Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09.17.98 Minutes MINUTES CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE September 17, 1998 CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The meeting was called to order at 8:45 p.m. ROLL CALL / CHAIRMAN COMMENTS PRESENT: Chairman Barnett, Vice Chairman Teglia, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Baldocchi, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Masuda, Commissioner Romero ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Planning: Jim Harnish Steve Carlson Susy Kalkin Mike Lappen Adam Lindgren Sgt. Massoni City Attorney: Police: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Genentech Building 7, Genentech, Inc., Owner/applicant, 1 DNA Way, UP-93- 940/MOD 1 and ND-93-940 Modification of a use Permit and a Negative Declaration to allow construction of a 90,000 square feet addition to Building 7 (Process Science Center), totaling 259,600 square feet, located at the southeast corner of Forbes Boulevard and Kaufmann Court, in F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\091798.doc Page 1 of9 the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District in accordqn~~ ith SSFMC Chapter 20.40. Chief Planner Harnish requested the item be removed from the consent')~alendar due to corrected conditions of approval for the Building Department. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Chairman Barnett stepped down from the podium due to a conflict 1. Genentech Building 7, Genentech, Inc., Owner/applicant, 1 DNA Way UP-93-940/MOD 1 and ND-93-940 Modification of a use Permit and a Negative Declaration to allow construction of a 90,000 square feet addition to Building 7 (Process Science Center), totaling 259,600 square feet, located at the southeast corner of Forbes Boulevard and Kaufmann Court, in the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.40. Consulting Planner Lappen presented the staff report. Vice Chairman Teglia asked if anyone would like to speak. Being none he opened the matter for Commission discussion. Motion-Sim/Second Romero. Approved by majority voice vote. Vice Chairman Teglia called a recess at 9:00 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 9:10 p.m. 2. Economy InnlMichael Amin, Applicant, Sierra Inn Motel Partners, Owner, 701 Airport Blvd., PUD-98-059 and Categorical Exemption Class 1, 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 (Staffrecommends continuance to the meeting of October 1, 1998) Chief Planner Harnish presented the staff report and asked that the item be continued to the October 1, 1998 meeting. Motion-HonanlSecond-Masuda. Approved by majority voice vote. F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\091798.doc Page 2 of9 3. Shangri-La Restaurant, Alex Tse, Applicant/Owner, 3963 Callan Blvd., UP-88- 842/MOD 3 Evidentiary Hearing to consider modifying or revoking Use Permit 88-342/MOD 3 allowing indoor entertainment within an existing restaurant at 3963 Callan Boulevard in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.91. Senior Planner Carlson presented the staff report and turned the item over to Assistant City Attorney Lindgren. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren informed the Commission of the requirements for the hearing as outlined by the Resolution. He stated that this evening the Commission would be acting in a judicial capacity rather than a legislative capacity. He stated it necessitates that the Commission listen for a "for cause" standard for modification or revocation of the permit, which means that in order to modify or revoke the permit, the Commission needs to be able to make a finding that one or more of the conditions on which the permit was granted has been violated. He added that in addition to the conditions requested by the Police Department, further discussions with staff have led to a recommendation that an additional two conditions as presented tonight be considered, based on evidence that alleged advertisement was made on KMEL radio. He that this would not be a formal hearing. Sr. Planner provided further to the Commission on the modification that was approved in March of 1998. He then requested that Sgt. Massoni identify the violations identified by the Police Chief. S gt. Massoni made a presentation to the Commission on events that led to the action recommended tonight. He stated that in March several conditions had been placed on the Shangri La regarding the use of the entertainment permits. He indicated that when he met with Mr. Tse to draft the conditions, they were drafted based on family oriented uses, wedding receptions, birthday parties, graduation parties and those type of events. He added that on July 25th and July 26th of this year Sgt. Eastman during his routine patrol observed a San Francisco sheriff office police vehicle in the parking lot, and stopped talk to the officers and found out that they were providing security for the event that night, which is a violation of one of the conditions. He indicated that they were friends of Mr. Tse, and they were there to help him out because he could not get security with such a late notice. He added that a subsequent investigation by himself and Officer Hart indicated that the Police Department was not aware of the function and had not been notified. He stated that the officers had told S gt. Eastman that they had done this on a couple of other occasions. He stated that the event was sponsored by KMEL radio. He stated that as suggested by the letter attached to the Staff Report and written by Mr. Tse states that he was approached by KMEL radio to give young people in the area to congregate, which he stated in their opinion is in violation of the non-advertising, and not a family oriented event. He stated that again on July 26th Sgt. Eastman drove by and observed a Department of Defense F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\091798.doc Page 3 of9 vehicle parked in the parking lot and a uniformed Department of Defense officer was providing security for a wedding reception. He added that the Department of Defense is not a licensed permitted security officer by the City of South San Francisco. He