-site parking area on Bridge Street for the use, in addition to any spaces required for other uses on the site. 2. The school management shall submit a trip reduction, pian to the Community Development Director for review and approval. The plan shah include incentives for students and clients to shale rides, use mass transit, ride bicycles or otherwise minimize trips to and from the site. The plan shalt atso lnclude a monitoring program to determine its effectiveness overtime. This plan shaft be revised as necessary and revised or not, shall be sent to the Community Development Director periodically for review. 3. A City-standard bus shelter shall be installed on the South Street frontage; to the approvat of the City's Transit Manager. 4: Students and teachers of the school, shall be directed by the school management or property manager to use parking spaces in the Bridge Street lot or at the rear of the site, to keep spaces near the school available, for clients and users of adjacent suites. My decision is final unless appealed to the Planning Commission within ten days of thd'action. An appeal may be filed by any person aggrieved by the decision. Due to City water allocation regulations, my approval expires after three years if construction has not started, unless.conditions of approval designate a,different time period. See Municipal Code Section 17.58.070.D. for possible renewal. . If your project involves building one or more new dwellings or additional non- residential space, it may be subject to the requirement for a water allocation or a water usage offset. Contact this department -for details. If you have any questions; please c&H Judy Lautner at 781-7166. Sincerely, cc: Al Clark Ro ld Whisen P.O. Box 3177, Hearing Office Atascadem, CA 93423 Attachment 7 GItY Or Sdkff LUIS OBISPO _ _._.. ....._.... EW- NARKING CALCS WORKSHEET Department of Community Development • 990 Palm StreetMx 8100 • San Luis Obispo,CA 93403 • (805)5497171 Project Name - L D f5ea p a f J a l[Ea f File Number Ac-V'"_ !c� ProjectAddress ZI117 .S(9fit��Y 1 S'f� M- r, ��D - Plans Dated Calos Prepared Data 3 Zone Parking Provided a� USE AREA: RATE: SPACES REQUIRED: it- TOTALS: oZ /'c� COMMENTS: • Y Attachment 8 Morris Goatley SLO Beauty College 423 West Silverado Santa Maria, CA 93455 May 2,2005 City of San Luis Obispo Planning Department 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401=3249 Attention:Ron Whisenand,Deputy Director of Community Development SUBJECT: APPEAL OF DECISION REGARDING School Tenant Permit at 165 Grand Ave. SLO Beauty College Dear.W. Whisenand: Please consider this as notice that we are appealing the decision related to the School Tenant Permit at 165 Grand Ave.with reference to the SLO Beauty College. I disagree with your decision based on the following- 1. ollowing1. Your finding: There is inadequate parking available to serve the proposed Beauty School;as current uses at the site have a cumulative parking requirement of approximately 76 spaces,where 102 spaces are provided on-site. The remaining 26 spaces are inadequate to serve the proposed us,as it generates a Parking requirement of 87 spaces. a. 5947 Square feet total(lease area) b. -1583 square feet(storage.breakroom. office) c. 4364 square feet classroom areaki space,/50 square feetclassroom area 87 spaces required Our finding: There is.adequate parking available. a. There are 49 students and 3 teachers on site from 8AM to 5PM,Tuesday through Saturday,with. 13 clients per hour from 10 am to 3 pm If we assume that all are driving and parking separate cars,this totals only a maximum 65 spaces required b. However,history shows that only 38 to 40 spaces are required: 1. 21 students drive and park[21 parking spaces],14 students car pool[7 parking spaces]and the balance are dropped off or take the bus[no parking required] 2. 3 instructors drive and park. . 3. Y=of the customers drive and park per hour[7 parking spaces per hour]and the other% are gypped off . S'�/ Attachment 8 c: The Grand Learning Center is going to add an additional 42 spaces;application has been made to tum the basketball courts into parking spaces. These spaces will be dedicated to the SLO Beauty College for parking and will fill their needs. d. The lab and classroom space and parking requirements should not be doubled for the following reasons: The students that are in the lab [3697 SF] and the students in the classroom space [623SF] are the same students and do not require the same amount of space. In addition,the lab [3697SF] should not have the same parking requirements as classroom. e. The parking spaces taken by current tenants [who have apparently not applied for the School Tenant Permit]does not total 76 spaces. Based upon the information obtained from Colmer Construction: 1. The three preschools on site have a parking requirement of 1 space per 14 students. There are a total of 120 students and therefore require 12 parking spaces. 2. There are two Church offices on site whose offices comprise 2163 SF and 960 SF [total 3123SF]. They are both open Monday through Friday from 8AM to 5PM. The parking requirement is 1%300 SF, therefore requiring 11 parking spaces. 3. The Calvary Church keligious facility is 1860 SF with a parking requirement of 1/30SF. . This means the requirement for this is 62 parking spaces. HOWEVER,the church facility is only used on Sundays from 8 to 12 and therefore these 62 space requirements would have no impact on the parking use during the week, 2. Your Finding: The use will generate considerable traffic,with customer traffic anticipated at the rate of 15 customers per hour: Our Discussion: Based upon the amount of traffic which frequents Grand Ave,I would suggest that 15 cars per hour additional traffic does not constitute considerable traffic impact. . 3. Your Finding: The Beauty School will use utilities in amounts greater than'normally provided.for school use, as documented by the lease proposal which requires the lessee's prorate share.of utility costs to be adjusted for higher than average utility usage: Our Discussion: a. The Lease was written in anticipation of higher usage as the current landlord is not familiar with the average usage of a Beauty School, . b. The.current landlord for the Beauty School pays all water for the facility. If the water usage was high,the current landlord would potentially have renegotiated this portion as landlords do not like to loose money. c. Hundreds of children flushing toilets and running water.durmg a normal school day would use significantly -more water than Beauty students who wash only 100 heads a day. This would be in line with school usage. d. The Beauty school currently leases within the City of SLO so the usage within the.City would not change. e. It is possible that the School will use more electricity than an average school day,however,we will be obtaining usage information at the current location to'substantiate the normal usage. �> Oq 2 Attachment 8 4. Your Fynding: The proposed use will adversely affect the health,safety,or welfare of persons living or working in the vicinity because of its inability to reasonably meet standards designed to reduce impacts of public school tenant uses on the surrounding neighborhood.\ Our Finding: We do not agree that the proposed use will have an adverse impact on the health, safety of welfare of persons living or working in the vicinity for any reason. a. The neighborhood is comprised of a significant amount of businesses and commercial facilities. b. The Grand Ave. is traveled by Cal Poly students,teachers and visitors and.therefore additional uses will not be of significant impact on the areas residents. a The students,teachers and customers of the SLO Beauty College are significantly quieter than a grade school population and will not be using the outside area facilities and therefore will have less impact on the surrounding neighborhood. d. The Beauty College provides employment and employment training and is an appropriate facility for use in a school designated area e. The Beauty College also provides services that the surrounding neighborhood residents could use [and walk to]. Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you regarding my appeal date. Sincerely, Morris Goatley • AttachMOM 15 .. 'a"P. ' .......:..:............................:....................................................... .. E�72085'•i8:ba'•Fea ....... •obi... osi 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 I 1 1 Lr 1 1 , F- ----------------------i i' -�-T--i-t-Y-�►--r- r--r-�. 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I l 1 1 • O I �. 1 1 1 1 I l 1 . t 1 1 r t 1 I � •I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 � ' • �J 1 1 1 O x I I 1 1 1 1 q, 1 a 1 O 1 Vol In V ' ' LL 1 t ° l 1 1 ° 1 ' PC 1 1 1 1 � / 1 1 1 1 1 I � 1 1 I I 1 1 , i 1 • ° 1 1 1 1 .1 1 t t 1 1 I , � • ._ .X __ - _. ,X 10 A m b ffi 1 1 1 � .1 �i Zd W:M:66 MW ZZ 'SEW 899S ZZZ 8i8 'ON 94OHd <"0'H> 1.1madoTwaa 4=I0 W0u Attachment 10 Draft SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 8, 2005 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday,. May 11, 2005 in the Council Chamber of.City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. ROLL CALL: Present: Commrs. Andrea Miller, Orval Osborne, Vice Chair, Jim Aiken, Alice Loh, Andrew Carter, Cariyn Christianson, and Chairman Michael Boswell Absent: None Alice Loh arrived ten minutes late to the meeting. Staff: Deputy Community Development Directors Michael Draze and Ronald Whisenand, Planning Technician Jaime Hill, .Assistant City. Attorney Christine Dietrick, and Recording Secretary Kim Main ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Jan Marc, 265 Albert Drive. San Luis Obispo commended the Commission on their good judgment concerning the Marketplace project. There were no further comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 165 Grand Street. AP-PC 72-05: Appeal of the Director's decision to deny a beauty school at Pacheco School; PF zone; Morris Goatley, applicant. (Jaime Hill) Jamie Hill, Planning Technician, presented the staff report recommending the Commission uphold the Director's denial and deny the appeal of a school tenant permit for the beauty school, based on findings which she outlined. Patricia MacCasland, applicant's representative, explained the parking issue, noted the results of a parking survey they had conducted indicated that the proposed beauty school would not increase traffic in the area, and that the parking space requirement had been reduced to 36 vehicles spaces (one space per 200 square feet) for the lab S a� Draft Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 10 June 8,2065 Page 2 space at-their current location. She felt they could further reduce the parking impact by encouraging the students to use the City's public. transportation and reminded the Commission that this site was once a school and would be used as a school again. Morris Goatly, applicant, explained the fees for services and noted that. most of the clientele are senior citizens who typically use public transportation. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Jan Marx, 265 Albert Drive, supported the staff recommended denial of the school tenant permit, noting the beauty. school. would increase traffic in the area and the neighborhood children would lose their playground if it was to be turned into,parking lot. Russsel Colmer, Colmer Construction, explained that the basketball courts at the school are in a state of disrepair, and that turning this area into a parking lot would not impact the site. He questioned how the traffic at this site with this use would be different than when it was operated by the School District when children's parents and staff were driving there. He also noted the water use would be less than when it was used by the -School District and felt this is a school that would be a benefit to the City. Marilyn Leverich, San Luis Obispo,stated that when children attended this school in the past, they were bused in. She felt.that if a Beauty School is located at this site, it would increase traffic and impact the.neighborhood. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Miller had questions on the parking requirements. Commr. Carter asked if a traffic count had been done. Commr. Christianson expressed that this request would increase traffic in the area, that it does not meet the City's R-1 zoning requirements, and that she could not support the project On motion by Commissioner_Christianson, to uphold the Community Development Director's action:and to deny the appeal for a school tenantyerrrtit for the SLO Beauty College, with deletion of Finding N. Seconded by Commr. Osborne. Commr. Aiken stated he does not have enough information on this item to make a decision and would like to see it continued. Commr. Miller stated that she does not .have enough information to make a decision, and questioned the traffic issues, expressing that she could not support the motion. Commr. Carter expressed his concerns with the use of energy, traffic, .and that the parking situation would not change from 1995.when it was an operating school and suggested the applicant obtain a comprehensive parking study. He noted he could not S"�4 1 4 Draft Planning commission Minutes Attachment 10 . 'June 8, 2005 Page 3 support the motion and asked what.process the applicant would have to take if the. request is denied. AYES: Commrs. Osborne, Loh, Christianson and Boswell NOES: Commrs. Miller, Aiken and Carter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 4 :3 vote 2. Staff Agenda forecast Deputy Di ctors Whisenand and Draze gave an agenda forecast on upcoming p lects and meetin 3. Commis on A. Growth M agement Discussion Deputy Director Draz gave .a brief explanation of both th population and non- residential growth mana ment policies now in effect and the xisting situation relative to the policies and adopt regulations. The Commissi discussed both types of growth and how they can be ' terrelated. Overall, the C mission agreed that.the real problem the City needs to foc on is population gro ; not growth in residential units. For now, the Planning Commissi n wants to change a residential growth management, limits to avoid the limits from ove inhibiting the nstruction of new homes. They also expressed an .interest in assurin that resid tial development be better able to compete for resources when we app ch li . For instance, if water or roadcapacity becomes a constraint�in the future, co m ial growth could take the.resources away from residential development. The Commission asked staff to retu by the nd of September with several options on how the current residential gro anagemen o6cses could be changed and how this Will affect the City's Residents Growth Manage ent Phasing Schedule. Staff agreed to review department work ograms and either velop the options with our present resources or request tha a Council authorize n sary assistance if we do not have adequate resources. The Commissio agreed to pick up the topic of no =residential .growth and its association impacts on resources and population incre s at-a future time. On motio v Commr. Carter to direct staff to comeback with ro osal to modify the currentr6sidential cirowth policV, including options of extending the ree ear avers in berlotf and Increasing the.growth_ ercenta a rate.Seconded by Co r.. Loh. . ��7 � •. _ � Attachment 11 allnjjjP1111kIII� Cl ® S1 IUIS ®131SW 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA'93401-3249 June 15, 2005 Morris Goatley 423 West Silverado Santa Maria, CA 93455 SUBJECT:_ AP-PC 72-05: 165 Grand Ave Appeal of the Director's_ decision to deny a beauty school at Pacheco School Dear Mr. Goatley: The Planning Commission, at its meeting of June 8, 2005, denied your appeal and upheld the Director's denial of a School Tenant Permit for a beauty school at Pacheco Elementary School, 165 Grand. The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the action. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission may file an appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available in the City Clerk's office, or on the City's website (slocity:org). Since you have previously paid an appeal fee, the $100 charge will be waived. - If you have questions, please contact Jaime Hill at 781-7165. Sincerely, Ro hisena d Deputy Community Development Director Development Review Attachment: Resolution 5424-05 cc: SLO County Assessor's Office © The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. �., Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)7814410. Attachment 11 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5424-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR'S DENIAL OF A PUBLIC SCHOOL TENANT PERMIT FOR The SLO BEAUTY COLLEGE AT PACHECO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (165 GRAND Avenue), AP-PC 72-05 WHEREAS, the appellant, on April 7, 2005, submitted an application for a public school tenant permit; and WHEREAS, the Director, on April 21, 2005, denied the request for a public school tenant permit for the SLO Beauty College at 165 Grand Avenue; and WHEREAS, Morris Goatley, the applicant requesting the public school tenant permit on behalf of the SLO Beauty College, filed an appeal of the Director's action on May 2, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on June 8, 2005, for the purpose of considering an appeal of the Director's action for the public school tenant permit; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, the records of the Director's actions_, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings: 1. There is inadequate parking available to serve the proposed Beauty School, as existing uses at the site have a cumulative parking requirement of approximately 76 spaces, where 102 spaces are provided on-site. The remaining 26 parking spaces are inadequate to serve the proposed use, as it generates a.parking requirement of 87 spaces. 2. The use will generate considerable traffic, with customer traffic anticipated at the rate of 15 customers per hour. 3. The proposed use will adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons living or working in the vicinity because of its inability to reasonably meet standards designed to reduce impacts of public school tenant uses on the surrounding neighborhood. s--01 i Attachment 11 Resolution No.5424-05 Page 2 Section 2. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby deny an appeal and uphold the Director's action to deny the public school tenant permit for the SLO Beauty College, Application No. AP-PC 72-05. On motion by Commissioner Christianson, seconded by Commissioner Osbome and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Christianson, Osborne, Loh, and Chairman Boswell NOES: Commissioners Aiken, Miller and Carter REFRAIN: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 8"';day of June 2005. Pl ng Commission by: Ronald Whisenand, Secretary S 30 Attachment 12 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM# 1 BY: Jaime Hill,Planning Technician (781-7165 MEETING DATE: June 8, 2005 FROM: Ronald Whisenand, Deputy Director; Development Reviewff% FILE NUMBER: AP-PC 72-05 PROJECT ADDRESS: 165 Grand(Pacheco Elementary School) SUBJECT: Appeal of the Director's decision to deny a public school tenant permit for the SLO Beauty College(a beauty school) at Pacheco.Elementary School. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution "A"(Attachment 8)and deny the appeal,upholding the Director's denial of a public school tenant permit for the beauty school,based on findings. BACKGROUND Situation In April 2004, the San Luis Coastal Unified School District applied for a master use permit to allow the leasing of Pacheco Elementary School to multiple tenants, as the facility has not been in use by the district as a school since 2000. Concurrently they proposed to convert areas of existing asphalt playgrounds into additional parking to meet the needs of their prospective tenants. On May 25,2004 the Hearing Officer approved the master use permit for possible tenants at Pacheco School,- establishing what uses would be appropriate at the site, parking requirements, and performance standards (see attached approval letter,Attachment 2). Subsequent to the approval of this permit,the School District assigned a master lease for the site to Cohner Construction, who is currently responsible for managing the site. Pursuant to City policy with respect to public school tenant uses and the approved master use permit; on April 7, 2005, the applicant, Morris Goatley of the SLO Beauty College, applied for a public school tenant permit to allow a private educational program at the former elementary school. The Director determined that the proposed beauty school would be unable to comply with the required standards, and denied the request of April 2 1'9 2005 (see attached letter, Attachment 3). On May 21 2005, Mr. Goatley filed an appeal of the Hearing Officer's denial of the use. Data Summary Address: 165 Grand Avenue Property Owner/Applicant: San.Luis Coastal Unified School District Zoning: PF(Public Facility) General Plan: Public Facility Environmental status: Exempt from CEQA per section 15301 Existing Facilities (Class.1) AP-PC 72-05 ' Attachment 12 165 Grand Page 2 Site Description The property is located at•the southwest comer of Grand Avenue and Slack Street. Property immediately adjacent to the site on the east, south, and west is entirely low-density residential dwellings(R-1), with the City Limits and Cal Poly's main entrance directly to the north. Project Description The application is a Public School Tenant Permit to allow a beauty school to locate at the former Pacheco Elementary School. The applicant's business, SLO Beauty College, has been located at 285 South Street since 1995 (see attached use permit A 2-95 for this location, Attachment 4) and wishes to relocate when their current lease expires. The business would remain essentially the same at the new location. SLO Beauty College operates Tuesday through Saturday from 8:30 AM to.5:00 PM, taking customers from 10:30 AM to 3:30 PM. Currently there are 49 students and 4 staff members, and an average of 15 clients per hour. EVALUATION Public School Tenant Permits In order to allow more complete use of space made available by declining school enrollment; the Zoning Regulations allow certain commercial activities to be established in public schools in addition to those generally allowed in the PF zone. As defined both in the Zoning Regulations Chapter 17 36.030 and in the approved master use permit, there are various categories of uses that may be allowed at the site: Compatible uses that are allowed by right and need only a business tax certificate to begin operations;educational uses or those that are unlikely to have adverse impacts to the neighborhood require a Public School Tenant Permit; and those uses that require additional review are themselves subject to Administrative Use Permit approval. A fourth category of uses, those requiring a.Planning Commission Use Permit, were not requestedby the school district-in the review of the master use permit. Regardless of the permit path, any potential use at a public school must be able to conform to 11 standards established by the Zoning Regulations, included as conditions of approval in the master use permit, and printed on the face of the Public School Tenant Permit. The beauty school is categorized as a private educational program, a use category which is subject to the approval of a. Public School Tenant Permit. Though no objections were received from the community upon posting of the property, the Director found that the use would not be able to comply with three of the required standards: provision of parking as required by Section 17.16.060; creation of only minimal customer, client, or delivery traffic, and use of utilities in excess of amounts normally provided for a school use. Appeal Summary The request for appeal is based on the perception that the Director was incorrect in making the above referenced findings. Attachment 5 contains the appeal letter received by the City oil May 2, 2005. The appellant feels that the SLO Beauty College will be an appropriate tenant at the former r-32 AP-PC 72-05 Attachment 12 165 Grand Page 3 school, and that parking, traffic and utility increases generated by the use can readily be accommodated. The following is a brief discussion of the appellant's specific reasons for the appeal and staffs response on those issues. Appellant Statement Number 1: The appellant believes that the Director was incorrect in finding that there is inadequate parking available to serve the proposed Beauty School. The appellant presents five reasons why this finding is inaccurate, and why there is adequate parking available. Staff Response: City parking standards for specialized education/training is based on classroom area, at one space per 50 square feet of classroom floor area. Based on information provided by the applicant the beauty school would be occupying 5,947 square feet, 1,583 square feet of which would be used for office space, storage, and a break room, which has no parking requirement. The remaining 4,364 square feet would be classroom and lab space. The City's parking requirement for the use would be 92 spaces. The school district previously converted portions of the blacktop area to parking,increasing the on-site parking from the original 48 spaces to 102 spaces. It should be noted that this work was done without the proper approvals, including architectural review and building permits,and does not appear to meet City Parking&Driveway Standards. Of the 102 spaces that are currently on site to serve the existing uses, 11 are available for new uses. Technically this would mean that approval of the beauty school would result in a parking shortfall of 81 spaces, assuming that the spaces added without permits were ultimately accepted as meeting City standards. The appellant cites the number of students, faculty and customers currently drawn to the beauty school, and their current modes of transportation as a basis for a lower parking requirement being appropriate. However, as mentioned above, parking is calculated based on classroom area not number of students. Additionally, a condition of approval at their existing location on South Street required a trip reduction plan to reduce vehicle use by students and customers. There is no guarantee that such a program would be implemented at the new location or if it was that it would address the substantial parking shortfall. The appellant also states that by calculating parking for both the lab and classroom space staff is double counting, as the same students will be moving between the two facilities. However, it is staff understanding that some students, in particular the "freshman" will remain in the classroom while others are in the lab,utilizing both spaces simultaneously.Finally, the appellant states that staff has miscalculated the number of spaces required by the existing tenants. Calculations were prepared by staff consistent with Section 17.16.060 based on tenant descriptions provided by the property manager (See attached parking matrix, Attachment 6). This was done in the review of this permit application, as none of the other tenants have applied to the City for Business Tax Certificates or other necessary approvals. On May 26, 2005 the applicant provided a preliminary plan for increasing the on-site parking at the school (Attachment 7). This plan includes the addition of 59 parking spaces in the location of the existing basketball courts. Like the earlier modifications to the site's parking, the applicant's preliminary plans do not appear to meet City Parking and Driveway Standards, nor has the required architectural review application been submitted. Appellant Statement Number 2: Given the amount of traffic which frequents Grand Avenue, the approximately 15 trips per hour that would be generated by SLO Beauty College customers would not constitute a considerable traffic impact. S''33 AP-PC 72-05 Attachment 12 165 Grand Page 4 Staff Response: As mentioned earlier, all public school tenant uses are subject to 11 standard conditions of approval. Condition number four reads `There will be minimal customer, client or delivery traffic". The SLO Beauty College intends on being open for customers for 5 hours each day of operation, attracting an average of 15 customers per hour, or a daily average of 75 customer visits. The school property is located at the comer of Grand Avenue, which is designated in the General Plan Circulation Element as a Residential Arterial and is a busy thoroughfare with direct access to Highway 101 and the main entrance to Cal Poly University, and Slack Street, a single- loaded residential street. Customers visiting the site would generally be coming down Grand Street from the south, and would either be making u-turns at Slack Street to access the Grand Avenue entrance, or will be making left turns onto Slack Street to access the Slack Street parking lot Though the 75 daily customer trips may not be significant in light of the total number of cars traveling Grand Avenue, they would substantially increase the number of u-turns and left turns at the Grand-Slack intersection. Additionally, it should be noted that the Beauty College is only one of multiple tenants at the site, which cumulatively generate substantially more trips to the site than did the elementary school that was previously located at this location. Appellant Statement Number 3: The Beauty School will not use utilities in amounts greater than normally provided for school uses. The appellant presents five reasons why the Directors finding that utilities will be used in greater amounts than usual is inaccurate. Staff'Response: The appellant argues that water use by "hundreds of children flushing toilets and running water during a normal school day would use