Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.01.98 Minutes MINUTES CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE October 1, 1998 CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The meeting was called to order at 7:35 ROLL CALL / CHAIRMAN COMMENTS PRESENT: Chairman Barnett, Vice Chairman Teglia, Commissioner Romero, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Baldocchi, Commissioner I-Ionan, Conunissioner Masuda ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Planning: Police Dept.: City Attorney: Engineering: Marty Van Duyn Jim Harnish Susy Kalkin Steve Carlson Allison Knapp Wollam S gt. Massoni Adam Lindgren Cyrus Kianpour Richard Harmon APPROVAL OF MINUTES: · September 3, 1998 . September 17, 1998 Special Meeting · September 17, 1998 Regular Meeting Motion-Teglia/Second-Baldocchi to approve with corrections to September 3, 1998 minutes reference to roll-up doors should clarify that they are a facade. September 17, 1998 Study Session General Plan item reference to using commercial for residential should specify that this seems to be the philosophy expressed by the consultant. September 17, 1998 regular meeting reference to Genentech building 55 landscaping should reflect that the recommendation was that the building be eliminated to provide additional parking. Approved by unanimous voice vote. F: \File Cabinet\Old PC\ working\minutes\199 8\1 00 198 .doc Page 1 of 20 CONSENT CALENDAR 1. 706 Palm Avenue~ Daisie Flor V. Harrison~ MUP-98-076 Minor Use Permit to allow a handicap ramp to encroach 2 feet into the minimum required 15 foot front setback and 4.25 feet into the minimum required 4.25 foot side setback. (Application withdrawn) 2. 109 Lon2ford~ City of South San Francisco~ Applicant~ PCA-98-088 General Plan Conformity finding for a potential acquisition by the City of South San Francisco of property located at 109 Longford Drive in the R-I-E Single Family Residential Zone District, in accordance with provisions of State Planning Law. Motion-Sim/Second-Masuda -Consent items approved by unanimous voice vote PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEMS 3. Economy InnlMichael Amin~ Applicant~ Sierra Inn Motel Partners~ Owner~ 701 Airport Blvd. PUD-98-059 and Cate20rical Exemption Class L Section 15301 Planned Unit Development to allow a two-room addition onto an existing 21 room motel with exceptions to standard parking and side yard setback requirements in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.24 and 20.84 (continuedfrom the meeting of September 17, 1998) Senior Planner Kalkin presented the staff report. Lou Dell'Angela , 222 Country Club Drive spoke on behalf of the applicant. He indicated that they have hired a landscape architect, Larry Kasparowitz, who is very familiar with the City's requirements. He stated that in his opinion this project would be a positive example of revitalization efforts. He added that the parldng issues have been resolved and the applicant will be contributing to the cultural arts fund. He finished by stating that they are in agreement with staff's proposed conditions of approval. There being no comments from the audience, Chairman Barnett closed the public hearing, and opened it to the Commission for discussion. Commissioner Masuda asked for clarification on the storage and laundry room addition, which cuts back on the handicap parking. Ms. Kalldn, Mr. HalTIish and Mr. Dell' Angela responded that the handicapped parldng space would meet minimum design standards. F:\File Cabinet\O ld PC\ working\minutes\199 8\1 00 198 .doc Page 2 of 20 Commissioner Romero asked if the 12' wide handicap parking space is 18' long. He asked about what appears to be a sign, or possibly a wheel stop in front of the new laundry area which seems to extend out 5' . Chairman Barnett asked what the sign is, and whether it's fixed on the ground. Ms. Kalkin responded that it is on the wall. Commissioner Masuda stated that he visited the site and there is an 18' parking stall, which sets the wheel stops back 3 feet, leaving 15'. He stated that handicap vans and sedans longer than 12' will be forced to encroach into the driveway. The architect responded that the laundry and storage space was extra from the beginning and not part of the parking area, and the parking in front of the laundry and storage will be the full 18'. He responded to Commissioner Romero and Barnett's comments about the sign, noting that the sign is a handicap sign required by law, and will be mounted on the wall. Commissioner Masuda commented that the limited space remaining in front of handicap space, would force people to go behind their vehicles in the way of traffic to get to the rooms. He added that he observed only one compact car parked in the spaces marked for compact, the others were standard cars. Vice Chairman Teglia commented that his understanding was that the compact stalls have been discontinued, and asked whether they are being used in order to meet the 24 spaces. Staff responded that these are existing compact spaces approved with the oliginal application. He stated that one of his concerns from the beginning has been separating the issues. He expressed a concern for the use of the PUD, which is done for an exceptional project, a certain size, where resources in one area can be used to mitigate some deficiencies in another area. He added that he is concerned that the area has a parking deficiency, yet the spot checks seem to indicate that the parking ratios are acceptable. However, he noted that the parking demand study the study was done on a larger hotel. He added that in a smaller hotel, there is not enough room to pick up the spaces. He added that the trend now is for larger vehicles which don't fit well in compact spaces, resulting in more street parking. He added that his belief is that upgrading this building is necessary as a normal part of doing business in order to compete with other hotels. He added that if a PUD is going to be used, there should be a good reason, which is not justified here, where the consideration is landscaping, which is an existing requirement. Commissioner Romero expressed a concern with stall #13 where cars would be sticking out into the driveway. Staff responded that parking space 13 would not exist, it would be a loading space for the handicap space which has an 8' loading space requirement and both space 12 and 13 will be combined to accommodate that requirement. Vice Chairman Barnett asked why the previous plans stated 25 spaces. Staff clarified that the previous staff report explained that parking space #13 would be lost due to a change in handicap parking