Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-10-2014 PC MinutesSAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 10, 2014 CALL TO ORDER /PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, John Fowler, Ronald Malak, William Riggs, Vice - Chairperson Michael Multari, and Chairperson John Larson Absent: None Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson, Senior Planner Pam Ricci, Associate Planner Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner Rachel Cohen, Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, and Recording Secretary Diane Clement ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. MINUTES: Minutes of November 12, 2014, were approved as amended. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1845 Monterey Street. AP -PC 143 -13: Review of an appeal of the Administrative Hearing Officer's approval of a proposed 102 -unit multi -story hotel building with associated site improvements; C -T -S zone; West Coast Asset Management, applicant; Robert Lucas, appellant. (Marcus Carloni) Associate Planner Carloni presented the staff report, recommending adoption of the Draft Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Administrative Hearing Officer's decision to approve the Administrative Use Permit for the proposed project, based on findings and subject to conditions. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Appellant Bob Lucas, SLO, stated he was speaking on behalf of the San Luis Drive neighborhood. He then introduced Babak Naficy an attorney who noted some clarifications about a letter sent to the City. Mr. Lucas then returned to the podium and stated the neighborhood accepts that a hotel will occupy this site but that residents want it to conform to the rules and regulations put in place to protect the neighborhood and the creek. He also noted that the neighborhood residents have sent many emails to the City about and how the project violates Ordinance 1130, which states that openings facing the creek "shale' be minimized. He described windows as the most benign type of opening, doors as worse, and the 5' x 12' balconies as increasing problems exponentially because they offer opportunities for boisterous gatherings. He added that the openings for garage parking offer perhaps the most potential for problems. He noted Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2014 Page 2 that the builders provided the necessary 102 parking spaces, one for each room, by including a basement which he felt will be a giant megaphone. He felt the only acceptable option is to reduce the number of parking spaces and rooms. Brett Cross, SLO, Residents for Quality Neighborhoods, expressed concern with the scale /massing, the openings facing the creek and felt noise - generating uses are directed toward the neighborhood. He added that, even though the noise decibels may be within City requirements, the noise still impacts the neighborhood. Bob Tedone, SLO, stated he has no objection to a hotel on this site but does object to the way the Monterey Hotel is planned. He expressed concern with the height of the proposed hotel. He noted that noise would be continual, day and night. Christy Noble, SLO, stated she is speaking on behalf of the Monday Club, which is opposed to the four -story height. She felt the Cultural Heritage Committee should have reviewed the project to make a determination of any impacts on the Monday Club. She felt the project will have a negative impact on its grounds. She noted that the club is in the final stage of applying for historic status and this project may imperil that and a vital revenue stream. Linda White, SLO, stated that she is concerned with the scale of the proposed structure and the balconies facing the creek. She felt the City must give size, scale, mass, and compatibility more weight in its considerations. Kathryn Eisendrath Rogers, SLO, quoted Architectural Review Commissioner Ken Curtis who expressed concern with the projects scale, mass, noise, and inconsistency with Ordinance No. 1130. Dominic Tartaglia, SLO, executive director of the Downtown Association, stated that he hopes the new hotel rooms will help the economy by generating more visits to shops and events. He noted that he sees tour buses passing by the City headed south because the City does not have enough hotel capacity. He stated that he supports hotel rooms from an economic standpoint but defers to the Planning and Architectural Review Commissions and the City Council on planning issues. Victoria Kastner, SLO, discussed her feelings on the importance of Julia Morgan, architect of the Monday Club and Hearst Castle. She stated that there are people who come to the City to see the Monday Club. She noted it is listed as historic and, although not in an historic district, it is subject to the same protections provided within an historic district. She noted concern with the hotel obscuring views from the Monday Club's garden. Sally Equinoa, SLO, read a letter from Kevin and Mary Mott Okimoto, who could not attend the hearing and live directly behind the proposed hotel. The Okimoto's are generally supportive of the contemporary design and a hotel at the site but are concerned with the size and scale of the project, it's compliance with Ordinance No. 1130; especially balconies facing the creek, and felt parking needed to be enclosed. Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2014 Page 3 Angela Soll, SLO, felt the proposed hotel is far too large for its lot. She compared the hotel to another hotel project on the site that was conceptually reviewed in 2009 by the ARC, who expressed concern with the design. She felt the proposed project had the same issues, yet they were not addressed. She supported downsizing the project. Steven Hansen, SLO, felt the project doesn't fit in with the City's small town character. He stated that the City does not need a fancy hotel, and the essence of Ordinance 1130 is to protect the habitat and environment. He expressed concern with the project's effects on the creek. He felt the noise study was inadequate due to the ambient reading times. He questioned whether there would be any net monetary advantage for the City and asked that the project be reconsidered because it is a bad idea for the neighborhood and the town. Hilliard Wood, SLO, stated that his objective is to convince the Commission to close the lower level parking garage and questioned the findings of the noise study because it was paid for by the applicant. He felt the design of the parking garage will project noise toward the neighborhood like a speaker box. He stated that he is criticizing the study's basic assumption and challenges staff's conclusion that this will not exceed the noise standards. Sharon Dobson, SLO, stated she has serious concerns about the project although she is not opposed to a hotel. She requested that the size and mass be reconsidered and referenced a previous project from 2009 for Hyatt Place hotel (as noted by Angela Soll). She recommended reduction in scale, mass, and height to comply with zoning and Ordinance 1130, additional landscaping, and parking facing away from residences on San Luis Drive. She presented a drawing of all the buildings along Monterey Street that included the Monterey Hotel and stated that the character of future change may well be driven by this hotel. Gene Goldschmidt, SLO, stated he lives across from the hotel and appreciated the clarification on the history of the removal of balconies in the design of the San Luis Creek Lodge due to the creek setback. He added that doing so protected his sleep and the value of his and his neighbors' property. He noted that in the future, when there could be several hotels taller and bigger on Monterey Street, he might lose ten percent of the value of his home, which could be as much as $100,000 and he feels he does not owe that to the applicant. Hana Novak, SLO, felt the project is not consistent with the small town character of the surrounding area nor with Ordinance 1130 because it is too big. She pointed out that ten existing parking spaces are within the open space setback felt they are going to be reconstructed, extending the life of a nonconforming use. She added that the applicants stated that they cannot enclose the parking because doing so is not compatible with the storm water removal system. She emphasized that, just because the project meets some requirements, does not mean it should be approved. Carson Britz, SLO, stated he does not feel that the project complies with the spirit and letter of Ordinance 1130. He noted that the openings are not minimized, the parking is open toward the neighborhood when it should be buffered by the buildings, and the Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2014 Page 4 approval of this project will set a precedent for what is to come. He added that the size and mass need to be reduced along with the parking. Wendy Lucas, SLO, showed one picture with the hotel behind her neighbor's home and one without the hotel. She stated that the developers are protecting their investment and financial gain and the residents are protecting their homes, but it is the residents' value system that reflects the values of San Luis Obispo. She referenced a letter from Dr. John Scott Foott, son of one of the neighbors and Fish Health Biologist with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, stating that the creek is listed as critical habitat for the ESA Threatened Steelhead trout, and his questioning of whether NOAA had been consulted regarding this project and his recommendation to do so, along with references to the Federal Register showing San Luis Creek as critical habitat. She also questioned why this project was first heard by a Land Use Commission hearing with one public officer rendering judgment instead of being heard by the Planning Commission as stated in Ordinance 1130, Section 5, #6... "all new uses must be found by the Planning Commission to be compatible, etc." Dave Garth, SLO, noted that he is the former president and chair of the Chamber of Commerce and stated that 30 years ago he had to give the City an easement to clear the part of his property along the creek so, even though homeowners could plant in these areas, they are effectively prohibited from doing so. He felt the project is not compatible with the neighborhood because it does not pick up any of the architectural elements of the Vets Hall, the Monday Club, or other buildings. He added that everyone knows there has to be redevelopment on Monterey Street but how the area is redeveloped will determine the long -term character. He stated that he thinks very viable hotels can be built within the guidelines of Ordinance 1130. Richard J. Krejsa, SLO, expressed concern that the project will result in the deterioration of natural resources, especially in the creek. He questioned the sound study and the way the word "minimize" will be interpreted by future Planning Commissions and City Councils. Charlene Rosales, SLO, representing the Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber respects the diversity of opinion and advocates for good planning to ensure economic vitality. She noted that this project is not asking for exceptions and, if the guidelines need to be amended because they no longer fit, then the broader process should be used to do that. Nancy Lewis, SLO, stated that the building is beautiful, but just not right for this quaint neighborhood, and it is the Commission's job to protect Ordinance 1130. She noted