HomeMy WebLinkAbout04.17.97 Minutes
MINUTES
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION
April 17 , 1997
CALL TO ORDER
7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chairman Romero, Vice-Chairman Padreddii, Commissioners
Barnett, Sim, Teglia, and Baldocchi
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Commissioner Masuda
ALSO PRESENT:
Dir. OfE&C D:
Planning Division:
Senior Planner
Assistant Planner
Act. Secretary II
Assist. City Attorney
Police Department:
City Engineer:
Development Specialist
Bldg. Div. Code Enforce.
Water Quality Control
Marty Van Duyn
Steve Carlson
Larry Kasparowitz
Rosa Perez
Wayne Snodgrass
Sgt. Ron Petrocchi
Arthur Wong
Richard Harmon
Richard Desanto
Ray Honan
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion- Teglia/Second-Barnett: To approve March 6, 1997 minutes as
presented. The minutes passed with a unanimous voice vote.
Chairman Romero continued Minutes from April 18, July 18, and August 1, 1996 for a quorum.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Robert Mulhall, 905 Linden Avenue, South San Francisco. Mr. Mulhall understood that the City's
General Plan states that convenience stores are not to be within one mile from each other, and asked if
this would apply to his mini-store on Linden Avenue and the proposed Shell mini-mart at 899 Airport
Blvd. Director Van Duyn noted staff would look into the matter.
CONSENT CALENDAR - AGENDA ITEMS
899 Airport Blvd., A&S Engineering/Shell Oil Co., Applicant/Owner
UP-96-110, V-96-110 and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND-96-110 (Continued from 3/20/97)
Use Permit to allow the conversion of automobile work bays to a 24-hour food mart and Variance to
allow a reduction from fourteen (14) parking spaces to eleven (11) spaces situated in the P-C Planned
Commercial Zone District, in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Sections
20.24.030(c), 20.24.070(a), and 20.82.080. (Applicant requests continuance to May 1, 1997)
494 Forbes Blvd., Jessica McClintock, Inc., Applicant/Owner
UP-97-010; Cate20rical Exemption, Class 1, Section 15301 (Continuedfron'l3/20/97)
Use Permit to allow retail sales, sign program, and use generating more than 100 ADT in the (P-I)
Planned Industrial Zone District in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Sections
20.32.060, 20.32.030(c). (Applicant requests continuance to May 15, 1997)
Motion -SimlSecond-Padreddii: Motion to continue Consent Item UP-96-110, V-96-110 & ND-96-110
to May 1, 1997 and Item UP-97-010 to May 15, 1997. The Motion passed with a unanimous voice vote.
PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEM
180 Kimball Way, Kwong Kolm Architects by Henry Kwong, Applicant;
Equitable Life Assurance Society, Owner
PUD 96-129, and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND-96-129 (Cont'd from 3/20 & 4/17' 1997)
Planned Unit Development to allow the conversion of 12,000 sq. ft. of warehouse floor area to office
area, a use generating in excess of 100 average daily vehicle trip ends, a use operating 24 hours/day, to
allow a parking ratio of 1.8 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area for the research &
development uses, allow the construction of a parking lot with a reduced setback at 292 East Grand
Avenue, to allow twenty-five (25) parking spaces in a required front setback and to allow off-site
landscaping situated in the public right-of-way, in the Planned Industrial (P-I) Zone District, in
accordance with provisions of South San Francisco Municipal Code Sections 20.32.060, 20.32.070(a),
20.74.070(c), and 20.74. 120(b).
Chairman Romero opened the public hearing.
Commissioner Barnett abstained from this item due to his place of employment.
