Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/23/1989 (Cassette No.1) February 23, 1989 regular meeting of the South San Francisco Planning commission CALL TO ORDER: 7:03 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Zellmer, Vice-Chairman Mantegani, commissioners Boblitt, Matteucci, Terry, Warren and Wendler. ALSO PRESENT: Planning Division Deputy City Attorney Engineering Division Police Department Fire Department Building Division Jean T. smith Robert Ewing Arthur Wong Richard Harmon Ron Petrocchi Fred Lagomarsino Jake wittwer CHAIRMAN COMMENTS APPROVAL OF MINUTES of January 26, 1989 Motion Wendler/Second Warren: To approve the minutes of the January 26, 1989 Planning commission study session as presented. Unanimously approved by voice vote. AGENDA ITEM - PUBLIC HEARING Terrabay Development, southern slope of San Bruno Mountain (Administrative Parcel Nos. 2-04 and 2-06) a) Public compliance hearing, San Bruno Mountain-Habitat Conservation Plan and Agreement b) Terrabay Precise Plan, PP-88-18 c) Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, SA-88-104 Precise Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map to~allow construction of Phase I of the Terrabay project including 168 townhome units (Terrabay Village) and 125 single family homes (Terrabay Park) located on the southerly slopes of San Bruno Mountain, northerly of Hillside Boulevard, easterly of Hillside Elementary School. Director Smith introduced San Mateo County Supervisor William Schumacher, who summarized the history of this project and County's involvement. Bill Rozar, San Mateo County Planning and Development Division, spoke briefly and introduced Thomas Reid, the County's biological consultant and habitat manager. Mr. Reid explained the concept of the Habitat Conservation Plan and its requirements. with the use of the overhead projector, he highlighted the butterfly movement and used graphs that showed count fluctuations. Director Smith reviewed the HCP assessment process. PAGE 1 OF 7 PAGES 2/23/89 PC MTG. Mr. Robert Yee, the City's consultant in charge of the Terrabay project, introduced Roger Foott, the City's geotechnical consultant. Mr. Foott, who has worked on the project since 1982, described his firm's involvement, the measures necessary to insure continual assessment of slopes, and other requirements that are part of the conditions of approval. Mr. Ron Calhoun, civil engineer, addressed the project's storm drainage and sewer systems. Fire Marshal Lagomarsino spoke regarding the project's new fire station. Terry Jewell reviewed the new recreation facilities. Mr. Ochsner, project manager, stated that the applicant agrees to the conditions contained in the staff report. He further described the project, including Terrabay Village and Terrabay Park, the recreational features, and the improvements to Hillside Boulevard. Mr. Ray Walsh, landscape architect and revegetation consultant for the applicant and other San Bruno Mountain developers, showed a series of slides illustrating the different techniques used to develop the restoration of the habitat. After a brief recess Chairman Zellmer explained the Commission's procedure regarding testimony and the possibility of the case being continued to a special meeting on March 2, 1989. Speakinq in favor of the proiect: names and addresses). (refer to attached list for full Mrs. Huber stated the project would be a benefit to the community and felt others should look at its positive aspects. Ms Schulz, an employee of the San Mateo labor council, addressed the housing and construction job opportunities. Mr. Klinkner spoke briefly of the positive features of the project. Mr. Saunders, representing the plumbers' union, stated the development would provide jobs and housing. Mr. Diodati stated the development would provide housing for his employees who now look beyond San Mateo County to live. Mr. Henderson mentioned the economic benefit the project would bring to the City and the need for housing. Speakinq aqainst the proiect: Chairman Zellmer read a letter from Jesse Keen, 124 Drake Avenue, who is concerned that the project will block access to the mountain. Mrs. Larson suggested the Commission instruct the developer not to build below the area that is susceptible to landslides. She felt a biologist was needed on the HCP advisory committee and that the project will have horrendous visual impacts. Mr. Volking, a resident for 3~ years, felt the taxpayers in the PAGE 2 OF 7 PAGES 2/23/89 PC MTG. community were going to bear the burden of the development's maintenance. He was concerned with fire breaks and open water basins that would attract mosquitos. Mr. Taylor, familiar with the mountain after rain storms, stated the area becomes swamp-like. His concerns were landslides and the development endangering hawks and ground squirrels. Mr. Rancatore compared the once undeveloped Serramonte area to San Bruno Mountain, and questioned its future accessibility. Ms Howell stated she