significantly more water than beauty school students who wash only 100 heads a day." While it might be an accurate statement.that more water is used for restroom facilities than for hair washing, it must be remembered that beauty school students and their clients will also be using the restroom facilities at the site, thereby negating any perceived reduction in water use. Additionally, the beauty school is only one of several tenants of the site, whose cumulative impacts must be considered when drawing a comparison to past impacts by the.students. The appellant also mentions that because the school is currently located elsewhere in San Luis Obispo, the utility use. within the city would not be affected; and that at their current location utilities are paid for by the property management, who theoretically would not do so if the tenants use was abnormally high. While these latter statements may be accurate, they fail to provide evidence that the use could comply with standard condition number 7, that activities shall not "...use utilities in amounts greater than normally provided for school use." Appellant Statement Number 4: The applicant states the beauty school will not have an adverse impact on the health, safety or welfare of persons living or working in the vicinity for any reason, citing five reasons why this is the case. Staff Response: Finding#4 in the-letter of denial states that the use will adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of persons working or living in the vicinity because of its inability to reasonably meet the 11 standard requirements of approval listed on the front of the Public School Tenant Permit which was signed by the applicant on April 7, 2005. Specifically, the beauty school will be unable to meet City parking requirements, will generate a significant number of customer trips, and will cause an increase in utility usage. The appellant states that the neighborhood is comprised of a significant amount of businesses and commercial facilities, and that the additional number of vehicle trips on Grand Avenue will not be a significant impact on the areas residents. However, the AP-PC 72-05 Attachment 12 165 Grand Page 5 . area surrounding the site and within the City limits is entirely single-family residential, with Cal Poly being just outside City limits and being the only notable exception. Unlike vehicle trips to Cal Poly, those visiting the beauty school would be required to either make a u-turn at the Grand Avenue-Slack Street intersection or make a left tum onto Slack Street in order to park on the site. The addition of potentially 100 left- and'u-turns at this location would be a significant impact to local traffic patterns, and would potentially be directing a considerable amount of vehicles onto residential streets. The appellant also states that the beauty school would be significantly quieter than elementary school students, would provide employment and employment-training facilities, and would provide services that the surrounding neighborhood residents could use and walk to. Staff agrees with these latter statements, but notes that this is a commercial personal service use, as much as it is an educational facility, which would not be allowed in a residential neighborhood if it were not for the existing school facility and its special tenant program. Background On April 7, 2005, Moms Goatley of the SLO Beauty College, applied for a public school tenant permit to allow a private educational program at the former elementary school, pursuant to the approved master use permit. Prior to receiving the formal application, staff had met several times with Wayne Colmer, the-holder of the master lease and current property manager for the former school site. At that time staff had explained the application process and noted concerns regarding the availability of adequate parking, the number of customer trips being generated, and utility use. Although the application was accompanied by additional information, the applicant failed to offer any evidence that they would be able to comply with these City standards. The Director therefore determined that the proposed beauty school would be unable to comply with the required standards, and denied the request on April 21, 2005 (see attached letter, Attachment 3). On May 2, 2005, Mr. Goatley filed an appeal of the Director's denial of the use. The Director's denial of the Public School Tenant Permit was based on specific findings that the use would not be able to comply with the I 1 standard conditions of approval, and would impact those living or working in the vicinity. Public school tenant uses are conditionally allowed in order to permit more complete use of space made available by declining school enrollment. The 11 standard conditions of approval established in the Zoning Regulations are intended to address preservation of the integrity of the surrounding neighborhood when commercial activities replace typical school uses. With demonstrated compliance with these standard conditions, activities that are more appropriately located in commercial districts could locate in residential areas. General Plan Analysis General Plan conformity is essential in reviewing this application. The City must make a finding that a use approval is consistent with the General Plan. In addition, the City's Zoning Regulations, (Section 17.02.050) state that the City's regulations and standards will be interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with the General Plan. The proposed beauty school at the former public school site is consistent with the site's land use designation of Public Facility if a.Public School Tenant Permit is approved for the private educational/vocational program. The following General Plan excerpts relate specifically to the proposed use and its appropriateness at this site: S' 35� AP-PC 72-05 _ Attachment 12 165 Grand Page 6 General Plan Policies: Land Use Element 2.2.13 ■ Non-residential Activities Residential areas may accommodate limited non-residential activities which generally have been compatible, such as child day care, elementary schools, churches, and home businesses meeting established criteria. The 11 standard requirements of public school tenant permits are intended to ensure that the uses that locate at former public school sites are compatible with the adjacent residential uses. The proposed use's inability to comply with these standards indicates that the use may not be compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. Circulation Element ■ Transportation Goal#1 Maintain accessibility and protect the environment throughout.San Luis Obispo while reducing dependence on single-occupant use of motor vehicles, with the goal of achieving State and Federal health standards,for air quality. Locating the beauty college at the former elementary school would reduce opportunities for shared trips and the use of alternative transportation that would be afforded by locating in a more traditional commercial center. Given the estimated 75 customer visits per day and a total staff and student population of approximately 50 individuals, a significant amount of traffic would be directed onto this site and the adjacent residential neighborhood. • Transportation Objective #11 Manage the use of Arterial Streets, Regional. Routes and Highways so that traffic levels during peak traffic periods do not result in extreme congestion, increased headways for transit vehicles, or unsafe conditions for pedestrians or bicyclists. The majority of the incoming trips generated by the beauty school will be northbound along Grand Avenue, and will be required to make either a left-or u-turn at the intersection with Slack Street in order to access the two parking areas. Given the high volume of traffic and significant number of pedestrians and cyclists in the vicinity, significant increases in these turning maneuvers could potentially increase congestion and have safety impacts. The General Pian and Zoning designation for this site is Public Facility, which allows for private educational and vocational uses with approval of a Public School Tenant Permit. As found by the Director, the beauty school is inconsistent with the above-mentioned General.Plan Policies and with at lest three of the 11 standard requirements of approval. In addition to compliance with the General Plan designation and meeting the required City standards,the Planning Commission should consider the testimony of the appellants in determining whether this public school tenant use is appropriate at this particular site,given the particular site constraints. CONCLUSION In staffs analysis, the key potential impacts of the proposed beauty school is the lack of sufficient parking, number of client visits per day, and the increased use of utilities. There do appear to be several options available to the applicant, which if employed would address these insufficiencies. AP-PC 72-05 - - Attachment 12 165 Grand Page 7 Upon approval of the Master Use Permit, parking on the site was expanded from the original 49- spaces to 102-spaces by converting areas of the existing asphalt playground. There is additional area of the hardtop that could be altered to provide more on-site parking, allowing for compliance with City parking requirements. Although mentioned in the appellant's letter, the property manager has no such proposal at this time. Another opportunity for reducing the impacts on the neighborhood would be for the beauty school to continue the trip reduction plan that is in effect at the South Street location. As required by the use permit for this location, the plan includes incentives forr students and clients to minimize single occupant trips to and from the site. Such a proposal at this location would need to be reviewed for feasibility given site constraints and bus service to this location. The applicant has not provided any information regarding his intent to continue such a program at this location,or what such a plan would entail. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The Public Works Department has reviewed the report and concurs with the staff recommendation. The concern about traffic for this particular tenant is due to the SLO Beauty College's operation as a . beauty salon in addition to a school. The salon use conflicts with the minimal customer traffic standard. If it was just a school in the true sense or if there were no standard regulating it, then Public Works would not be concerned by traffic impacts. Additionally, although there is a left turn pocket on Grand Ave.,it accesses only a small parking lot. To reach the larger parking area vehicles must make their turning maneuver at the intersection of Grand and Slack. No other departments had comments on this project. ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue review of the project. Direction should be given to the applicant regarding desired information. 2. Adopt Resolution `B" (Attachment 9) and approve the request of appeal. Action approving the appeal should include the basis for approval,including but not limited to the various residential protection policies contained in the General Plan. ATTACHMENTS A 013 AA At#sel meet moldfficad ��37 w1du _ p,t _ • +.80 P02 n N 10 '05 13:35 i Attachment 1S FIWV Fee: $10W Paid t: V. '; �y WA ✓ JUN 17 2005 , V. U. ;� F !�i■ion tails OEISPO 'vsPcnouv. SLO CITY CLERK APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL al=a>'_rav t. mmm a.wMOa H_M_ 7M__ _SL 5s Goa e— 423 Mveirad San gSYZ NameMaft Mm and ZIp Code 0 -- -073 CBoS� Phone Fox Moms GooMey souk, S4•, San Luis Obi oMR IGof Reyresentative's nlame ts9 Adftu and Zip Code T owf',cv fsb. �u,��� Gay-U1 �U Ph" FOX SEE6`ri'ON Z SUBJECT OF APPEAL. 1. In awmdanca with the procedums Bet forth in Tple 1.Chapter 1.20 of 4ie San Luis Obispo WWnIcipal Code.(Dopy . I hweby apPm!the decision of the: _ Get oar Sam LU1tS ab�s0o �nt,tn Cflrm�ssir�,�� 0 A M comm'ase Cr C _ decision being 40ef' ?o 2. The*ft the decision teft eppwafad was rendered: ,n e 8�2a0 6 3. The aWmailon or pMjW Weis eMiA& 1 1o5 Gtr-►.d 4. 1 diearased the maw wa fhte Mftft City stab 3'Cttme MI SLO �,Mitvti��,.���°-�,. J pg_t2C0S csossaaenwers tvmne dna nepartn�engTj —'f (areal 5. Has this mato been tim s dod of a previous eppeW Item when was it tumrd and by whoni: SEC7><=A REASON FOR AMWAL. I ! 10 acdoefs you am appeWkg a d V&you belere the CoumS shmdd cmuR t your GPM'. h*x1ev*mtbmmy=twmvwGuppDftywvppw. You nw attach ad dMimmW pa -my rracamy. This form cora6n m an isle other sda ftp1of3 s-3� ........ So54934-4190 p.2 t80 003 TUN 10 '65 13:39 Attachment 13 lig tarappaar�a�trnttad jf c 'rotbs SL 1 P - - ex ce tu s sa Pir 40gric -:ra on CI 15 Mtn[lo_ e.- SE=N 0. APPFALAIV s REMMM IAY The San Luis O.btspo City Council values public par6cipatlon in tical gmemawd and ancourttges ail,fomre of chime bryolyergent..Hamm,due to real coats associated wilt+Cby Council coreidarafion of an appeA Incloc mg public rwMion ion.all appeals pa eunng to a appealplowft appkagon or project are=44a t to a f—mm fee of$19f,whh*must accompany the ficom Your right to eraer dic P an appeal comes with carbon responsibir AL If you file an appeal.please unftmtand Urst it must be heard w Oln 45 days*am EM this form. You"be notdied in writing of ttte exert dete jrour appeal will be hewd before Ute Cound. You ar year t+e tiue VAN be exneeted to amend the public hearing,argil to be p epmed to uwke your ease. Your eeaftony is limited to 1O tNnutes. A oont mwwe may be gMftd under certain and unusual dmww*4 L if you reel you need to mqued a man utance,you nowt a fto yaw mquem in wmW to the Gl<y gterk. Please be atArised BW ff your request for owdinuanae is received ailerlm appeal is calked to the pubft the Council rosy not be able to grant In request fat W hdance. Submrl<h%g a mquesf for oontJrmsm* does not 9umontee the!It ww be granted;that ooWn is stow aG nftn of Me GTy CaMIL f bwobygpw to appear aaailorsand o tqnsmopoo lb appear on sty behalf oaohan add appeal is a bMftd flora pO to hooft belies an dry Comma -�- G_ � - --_. & 1147/0.57 eaeep*mte ttw Iw 91�aU oFTmcoen d9m d. ole m >a 9 ts,�to errs TW Rom Isherebycmedmedfor 9Loi G: etbr nttoreyn ��aai a.taaofam CRU Clark(aror�wl tv 2 or 3 ea Cfllflfi f)ttcd.) Attachment in -w as c.om p cL v,e e- n SLO Geaufy V)k �ay-Vjn rei _ LK Y_ ev) k 15 50 pav_� In e- e, CO- I IC sP CL tS (SOU��N Sf) 0 n� Ck:�-+he- �TDpoSt6 C Q'f)'0 anCl -HA C S Ck fy) f- 55 Ucc CA) CL%S �1 uV�a 1 (1 C 0�C �G -- - r �a rl S 8 e-UCk+Cj C-0 S -HIC r\Qf n-f-/p V-0pos e via n-� %J -b m + - th t Je-RQ rNT-0c hoo-1 I OttCOY)ST c CL s, p�jqj t�D r e- lc)Z l9pace-S GL0a ( Folle , o- hev +�epa-�v)+s� s�,3 a I d b e- co(�s I d c-r c tt bs Q 8 u M+ P a r r,,in ll-� k Go I m e- T— . 1 why, Cof)s)c &e—nt Con C e r-036� J�u�r Con y. 1 he cure e R a6t,IRV:f! L4 re C-C-AlVQ cc ' "C ' 'No TY cp era O�) (NOA- ac(AkYCLI-" I r�T IQOLV-� Chuck as5fred 49 Space • Foe instnce4 .06VL\ e-s on SUnda d 4akc� C)fj� Jha show nCoot 16 e v- ahoO when df4errm'nInq PQrK%n5 . i VO preseni OLAr ctr (OLIM nct McAq0Q dcsl* remc v4s 0++h C' .. 1p)mse- It-� us know POW CVqMt)A- Of, OV?Y�CRS CiLMA\�X\0�4Z Page 1.of 1 Attachment 14 Jaime Britz- 165 Grand: Pacheco school From: °Christine Perello' <c_perello@charter.net> To: <JBrltz@slocity.org> Date: 5/18/2004 2:22 PM Subject: 165 Grand:Pacheco school JB:We had an opportunity to see the message you had sent to AVNA and RQN dealing with the new PROPOSED uses for the now empty Pacheco school, next door to us. (1) 1 can see the need for parking, but I warn you that a left tum into the proposed parking lot off Grand Ave will be a very dangerous move without a stop sign on Grand.A compulsory right tum out of that lot should be mandated now. (2) 1 would do a careful analysis of the playground upon which you plan to parka dozen cars;the substrate I do NOT believe was ever met to hold such weight It may end up being a costly proposal. (3) Most of the uses seem reasonable, but 1 assume we will be notified of any actual uses to which the rooms would be put. It would seem to me that all the uses associated with classroom uses would get first choice, since the fewest changes would-have to be made and the more likely Pacheco could resume its use as a public school when the demographics of the city change. Even a senior center would seem a good use for the facilities. After two years of non-use, I believe the school system would be very wise to use it,but I hope we will not be faced with the same situation the old SLO Junior High has faced.Such a permanent change it seems to me describes a failure in all our school planning;as much as I favor neighborhood schools, I do not see spending money on a new facility somewhere else when this one could be available. Dominic/Christine Perello 1591 Slack,San Luis Obispo,CA 93405,-1963 (543.9085) file)/C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\jbritz\L.ocal%20Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 5/18/2004 S yi Page 1 of 1 Attachment 1j- 7aime Britz - Pacheco School Tenant Use Permit From: "Carol S._lick" <csIlck47@yahoo.com> To: <jbrftz@sloaty.org> Date: 5/18/20041:55 FM Subject: Pacheco School Tenant Use Permit ccp <cslid(47@yahoo:com> Dear Mr. Britz: My concern is not with the prospective tenants or use but with,the access to the increased number of parking spaces during late evening and all night.hours.Will use be open to the public?If so, there is the possibility of many cars from those who attend Cal Poly in the evening and the student parties on McCollum and in the general area at night The latter already cause noise and a dangerous driving/walking situation on McCollum and on Albert with t§curves and blind hills,with an uncontrolled intersection at Albert and McCollum. Thank you, Carol.S..Lick 325 Albert SLO Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! -Internet access at a great low price. b ttt 2://promo.yphoo.com/sbc/ file)/C:\Documents%20and%20SeVdngsybritz\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW)000O1.HTM 5/18/2004 SQ L Attachment 14 Otto and Sue Davidson, 278 Albert Dr. San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 phone (805) 544 2468 May 17 , 2004 Community- Development Dept. City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Application No. A 83-04', Pacheco School Dear Sirs: On May 14, 2004, we received notice of a May 21st hearing: This hearing concerns a Master Use Permit for possible tenants of Pacheco School , 165 Grand Avenue. We have considerable interest in the -use of this school property. Our backyard adjoins it. However, we cannot attend this hearing and we do not have the time to study this permit request before the 21st. Your notice of this event arrived the same day that we learned that we had travel starting May 19th. Needles to say, we are madly rushing to prepare for weeks of travel . I will .look at the permit request as soon as possible. Respectfully, Otto C. Davi GTY DF SAN WIS OB1 PO Kq 18 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Page 1 of 2 Attachment 14 Jaime Britz - Re: Pacheco School Tenant Use Permit From: "Carol S.Lick" <cslick47@yahoo.com> To: Jaime Britz <JBritz@sloaty.org> Date: 5/18/2004 5:20 PM Subject: Re: Pacheco School Tenant Use Permit Thank you for your quick response. I am suspecting that Jaime is not"James," as I had guessed, but perhaps a woman's name_ in this case, as I am Ms. Lick I'm glad to team that this potential impact is being addressed.I do have a copy of the site plan from an AVNA officer. Thank you,Carol Lick —Jaime Britz <JBHtz@slocity.org>wrote: > Dear Mr. Lick: >Thank you for letting me know of your concerns > regarding increased >parking and traffic.To minimize potential impacts > to the neighborhood > staff has recommended that there be no clients or > customers visiting the > leased space between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.. Also, > the additional > parking is proposed in areas that are currently used >as playground > hardtop,which is not readily