standards since the building was constructed. F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\100198.doc Page 3 of 20 Mr. Dell'Angela responded to Vice Chairman Teglia's comment regarding the use of the PUD process. He added that this process has been a longstanding, useful tool used by the City for both large and small projects since he was the Planning Director. He stated that primarily Don & Jerry's auto repair uses the parking in the area during the day with some overflow still available, but at night upward of 25 on-street spaces in the area of Cypress, Pine, and the frontage on Airport remain available. He added that while the applicant does not need those spaces, since they have adequate spaces on site, so it should not be a concern to the Commission. Commissioner Romero asked Mr. Dell' Angela what the purpose was of expanding the two rooms an additional 5'. Mr. Dell'Angela responded that since the facility was built 15 years ago, the standards for motel room sizes have increased. He added that the applicant originally intended to add the larger room on the top floor, and when they started the process in April, during a preliminary review of the concept with staff, they concluded that from an appearance standpoint, it would be better to extend both the top and bottom units for uniformity. Commissioner Romero asked if the additional units would be rental units or residential. Mr. Dell'Angela responded that they will be motel units, one on the lower floor with a handicap access unit which requires a larger unit, and it made sense to make all four units a uniform size. Vice Chairman Teglia asked if the handicap unit and parking stall would both be on the same level. Chairman Barnett asked staff what the trade off was for using the PUD process. Staff responded that the setback encroachment varies from 2 Yl' to 4', for a total of approximately 120 square feet, so they looked at enhanced landscaping and the cultural arts contribution to offset the impact. Vice Chairman Teglia stated that from the previous meeting it was determined that landscaping was already a requirement of the existing facility, which has not been properly maintained, noting that not much is being gained there. He added that he assumed the $500 fee was proposed because of recent ordinances that allow projects with less than the 10% required landscape to make an in lieu contribution. He asked if the of loss of landscaping per square footage based on the formula would generate a higher amount. Chairman Barnett asked what the total landscape coverage is. Mr. Dell'Angela responded that the coverage is probably twice the current city requirement or approximately 20%. He responded to Vice Chairman Teglia's comment, stating that as a result of the last meeting, a substantial upgrade to the landscape has been done, adding new shrubs on the side and front, at a substantial cost. And in addition to the landscape upgrade and the contribution to the cultural arts, the upgrading of the building would translate to an expenditure of approximately $200,000, and is in keeping with the City Council's direction for revitalization on Airport Boulevard. F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\100198.doc Page 4 of 20 Mr. Harnish responded to Vice Chairman Teglia's question regarding the amount of in lieu fees that would be required under the Cultural Arts Ordinance. He stated that were this a true application, where the applicant was 120 square feet short of meeting the 10% minimum, the in lieu fee would translate to $950.40. However, it does not apply to this application since it exceeds the 10% minimum requirement. Vice Chairman Teglia stated that this is an unusual situation, and questioned whether the landscape mitigation is a proper use of the PUD process. He stated that he is happy with the upgraded plans, however in general the City has been over utilizing the PUD process and in his opinion it is not being used in the way it was originally intended. Commissioner Honan stated that she also has a problem with using the PUD because the landscaping is in the original plan. She stated that her recollection of the last meeting was that the landscaping was not going to be upgraded if the additional two rooms were not approved. She stated that if she had heard Mr. Dell' Angela correctly, that the landscaping was going to be completely upgraded, and asked the applicant if this application is not approved, would the landscaping be improved. Mr. Dell'Angela responded that if the project is not approved, the building and landscaping will remain the same, since there is no incentive for the owner to do anything. He added that this is a substantial expenditure and the additional two units are necessary in order to justify the expenditure. He added that the applicant has an approved motel project and would have no obligation to upgrade it at this time. He added that the applicant wants to improve the property. Commissioner Masuda responded to Mr. Dell' Angela's comment, pointing out that the original permit requires that the landscaping be maintained. Mr. Dell' Angela responded that he did not feel that it was appropriate to go back to what happened 15 years ago, adding that this is an old building with old landscaping, and old landscaping exists throughout town. Chairman Barnett stated that he personally does not approve of sending the message that if applicants let the landscape go down, they will be granted a PUD. He added that the proposed additional conditions are being placed to avoid seeing a repeat of this 15 years from now. Vice Chairman Teglia noted that the Commission wants to revitalize that area, and is happy with the aesthetics and the plan to upgrade. However, he considers that a normal course of business, in order to compete with other motels. He voiced a concern with the expansion which he felt was an inappropriate use of the PUD and something the Commission should send to the Council for their opinion. Commissioner Romero asked what the standard setback is, and if the purpose of the PUD was to allow encroachment into the standard setback. He cited earlier comments indicating that if this is not approved, nothing will be done to improve the property. He added that he has a problem with being threatened. F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\100198.doc Page 5 of 20 Commissioner Sim stated that he understood some of the feelings, and how they were presented. He added that he felt that it was necessary to look at the big picture. He stated that the PUD is one of the many vehicles that is available for an applicant to come before the Commission, and