PC 120915 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Balch noted that the Commission has a majority and would like to move on. He stated that one reason the massing is fine for him is that Spring Street is an interesting street in that it does not immediately turn residential and retain residential all the way down to First Street; that Spring Street has a lot of commercial establishments, including a shopping market to the right. He indicated that he agrees 100 percent with the comments made to staff regarding the loading zone and the difficulty with the street, and that is the reason he is concerned about the initial loss of the on- street parking spot and appreciates staff's comments to put it back. He agreed with Commissioner Piper that while he thinks he is there, he believes parking is the problem. Commissioner Balch continued that if residential unit number one is removed to provide parking in the back lot, given the width of residential unit number one, it would result in only two more tandem spots. He noted that there is really no net gain, because the one that was tandem now has to go to its next stall, unless it is cantilevered over the right way with a carport on the first floor. He stated that the residential, as designed, is pretty sharp - looking, and if the desire is to keep the retail and the commercial and the office, the residential would really look different and would degrade the project. Commissioner Balch moved to find that the project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15332, In -fill Development Projects, Class 32, and would not have a significant effect on the environment; to make the PUD findings for the proposed Development Plan as listed in the staff report, and to recommend approval of Case PUD -109 for a certificate of appropriateness to demolish the existing 910 - square -foot single -story commercial building and for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Rezoning and Development Plan, subject to the Conditions of Approval listed in Exhibit A of the staff report, with the modification that no parking credit be granted for building demolition, thereby requiring in -lieu fee payment for a total of ten spaces, and the installation of an eight -foot tall solid fence in the back of the project site, subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development. Commissioner Ritter seconded the motion. Commissioner O'Connor stated that he will not support the motion even with the requirement that the applicant pay in -lieu fees for ten spaces. He indicated that parking is needed on this site and that he is not going to keep pushing the can down the road anymore. Chair Allen stated that she will not support the motion either. She indicated that it is clear that the community came out today, they sent letters, and parking is a huge issue. She added that this is one of the few projects that can provide the parking needed, and that this is the wrong message because it is exacerbating a very serious problem that is one of the top Council priorities. Commissioner Nagler stated that Commissioner Balch talked about considering losing one unit, and it may be that if a unit were to be lost, it could go back to two -car garages, which would substantially address a lot of the parking issue. He indicated that he is not sure what the impact of this is on the actual execution of this development, but he is PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 9, 2015 Page 34 of 40