bought her home partially because of the view of San Bruno Mountain and the proposed development was never disclosed at the time of purchase (July 19, 1987). Mr. Brown, an avid San Bruno Mountain climber, felt the development was too intense to not have an effect on the habitat. Mr. Grimes spoke with concern regarding landslides. Mr. Morgan spoke against the project because he felt it would separate the rich from the poor. Mr. Campbell described an area near North Spruce that was graded in 1952 and is still without plant life. He stated that the area is rock, and foresees this same thing happening to any other areas that are graded. He was also concerned that he would no longer be able to walk the mountain from the base. Mr. Scaletti commented that the housing would not be affordable and felt a vote should be taken by the community as to whether or not the project should be developed. He was also concerned that the neighborhood schools would become overcrowded. Mr. Vetter felt the project would be a disaster for the City largely because of landslides. Ms Burtzloff felt that the way to stop the development was to purchase the property from the developers. She stated that the City should focus on the mountain as a tourist attraction rather than having it developed. She also stated that the habitat conservation plan did not offer enough protection. In reference to the HCP report, Mr. Mahoney stated that the rare "saline vericunda" plant was omitted and questioned why. He suggested that the Commission not approve the HCP by simply stating "it is not in compliance because it is not working." He felt that Thomas Reid was not consistent in his butterfly counting and that the fluctuations should be further researched. Mrs. Earle, an employee for the San Bruno Water Department, listed several water usage statistics, and suggested a moratorium be placed on the development until after the water shortage has ended. Ms Dunning spoke regarding the negative effects the development would have on the world. She felt the plan would never be in compliance. PAGE 3 OF 7 PAGES 2/23/89 PC MTG. Mr. Kass stated that the HCP is an experiment and grading will not make the mountain stable. He also felt the development should be placed on the ballot. Mr. Morrison introduced himself as a biologist and nature photographer. He spoke regarding his research on San Bruno Mountain that included cataloging over 100 California native plants, and the extinction of the butterfly species by development of their habitats. Mr. Madara questioned future access to the mountain, water availability after the drought, and the possibility of the development deannexing from South San Francisco. Ms Dawn read a statement for Barbara Kelley, a Laguna Salada school teacher, who recently completed a project on the rare and endangered plants and animals on San Bruno Mountain. She urged the Commission to climb the mountain before making a decision. On her own behalf, Ms Dawn said that she was appalled at the project and that it would never solve the homeless problem. Mr. Gaffney apologized for wearing a fox mask that had previously disrupted the meeting. He read excerpts from the "united States General Accounting Office: Endangered Species, Management Improvements Could Enhance Recovery Program" and presented a copy to the Commission. Mr. Schooley spoke about the environmental issues and compromises that were made with the developer. He felt the HCP has proven to be unsuccessful. Mr. Ruiz spoke regarding potential landslides and the experience of seeing the house at 52 Franklin Avenue after it slid into the street. Mrs. Leitner submitted a document to the Commission entitled "A Flora of the San Bruno Mountains San Mateo County". This documents refers to a "Hillside Fault". She questioned whether or not the City would be held liable for earthquake damage. Ms Franc asked the Commission to give the members of Bay Area Mountain Watch time to raise funds, including possible funding to buy this land. Ms Ross felt the project was too massive for the area. Ms Soklin, speaking with concern, suggested the Commission postpone making a decision and that the City hire an impartial biological consultant to make an assessment of the HCP. Mr. Oceans, an archaeologist, stated that the hotel would be built on an Indian midden, which he stated would be illegal. He also asked if this had been addressed in the EIR. Mr. Titlebaum addressed San Bruno Mountain's beauty and ecosystem. Mr. Payton inquired if California Water Service would impose stricter water rationing because of Terrabay. Mr. Miller felt a majority of South San Francisco residents oppose PAGE 4 OF 7 PAGES 2/23/89 PC MTG. the development and want the land left as is. Chairman Zellmer discussed with the Commission whether or not to close the public hearing. On behalf of Bay Area Mountain Watch, Mr. Titlebaum requested the public hearing be continued for a slide presentation at the March 2 meeting. commissioner Terry