Variance is another method, which if he understood correctly would require findings that are substantially more difficult to substantiate than those for a PUD. Mr. Harnish explained that the applicant had originally come in with a request for a Variance, and staff informed them that findings could not be made, so the application was modified. Commissioner Sim continued that the restriction of the Variance led them to the PUD. He spoke of the improved landscape and a contribution to the Cultural Arts Fund, which mayor may not be sufficient or an appropriate benefit for some Commissioners. He asked staff if this fell within the redevelopment overlay zone area which he stated is important since the criteria provides incentives for the City to allow certain situations to bring in added value into an area. He stated that it is still debatable whether some of these things are appropriate, however he was looking at providing incentives and creativity in working with the applicant to provide ways to improve their situation. He noted that the site is a challenging one, and indicated that he also visited the site and looked at the parking situation, and while it was not during peak hours, the parking lot was pretty much vacant. He indicated that there are policy issues, and perhaps the way the applicant presented himself tonight could be construed as being antagonistic. He added that through the PUD process the applicant is willing to give certain things to the City, and the issue is whether that is enough. He stated that he felt that they are all in agreement that the area is in need of improvement. He indicated that he thinks what the applicant is saying is that in the past they have done standard landscape design, and the problem, which the Commission agrees is that the landscaping was not maintained well. He added that he is hoping that the proposed findings and mitigation measures will insure that the upgrade and maintenance will be secured. He stated that while he agreed with the sentiments expressed by the commission, he would ask that they consider the big picture. Vice Chairman Teglia stated that Commissioner Sim's comments were points well taken. He proposed, and moved, that the recommendation to the City Council be that the resolution be changed to reflect that the Commission commends the applicant for the upgrade of his facility and landscaping, however at this time it seems to be an inappropriate use of the PUD, and the Commission cannot recommend approval. Commissioner Sim commented that he felt the PUD is a policy issue, and in terms of fairness he asked for clarification of the action being proposed. Vice Chairman Teglia responded that his recommendation is that the Commission cannot approve the PUD, and is seeking guidance from the Council on the PUD process.. F: \File Cabinet\Old PC\ working\minutes\199 8\1 00 198 .doc Page 6 of 20 Commissioner Romero commented that this is a simple request asking for a setback of 5V2 feet where the standard is 10 feet. He added that if the Commission were to recommend this for approval, subsequent applications for reconstruction of the site would be faced with the established 5V2 setback, which would be setting a precedent. Mr. Harnish responded to Commissioner Romero's statement, stating that this would not be establishing a precedent since a PUD is individually tailored and subsequent applications would be approached de novo. He also asked for clarification on the wording of the motion, and whether the motion was to recommend denial. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren stated that an additional recital could be included with the resolution to reflect the extensive discussion about the intention of the PUD requirement and how it is used. Commissioner Sim asked Mr. Lindgren for reassurance that the action on this PUD would not be establishing a precedent. Commissioner Baldocchi stated that she felt that there has been a lot of concern about the use of PUD, and she agreed with Vice Chairman Teglia that the Commission should seek direction from the City Council on the appropriate use 'Of the PUD. Motion- Teglia/Second-Baldocchi to recommend to the Council that the PUD request be denied. Approved by the following votes: AYES: Chairman Barnett, Vice Chairman Teglia, Commissioner Romero, Commissioner Baldocchi, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Masuda NOES: Commissioner Sim ABSTAIN: None Meeting was recessed at 8:35 p.m. Meeting reconvened 8:42 p.m. STUDY SESSION 4. Terrabay Phases II and proposed Phase III; continue discussions from AU2ust 27 ~ 1998 study session. Consulting Planner Knapp Wollam made a presentation and updated the Commission on the items requested of staff. F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\100198.doc Page 7 of 20 Chairman Barnett indicated that there was a speaker card from Mr. Two Bears and asked permission from Mr. Breen to allow him to speak before the presentation. He requested that the speakers who turned in cards be allowed to speak first. Will Two Bears stated that when he first became involved with this project he was only interested in preserving shell mounds #1 and #2 and he had given his word to Mr. Breen to that effect. He stated that it seems that measures have been taken to try to preserve them, and although he is aware that there are plans for the whole mountain, he would not be attending future meetings in keeping with his word, which is very important to him. He stated that he felt that placing a monument at the site and sunounding the area would guarantee that they are preserved for eternity. Dan Shattuck of 907 West Cardinal Drive, Sunnyvale reminded the Commission that development is not the only option. He stated that the environmental document provided for at least two options. One was for no development, and the other was for an environmentally sensitive option. He stated that this is a very sensitive project and the developer is doing his best to try to overcome the concerns and the problems. He stated that he has seen the beauty, the wetlands and the butterflies, and he thinks the City could develop the area into something of significant value to the City. He added that people from all over the region, or even outside of the state have come to enjoy the mountain and he would like to see more effort made to preserve the land. He stated that the open space that is a valuable sanctuary and a certain amount should be left for future generations. He spoke of massive destruction of the project, with the recent reports of earthquakes, the hunto virus on the mountain, and indicators of problems in other areas which