Senior Planner Carlson presented staff report noting that the previously approved use permit included a
300 parking space facility that was never constructed. The present tenant, Arris, is an R&D type use
similar to the previous use and would use the building as the previous tenant. The Zoning Ordinance
requires 200 parking spaces for this tenant, although a provision allows reduction in parking requirements
subject to an approved parking demand analysis. Their parking consultant recommends that 140 parking
spaces would be adequate and the proposed parking by Arris is 163 spaces. He indicated that the
Planning Commission could, therefore, reduce parking spaces to allow for a higher percentage of
landscaping along a portion of East Grand and Littlefield Avenues. This would alleviate the need for the
request for the Planned Unit Development to allow the landscape and front yard setback along East Grand
Avenue to be utilized for parking. In order for the Commission to approve this project under a Use
Permit, staffwould have to renotice this item as a Use Permit. He notes that the benefit would be greater
landscaping and staff supports either option.
The Applicant (speaking from the audience floor) noted they concurred with staff's recommendation and
were available to answer any questions.
Page 2 of 12
PC Mtg. 4/17/97
Chairman Romero closed the public hearing.
The Commission asked for the over all development plan of the whole parcel and an estimate of number
of employees.
Representing the Applicant:
Dan Hipple, Facilities Services Manager
Arris Pharmaceutical
385 Oyster Pt. Blvd. #3, SSF
Mr. Hipple stated they do have an annual review of their
facility to assure sufficient parking. The future plans are to
development adjacent buildings and bring all employees to
one location. He indicated Arris has 75 employees and
possibly 100 within five years.
Discussion to clarify the use of "Use Permit vs. Planned Unit Development" option and the possibilities
for landscaping continued. Senior Planner Carlson noted that the Use Permit option would equal 140 to
143 parking spaces, which provides more landscaping. The PUD option provides 163 parking spaces.
Commissioner T eglia noted that East Grand Avenue is a maj or thoroughfare and would recommend the
larger front yard setback. The Commission concurred that parking standards are met and that Arris'
parking requirements are reviewed on an annual basis.
Chairman Romero stated that a two-foot front yard setback is very.minimal. Commissioner Padreddii
noted that by giving them the two-foot setback it would produce less off street parking.
Commissioner Sim noted that there are power poles on the sidewalk and asked if those lines would be
underground in the future.
The Assistant City Attorney clarified if the Commission wished, the motion must be to direct staff to
bring this back as a Use Permit. Planner Carlson noted this would come back to the Commission at their
next regular meeting.
Motion-Padreddii/Second-None: Motion to adopted Resolution recommending that the City Council
adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-96-129 and PUD-96-129 subject to the findings and
conditions of approval. There was no second to the motion - the motion died.
Motion- Teglia/Second-Sim: Motion directing staff to bring this item back as a Use Permit and notice as
such. The Motion passed with the following roll call vote: AYES: Chairman Romero, Commissioners
Teglia, Sim, and Baldocchi; NOES: Vice-Chairman Padreddii; ABSTAINED: Commissioner Barnett
119 So. Linden Ave., Asian American Charter/4C Contractors, ApIt. (Jon Mead, Owner)
UP-97-012, and Miti2ated Ne2ative Declaration No. ND-97-012
Use Permit to allow a Charter Bus parking lot and vehicle washing area with associated landscaping in
the M-l Light Industrial Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Section 20.30.030(c).
Chairman Romero opened the public hearing.
Director Van Duyn noted that the applicant was not present. Assistant City Attorney Snodgrass advised
Page 3 of 12
PC Mtg. 4/17/97
that the Commission could legally go forth with the hearing, even though the applicant was not present.
Director Van Duyn informed the Commission that the business was operating without permits. It was his
opinion that the City had been very patient in trying to work with the applicant. The staff report was in
support of the application, but he recommended that additional special conditions of approval be placed
upon this application. He expressed a lack of confidence that the applicant would comply with the
conditions, based on the contractor's history for lack of compliance with regulations. He indicated that
city stafffrom several departments are present to inform the Commission on the project's history of
violations.
Assistant Planner Kasparowitz presented the staff report, noting the chronology of events. Code
Enforcement first received a complaint of an operation without a permit. Code Enforcement wrote a
report and sent a letter early January 1997 to cease work until all permits were received. However, the
site continued to be developed. The Senior Construction Inspector, Mike Rozzi, visited the site at the end
of January 1997 and informed the contractor that the work was not up to City standards. He indicated
that, prior to any further construction complete, detailed plans were required to be submitted for City
review and approval. He indicated that, several permits were required, including a use permit, an
encroachment permit and a building permit.