that this gateway into the City should not be looking to be like a gateway into Anaheim, but should look at Carmel's gateway as a model. She stated that she hopes the applicants will scale back the hotel, comply with the ordinance, and return with an acceptable project for the tourists and the neighbors. George Garcia, architect and applicant representative, noted that the hotel design is setback further from the creek than is required. He stated that he has heard the comments made that the project may not fit within the context and confines of the San Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2014 Page 5 Luis Drive neighborhood, and he did look at Ordinance 1130 and knew it had additional constraints. He added that most structures along Monterey Street are motels built in the 1940s and 1950s and they are a completely different product than a hotel. He added that this design is not precedent- setting in terms of balconies and openings toward the creek and the applicant is hoping to build a world - class, high - quality hotel which the City deserves. He showed renderings of views from hotel rooms on the east facade and pointed out the treetop and hillside views from the balconies rather than views downward toward the neighborhood which is 78 yards away. He noted that the 2009 Hyatt Place hotel project was a casualty of the 2008 economic downturn and it had requested significant height and setback exceptions which the Monterey hotel does not. Andrew Firestone, SLO, applicant, stated that they have appreciated the public comment throughout the project and he has looked long and hard at the project and it has been his job to make sure all positions are defensible. He stated that the direction evolved from some of the public input. He stated he was disconcerted when he saw hotels moving outside the City and he did not think it was the intent of the City to force visitors to drive back into town. He stated it would be better to have visitors walking or bicycling. He noted that everyone is here because of the grey areas in Ordinance 1130 and that the project is well thought out. He emphasized that the hotel will have a lot of benefit for the City. Bob Lucas, SLO, responded that what he has noticed with the comments brought up here is there seems to be a feeling that if one has obeyed the larger laws, one can ignore the smaller laws, and that lip service has been given but, with the larger issue of buffering, while the outdoor dining does face Monterey, the parking faces the neighborhood. Commr. Fowler asked Mr. Garcia to discuss the noise findings. George Garcia, architect and applicant representative, discussed the noise study that was prepared by David Dubbink Associates noting that the results indicate that noise will be well within the guidelines for the City. Commr. Dandekar, asked a question about the noise associated with the configuration of the lower level garage and whether it acts as an amplifier pushing sound toward the neighborhood. Mr. Garcia noted that noise emanating from the garage will be within City requirements and asked David Dubbink, acoustical consultant, to come to the microphone. David Dubbink, David Dubbink Associates, explained the methodogy used in the Acoustic Report which included noise testing of a similar, built, parking structure. He also discussed the difference between the Leq and Lmax sound measurement metrics. He indicated the study concludes that sound associated with the hotel and parking areas is within City noise requirements. There were no further comments made from the public. Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2014 Page 6 COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Multari thanked staff for their work, the applicant for filling the need for more hotel rooms, and the neighborhood residents for being here. He indicated that he was one of three people on the City staff involved in the adoption of Ordinance 1130 who is still here. He discussed his recollection of the original reason for ordinance 1130 which he believed was due to concerns about a motel, possibly the Super 8, and the Apple Farm three -story extension. He felt that scale and mass are not just the purview of the Architectural Review Commission but have to be considered by the Commission because they are part of the compatibility issue. He noted that he doesn't feel the amount of balconies facing the creek is consistent with the original intent of "minimize" and that closer to zero balconies would be minimized. He stated that the intent of the ordinance was to keep parking away from the creek and move it toward the street. He stated that this is his memory of the discussions in 1989. Commr. Multari noted that upper Monterey was a topic of discussion during the LUCE update process and that Ordinance 1130 is planned to receive an update. He stated that it is imperative to have new design guidelines for Upper Monterey and that maximums are just that, maximums, and do not give the property owner a right to build to the maximum because the maximums can be regulated to meet the intent of compatibility. He noted that this section of Monterey is a bit of a hill which slopes down to the creek at the back of these properties. He noted that the Monday Club is important. He expressed concern with the hotel's compatibility with the neighborhood. He stated that Mr. Dubbink's noise analysis was professional but he is concerned about the frequency of noise and, with balconies in back, there is opportunity for disturbances affecting the neighborhood. He supported upholding the appeal and noted that the applicant will probably appeal it to the City Council. He added that hotel development should be encouraged in this location and that the project is close but needs work