could happen here. Cliff Lentz of 500 Sierra Point Road, Brisbane stated that he grew up in South San Francisco. He spoke of remembering an area that they called the creek, an enchanted beautiful area with tall trees, ferns, wild animals and a beautiful creek running through the middle. He stated that one day the bulldozers came, ripped out all the trees, diverted the water somewhere, leveled it out, and paved it over and it became Westborough Boulevard. He stated that people that have money live in places that have open spaces, away from development. They enjoy listening to the birds sing, smelling wild flowers, and having a place for their children to explore. He stated that the last place left in South San Francisco and Brisbane is San Bruno Mountain and it would be a shame to give that last place up. He stated that the Commission would be making the final decision whether to put up another hotel, more houses, or whether to take a stand and keep some open space for future generations. F: \File Cabinet\Old PC\ working\minutes\1998\1 00 198 .doc Page 8 of 20 Leland Beehan of Daly City stated that he is a concerned Native American citizen. He stated that he feels that the development should not go on for many reasons. He agreed that the area should be preserved for future generations for the cultural, archaeological, and educational value. He stated that he goes to many native festivities, but he doesn't think people there are informed of what the situation is here. He stated that there is a lot that should be preserved on San Bruno Mountain, especially the shell mounds. He stated that he was born and raised on a reservation and they always respected whatever they found, some of the graves and old camp grounds that were there for generations were left alone, since this is what he was taught and why he was here,. He added that once the shell mounds are gone, they cannon be replaced, but the hotels will be gone pretty soon. Vice Chairman Teglia asked the speaker to look at the latest proposal, since the Commission has worked hard to push for maintaining 100% preservation of the shell mounds. There being no other speakers, Chairman Barnett called on Mr. Breen to make his presentation. Dennis Breen stated that he would like to go through their analysis of each of the remaining issues of concerns expressed by the Commission, and try to identify the consequences of making the necessary changes in order to address those concerns. He added that this should allow the Commission to reach a decision as to what recommendations they want to make. He stated that they have prepared a model to scale showing the duplex and triplex units on a section of the point, and the architect has prepared a computer designed scale rendering for a group of homes. He stated that Bob Kent would be speaking on the intensity of the proposed units compared to single family units, for both the Point and the Commons, and present some details on parking differences between Phase I and Phase II, and an outline showing the consequence of expanding the roads and width of the driveway aprons. He distributed some material for the Commission to look at, and indicated that the map shows an outline of the roads if they are widened from 22' to 25' , and if two feet is added to the aprons of each home, which creates a 20' expansion to the project. He added that when the project is moved 20' in width up the hill, it encroaches on geologic and landslide areas, and expands the base of the project to the west. He distributed renderings of the footprints for the hotel and restaurant on the two pads (G and F). Commissioner Masuda asked for clarification to a comment made the previous meeting about the percent of cut allowed into the hill. Mr. Breen stated that was an issue with respect to the habitat, where under the habitat conservation plan, they are allowed to trade or move around ten acres of land over the entire project. He stated that they have used less than an acre of that. He indicated that Bob Kent would address the single-family homes, and that the fact that the Commons were not there, addressed the issue of eliminating them. Commissioner Baldocchi verified that they are not proceeding with Commons. Mr. Breen stated that the Commission had asked them to show the elimination. F: \File Cabinet\Old PC\ working\minutes\199 8\1 00 19 8 .doc Page 9 of 20 Mr. Harnish asked the developer to elaborate on the existing grading line and asked if the geologist has reviewed the plans to determine if that the grading can be done as shown from a physical, geologic, and HCP line perspective. Mr. Breen stated that what they were trying to show is that theoretically it can be done, but has a bigger impact than simply widening the streets. Commissioner Baldocchi stated that at the August 27th meeting she had raised the issue of the 20' setbacks because there was an issue of density, and she wanted to know how that would decrease the density. She indicated that they kept the same number of units, and'simply expanded it, and she was disappointed that perhaps there had been a miscommunication. Mr. Breen responded that with the issue of density, if you expand the three roads, you can only go up the hill further. Chairman Barnett stated that there was still the issue of sidewalks, which are still on only one side of the street. Mr. Breen responded that adding that would be an additional expansion, and he was trying to show what would happen to the grading limits if all those parts are widened. Chairman Barnett asked if Q and P Street are all triplexes. Mr. Breen responded that they are, with the exception of the top row on the north side that turns to the right, which are duplexes. Chairman Barnett stated that one way to reduce the expansion and put in larger aprons, larger roadways and the sidewalks could be to eliminate the triplexes. Mr. Breen commented that the triplexes are the duplex on top with a single family underneath, and if the single family is taken out, you will still have the same size building. Chairman Barnett agreed, however he added that it would not go up the slope as much, and Q Street could be eliminated leaving the duplexes facing P Street which would be backing up to nothing. Mr. Breen noted that the illustrations that will be presented will show that, because of the hillside, taking out the lower part of the triplex will still require support, and in addition you wold be coming down the slope instead of going into the slope. Vice Chairman Teglia asked the developer if they had other options for consideration. F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\100198.doc Page 10 of 20 