Planner Kasparowitz noted that the contractor spoke to Mr. Ray Honan, Water Quality Control Plant
Storm Water Coordinator. The applicant was informed, in February 1997, that a three-compartment oil-
water separator was required for the site.
The contractor met with Senior Planner Steve Carlson, in February 1997. The use permit process was
explained to the contractor. At the end of February 1997 the City Attorney's office sent the contractor a
letter stating that he and the applicant must apply for a use permit, and pay for all the costs related to
enforcement and inspections.
Planner Kasparowitz then indicated that in March 1997, the applicant submitted an application for a use
permit for a parking lot, parking for eluployees, and a bus washing facility. The plan indicates seven bus
slots, parking for six employees, one handicap parking space and a washing facility. A six-foot landscape
strip was proposed for two sides of the lot. The Zoning Code requires six foot landscape strips on all
sides of the lot. Planner Kasparowitz noted that the fencing, the paving, and driveway have all been
installed without a permit. An oil water separator has been installed but it has only two stages. The City
requires a three-stage oil water separator. The applicant and contractor were aware of this requirement
prior to installation of a two-stage separator.
Planner Kasparowitz informed the Commission that currently, the limousines and buses park in the
driveway, and else where in a disorganized manner. He recommended an added condition: "A.2.k. Tit at
velticles park in the designated parking slots. " He also recommended an additional condition to limit the
use permit for three months to allow the applicant time to correct construction to meet city standards, the
new condition reads as follows: "A. 2. I. Tltat tltis use pernlit sit all expire in its entirety and witltout
furtlter Itearing at tlte close of tlte 9(1" day upon its issuance. Tlte City of So u tit San Francisco sit all
have tlte autltority to lvaive tltis condition if the City determines, in its sole and reasonable discretion
tltat as of 90 days after tlte permit's issuance tlte applicants are in full compliance lvitlt all of tlte
conditions of approval of UP-97-012. Absence suclt determination by tlte City, tltis use permit sltall
Page 4 of 12
PC Mtg. 4/17/97
expire automatically. " Attorney Snodgrass explained that with this condition, the use permit would
expire in 90 days without revocation proceedings, unless the City determines that compliance had been
achieved at that time.
Planner Kasparowitz indicated that a finding is added to read: "6. Tltat a Mitigated Negative
Declaration Itas been prepared and complies witlt tlte Cal~fornia Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA)." He indicated that additional city stafffrom several departments was available to report to the
Commission on the history of violations.
Senior Planner Carlson reported that he explained to the contractor and architect the City's requirements
in November 1996. He indicated they were fully aware of the City's requirements, including the
Engineering Division's drainage requirements, before any construction work started.
Chairman Romero and Commissioner Baldocchi asked staff if the contractor was licensed, and whether
he indicated why he had not complied with the city's standards.
Attorney Snodgrass explained that the letter of February 1997 from the City Attorney's office noted that
the City was reserving all of its legal rights to seek any type of relief against the applicant and contractor,
but would agree not to do so for the moment if they would agree in writing to reimburse the City for
inspection costs and to comply with permitting and legal requirements. They were given five days to
respond. Mr. Mead, the applicant, responded that their contractor had not informed them of the situation.
Chairman Romero asked that the testimony from staff continue. The Commission concurred.
Richard Harmon, Development Review Specialist for Engineering Division, explained he met with Mr.
Koray Ergar and someone introduced as a Tour Operator, late last year. Mr. Ergar discussed his plans of
a business for cleaning buses. He was informed that a use permit, and a sanitary sewer waste discharge
permit would be required. Mr. Harmon also indicated that there were drainage requirements, and that
permits to construct the driveway approach and frontage improvements to the site were needed.