in order to be compatible with the San Luis Drive neighborhood. Commr. Draze noted that he had had an ex parte conversation with neighbors about this project before he received the plans. He stated that the primary issues are the noise impacts on the San Luis Drive neighborhood, the scale, and the impact on the Monday Club. He added that he is not convinced it will have much impact on the Monday Club but a more sensitive design on that side of the hotel could help. He noted that he prefers underground parking and would like to see the parking garage enclosed. He stated that he loves that the applicants are trying to get the project LEED certified. He noted that Ordinance 1130 does seem clear in intent but there should not be any balconies at the back or they should be reduced closer to zero. He added that scale and massing, normally an ARC purview, should be included in the Commission's consideration because this is an appeal. He stated that there could be step -backs at the rear of the building's upper floors and that the upper two stories should have the balconies removed. He stated that the existing 10 parking spaces should be removed and the parking garage should be enclosed or sound walls need to be 10 -12 feet high. He stated that he cannot support the project unless changes are made tonight. Commr. Fowler stated that he appreciates all of the input from the public. He noted that regulations are written and overlays are done to give some certainty to projects but the Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2014 Page 7 Ordinance is not black- and - white. He noted how passionate the residents are because they are personally affected. He added that he is glad the other commissioners supported looking at scale and mass. He stated he is torn by the economics and noted that the Downtown Association and the Chamber of Commerce are supportive because the City needs economic drivers. He stated the project is beautiful but that he has a historic bent due to his work with the mission. He noted that the Monday Club is an important historic resource. He called the Okimoto letter powerful and added that some of the public speakers really spoke to him because he came into this hearing thinking there was no point in arguing about a project that meets all the requirements. He stated that he thinks the project seems too big. Commr. Riggs stated that he does not agree that the architecture is within the Commission's purview and he asked Commrs. Draze and Multari why they think it is. He added that they are ignoring that the applicant vastly exceeds the setback requirements. Commr. Multari stated that the setback is irrelevant and the question is whether there should be openings on the back that could include noise, glare, and overlook. Commr. Riggs stated that the large distance buffer from the San Luis Drive neighborhood is important, and exceeding the setback requirement is not irrelevant. Commr. Multari responded that at 1:00 a.m. there is nothing but bushes between the hotel and the residences and that, while the project is more than meeting the setback requirements, it is not within the spirit of Ordinance 1130. Commr. Draze agreed with Commr. Multari and added that it has to do with Ordinance 1130 which clearly says openings are supposed to be minimized and these are not minimized. Commr. Malak stated that he agrees with Commrs. Multari and Draze about the mass, the scale, and the compatibility, that going for LEED certification is wonderful, and that he likes the design which is current, urbane, and sheik. He added that, in this particular area, it is the size and mass that concern him. He stated he agrees with Commrs. Multari and Draze about the noise and the openings, and he would like to see noise studies done under different conditions. He stated that the garage should be enclosed or tall wall should be included and he disagrees with building a wall in the setback. He stated he will uphold the appeal. Commr. Dandekar thanked the members of the audience. She added that she appreciated the thoughtful comments and how the neighbors said they are not opposed to a hotel but it is this design and its impact to which they object. She stated that she remembers talking about the development of Upper Monterey at the LUCE Task Force and the need to increase walkability and a sense of place. She felt creating this sense of place and walkability could be improved and felt the amount of parking affected walkability. In considering the openings toward the creek, she stated that the balconies are facing the creek for obvious reasons but the impact that has on the neighborhood Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2014 Page 8 has been conveyed here today. She felt balconies could be removed from the rear elevation and added to the inside of the project. Commr. Larson stated that the main issues are openings facing the creek, parking location, and scale /mass. He noted that the limits on height and setbacks are maximums. He stated the difficult issue of the ten parking spaces, a nonconforming use, needs more consideration. He stated that there was a vision of motel -style development in the ordinance but times change, and the problem now is there is this modern project and a set of parameters that are from an earlier time. He noted that he did not find the balconies facing the creek to be particularly offensive but perhaps something could be done to reduce the size of the balconies. He added that he does not want to see a 70s- style hotel at this location and the City needs an upscale hotel. He stated that the project is close but he thinks the appeal will be upheld. Commr. Riggs asked whether the project would have to go back to the Architectural Review Commission if the Planning