Mr. Kent stated that one of the first things they studied when they looked at the site was a single-family development, and they determined that it would be difficult to develop a single family detached product that would have an appealing visual effect on a 2: 1 slope. He cited some examples of what eliminating floors would provide. He added that there are a total of 71 buildings in the current project. Using the Point as an example he stated that if a 50' wide single- family detached product went it, it would produce 90 buildings. He added that they also looked at a single-family map that had 36 and 44' wide lots, which produced 104 buildings. He provided other scenarios and cited examples, making comparisons between density and number of building on the proposal versus single-family detached units. He stated that in terms of economics, using the Point as an example, improvements to the curb, gutter, sidewalks, and water, would cost approximately $12M under the proposal presented. In addition the application is also making contributions to the City for freeway hook ramps and on ramps for approximately $7.2M. Assuming that the applicant wanted to recapture his donations to the City, 1/3 toward the Point, 1/3 toward the Woods, and 1/3 toward the Commercial, that would add another $2.4M to the improvement of the Point. He stated that with 90 lots rather than 71 lots the improvement costs would go up from $1.5M to $2.0M. He stated that in this example the improvements and the contributions exceed the value of a finished lot. He spoke of intensity and parking, and provided some examples of other neighborhoods as they compare to their proposal. Vice Chairman Teglia stated that he appreciated seeing examples of other projects that the Commission has agonized over, and have had major discussions on, which are unacceptable and would have not have been permitted by this Commission. He asked if they had examples of other options that are acceptable and might improve the project. Mr. Kent responded that in his opinion the project is an acceptable project that will work unlike the referenced previous project. He added that Terrabay Village has 2.75 cars per unit while this proposal has 4.75 cars per unit. He added that a PUD requires two enclosed garages, two aprons and 1;4 parking space on the street. He stated that during the public hearings for the El Rancho project, Mayor Mullins had commented that that he would prefer for more affordable housing, for more people, rather than single-family detached products that sell for $500,000. And stated that his understanding is that the City Council has also directed staff to look into more affordable projects like the one before the Commission, realizing that asking for that will require trade-offs. With respect to density, he stated that the first section of the Point has 15 units, each 60' wide. He stated that eliminating one unit, and dividing it between the 14 remaining units would generate an additional 4', which would not be recognized from a distance. He stated that if the intent is to provide more open space, his recommendation is to eliminate the 32 units in the Commons which establishes a buffer between the Woods and the Point, and from a visual effect would have a major impact from all points in the City. F: \File Cabinet\Old PC\ working\minutes\199 8\1 00 19 8 .doc Page 11 of20 Vice Chairman Teglia expressed his feeling of frustration with the options that the developer has shown, adding that there were other options aside from single-family throughout the Point. He stated that one of the things that had been discussed was going from triplex with duplexes. He noted that he is a supporter of the concept of providing lower cost housing and agrees with the Council, stating that he thinks it can be done depending on how much, and how you define density. He added that massive high-density development is not necessary to accomplish that, and somewhere between single family detached, and massive four story triplexes, there is an in between option. With regard to the Commons, he stated that discussions indicated that original proposal was somewhat unfeasible, and he could see that area being open space. He noted that the issues go beyond parking and density. It's a matter of what is visible from the community. He indicated that the model is somewhat misleading in that it is only a small portion of the project at the far end. He stated that he would be happier with the proposal of eliminating Q Street, and having wider streets. He stated that they had hoped to see examples of the previous proposal. He pointed to a problem with the recreation center, where those living at the Point are cut off from all recreational facilities. He stated that an earlier proposal included turf and park areas, which should also be a part of this proposal. He stated that one of the things he would like to see before this goes to public hearings are all the previous proposals, and possibly how some triplexes and duplexes can be incorporated to make the Point softer, where it curves into a continuous mass, while earlier proposals broke it up which was less imposing. He responded to the comment about contributions to the hook ramps, noting that the justification was for Phase I and II, and the commercial section that will increase the traffic in the area. He added that the Commission is fairly happy with the Commercial area, which he felt would fund much of those improvements. He stated that he would like to see more information with more options on why the mid-ground is not feasible. Mr. Breen stated that all the earlier proposals submitted had more density and were declined for various reasons. He added that each proposal had different problems that made them unacceptable, and this is what has evolved from those proposals. He stated when they submitted their first proposal, it was based on Phase I, under the original Specific Plan. He indicated that the plan had the 5' aprons, and parks and fit what was under the approved Specific Plan, but was felt to be incorrect. He stated that during and meetings that took place last October and November, his understanding was that if they came in with this many units, and this size apron, and this size street, this would be an acceptable project. He stated that in his opinion this is the mid-ground, and perhaps the reason for resistance by the Commission. He indicated that they negotiated a lot of things outside of the project such as the hook ramps, the recreation center, childcare center as well as timing of the project and all the economic pieces that that go along with it, recognizing