Two weeks later, Mr. Rozzi, Senior Construction Inspector, notified Mr. Harmon that Mr. Ergar had
started work on public right-of-way without a permit (the contractor had excavated for a driveway
approach in city streets). Mr. Rozzi red-tagged the job, and indicated to the contractor that he needed to
get the necessary permits. The following weekend, the driveway was poured in spite of the red-tag, no
City permits were ever issued for the driveway approach, and no applications have been submitted.
Rich Desanto, Code Enforcement Officer, reported that on January 10, 1997, he received a call about
some work at 119 So. Linden Avenue. Mr. Desanto noted there was no such address legally recorded by
the City. He and Mr. Rozzi visited the site and saw that concrete had been poured, asphalt had been
completed and drainage had been set up but not complete. He issued a stop-work notice to Mr. Ergar
that afternoon.
On January 16, when no permit application had been received, Mr. Desanto contacted Mr. Ergar and
discussed the matter. Mr. Ergar said he would apply for the required permits. On January 22, Mr. Rozzi
informed Mr. Desanto that the work was continuing. Mr. Desanto stated a "cease and desist" letter was
sent to the contractor on January 24.
Page 5 of 12
PC Mtg. 4/17/97
On February 4, Mr. Desanto received a call from Mr. Ergar saying he was working on plans and expected
to submit them any day. February 5, Mr. Desanto went by the site. Mr. Ergar said they had met with Mr.
Carlson and that the construction plans they were attempting to submit for the Planning Commission's
review contained too many technical details, and Mr. Carlson had asked for simple plans to show the
layout and landscaping, so they went back to the drawing board.
In the mean time, Mr. Desanto spoke with the City Attorney. On February 28, the City Attorney notified
the applicant of the problems and reserved the right to take legal action.
Mr. Ray Honan, the Interim Storm Water Coordinator/Source Control Supervisor of the Water Quality
Control Plant, discussed his interactions with the applicant and contractor. The contractor was referred to
Mr. Honan by Richard Harmon in November/December 1996. Mr. Honan met with Mr. Ergar and
provided him with the requirements from the Water Quality Control Department (WQC). The contractor
stated that they planned to install bus parking and washing areas. Mr. Honan informed the contractor that
a three-compartment oil-water separator would be required. Mr. Honan also indicated a concern that
there was no storm drain in that area. The contractor was informed that he needed to go to Engineering
Division for the proper drainage design to convey the storm water run off of the site. The project would
be required to connect into the sanitary sewer system.
Mr. Honan noted he has worked with the contractor, Koray Construction, on other projects for washing
vehicles and transmissions. Mr. Honan informed the Commission that the contractor is well aware of the
requirements. He indicated that the NPDES and the Storm Water Programs are intended to prevent storm
water from entering into the Water Quality Control Treatment Plant.
Mr. Honan indicated that since there is no sanitary sewer connection at the site, they would have to pay a
connection fee. He informed the contractor of the California Best Management Practices Handbook,
which shows what to do for vehicle washing. He informed the contractor to contact Engineering and
Planning Divisions to go through the process and Water Quality Control Plant requirements would be
attached to those also.
Mr. Honan stated that he has visited the site several times and has observed the unpermitted construction.
He has not received any written information on what has been done. He is not aware of whether the
project is connected to the sanitary sewer or the storm sewer. The property is in violation of the South
San Francisco Municipal Code Sections 1404 and 1408.
Commissioner Padreddii asked that if the application before the Commission was approved, whether it
help to correct the violations. Mr. Honan stated that if the applicant would conform to the requirements
of the Water Quality Control Plant, the circumstance would improve.
Chairman Romero asked Mr. Honan if he had seen the trenches and the pipes being laid, whether he was
able to see where the connections were made. Mr. Honan responded that he did not see where the
connections were made. When he last visited the site, he saw that the wash-pad was installed with a
trench drain, to the south side which was still open. The common area, with the trench drain in the
middle, had a line heading toward South Linden Avenue where it stopped. He was not aware as to
whether it was tied into the storm drain, the sanitary sewer or something else.
Page 6 of 12
PC Mtg. 4/17/97
Mr. Honan informed the Commission that the contractor clearly ignored City requirements. Mr. Honan
stated that on January 10, he visited the site and asked the contractor if he had a permit for pouring the
concrete. That afternoon the Senior Construction Inspector and Code Enforcement Office came to the
site and red-tagged it, but the contractor still poured the concrete.