visible from the > street.This area would > be striped to provide parking to the new tenants. If •you are interested > in seeing ties to plans and proposed parking and >circulation areas > please contact me at 781-7165 or come by the > Community Development • Department.Also, you are welcome to attend the > Friday hearing.In your > absence.I will be reading your email into the public > record for > consideration. >Thanks again, >Jaime Britz > Planning Technician > >>> "Carol S. Lick" <csli-ck47@yahoo.mm> 05/18/04 >01:54PM >>> > Dear.Mr. Britz: fileJ/C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\jbritz\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW}OOOOI.HTM 5/19/2004 _' Page 2 of 2 ' Attachment 14m > My concern is not with the prospective tenants or > use • but with the access to the increased number of > parking > spaces during late evening and all night hours. Will > use be open to the public?if so,there is the > possibility of many cars from those who attend Cal > Poly in the.evening and the student parties on > McCollum and in the general area at night.The >.latter > already cause noise and a dangerous driving/walking > situation on McCollum and on Albert with its curves •and blind hills, with an uncontrolled intersection > at >Albert and McCollum. >Thank you, >Carol S. Lick > 325 Albert_ > SLO , , > . >Do you Yahoo!? > SBC Yahoo! -Internet access at a great low price. b=,//promo.yahoo.com/sbc/ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! -Internet amens at a great low price. http://promo.yahoo.comtsbct file)/C;\Documents%20and%20SettIngs\jbritzU"al%2OSettings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 5/19/2004 S �{S Attachment 15 RESOLUTION NO. (2005 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL Of A SCHOOL TENANT PERMIT FOR THE SLO BEAUTY COLLEGE AT PACHECO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (165 GRAND AVENUE),AP-CC-72-05 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on June 8, 2005, pursuant to the appeal received on May 2, 2005, and upheld the Director's determination, denying a school tenant permit for the SLO Beauty College, based on findings; and WHEREAS, an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the school tenant permit was received on June 17,2005;,and WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties and appellant, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, the Community Development Department Director, and the Planning Commission;and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. 1. There is inadequate parking available to serve the proposed Beauty School, as existing uses at the site have a cumulative parking requirement of approximately 76 spaces,where 102 spaces are provided on-site. The remaining 26 parking spaces are inadequate to serve the proposed use, as it generates a parking requirement of 87 spaces. 2. The use will generate considerable traffic,with customer traffic anticipated at the rate of 15 customers per hour. 3. The proposed use will adversely affect the health, safety,or welfare of persons living or working in the vicinity because of its inability to reasonably meet standards designed to reduce impacts of public school tenant uses on the surrounding neighborhood. SECTION 2. Action. The Council hereby denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission's denial of the school tenant permit to allow the SLO Beauty College at the former elementary school site. On motion of - -- -. seconded by and on the following roll call vote: - AYES: NOES: S`7e Attachment 15 Resolution No.XXXX (2005 series) Page 2 ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of , 2005. David F:Romero, Mayor. ATTEST: Audrey Hooper — — - City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: an Lowell City Attorney S-�f 7 Attachment 16 RESOLUTION NO. (2005 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A SCHOOL TENANT PERMIT FOR THE SLO BEAUTY COLLEGE AT PACHECO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL(165 GRAND AVENUE),THEREBY ALLOWING THE.SCHOOL TENANT PERMIT.AP-CC-72-05 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall; 990 Palin Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on June 8, 2005, pursuant to the appeal received on May 2, 2005, and upheld the Director's determination, denying a school tenant permit for the SILO Beauty College., based on findings; and WHEREAS, an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the school tenant permit was received on June 17, 2005; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of:San Luis Obispo has considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties and appellant, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, the Community Development Department Director,and the Planning Commission; and NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San.Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. 1. There is adequate on-site parking available to serve the proposed beauty school. 2. The use will not generate considerable traffic,with customer traffic anticipated at the rate of only 15 customers per hour: 3. The beaiity.school will not use utilities in amounts greater than normally provided for school use. 4. The proposed beauty school use will not adversely affect the health, safety,or welfare of persons living or working in the vicinity because it can.reasonably meet the standards designed to reduce impacts of public school tenant uses on the surrounding residential neighborhood. 5. The project is categorically exempt .from environmental review under Class 1 (Section 15301),Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines.. SECTION 2. Action. The Council hereby approves the school tenant permit to allow the SLO Beauty College at the former elementary school site. . Attachment 16 Resolution No.XXXX(2005 series) Page 2 On motion of - . seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of, , 2005. David F..Romero, Mayor ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonathan Lowell City Attorney 411 FROM: Dominic Perello, 1591 Slack St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405.1963 (543-9085) TO: Allen Settle mailto:ASETTLE@slocity.org, Christine Mulholland mailto:CMulholl@slocity.org,Dave Romero mailto:DRomero@slocity.org, John Ewan mailto:JEWAN@slocity.orR, pbrown@slocity.ore mailt&PBrown@slocity.or? Cc: Ken Hampianmailto.kHAMPIAN@slocity.org SUBJECT:Beauty business at the old Pacheco School on Grand Ave. RED FILE MEETING AGENDA DATE 114k ITEM # ►��� Dear Mayor and City Council, It s my understanding that the owners of the San Luis Beauty School have appealed the decision of the Planning Commission not to allow them to locate at Pacheco School. Our R-1 neighborhood has been dramatically changed over the past 20 years from one of mainly Poly families with numerous children into a transitory neighborhood of basically boarding houses with more cars than we ever had children. It has changed us dramatically. Fortunately, some wonderful neighbors formed RQN and AVMA and we have managed to maintain some sanity in this situation.At least in the past three years, our immediate student neighbors have been reasonably well-behaved. Now we have a beauty business applying to operate in the non:school Pacheco buildings. I see two problems with this type of business in this site. (1)Parking: the grounds currently have considerable parking, but there is still room for parents to bring children to ride their trikes or bicycles or chase a ball. This new business will create far more in-and- out traffic and use up far more space than is currently under automobile use, thereby reducing the space for children. The basketball court and handball courts during the fall and spring are heavily used by Poly students who live in the area. The grass field is also extensively used by soccer and field hockey(though-if I understand this permit application does not plan to use this space, it may have some impact on it). (2)Entry and exit: I don't know how many or what ages of the customers the beauty operators attract now, but this is not the easiest school ground to drive to and enter. Grand Avenue is not friendly to left turns and right turns exiting are often met with what I consider excessive speed exiting Cal Poly. The impact on traffic would be constant, if the business meets the owner's expectations, and thein-and-out traffic, if the customers are older as I expect; will increase the danger of accidents. I have my prejudices against turning Pacheco into a commercial unit. This business is operating in a commercial zone and which seems far more appropriate for it. I believe you should deny the appeal. Dominic i "J� _ Cn EJ D DIR ❑ CAO FIN DIR u ACAO FIRE CHIEF ❑ATTORNEY PW UI ❑ CLERK/ORIG POLICE CHF El D�T-HEADS REC DIR -/-✓ UTIL DIR ��-P/ I HR DIR Pagel of 1 RL-a FILE Allen Settle - Pacheco School proposal for Beauty School MEETINrg AGENDAWAIM fit __.