that no promises had been made. He stated that he understood that the Commission's job is to make recommendations to the Council. F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\100198.doc Page 12 of 20 He added that the Point is very expensive to build, since the infrastructure, which is the major cost factor has to go in first, and eliminating units, only spreads the cost among the remaining units. He stated if enough of units are eliminated to reduce the cost, the economic impact would affect their potential to meet the negotiated contributions, which have not changed. He stated that he is not opposed to the Commission going to the Council with recommendations on what should be eliminated, moved, reduced or what should happen, adding that this would put him before the Council where he can explain, the impacts and negotiate tradeoffs. Chairman Barnett stated they don't intend to send a plan to Council until it is a plan that they can support. Mr. Breen asked if it was not the Commission's position to recommend, reject, or approve the plan with conditions, and not to change it? Vice Chairman Teglia responded that this is at the study session level, and the purpose of the study session is to try and guide the developer to plans that they can recommend to Council. Mr. Breen stated that everything they have proposed is in accordance with the Terrabay District (which established the amount of open space, development, how many units, and how much land would be given up to the HCP) without valiance. He indicated that what the Commission is asking for involves months and months of work for plans that they already know would be economically unfeasible. Commissioner Romero responded that the Commission is here to evaluate the discussions and negotiations between the developer and staff in order to come up with a project that they can live with long after the developer is gone. He added that it was not their intent to micromanage the project, but rather to critique it and make recommendations and suggestions to City Council with something they can fully support. He stated that in looking at the project his personal feeling is that the developer is trying to do too much with too little with the massive project on the Point. He expressed a concern that the Commission has indicated that they are not comfortable with triplexes, and duplexes are also a problem. He pointed out that there are no single-family homes on the Point and there could be a way to deal with these issues. He indicated that there is no proposed open space, and the streets are a problem with sidewalks on one side, and perhaps something could be worked out there. He stated that the Commission has attempted to express their concerns and issues, and they would expect them to be worked out with staff with mutually agreeable solutions prior to coming back to the Commission, but this does not appear to be happening. Mr. Breen responded they took six months to put together plans that matched the negotiatiol)s from a year ago, and they worked with staff to produce a red line with what was submitted and the changes that were proposed. He added that they have done $400,000 to $500,000 worth of grading. F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\100198.doc Page 13 of 20 Commissioner Romero responded that it seems that the Commission's concerns are heard, but the plans are not modified to reflect them. He added that his perception is that the developer intends to go forward with the project as proposed without regal'd to the Commission's recommendations. Chairman Barnett stated that over a year ago the Commission indicated that they wanted the density decreased. The number of units was decreased, but the number of bedrooms in those units went up. Mr. Breen responded that the number of buildings, the size of the buildings, and the unit structures were decreased, which is density, adding that the other issue of bedrooms would be a parking issue which was doubled, and includes 18' aprons. He added that the massing issue was addressed with 70' from garage to garage. He indicated that they spent $100's of $1000's of dollars putting together plans to address those issues, and that's what they came back with, and that is what the EIR was based on. Vice Chairman Teglia stated that some of the confusion started with the first plan. He stated that the previous plan, which reflected the original proposal for the Tenabay Specific Plan showed much less imposing impacts, and had more open space. He added that he felt that the structure reduction has more to do with the EIR restrictions. He added that the Commission needs to see wider streets, and a rendering of less density. He indicated that the rendering provided is not representative of the whole project, and the Commission needs to see allowance for wider streets, and less density. Mr. Breen responded that to create the kind of grading plans for the duplexes that are being requested would involve a substantial cost and would not be economically feasible. He stated that it would make better sense to ask the Council for approval of changes from triplexes to duplexes, which should not necessitate two sets of plans, since they could figure out the difference. Commissioner Romero stated that he felt that this was in a stalemate and should be referred back to staff for assessment of the Commission's concerns to be resolved with the developer. Vice Chairman Teglia asked the Commission if they are basically in agreement that Phase ill is acceptable. He stated that he felt like the developer would like for the Commission to dump this on Council, yet he would feel like they have failed to do their job. He stated that he recognized the expense of producing new drawings, which should not be necessary. He added that they could be preliminary sketches for staff consideration taking into account some of the Commission's concerns. He added that he would rely on staff to determine what is fiscally feasible and what is not and he would like to see the previous plans that showed separation of the Point, some open space, and how the current proposal came to be. He asked if the rest of the Commission was in agreement. F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\ working\minutes\1998\1 00 198 .doc Page 14 of 20 Commissioner Sim stated that he felt the frustration on both the Commission and the applicant's part noting that there should be integrity in the process. He noted that the Commission, applicant, and staff are spending so much time while something is going awry with communications. He added that the process needs to be re-evaluated to determine what