Commissioner Barnett asked for clarification from Mr. Honan on Water Quality Management, and
whether the type of inspection described was ordinarily carried out by his department. Mr. Honan
responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Barnett asked whether the contractor had poured the
concrete over something that had to be inspected. Mr. Honan stated that the Building Department needed
to inspect the rebar. Mr. Honan stated his concern is where the storm water is going.
Chairman Romero asked the applicant if he wished to address the Commission.
(The record notes that the applicant representative arr~ved during the City's staff testinlony.)
Mr. I(oray Ergar stated he was not present to defend himself. He said
he was guilty, and what he did was wrong. He explained that the
parcel had been used as a truck lot and that the applicant purchased
the parcel for a similar use, a bus parking lot. Mr. Ergar stated that
he and the applicant spoke to Mr. Honan ofWQC, Richard of
Engineering, and Steve Carlson of Planning. Mr. Ergar stated they did the construction "pretty much
according to code" referring to the thickness of the concrete and rebar. He said they did not connect to
any City sewer lines or storm lines, as indicated by the City's staff. The storm line is on the other side of
the street and he would have to cross the street in order to connect. Mr. Ergar stated that instead of the
required three-stage oil/water separator, they installed four-plate filtration system. He noted that there is
no oil change service or any other type of oil used in the business.
Representing the Applicant:
Mr. Koray Ergar
93 Linden Avenue
South San Francisco
Mr. Ergar indicated that the driveway did get red-tagged after the rebar had been installed. He is aware
that they were in the public right-of-way and they had taken precautions so that no one would be injured.
He stated that his decision to go ahead and pour the concrete was to prevent people from tripping and
hurting themselves on the trench and rebar. He acknowledges this was a tough decision, but felt he had to
pour the concrete.
Mr. Ergar stated that everything is done according to code, possibly above code since they placed four
plates instead of the required three. He explained the water drainage system they had installed.
Mr. Ergar noted that they built the concrete slopes to drain into the trench filtration and the second area
of slopes would pass through the second filtration. He noted that since the sewer plant is at capacity, he
did not want to tie into the system. He indicated that the business is just cleaning buses, and that no
mechanical work is done.
Mr. Ergar stated that the site was previously an empty lot. The improvements and the landscaping would
improve the area. He admitted they did the work illegally and that now they would pay the price, but the
bOttOlTI line is the gain in the value of the City. Mr. Ergar stated he did not understand why they were not
going to be allowed to park there.
Page 7 of 12
PC Mtg. 4/17/97
Chairman Romero noted that parking was not an issue, but that the concern was the procedure and the
lack of following staff's recommendations and requirements. Romero asked Mr. Ergar if he was a
licensed contractor. He responded in the affirmative. Romero confirmed with Mr. Ergar that he was
familiar with the process for applying for applications, building inspections, and the approvals that are
necessary when a construction project is done. Mr. Ergar indicated that he was familiar with the process.
Romero stated that the Commission was interested to know why he chooses to completely disregard the
rules and regulations of the City, and proceeded with the project without the benefit of staff's input.
Mr. Ergar stated that the charter bus company needed to clear the other site and also store the buses
immediately. Mr. Ergar noted that the applicant would not be able to pay $1,000 to rent one location and
purchase the new site. Chairman Romero informs Mr. Ergar that the applicant was depending upon him
to guide him through the process. Mr. Ergar stated that the applicant was aware of the worse case
scenano.
Commissioner Baldocchi informed Mr. Ergar that the City has standards and she does not understand
why they were not respected and honored.
Commissioner Teglia asked Mr. Ergar ifhe, and owner, were well aware, from the beginning, of what the
City required. Teglia indicated if the contractor had considered that the City may not allow that type of
use in that property.
