Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/08/1975 July 8, 1975 ~lINUTES of the regular meeting of the South San Francisco Planning Commission TIME: 8:00 P.M. DA T E : JUL.Y 8 ~ 1975 PLACE: LITTLE THEATER, EL CAMINO HIGH SCHOOL MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Lazzari, Mullin, Raffaelli, Teglia and Chairman Hale MEMBERS AB~ENT: Vice-Chairman Slade ALSO PRESENT: City Planner David C. Hale Director of Public Services Frank J. Addiego Zoning Administrator City Engineer William Costanzo Robert Yee MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of June 24, 1975 Commissioner Lazzari moved that the minutes of the regular meeting of the South San Franci sco Pl anni ng Commi ss i on of June 24, 1975, beappr'oved. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mullin and was passed by the follow- ing roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Lazzari, Mullin, Teglia and Chairman Hale NOES: None ABSENT: Vice-Chairman Slade ABSTAINED: Commissioners Mathewson and Raffaelli ANNOUNCEMENT CONCERNING TAPE RECORDING OF MEETING Chairman Hale announced that this meeting of the South San Francisco Planning Commission would be recorded on tape, but that anyone who wished to come before the Commission to be heard, but who objected to having his or her voice recorded in this manner, could request the Chairman to order the tape recorder turned "off" for the duration of the time that he or she is speaking or is heard. - 3424 - July 8, 1975 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SHOPPING CENTER SUTTER HILL, LTD. This public hearing consisted of four separate matters as follows: 1. Environmental Impact Report 2. Amendment to the General Plan, changing the designation from Medium-High Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial. 3. Rezoning from the "UII Unclassified District to the "C-l" Neighborhood Commercial District. 4. Use Permit to permit the development of the proposed com- mercial development. Secretary Hale presented the staff report, noting that a staff recommendation on the proposal would not be prepared until after the public hearing is con- ducted. He also noted to the Commission that the New Southern Restaurant facility owner is also an applicant in this matter. Proponents: Mr. John de Benedetti, representing Sutter Hill, Ltd. 15140 Pepper Lane Saratoga, CA Mr. John Gatto, representing Jas. W. Fou~'& Associates, Architects 10903 Wilkinson Avenue Cupertino, CA Mr. Jack Greenspan, Traffic Engineer 8$~7 Manitoba Playa del Rey, CA Mr. John Thompson, President, Marketing Research Consultants 244 Live Oak Lane Los Altos, CA ~r. James T. Robinson, representing Our Redeemer1s Lutheran Church 205 Westview Drive, SSF Opponents: Helen Hoopes 825 W. Orange Avenue, SSF Mr. Fred Hernandez 425 Fairway Drive, SSF Mr. Art Viat 808 West Orange Avenue, SSF Mr. James E. O'Day 849 West Orange Avenue, SSF Mr. William Peterson 849 West Orange Avenue, SSF July 8, 1975 Sutter Hill, cont1d Mr. Surendra Amin 628cMadison Avenue Redwood City, CA Mary Williams 7 Hillcrest, SSF V. Minnick 107 Knoll Circle, SSF Rose Minnick 107 Knoll Circle, SSF Ma ri e Koerner 849 West Orange, #3026, SSF F. Allan Weinstein 332 Susie Way, SSF Earl F. Martinelli 709 Southwood Drive, SSF Donna Catlett 811 West Orange Avenue, SSF Mr de Benedetti gave a slide presentation depicting various locations of other projects done by Sutter Hill, showing how they preserved the trees and how the treatment of the buildings were designed to blend in with the background. Mr. Gatto explained the design of the buildings proposed by Sutter Hill noting that they will be set directly into the hil~side, eliminating any excessive grading. He also noted that there would be no service loading areas to the rear, no features extending above the roof, and that they would maintain almost all of the cypress trees. Mr. Greenspan explained some of the traffic conditions that would exist as a result of the proposed shopping center. He noted that there would be a minimal increase in noise from traffic; the shopping center actually acting as a buffer from traffic noise. Mr. Greenspan gave an account of a traffic study he had done of the area. He noted that there were approximately 3700 vehicles using West Orange Avenue daily, of which 35 percent was through traffic. He further noted that the shopping center would generate approxi- mately 210 vehicle trips per day and of that 210, 140 would be new traffic and the remainder would be neighborhood traffic. He stated that he felt there would be no traffic probl:erns on Westborough Bol.11~e'lard in terms of "U" turns or left turns. He felt traffic would find alternate routes. He expressed