DR 16-384 (Fountain): Consideration of a request that the Planning Commission vote on whether to reconsider the granting of a time extension of Design Review DR 16-384 (Fountain), associated Use Permits, and Coastal Development Permit for the construction of a 1,600-square-foot mixed-use building with a 1,499-square-foot basement and 595-square-foot car pit on a 2,000-square-foot vacant lot, and associated site improvements, located on 8th Avenue 2 northwest of Junipero Avenue in the Residential and Limited Commercial (RC) District. APN: 010-087-020-000.

The project involves the construction of a 1,600-square-foot mixed-use building with a 1,499-square-foot basement and 595-square-foot car pit on a vacant 2,000-square-foot lot. The main level is proposed for office use, and the upper level is for one residential unit. Two underground levels provide four off-street parking spaces and a mechanical and elevator equipment room. One 4-inch Coast live oak tree in the public right-of-way is proposed to be relocated to accommodate the new driveway.

Vote on whether the action to approve the time extension for DR 16-384 (Fountain) should be reconsidered.

The project site is a vacant 2,000-square-foot lot located between the City-owned Scout House and a Single-Family dwelling on the north side of 8^th Avenue between Mission Street and Junipero Avenue.

On February 8, 2023, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2023-008-PC approving the project with conditions.

On April 14, 2024, Anthony Lombardo & Associates, the representative of the property owner Mr. Thomas Dean Fountain, submitted a request for a time extension. Mr. Fountain is currently on a job assignment that has taken him out of state and additional time is needed to commence the project.

On September 11, 2024, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2024-066-PC, granting the request for a time extension.

Section IV. Appeals and Reconsideration of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure states,

B. Any Commission member who voted on the prevailing side of a decision may request within five (5) working days of the decision that the matter be reconsidered. The question of whether the action should be considered will be placed on the next Planning Commission meeting.

Roberts Rules of Order §37 states,

Reconsider—a motion of American origin—enables a majority in an assembly, within a limited time and without notice, to bring back for further consideration a motion that has already been voted on. The purpose of reconsidering a vote is to permit correction of hasty, ill-advised, or erroneous action, or to take into account added information or a changed situation that has developed since the taking of the vote.

Commissioner Erin Allen submitted a written request for reconsideration of the time extension approval, citing new information (Attachment 3). This request is before the Planning Commission to vote on whether to reconsider approval of the time extension. If the Commission votes in favor of a reconsideration, the item will be placed on the next available agenda. 

On February 8, 2023, the Planning Commission found the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA guidelines, and local environmental regulations, pursuant to Section 15303 (Class 3) – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. The project includes constructing a mixed-use building consisting of 840 square feet of future office uses and one residential unit and, therefore, qualifies for a Class 3 exemption. The proposed project does not present any unusual circumstances that would result in a potentially significant environmental impact.