(It is hard to understand, he is speaking too fast) Mr. Ergar question why properties are sold in the first
place if they do not meet the City's rules and regulations. He indicated that the applicant was not building
a commercial building on the site. He stated their construction would comply from now on. He felt the
buyer was in a "catch 22" and he needed to start his business as soon as possible. Mr. Ergar stated that
they had to make a fast decision and they made a business decision to proceed.
Chairman Romero reiterated that the status of the proj ect was unknown, the sewer connections were not
verified for the storm water, and that nothing had been inspected. He noted that when the red-tag was
issued, the contractor should not have poured the concrete. Mr. Ergar responded that he did have the
rebar installed and someone could have tripped.
Commissioner Baldocchi noted that if the procedures were followed, the contractor could have prevented
that problem. Mr. Ergar indicated he felt he had to finish the job to avoid a lawsuit problem.
Commissioner Barnett indicated to the contractor that he had broken the laws by starting the project, and
broke the law again by continuing it. This could jeopardize his contractor's license. Mr. Ergar noted that
he just wanted to finish the driveway and trench.
Vice-Chairman Padreddii asked Mr. Ergar for clarification as to whether he was the property or business
owner. Mr. Ergar responded he was the contractor, and that the owner asked him to speak for him.
Padreddii noted that Mr. Ergar would not be able to confirm compliance with the conditions of approval
since he was not the business or property owner.
Chairman Romero asked if the owner was notified of the meeting. Staff responded in the affirmative. Mr.
Ergar stated that the owner was aware of this meeting. Romero asked if the owner is aware that the Fire
Page 8 of 12
PC Mtg. 4/17/97
Prevention/Building Division could ask that construction stop and remove what has been done. Mr.
Ergar stated that if they had to open up all the trenches then they would have to open them up.
Discussion ensued on the consequences of the project. Mr. Ergar stated that he was only the contractor
and that he did not make decisions for the owners. Commissioner Barnett informed the contractor that
the owner pays him to build a project that would not fall apart.
Chairman Romero asked Mr. Ergar for clarification of his legal authority to speak for the property owner
and whether he had the authority to both speak on behalf of the owner as well as to obligate him to
comply with the terms and conditions as set forth in this application. Mr. Ergar stated he did not have a
power-of-attorney to speak for the property owner, but they did apply for the use permit together.
Romero indicated that the Commission needed to have the property owner's testimony that he would
comply with the conditions of this application. Director Van Duyn informed the Commission that while
Mr. Ergar may indicate that he does not wish to make decisions for the property owner, the property
owner has given written authorization through the application on file to Mr. Ergar to represent him.
Vice-Chairman Padreddii asked Mr. Ergar whether the owner needs to be willing to comply with the
proposed conditions of approval in order to keep the business operating. Mr. Ergar stated that the owner
would be willing to do so. He would go through the permit process so that the Commission would
approve the use permit and they could continue with the next steps. Mr. Ergar noted that they would take
the plans to the Engineering Division.
Attorney Snodgrass noted, for the record, that Mr. Ergar was being provided a copy of the additional
two conditions which had been discussed earlier by the Conlnlission and staff before he arrived
Commissioner Baldocchi asked what would be the next step if the application was denied. Attorney
Snodgrass said that findings of denial would need to be prepared.
Director Van Duyn suggested alternatives to the Commission including the Planning Division's Condition
"A.2.g. That the applicant shall cease use of the property until all conditions of approval have been met."
As an option, the applicant could be allowed to continue operation for three months in order to provide
compliance or the permit would cease to be in effect. He explained that the land use is consistent in the
zone, but the issue is that the construction for the use was done illegally. The options are as follows: 1)
cease the business until things are fixed; 2) keep going, but automatically cease the business in three
months if the conditions are not met.
Attorney Snodgrass explained that the two options are not mutually exclusive; i.e., the Condition A.2.g.,
to which Director Van Duyn referred, is an obligation that, if the Commission approves the permit with
that condition, would start immediately. The Commission has received an additional condition separately
which does a slightly different thing, which is expiration of the permit on the 90th day after it is issued,
unless the City determines that the property is in compliance. He indicated that both conditions can, if the
Commission wishes, be imposed as conditions.