his feelings that people living in areas west of El Camino Real would be inclined to use Highway 280 and that people living in areas east of El Camino Real would be inclined to use various local streets and circle around Chestnut. Mr. John Thompson presented to the Commission the economic aspects of the development also noting that he had done a detailed field study of the trade area, a comprehensive store study, and a sales tax impact study. Mr. July 8, 1975 Sutter Hill, cont'd Thompson noted that the site is well located, there is market support for the two larger stores, and there would be a positive impact from the center on City revenues. He stated that the center would provide permanent employment for residents of South San Francisco. He further explained the positive impact of the center on City revenues, noting that there would be approximately 8.2 million dollars per year of sales. Of these sales, 5.6 million would be taxable sales. Allowing for a decrease of 3.1 million dollars in taxable sales due to the loss of sales in other shopping areas, total new taxable dollars would be approximately 2-1/2 million. The Commission requested to know if the losses would be mainly to shopping centers in close proximity to th~<n~VJpropos~g~hoppiDgcenter. t~r. Thompson gave a breakdown of estimated losses to i'nci!i vtdual:>stores : asfo 11 ows : QFI, Westborough 1 .3 mi 11 ion loss Safeway, Chestnut 1.2 million II The Treasury 1.2 million II Safeway, Westborough 347,000 II Luck'y, Westborough 253,000 II Brentwood Market 180,000 II Independent Markets 300,000 II Value Giant 950,000 II Walgreen IS, Westborough 280,000 II Drug King 114,000 II Other drug stores 17 The Commission requested to know if these stores would be able to handle the losses and if not, then it would appear that the revenues to the City would decrease immensely. Mr. Thompson did not know how the stores would handle the losses. He further noted that in a study done of Payless stores, the majority of the people using that store were within a three mile radius, but that they could expect about 45 percent of shoppers from outside the City of South San Francisco, thus being outside the three mile radius, to shop at the new proposed Pay1ess store. The Commission expressed their concern with the possibility of increased traffic on West Orange Avenue by its use as.,',a"'lf1cijer connecting street for access to the new shopping center. They were also concerned with the ingress and egress driveway onto West Orange, noting that it would increase traffic significantly. The Commission also noted that West Orange is actually 28 feet from curb to curb, although the right-of-way is 60 feet. Another area of concern to the Commission is the amount of northbound traffic on El Camino Real that will be making left and "U" turns in order to enter the shopping facilities. There are approximately 2,000 vehicles per day making this movement with approximately 140 at peak hour. The Commission felt that there should be a solution worked out to avoid stacking of vehicles on El Camino/Real, possibly by extending the left turn stacking lane. The Commission questioned the amount of traffic exiting the shopping center via six different driveways. It was reported that 1,030 vehicles would use these driveways. Out of these 1,030 vehicles, 118 per entrance would leave ':)/11')"7 Sutter Hill, contld July 8, 1975 on El Camino Real, 108 on Westborough Boulevard, and 233 from the single entrance on West Orange Avenue. The Commission wondered why so many more vehicles would be using the single entrance on West Orange. Mr. Greenspan answered that it is impossible to get an even distribution of automobiles using these exits. It would depend on their destinations. The Commission asked Mr. de Benedetti for other locations of their shopping complexes. They also requested to know if there were similar types of developments, i.e. other shopping centers in such close proximity to each other. Mr. de Benedetti replied that they had shopping centers in Roseville, Sacramento, Livermore, Los Altos, Campbell, Santa Cruz, Salinas, Sparks, Nevada, Los Gatos, and Saratoga. He further noted that they had two loca- tions of similar types of developments, San Jose and Campbell. Kathleen Gundry of Environmental Sciencet~;Associates presented a summation of the Environmental Impact Report. Ms. GunQ~y discussed the minor impacts from the proposed project, but found no significant adverse impacts. She mentioned that this report consisted of a consideration of the fast food restaurant which would change in noise and traffic densities if it were instead a savings and loan. She noted that traffic impact is the