is achievable within budgetary and time limitations available to the applicant. He asked if there was a conceptual, schematic design for both sides to have a dialogue, allowing the applicant through the City Council to go to micro level of refinement, with direction from the Commission on the concept. Mr. Harnish asked for clarification on the conceptual plan request. Vice Chairman Teglia stated that it could be conceptual, regular white with black line plans, but with assurance from a geologist that everything looks right. Bob Kent also asked for clarification and asked if there was anything else the Commission wanted. Commissioner Honan commented that she has a problem with receiving material the night of the meeting and requested that the like material be included with their packet. Commissioner Sim asked if they have any drawings that show the flyover on Phase ill, and asked if future plans could reflect that. Marty Van Duyn, Director of Economic and Community Development stated that with respect to the flyover and the hook ramps, the Public Works Department has exhibits, which provide a general representation of where the shell mounds are in relationship to the hook ramps, the Bayshore Boulevard widening, and the proposed flyover. that show that, and staff would be happy to provide the Commission with those exhibits Vice Chairman Barnett stated that he felt the bulk scale along the northern side of the mountain is too intense, and he would like to see the map come back with the area from the Point north being eliminated, or other renditions of that of that which should not be prohibitively expensive. Mr. Breen asked if he was asking for more than one plan. Mr. Harnish stated that he had heard requests for: 1) A project like the one in the model, except that goes all the way around, with duplexes for both, or triplex in the middle; 2) that the area from the Point north be eliminated; and 3) open space for the project with recreation areas. F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\100198.doc Page 15 of 20 Commissioner Romero stated that he is also asking for previously requested items. He stated that one of the things he would like to see is a comparative analysis of the original plan and what Mr. Breen and his company purchased. He indicated that he would like to see what was approved in the past, and the increase in what is being proposed. He stated that when they agreed not to require that the Dean project be built, it was not intended to open the door for whatever they wanted to build. He indicated that since the original project was eliminated, he was not sure what the zoning was. Mr. Harnish responded that the project has its own zoning district that is consistent with, and based on the Specific Plan, he indicated that it is tailored specifically for Terrabay. Chairman Barnett suggested that for the next meeting staff should provide a historical perspecti ve of each of the plans for comparison. Commissioner Masuda asked if the terrain would support eliminating Q street, adding that he would like to see a drawing showing the elimination of Q Street and moving everything up the street, and the area where the circle is designated a park. Commissioner Romero stated that another thing that can't be deciphered from these plans, is which of the units will have rear yard space. Chairman Barnett asked the Assistant City Attorney to clarify a proper response from the Commission to an applicant who raises an issue of economic feasibility. Vice Chairman Teglia asked if he was asking for a legal response, or as a matter of policy for the Commission. He stated that recommendation would be that it would depend on what the Commission is willing to accept, and how badly they want the project. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren responded that he did not believe the Commission is prohibited from discussing economics. He added that the fiscal analysis for the EIR has not yet been brought before the Commission, and that would be appropriated. He added that as a policy matter it is within the Commission's general powers to entertain and consider economic issues in discussions of the overall feasibility of projects being built. Commissioner Romero stated that he had reviewed the report, he was surprised that it appears that over the long term, the revenues that will be generated from the project will not be sufficient to cover the expenses, and that by the year 2014 it will be $3.7M in the hole, based on the proposed project. Chairman Barnett responded that Phase ill is supposed to help deal with that. He asked that they move forward with the suggestions made, and asked if anyone else had anything to add. F: \File Cabinet\Old PC\ working\minutes\199 8\1 00 19 8 .doc Page 16 of20 Commissioner Sim stated that he felt there were some good parts to the plan, pointing to the open pathway from the top of Q Street to 0 Street. He added that he likes that idea and asked if the developer Could consider something similar to that in the center of the area with the overbearing 17 units on 0 Street on one side, and 15 units on the other side. He added that it could mean loosing a couple of units, but visually penetrating through the layers might have a bigger visual effect. Vice Chairman Teglia noted that the issues are density and open space, he indicated that the original plan that had turf areas, and he could see tradeoff such as, if it was fiscally prudent to eliminate the Commons, the area could be turned into a baseball diamond, and the other alternative could be to present different options on the triplexes versus duplexes. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren, responding to the issue raised by Commissioner Sim at the previous meeting stated that he has determined that there are no requirements under the ADA for dual sidewalks for compliance as they pertain to Phase II. He indicated that he would be presenting the Commission with a written memorandum describing that opinion. He also confirmed that he found nothing that would prohibit the Commission from considering either the economic feasibility or the fiscal impacts to the City on a particular project. Chairman Barnett asked if there were any more specific items that the Commission would like to request. Commissioner Honan expressed a concern with Mr. Breen's definition of density as strictly a number of units. She stated that in her mind density involves more than the number of units, it involves the number of bedrooms, the number of cars, and the number of units. She asked if this was a consensus of the Commission. The Commission agreed. She cited as an example that if the triplexes were taken out and they were established as four bedrooms each, that would be twelve bedrooms, while a duplex with four bedrooms each would only be eight bedrooms, and four cars versus six cars. Vice Chairman Teglia commented that as mentioned in the past, they want to see all the earlier information ahead of time, so they could look at it before scheduling a study session. Mr. Breen asked if they could address when the next meeting would be, so they could provide the information a week ahead of time. Mr. Harnish suggested waiting for the materials, before scheduling the meeting. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren cautioned about limiting discussions to the nlaterial received, without involving additional alternative desires. Mr. Harnish suggested that the applicant get the materials together, and after staff has reviewed the material and met with the applicant to determine the responsiveness of the Commission's concerns, then the meeting can be scheduled, and material provided to the Commission in advance. F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\100198.doc Page 17 of 20 Commissioner Romero asked if there would be change in the fiscal impact due to the commercial building from the TOT which would have been generated from the hotel. Mr. Harnish responded that he did not know the answer to that, and indicated that staff has discussed having the consultant make a presentation, and they could be prepared to address that Issue. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren stated that one outstanding issue that he identified for phase ill, was with the obligations for the property owners and developers with regard to either dedicating the archaeological site, or imposing fees that might assist with the maintenance. He stated that the Commission could provide staff with policy direction, which could be reflected in the Conditions of Approval, the CC&R's, or other documents. He cited an example of the debris accumulating on the site, noting that provisions could be included in the Conditions of Approval and CC&R's that could assist in that regard. Vice Chairman Teglia stated he thought some kind of treatment on the lookout with landscaping was a possibility to help keep debris out. He stated that this is not a major issue for him, however, he felt that the Commission needs direction from staff and other resources. He added that these might not be decisions for the Commission to make perhaps only suggestions. He cited the letter that the County Historical Resources submitted to the Council with very specific information about the shell mound. He indicated that if it hasn't already happened, a communique should go to them explaining what has happened with the shell mound. Mr. Harnish responded that nothing has happened with shell mound yet, noting that there have been several proposals, one that seems to be most favored, but there have been no decisions made. He added that until a decision is made, a definitive statement cannot be provided. He stated that staff is working with a consultant looking at how the shell mound area can be treated and will be bringing this to the Commission as part of the project. He stated that there would be a presentation on that issue to the Historic Preservation Commission in N overnber. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren stated that the decisions that come out of that process will provide the Commission information of what should be made part of the Conditions of Approval and the CC&R's. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 5. Items from Staff a. El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan amendment procedures. · Consulting Planner Knapp Wollam informed the Commission that this is an informational item that will be brought before the Commission at the next meeting with a request to adopt a resolution for the preliminary plan. She stated that this is a City Council/Redevelopment action item, however it includes very critical points involving the Planning. F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\ working\minutes\199 8\1 00 19 8 .doc Page 18 of 20 She added that staff will be coming back probably in March with the draft redevelopment plan amendment. She indicated that the objective is to bring the Willow Gardens territory into the Redevelopment area which will revitalize the area by forming a partnership with a non-profit housing agency; and to expand the EI Camino Corridor South. She added that the Plan would also be looking at supporting businesses and encouraging economic development in the expanded plan area. The plan would include 77.5 acres south of the existing plan area. · Assistant City Attorney Lindgren stated that he would not be attending the next meeting, since he will be on his honeymoon. He stated that Mr. Whitnell would be substituting for him. 6. Items from Commission Chairman Barnett raised the issue of invitations that the Commissioners received recently and the probability of violation of the Brown Act with situations such as this. Vice Chairman Teglia stated that he had been uninvited. He stated that he would like a clarification, adding that he has no problem with invitations such as this, however if a developer picks their own subcommittee of the Commission, he felt that it is something that the Commission should decline. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren stated that the Chair had correctly al1iculated the general rule that where there is a public meeting, it needs to be both noticed and opened, with some exceptions, adding that he would be happy to provide an outline. He provided additional information regarding the specifics of this invitation and action taken to insure that the Brown Act was not violated. EllU of Tup~ 1 There was some dialogue between some Commissioners with regard to concerns involving respect and recognition of individual Commissioner's views, and the importance of focusing on issues rather than personal opinions. Commissioner Romero moved for adjournment. 7. Items from the Public None F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\l00198.doc Page 19 of 20 8. Adjourn Motion- Romero/Second-B aldocchi Meeting adjourned 11 :00 p.m. , ;[? Jim H s ,(~ecretary Planning on~nission Ci ty of S th S an Francisco ~~ // ~.Iy :. ..:5? ChristopHer B arnett, Chairman Planning Commission City of South San Francisco JH:is NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting, October 15, 1998, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA. F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\100198.doc Page 20 of 20