—�,. From: Steven Marx <smarx@calpoly.edu> To: <CMulholl@slocity.org">, <PBrown@slocity.org>, <DRomero@slocity.org>; <ASE FrLE@slocity.org>, <KHAMPIAN@slocity.org>, <JEWAN@slocity.org> Date: 7/1112005 7:09 AM Subject Pacheco School proposal for Beauty School Dear members of the City Council: Please uphold your Planning Commission's decision to deny a permit to open a Beauty school at the Old Pacheco School Site on Grand Ave. This is not a suitable use for the property for many reasons. The increase of traffic that such a development would bring not only impacts the immediate neighbors like myself, but also the many children that use the site in connection with the Village Center School, Chris)esperson School.and Project Headstart programs which take place there. In addition, though I admire the positive opportunity that beauty school. offers to for people getting their lives together, it seems inappropriate to locate a facility that attracts some troubled young people and their associates to a place now used for the education of small children. Sincerely, Steven Marx 265 Albert Drive SLO COUNCIL _ CAO '_..CDD DIR ACAO FIN Dig ATTORNEY FIRE CHIEF . CLERK/ORIG =WDIR ��PTyiEADS CLICE CHF U71L Dig 7 HR DIR filet/C`\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 7/11/2005 Leaves = Page 1 of 2 „ ,_D FILE Allen Settle- Beauty Business MEETING AGENDA at Old Pacheco School � r,n-r �/9���ITf✓11A � p�C From: "J David Wilson” <Dave@centialcoastvillagecenter.org> To: <ASETTLE@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity..org>, <cmulhoII@slocity.org>, <dromero@slocity.org>, <pbrown @ slocity.org> Date: 7/14/2005 9:20 PM Subject: Beauty Business at Old Pacheco School Dear Council Members, I echo the sentiments of Dominic.Perello and Steven Marx regarding denying the appeal fora Beauty School at the Old Pacheco School. Our organization,the Central Coast Village Center located at the Old Pacheco School,offers alternative educational programs for homeschoolers.of.all ages-Already there is a dangerous problem with Poly cyclists moving though the school grounds too fast which has caused some close calls. I,too,agree that a Beauty School will help many people"get their together"and from experience cannot trust that they will not smoke,play loud music,swear,cuss,spit,litter,drive too fast and generally be people who are trying to get their lives together. Perhaps there is another more suitable place they can move to. In thanksgiving, J David Wilson President Central Coast Village Center,Inc. SOS-541-9900 www.Cena-alCoastVillager—dnter.org — COUNC CDD DIR CAO FIN DIF ACAO FIRE CHIEF- ATTORNEY PW DIR CLERKIORIG E POLICE CHF D7 EA REC DIR Y�� UTIL DIR 1 HR DIR file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00001.I-rFM 7/15/2005 -----,-,Ce3T/��-�S�Lys�iGCC{�/-=�� _ _ �•.!l/tLC/-.c.J.,.L,...�._ _ _p_.___. i Q �- c) x -m T1 - - U ICIL E CDD DIR -E FIN DIR- RED FILE ////// AcaO - FIRE CHIS ATTORNEY. PW DIR M�AGENDA CLERK/ORIG POLICE Cl - ITEM!� S — -pl'1f_1J� t//�GUv�v - DEP n'tiDS - RE-C-DIR. DATE- 4 -ITEM # %' � UTIL DIR ❑ HR DIR Page 1 of 1. Diane Reynolds-Beauty School at Pacheco School (7/10 item) From; Jan Marx<janmarx@fix.net> RED FILE To: <council@slocity.otg> - MEETING AGENDA Date: 7/8/2005 12:16 PM _1�T/ / Subject. Beauty school at Pacheco School(7/19 item) DATE ITEM CC: <khampian@slocity.org> Dear Mayor and City Council, The San Luis Beauty School has appealed the staff and Planning Commission's derision not to allow them to locate at Pacheco School. The Beauty School has customers coming for cut-rate haircuts and beauty treatments all day. The amount of parking the Beauty School proposes doesnot have enough spaces to accommodate the students, staff and customers coming and.going. The impact on traffic would be constant and severe. It is really a BUSINESS, not a school.That is why it has been in a commercial zone and why it is much more appropriate in a commercial zone.:In short, it is the wrong kind of activity,for that location. I will be out of town,so I cannot testify: Please deny the appeal.Thank you for considering this re All the best, Jan Marx 265 Albert Drive San Luis Obispo CA 93405 COUNCIL ❑ CAO CDD DIR 0 ACAO C `IN DIR C A77ORNEY FIRE CHIEF CLERK/ORia PW Dip [ p� POLI CE CHF f_ k'( DS REC DIR 0 ���� U71L DIR -- - HR DIFF file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouse.r\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 7/13/2005 RED FILE MEETING AGENDA DATE /9 LITEM # 2-S council mcmolzan6um COUNCIL CDD DIR DATE: July 15, 2005 L CAO FIN DIR ACAO FIRE CHIEF TO: Cit Council TO: PW DIR Y C CLERKIORIG POLICE CHF C 1 DEPT H DS REC DIR VIA: Ken Hampian, CAOrQ:10 CI %✓ UTIL DIR 11 —if1 — FIR DIR FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development.Direc 4: S� BY: Jaime Hill, Associate Planner SUBJECT: AP-CC 72-05: Appeal of Beauty School Denial Wayne Colmer, the master lease holder and property manager for 165 Grand Avenue, together with Sandy Taeckens, V.P. of operations of the SLO Beauty College, and Pat McClasland of the Economic Vitality Corporation, have submitted new information regarding the operation plans for the SLO Beauty College that should be included in the evaluation of the appropriateness of the beauty school and its ability to comply with the master lease permit for the site. Specifically, these items contain their justification for recalculating the required parking for the use. The first part of the submittal, pages 1-5, pertains to how the space will be used and provides their justification for an alternative parking requirement for the use. This includes a copy of the parking calculation done in 1995 for the use permit at the current location at 285 South Street and the floor plan that it was based on; a floor plan showing how the proposed lease space for the beauty school would be used, and; a revised parking calculation provided by the applicant. The applicant has contended inprevious correspondence and at the Planning Commission hearing that staff has not calculated the required parking correctly for the use. Because no exhibits had previously been submitted showing how the space would be used, staff has calculated the parking for the use based on a strict reading of the zoning regulations. Specifically, parking was calculated at the rate of one space per 50-square feet of classroom and lab space and no requirement for the storage, office or break room. In 1995, the parking for the classroom space was counted at the standard rate of 1 space per 50-square feet, the lab space had parking required at 1 space per 200-square feet, and support space at 1 space per 300-square feet. Upon seeing how the space will be used, staff concurs that the lab space could be considered as similar to a beauty parlor (personal service) with a parking requirement of 1 space per 200= square feet. However, it is unclear where the requirement of 1 space per 300-square feet for support space was derived, as there is no requirement for this type of space for school uses, whereas personal services uses are based on gross square footage, which would entail counting- this space at the rate of 1 space per 200-square feet. If the Council were to accept the applicant's revised parking calculation for the use, the parking requirement would be reduced from 92-spaces to 42-spaces, six less than at their current location. It should also be noted that we can only estimate the floor area that will be used for the Red File Memo AP-CC 72-05 various components of the business, as the applicant has previously submitted contradictory information about the space they intend to use. The last section of the applicant's parking calculation (page 5 of 7) includes revised parking figures for the existing tenants at the Pacheco School site. The applicants have separated out the parking required by the Church as they operate on Sundays only. Although the property manager has recently submitted an application for mixed and shared-use parking reductions for the site, that application is currently incomplete. Also, the floor areas of the existing uses and the required parking for these uses is inconsistent with previous information submitted by the applicant and would need to be verified as part of any request for a parking reduction. If this request is ultirpately found to be consistent with City requirements then the maximum parking reduction possible would be 30%. The applicants have also provided a copy of the existing Trip Reduction Plan that they intend on continuing should they be allowed to relocate.at Pacheco Elementary (pages 6 and 7 of seven). The establishment of a Trip Reduction Plan was required as a condition of approval at their South Street location. Until this time staff had rio record of what this plan entailed, or if the Beauty College intended on continuing the program at the new location. Staff believes that if this program is continued it will have a positive effect on reducing the number of single-occupant vehicles visiting the site. If the parking for the site is calculated as proposed by the applicant, with the beauty school requiring a total of 42 spaces and other existing uses requiring 67 spaces, the total parking requirement for the site would be 109 spaces. Currently there are only 102 spaces on-site. The applicant has recently submitted a plan to increase the amount of parking on the site, but like the parking reduction request this application is also currehtly incomplete. If it is ultimately found acceptable and constructed, this added parking would provide an additional 42 spaces, which would be adequate to serve the beauty school. However, it is important to point out that a large portion of the site is still vacant. Even with the addition of 42 parking spaces and mixed and shared-use parking reductions, the master lease holder may be limited in his ability to lease these vacant spaces due to parking constraints when calculated on a facility-wide basis. So What Do We Do With This New Information? It is important for the Council to remember that despite this new parking information the basic question of whether the beauty school is an appropriate use at this site remains. For a variety of reasons, including parking, it was felt by the Planning Commission that the use was not appropriate. If the Council disagrees and finds;that the proposed use is compatible with the neighborhood, then they should grant the appeal but refer this new parking information back to staff for a more detailed analysis and processing of needed architectural review and parking reduction applications. .Crvy O� SJ LUIS OBISPO _. ........ . A PARKING CALM WORKSHEET . Department of Community Development a 980 Palm SwWBox 8100•Ban Luis Obispo;CA 93403•( 549.7171 pmt Name LO 4�a t�-I to =File Number i T Peo(ectAddresaPlan@ Dated -- - Z J Zana�s� .PWkhV Provided as Cabs Prepared ate - - - USE AREN RATE; SPACES REQUIRED: TOTALS: -- COMMENTS: - - - ��1 265 Sou LO. LQCfWIO/J - - g b Break Area k Facial's �. 