most important issue and that trucks coming and going from the site could have a significant impact. Mr. Greenspan noted that truck noise would be in- frequent and could be eliminated entirely during sleeping hours. The Commission requested to know what sWgnificance this project would have on the Cityls aquifer. Ms. Gundry replied that this proposed project would not have a significant impact on the aquifer. Mr. James Robinson, a retired civil engineer and representing Our Redeemer's Lutheran Church, expressed his concerns regarding the proposed shopping center, stating that he felt the project would interfere with the function of the Church from litter and from the concrete retaining wall falling and inffuring someone. He further quoted from Section 11.15, Title 19, of the California Administration Code, which noted that there must be access all around the buildings, in case of a fire, consisting of not less than a 20 foot right- of-way. Mrs. Helen Hoopes expressed her opposition to the exit and entrance on West Orange Avenue. She felt that the shopping center oould be disastrous to the residents on West Orange from traffic problems. Mr. Fred Hernandez, Ms. Mary Williams, Mr. D. Minnick, Ms. Rose Minnick and Ms. Marie Koerner all expressed their opposition to the shopping center with regard to the lack of need for the center, as well as traffic problems. Mr. Art Viat expressed his concern with the traffic problems on West Orange Avenue if this shopping center were approved. Mr. James OIDay noted his opposition to the proposed shopping center, especially noting his concern with nighttime deliveries. July 8, 1975 ~utter Hill, cont'd Mr. William Peterson, Club View Apartments, noted his dissatisfaction with the fact that the entrance/exit driveway on West Orange will be about 50 feet from the entrance to the parking lot and parking garage of the Club View Apartments which would make it next to impossible to get in or out of the apartment complex. Mr. Surendra Amin addressed the Commission on a procedural matter. He noted that the EIR was filed with the City Clerk on July 3, 1975, which did not meet the030 day review period required. Staff replied that all requirements for the EIR had been met and that no action was scheduled until the end of a 30 day review period. Mr. F. Allan Weinstein spoke out against the proposed shopping center, feeling that this new shopping center would not generate any new revenues for the City if it caused many other businesses to fail. Mr. Earl Martinelli voiced his opposition to the Commission on the proposed shopping center and requested a 90 day review period for the EIR due to the importance of this project. Ms. Donna Catlett expressed strong opposition to the Commission, noting that if this proposed shopping center were approved, then it would prove that citizens have no voice in what happens in their City. Ms. Deborah Carson, 3820 Carter Drive, South San Francisco did not express opposition to the proposed shopping center, she merely posed some questions relating to same for consideration. 1. What entrances would be used for deliveries? The developer answered that the entrances on Westborough Boulevard and on El Camino would be utilized for deliveries. 2. What is the percentage of traffic generated in the Chestnut shopping center? Mr. Greenspan noted that no study had been done on this. 3. Has any attempt been made to do a marketing survey to deter- mine if residents would use this shopping center? Mr. Thompson related that no study had been done. This matter was continued until September 23, 1975. COMMUNICATIONS The only communications were letters from residents regarding the Sutter Hill project, all of which were distributed to the Commission. - 3429 - July 8, 1975 There being nothing to be considered under Good and Welfare and no further communications or other matters of interest for the Commission, Chairman Hale announced that the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission would be held on July 22, 1975, at 8:00 p.m. in the West Orange Library Auditorium. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Homer.V. Hale,. Chairman PI a nni ngCornm issi;on City of South San Francisco Q:..Crl ~. David C. Hale, Secretary Planning Commission City of South San Francisco NOTE: The entries of this Planning Commission meeting indicate the action taken by the Planning Commission to dispose OfJ~ClSh t.tem. Oral presentations, arguments and documents are recorded on tape. Thee tapes are ava i 1 ab 1 e in the Office of the City Planner. Documents related to the items discussed are on file in the Office of the City Planner and are available for public inspection. - 3430 -