suggested that thirty minutes be allowed for rebuttal and made the following motion: Motion-Terry/Second Mantegani: To close the public hearing but allow Bay Area Mountain Watch thirty minutes for rebuttal at the next meeting. Approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Chairman Zellmer, Vice-Chairman Mantegani, commissioners Matteucci, Terry and Warren. NOES: Commissioners Boblitt and Wendler. Motion-Warren/Second Terry: To continue the HCP compliance, Terrabay Precise Plan PP-88-18, and SA-88-104 to a special meeting on March 2, 1989. Unanimously approved voice vote. Chairman Zellmer suggested a report be prepared that would answer all questions raised by the public, and requested the consultants be present at the March 2 meeting. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Zellmer adjourned the meeting at 12:15 p.m. to March 2, 1989, 7:30 p.m. 7 ~'an T. Smith, Secretary lanning Commission City of South San Francisco lmer, Chairman Plann g Commission City of South San Francisco AZ:JTS:sp PAGE 5 OF 7 PAGES 2/23/89 PC MTG. staff members and consultants: Speakinq aqainst the proiect: william Schumacher, Supervisor San Mateo County Ellie Larsen Sierra Club Member San Bruno Bill Rozar, Planner San Mateo County Frederick Volking 425 Larch Ave Thomas Reid 505 Hamilton, suite 201 Palo Alto Dwight Taylor 41C Joy Ave Brisbane Robert Yee, consultant city of South San Francisco Frank Rancatore 28 Randolph Ave Roger Foote, consultant 94 Natoma Street San Francisco Diane Howell 743 Larch Ave Ron Calhoun, consultant Wilsey & Ham 1035 East Hillsdale Blvd. Foster City Bob Brown 115 Edison Eldred Grimes 813 Larch Ave Applicant's representatives: John Ochsner, applicant's representative 901 Mariner's Blvd, suite 175 San Mateo Bruce Morgan 317 Chapman Ave Chris Campbell 104 Pecks Lane Ray Walsh, applicant's representative 413 N. Harvard Ave, suite G Claremont Adrian Scaletti 114 Franklin Robert Vetter 35 Lewis Ave Speakinq in favor: Mary Huber 734 Larch Ave Lorraine Burtzloff 3306 Shelter Creek San Bruno Marcy Schultz 300 8th Avenue San Mateo Don Mahoney 747 Ellis #8 San Francisco Leonard W. Klinkner 630 First Lane Carl Earle 125 Belmont Ave Gary Saunders 1519 Rollins Road Burlingame Kathleen Dunning 3831 Annapolis ct. Rich Diodati 400 Oyster Pt. Blvd. Sid Kass 25 vista Verde ct. San Francisco Ken Henderson Rich Diodati Construction 400 Oyster Pt. Blvd. J. Douglas Morrison 145 N. EI Camino Real San Mateo PAGE 6 OF 7 PAGES " J" ~ J n ,... T"\'" 1\8m".... Speakinq aqainst the proiect (continued) Glenn Madara 66 Randolph Ave Kimberly Dawn 960 Oak st. San Francisco Brian Gaffney 2783 Bryant st San Francisco David Schooley 100 San Bruno Ave Brisbane O. Ruiz 92 Franklin Sandra Soklin 2435A 23rd Ave San Francisco Keith Oceans 145 E EI Camino Real San Mateo Adam Titlebaum 2175 Carlmont Dr Belmont John Payton 741 Hemlock John Miller 109 Grove Ave PAGE 7 OF 7 PAGES ") I ").., Ion T"I"" 1IJrm...... 6:30 MEETING WITH DESIGN REVIEW BOARD - continued that minutes be taken at the DRB meetings in order for the Commission to gain a more detailed understanding of the Board's concerns. Also, copies of the staff report to the Commission could be provided to the Design Review Board. Vice-Chairman Zellmer interjected that it was not the Commission's desire to have DRB meetings run by Robert's Rules of Order, but would like a process which would provide consistent feedback. Staff indicated that additional budget would have to be allocated for evening meetings and for minutes to be taken and prepared. Vice-Chairman Zellmer suggested that this need be discussed with the City Council. Boardmember Shen mentioned flaws in the review system and explained that many rejected projects are returned without specific comments being incorporated in order to avoid the Board's redesigning of the projects. He mentioned that generally the Board arrives at a consensus when reviewing an application. A discussion followed regarding future study sessions and the possibility of a Commissioner attending the Board meetings. The possibility of conducting DRB meetings in the evening was mentioned. The Commission and Board discussed various reasons to have evening meetings and suggested future study sessions. An April date was suggested for the next joint study session. Boardmember Williams remarked that he found many submittals frustrating, hard to interpret, and many times inadequate. Boardmember DeZordo stated that landscape plans were often incomplete or omitted from submittals, and felt a check off list of requirements would be helpful for the applicant to follow. Boardmember Kostrikin suggested that a residential street tree program be encouraged, and staff suggested it be incorporated into the Design Review Guidelines. Chairman Terry summarized the meeting by stating that the Commission desires to have minutes taken at the meetings and that the DRB meetings be held in the evening. study session adjourned: 7:30 p.m. 12/8/88 PC MTG. PAGE 2 OF 9 PAGES