1 34000 SCI FT- l uiaividual 29 amp circ fs -- t 71__,j J� Freshman Classroom T' O(ice F wr'—�•'jC�mal C9u R%SEK yOCM; Roof p - 0 PRoP05E � 47 �A� 1�5 GRRN II C CII i 3o3R Sj. F , tz �.L. D m EUt o �Fi« s b f"1 s/R R O posE� BLDG B C �t1L) 1105 /AVE , -L° . �tA55 UCc�c'Nl z , gFs3 SRS AaD'� 5qa sq F1' Sam R� i 6Fr�CE , 3 ,914 sq Fr 4/� SLO BEAUTY COLLEGE -- CURRENT SITE AT 285 SOUTH ST. M-1, N&O USE AREA RATE SPACES REQUIRED Maircutting 3600 11200 18 Classroom 1175 1%50 24 Support Space[rota(] 1425 1/300 5 Office Break Restroom Storage TOTALSPACES . This is the original calculation for the Beauty College by the City of SLO for its its current location. PROPOSED SITE AT 165 GRAND AVE, SLO USE. AREA RATE SPACES REQUIRED " Haircutting 3639. 1/200 18 Classroom 983 1/50 20 Support Space[Total] 1302 . 1/300 4 Office/Storage-384 Breakroom-599 Restroom- 163 Storage A 56 TOTALSPACES 42 This calculation is based upon the calculations used for the Beauty School in 1995. The Beauty School configuration and training spaces are virtually the sarne and should not have arbitrary parking requirements applied simply due to a change of location. OTHER TENANTS ON SITE WHO HAVE NOT APPLIED FOR OCCUPANCY USE AREA RATE SPACES REQUIRED. Preschools N/A -120 students 2+ 1114 students 11 Church offices 3123 1/300 10 Chu"r-.o S, -- aycnly 1860 1140 d7 TOTAL SPACES 67 adj for Sunday use TOTAL Monday To Saturday 0 Based on this the parking requirement for current tenants is well wishing the 102 spaces available. 5/� ' 1 Gold Coast Education, Inc. 07/01 /05 1778 So. Broadway Santa Maria, CA 93454 Traffic Reduction Plan As in the past at the 285 South Street location, we will continue to pro- mote to all (students and clients), methods or incentives to reduce our business' auto traffic at our future location. We do provide a discount to all clients of 10%when they show their bus pass or receipt of that days ride. We've seen an increase of shuttle bus riders from the Adult Living Communities over the recent past. To the students we have a " SLO Ride Afternoon" where upon carpool and bus riders can receive facials or pedicures from another classmate. That has seen an increase since the gas prices rose! The ideas are always considered from staff, students and clients for new incentives to maintain and do our part to reduce traffic. Thank you for your time. q:g y, Sandra D. Taeckens V.P. Operations 10/1 GOLD COAST EDUCATION, INC. 07/01/05 As the start of another new fiscal year comes (05-06), it's time again to review the ride incentive practices for the SLO Beauty College students. Over these last'two years I believe we have seen more active participation from both students and. clients. In the past-we've offered; a can of hair spray, gift certificates, a free service for a family member ($10.00 value), more. I believe this current.(2 years running) incentive is workingl With the price of gas these days, I see more receipts with the 10%0, discount from their bus receipt. But our students enjoy the afternoon of pampering (as their peers get to practice, another win-winl ). Even though the 16V6 discount has been around (since we moved to the South Street location) for our clients, when one of the staff suggested "the SLO Ride treatment" there has been an increased car pooling and even an occasional bus ride receipt turned In. I'm suggesting we ride it for another year...III Let me know your thoughts. Thank You Staff !I Sandi T. CYDNEY HOLCOMS .60S S34 6365 '07!13/0S 02:S3pm P. 001 ■ ■Itl Residents for Quality Neighborhoods P.O. Box 12604 - San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 RED FILE MEETING AGENDA Date: July 19, 2005 DATE'/01-- ITEM #-L11 To: San Luis Obispo City Council Via: Fax to 781-7109 Re: Meeting Date: July 19, 2005 - Item: PH 5 Subject: Appeal of the Planning Commission's Action Denying a School Tenant Permit To Allow The SLO Beauty College At Pacheco Elementary School, 165 Grand Avenue (AP-CC 72-05). Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, RQN has reviewed the agenda report in the above-entitled matter. At issue is an appeal of the Planning Commission's June 7, 2005 denial, with prejudice, of the appellant's application for a Public School. Tenant Permit to allow a beauty school/salon (SLO Beauty College) at the old Pacheco Elementary School.site on Grand Avenue..The denial was based on the fact that the permit application failed to meet 2 of the .11 required conditions of approval contained in the City's Zoning Regulations. Specifically, they found that there was a lack of sufficient parking on site and that the use would create excessive customer traffic. [MC §17.36.03OF(1)(4)]. We concur with their decision. The subject site is zoned Public Facility (PF) and is bordered on 3 sides by R-1, low density residential, neighborhoods, namely Alta Vista to the west and south and Monterey Heights to the east and south. Cal Poly University is to the north. One of the intended purposes of the PF .zone is "to protect neighboring private uses from potentially Incompatible public uses.-[MC §17.36.010(8)]. Although the proposed use is educational in nature it does have a significant commercial service component - a salon which serves approximately 75 paying customers per day. Were it not for the existing school facility and the special tenant program, this use would not be allowed In a residential neighborhood. It is clear, from staff's very thorough analysis, that parking on the site in inadequate. And, at this juncture it doesn't seem to be very remediable. It should also be noted that parking is by permit only in both neighborhoods leaving no available street parking. Even if the appellant could provide the required parking, accessing the Pacheco School site from the north bound lanes of Grand Avenue is very difficult. It requires a U-turn at either Slack Street or the left tum pocket at Hays Street. Both of these maneuvers are extremely dangerous given the high volume and speed of existing traffic, the number of bicycles and pedestrians, and reduced visibility at the left tum pocket due to overgrown landscaping on the median strip. I F�J COUN IL CDD DIR CAO C FIN DIR ACAO FIRE CHIEF ATTORNEY PW DIR CLERK/ORIa POLICE CHF 7-1 DE�HE,AOS REC DIR it 11 /x1h L i 4n rn IR CYDNEY HOLCOMB 905 594 0365 07/19/05 02:59pm P.. 002 f July_19,2005-__ 165 Grand Avenue Page 2 It is our opinion that the proposed public use is incompatible with the neighboring private uses. Therefore, we request that you adopt a resolution, denying the appeal, and upholding the Planning Commission's denial of the. School Tenant Permit based on the findings contained in Attachment 15 of your agenda report (p. 5-46). Respectfullysubmitted, Cydney Holcomb Chairperson, RQN c. Jaime Britz-Hill; Associate Planner, CDD / 1 • 1 ! aKc�u A 83-04, 165 Grand Ave. Page 3 2. Activities conductedand materials or equipment used shall not change the fire- safety or occupancy classifications of the premises, nor use utilities in amounts greater than normally provided for school use: . 3. All uses must meet Fire Department standards for access; hydrant locations, and fire flow prior to occupancy. 4. No use shall cause noise, dust, vibration, offensive smell, smoke, glare or electrical interference, or other hazard or nuisance. 5. Clients or customers shall not visit the leased space between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 6. No vehicle larger than a three-quarter-ton truck may be used by the tenant at the lease site. 7. The parldng area along_ Grand Avenue shall be designated for short-term parking only. Signage to this effect shall be posted that is visible from both Grand Avenue and from within the parking area. 8. Staff recommends that the driveways exiting the two parking areas along Grand Avenue be stenciled with the words "Watch for Bicycles" to alert exiting traffic to the possible presence of bicyclists in the adjacent bike lane. 9. The School District is encouraged to work with City Transportation staff on on- site circulation improvements. • �( sc � uiGl�/ 10. They = is. aware that there are limited available parking spaces available and that City parking standards must be met. The proposed 102-parking spaces may be less than required for full occupancy of the site or significant change of tenant requirements. To ensure that the mixture of tenants does not exceed that which could be adequately served. on the site, the shall provide a running total of the site's parking requirements (showing com fiance with City standards) with the submittal of any business tax certificate or plication,for City permit. My decision is final unless appealed to the Planning Commission within 10 days of the action. Any person aggrieved by the decision may file an appeal. Appeal forms are available in the Community Development .Department, or on the City's website (www.slocity.org). The fee for fling an appeal is $100.00, and must accompany the Appeal documentation. Y VJ, L�VSu 'S � Additional Findings & Conditions for Approval of Use Findings: •Gino�pone+a space pec person requirements;a reduced parking requirement is appropriate as it ref ects the actual demand generated by the use -cor ti6ued,implementation of the Trip,ReductionPlan submittedCity wi to the ll- redu mi ttie amount of.traffi6 generated by-t, use;to,A ess.than:significent . . . amo nt. Con ons -Thi applicant shall continue to implen thetnp reductionprogram to enc�ur�a�ge staff,students and customers to utilize methods of transportation other laIlle'S��OCCU lV8live,. yTr /'1ao-Y�. _a -y�Ly�p + ero t l r t s a- -Th beauty schootshall not establish themselves at the sde or begin business diwf w�'yv, +-}, 7 e rtx 4'hY' until foie necessary aciditionafparkIng has been reviewed y approved'apd J 1 w 1 S, }fiu"Mi vE n x '9 CO '^Pr'='%a`e v�'..wx..L �., w` L, .f'i. ' vy. .•aa.'f� c a. «.k;f;-•c„! .vPE •Tr in�,,,Impact�Eees,shatl 6e paid as,paart of the p'a�dang lot�xQans�on.permttq.,���a;,r pro two retiedthe add�ionalatns toRihe sderthat will be made poss�bten,, �r ,�•.. .,..-Y s:, �..,i .xaa'h.,r• 1„<,:.�:'w� .�Y.tn�.s'� 1.i„ .,..Ay:.q„^` R�tidh,. ].t .-r..;.