Commission continues this item and if the applicant is willing to respond to the concerns of this commission. Associate Planner Carloni replied that this would depend on the changes made and staff would have to see an alternate design to make that determination. Commr. Riggs stated he has no problem with this project and is asking if the above is a possibility. Commr. Multari suggested acting tonight and let the appeal go to the City Council where they can review the appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's approval and the Use Permit issues at the same time. Commr. Draze stated that he thinks the best course of action is to decide this tonight, and then let staff and the applicant decide whether to go to the City Council, work on the project, or go back through the process with a redesign. He added that he likes the hotel and, for him, some minor tweaks could work, but he is not sure about the rest of the Commission. Commr. Riggs stated the applicants have signaled they would prefer a decision tonight. Associate Planner Carloni asked the commission to provide clear directional items /denial findings for staff and applicant reference. Commr. Draze stated that if the Commission upholds the appeal, the minutes will express all the public and commission comments. Commr. Larson stated that any dabbling might be damaging and he has more confidence in the applicant taking comments and coming up with improvements for the Council to review. Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2014 Page 9 Commr. Malak asked whether the project would go back to the Architectural Review Commission if the Planning Commission upholds the appeal and the applicant makes some tweaks that do not meet the spirit of what this Commission is trying to say. Commr. Larson stated that if that happens, the Commission will probably have the project come back. Commr. Multari made a motion, seconded by Commr. Draze, to uphold the appeal and discussion ensued. Commr. Dandakar asked if increasing walkability and improving the pedestrian experience could be included in the motion. Commr. Multari stated that he could add this to the motion: "Furthermore, we would recommend that projects on this site consider the comments in the recently adopted LUCE regarding Upper Monterey." This was acceptable to Commr. Draze. Commr. Riggs stated that he appreciates what the applicant is trying to do with the streetscape and he feels like this is a catalyst project. He added that the presence of a destination generates a walking trip and there needs to be more destinations or people will not engage in walking trips. He stated that the project is well designed and he felt like the applicant responded to residents' concerns although he agrees about removing the ten parking spaces. He stated he would not support the appeal. Commr. Larson stated that Commr. Multari hit it on the head with the three issues and that parking will require a new structure to fit the ordinance, which is a difficulty. He added that it is a stretch to think that openings have been minimized but that does not mean that all balconies facing the creek need to be removed. He stated he will support the motion and has no objection to adding the statement about upholding the LUCE comments. Commr. Fowler stated he will support the motion. He added that the project is pretty close to what is needed, people expect a hotel here, it is a beautiful design, and it meets the letter of the law. He noted that he is hopeful that the applicant will continue on with the project, but the concerns that have been shared cannot be overlooked. Commr. Malak agreed the design is really close and stated that he does not want the applicant to stop the project. On motion by Commr. Multari, seconded by Commr. Draze, to uphold the appeal based on the following findings: the parking in the creek setback is not conforming, the balconies in the rear do not comply with minimizing openings according to Ordinance 1130, the parking garage needs to be enclosed, the proposed height poses overlook, noise, and glare issues. Furthermore, we would recommend that projects on this site consider the comments in the recently adopted LUCE regarding Upper Monterey. AYES: Commrs. Dandakar, Draze, Fowler, Larson, Malak, and Multari NOES: Commr. Riggs Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2014 Page 10 RECUSED: None ABSENT: None The motion passed on a 6:1 vote. Commr. Multari thanked Senior Planner Ricci, who is retiring, for her many years of service to the City. There were no further comments made from the Commission. 2. 40 Prado Road. USE - 0413 -2014: Review of a new homeless shelter and safe parking program within the Office with a Planned Development overlay (O -PD) zone with a categorical exemption from environmental review; CAPSLO of San Luis Obispo County, applicant. (Rachel Cohen) Associate Planner Cohen presented the staff report, recommending adoption of the Draft Resolution which approves the Use Permit based on findings and subject to conditions. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Charlene Rosales, representing the Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber has been following the progress of this project and supports it and the staff recommendations. Charles Pasquini, SLO, stated that he owns the Sunset Drive -In Theatre and surrounding farmland at 255 Elks Lane, adjacent to the proposed homeless shelter site. He stated that he strongly objects to the location based on five concerns: 1) Nuisance: vandalism of such things as his mailbox, farm equipment and vending machines, and disrespect by the homeless; homeless camps on his property necessitating cleanup of trash, human waste, and abandoned personal items; cutting of fences; and the need to remove his mailbox because mail was taken out, strewn about, and the box filled with trash. 