Chairman Romero asked Mr. Ergar if he had read the new conditions and understood them. Mr. Ergar
stated he had read them and agreed to comply with all of the conditions as revised.
Page 9 of 12
PC Mtg. 4/17/97
Commissioner Sim stated that he was dismayed and appalled with the contractor's actions. As a
professional licensed contractor, Mr. Ergar should be responsible for the safety and welfare of the
community. Commissioner Sim indicated that on principle, he would reject the application. As
Commissioners, they are responsible for protecting the life, safety and well being of the community.
Commissioner Sim asked Mr. Ergar how long he had been a licensed contractor, and whether if he had
other projects in the City of South San Francisco, and if so, had he used a similar practice in doing those
projects. Mr. Ergar responded that he had been a contractor for seven years. Most of his projects are in
the South and East Bay, and he did not follow a similar method of doing his other projects.
Discussion ensued on the unacceptable method used for the construction of the project and that
corrective measures were needed. The Commission concurred there were no further questions of the
applicant.
The City Engineer, Arthur Wong noted the applicant washes vehicles and the eftluent water is going into
a basin in the ground. The City finds this action unacceptable. City Engineer Wong stated that they may
be allowed to operate, but not be allowed to wash vehicles on the premises. In addition, the City would
like to know where they are obtaining water, since the facility does not have a permitted water hookup.
Chairman Romero closed the public hearing, there being no further comment from the public.
Vice-Chairman Padreddii indicated that the base solution would be to approve the use permit and give the
applicant the 90 days to rectify the damages.
Commissioner T eglia stated that the applicant and owner were well aware of the requirements, and the
City has been patient enough. The owners are doing more than just storing vehicles and he agreed with
Mr. Desanto, that the property should be vacated until the applicant completes the process. He indicated
he would deny the proj ect.
Commissioner Barnett said that because of the lack of regard to the permit process the applicant should
not be allowed to continue. He felt that it was in the City's best interest to have this project done
correctly. He does not see how this project could go through even with the conditions.
Chairman Romero expressed that at first hand he too feels the project should be denied based on how the
applicant proceeded, but the Commission needs to focus on the appropriate use for this site. He noted
that it is staff's responsibility to ensure that regulations are enforced. He felt that the Commission should
give the applicant the opportunity to take corrective action and to bring the property up to compliance.
Chairman Romero stated that he does not agree with the method in which this business has started and
should not be tolerated, but he sees that staff has included adequate controls to make sure the property is
brought up to code, and make this a good business for the City of South San Francisco.
Discussion continued on the results if the project is approved with conditions, and that the denial or the
approval could be appealed and go to City Council.
Commissioner Barnett expressed that he would not be willing to approve the project, even though it was
a good land use but because the people using the property were not responsible.
Page 10 of 12
PC Mtg. 4/17/97
Commissioner Sim expressed that he would not want such projects to continue to precede, and based on
the testimony and the fact that the applicant did not start corrective measure several months ago he
would vote to deny.
Chairman Romero expressed his opinion that it would be reasonable to approve the project and allow the
applicant 90 days to bring the project into compliance with the terms and conditions set forth in the staff
report.
Motion-Padreddii/Second-Romero: To approved Negative Declaration ND-97-012 and Use Permit UP-
97 -012 based on the findings contained in the staff reports and subj ect to the conditions of approval as
revised. The Motion failed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Chairman Romero and Vice-Chairman
Padreddii. NOES: Commissioners Baldocchi, Barnett, Sim and Teglia. ABSENT: Commissioner Masuda.
Attorney Snodgrass clarified the difference in alternatives in denying the proj ect. The Commission may
wish to vote to deny and at the next meeting adopt findings supporting the denial, or to take both the
actions at the same time at the next meeting. Director Van Duyn noted that if the Commission denies the
application now, it would not be subject to discussion at the next meeting and at the next meeting the
findings would only be adopted. Attorney Snodgrass agreed.
. . . . . - . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B eginning!:@t:~:ij~~,-~#~!!!i
Motion-Teglia/Second-Barnett: To deny Use Permit UP-97-012 and Negative Declaration ND-97-012
based on findings. The Motion passed with the following role call vote: AYES: Commissioners
Baldocchi, Barnett, Sim and Teglia. NOES: Chainnan Romero and Vice-Chairman Padreddii. ABSENT:
Commissioner Masuda.
Chairman Romero informed the applicant he would have the right to appeal within 15 days from next
meeting when findings of denial will be set and approved.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Items from Staff: Director Van Duyn informed that a Joint meeting with the Planning Commission
and City Council had been scheduled for April 30. He introduced Mr. Jim Harnish to give a brief report
on the General Plan update.
Mr. Jim Harnish, staff consultant, stated he would be managing the General Plan Update and that Blayney
Dyett consultants had been selected as part of the team to prepare the General Plan. He explained that
Blayney Dyett has five sub consultants working on the separate issues such as environmental analysis,
noise, traffic, etc. The consultant team would be preparing a general plan over the next 18 to 24 months.
The workshop on April 30 would be an opportunity for feed back to the consultants on issues of what the
Commission and Council would like to consider for the General Plan Update. There would also be
informal sessions with the City Council, Planning Commission and City Departments about the planning
process. These sessions would be an opportunity to provide the consultants with the Commission's
concerns, what positive things in the city could be enhanced, and attention to policy options and growth
options of specific areas of the City. He informed the Commission he was available to answer any
questions by telephone every day.
Pagellof12
PC Mtg. 4/17/97
Director Van Duyn noted that the Bus Tour for City Council and Planning Commission was set for April
23, 1997 from 10: 15 A.M. to 2: 15 P.M. The Design Review Board will be invited to a Joint Bus Tour
with the Planning Commission when all seats are filled. He also informed that the Special Planning
Commission for April 24, 7:00 P.M. will be held at the Municipal Services Building. The Joint Meeting
with City Council on April 30, 7:00 P.M. will be in the Large Conference Room at City Hall.
Items from Commission:
Commissioner Sim reported that he attended the last Design Review Board meeting and encourages
others to attend. He also thanked the Commissioners for attending the Art Rise fund raiser.
Commissioner Baldocchi commented that the Black Mountain Water building looks great. Director Van
Duyn informed that originally the applicant wanted to improve the existing building and move in, but the
credit goes to staff and Design Review Board for the constructed design. Commissioner Baldocchi also
asked about the pot holes near the railroad tracks. City Engineer Wong indicated that the City is trying to
get the railroad to repair/fill in the railroad crossing, but the city does go out and filled in pot holes when
reported to avoid a hazardous condition.
Commissioner Teglia noted that within the last months at Forbes and Eccles Boulevards pot holes have
been created near the railroad tracks. City Engineer Wong noted he would notify the street maintenance
division. Discussion continued on which tracks are staying with the Oyster Point Blvd. Expansion project.
Commissioner Teglia asked how code enforcement was doing on illegal signs on Grand Avenue.
Director Van Duyn explained that the code enforcement is working with City Manger's office.
Commissioner Sim asked about the project on Kimball Way off of East Grand Avenue and if the tension
wires at 180 Kimball will be underground. City Engineer Wong explained the development and that the
undergrounding project scheduled on East Grand Avenue may not go all the way down to Kimball Way.
Items from the Public: None
Adjournment: Motion-SimlSecond-Barnett: Motion to adjourn meeting at 9:45 P.M. to the following:
· April 23, 1997 Bus Tour meets 10: 15 A.M. @ City Hall Parking Lot
· April 24, 1997 Special Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 PM @ Municipal Services Building
· April 30, 1997 Joint Council & Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 PM @ City Hall Conf. Rm.
· May 1, 1997 Regular Planning Commission Meeting 7:30 P.M. @ Municipal Services Building
'\
A,l -.:.
tv(
w~~w
William Romero, Chairman
Planning Commission
City of South San Francisco
a - uyn, Secretary
SSlon
outh San Francisco
WR:MVD:rp
Page 12 of 12
PC Mtg. 4/17/97