2) Safety: farm tenants and workers fear for their safety due to the presence of transients on the property; the theatre cleanup crew has had to deal with transients hanging out by the restrooms and they have had to cleanup broken glass and discarded needles; families with children will not feel comfortable or safe coming to a drive -in theatre next to a facility housing transients. 3) Flooding: the project should not be exempt from an EIR because the area has been flooded many times. 4) Environmental Concerns: the impact of outdoor lighting and noise from the proposed facility on the operation of the theatre. 5) Land Use: the subject property is zoned for office use; intensive residential use as a homeless shelter is inconsistent with the airport safety zone. He added that he commends CAPSLO and the City for providing services to the needy but those services are inappropriate for this site. He noted that the concerns of Prado Road /Elks Lane businesses and citizens are just as legitimate as those of South Higuera Street. He requested denial of the project. Michelle Tasseff, SLO, stated she is the Vice - Chairperson of the City's Human Relations Commission, and also the new liaison to the Maxine Lewis Homeless Shelter. Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2014 Page 11 She noted that Mr. Pasquini referred to those served by the homeless shelter as transients, but stated they are actually families trying to make their lives better. She added that she is glad the shelter was moved to this location as the original location was too small and on a busy street. Dominic Tartaglia, executive director of the Downtown Association, stated that the Association is supportive of, and helping to fund, the new shelter. He supported approval. Jim Famalette, Chief Operating Office of CAPSLO, stated that it has been a difficult task finding a location that works and that a state grant allowed the purchase of this property which will be able to house the overflow that now goes to the churches. He added that CAPSLO has worked with various agencies in order to find a suitable site within the county. He noted that CAPSLO will be careful about security and he was not aware of the problems mention by Mr. Pasquini. He added that CAPSLO wants to work with the neighbors. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Larson thanked Mr. Pasquini for describing some important problems but that the clientele for the homeless shelter may not be the same as those causing the problems. He suggested working with CAPSLO and getting a higher police presence. He added that he does not think denial of this project would solve those problems and it is time to move forward as a community on this issue. Commr. Multari agreed with Commr. Larson that Mr. Pasquini's concerns are serious but he hopes that with proper management and attention by the City, those problems can be mitigated, if not eliminated. He added that there will be a period of adjustment when neighborhood relations will be important. He noted the safe parking spaces are in a high voltage transmission easement that runs across the corner of the property and he stated that those should be relocated to avoid a problem with the Safety Element. He added that he assumes the flooding issue will be dealt with by compliance with the code. Commr. Fowler stated he supports the project because the whole community needs this and asked that Mr. Famalette address his concerns about financial issues. Mr. Famalette stated that the shelter will have 24 employees, approximately the same as that operating the current facility. He noted that over $30,000 in repairs have been necessary over the last 12 months. He added that, on a year -to -year basis, expenses have been reduced by 9% without impacting services and the Friends of Prado Day Center have been huge supporters and he believes they will continue to do that. He stated that the new facility will be more secure for volunteers than the current one and that it will provide several income - producing opportunities including renting out the kitchen and having two service providers who will pay rent. Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2014 Page 12 Deputy Director Davidson stated that the site qualifies for exemption from CEQA and conditions and code requirements, including those about flooding, will be addressed at a meeting of the Architectural Review Commission. He proposed a condition 14 stating that "the safe parking spaces will be relocated out of the utility easement." There were no further comments made from the Commission. On motion by Commr. Multari, seconded by Commr. Fowler, to adopt the Draft Resolution which approves the Use Permit, based on findings and subject to conditions including the addition of Condition 14: The safe parking spaces will be relocated out of the utility easement. AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Fowler, Larson, Malak, Multari, and Riggs NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: None The motion passed on a 7:0 vote COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 3. Staff a. Agenda Forecast: • January 14, 2014 — a Use Permit to convert single - family residences at the entrance to Cal Poly to the Classical Academy and a brew pub at 1234 Broad Street • January 28, 2014 — Orcutt Area SP (Righetti Ranch) b. Planning Commission Goals — the Commission approved of the wording for the goals. 4. Commission ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:49 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Diane Clement Recording Secretary Approved by the Planning Commission on March 11, 2015. Lauri Thomas Administrative Assistant III