stated that the officer had told Sgt. Eastman that the same type of event had occurred on at least three other occasions. He stated that the Police Department was not notified of any of the events, and had no report of disturbances at the events. He added that their main concern is with the advertising and allowing the unlimited people to come since the parking is and space is limited, and once an event is advertised, there is no control in how many people will show up. He added that the rationale for uniformed security personnel who is licensed and permitted by the South San Francisco Police Department is that they know the requirements. He stated that this a requirement that is in all of the rental halls in South San Francisco. Chairman Barnett asked for clarification on the authorized security services. He asked if the actions were related to any type of complaint. He asked if the Police Department ever received a form detailing any event at the Shangri La. Vice Chairman Teglia stated that his understanding was that the recent modification allowed them to have dancing and entertainment as a side to the main use, such as with a wedding, where this event more the main event. Commissioner Honan asked if the applicant was aware in advance of the authorized security requirements. Commissioner Romero asked if this approved security requirement is the same for all other businesses. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren asked that the permit holder be granted the opportunity to present a response. Mr. Alex Tse, Owner of Shangri La stated when he came before the Commission for approval of the permission to do what he thought would be good for the community. He added that, as stated earlier, his intent was to make this available for family oriented affairs and organizations that support the community. He stated that he has maintained that status and attempted to keep the facility clean and run the operation as high class as possible. He stated that with regard to obtaining the authorized personnel, the event with KMEL was done by an individual who had a christening and thought the facility would be good for the youth during summer months to give them a place to get together, listen to music and dance. He thought it was a good idea since, normally, they do not have any functions on Friday. He stated that he did not realize that their obtaining the sheriff was not recognized approved security as required by the City. He apologized for having misjudged the event, adding that this would not happen again. He asked that consideration be given that the error was on his part rather than his employees, adding that the business was not that strong and he felt that 31 days would cause a hardship on them and he would prefer serving jail time, accepting responsibility for his own actions. F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\091798.doc Page 4 of9 Commissioner Masuda stated that the restaurant would not be closed, only the entertainment privilege. He asked if the kids were charged for the fundraiser, where the only functions mentioned are weddings and birthday parties. He stated that someone who lives in the neighborhood reported to him that there were cars parked all over the place, adding that she does not want to say anything because she doesn't want her windows broken. He added that those kids were double parked, sitting on her car, smoking, chatting, just hanging out. He added that having fundraisers are not allowed in the permit. He stated that the applicant is just using this as an excuse, having done it four times, pocketing the money and coming before the Commission saying he's sorry. He added that a police officer can't be there every night to make sure that he is not entertaining or having a party. He added that 30 days is not going to kill him. Chairman Barnett added that conditions were specific, that advertising of events was not permitted, and this condition was repeated 3 and 4 times during the use permit. Mr. Tse stated that it was only after those incidents that they were informed of the need to file an application with the Police Department. Chairman Romero stated that when the use was approved, the intent was never to encourage this type of activities, only activities intended to be family oriented. He stressed this type of activity would never have been approved, adding that there are dangers involved in allowing this type of activity. He stated that the Commission does not want to interfere with the business, however open door polices cannot be allowed. He asked the City Attorney to make recommendations as to what can be done so the applicant can continue to operate his business while insuring that everything is kept under control. City Attorney Lindgren made a correction to the staff report reference to a closed session, and added that the Commission should not retire to closed session. He added that Sgt. Massoni and he had spoken, and expect to make findings based upon the evidence presented at this hearing and make slight modifications to the draft resolution contained in the packed that would achieve the Commissions goals and would be based upon findings supported by the evidence before them. He added that should this not be possible, he would recommend continuing the matter to the next meeting when a revised resolution would be brought back to the Commission. Vice Chairman Teglia asked if the applicant was hosting the event, and whether he was present at all the events. He stated that he was having a major problem with the blatant disregard for the conditions. He added that the Commission made those conditions very clear on March 19th, and then so quickly to violate them on numerous occasions, his fear is that a year from now, he would be back with the same violations. Mrs. Tse responded that he had not hosted the event, but was present to insure that things were done in an orderly.manner. Chairman Barnett stated that the applicant was reliable to provide security, and no public complaints were made. With regard to the function still going at 1:30 a.m., he asked if the permit had a time set. F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\091798.doc Page 5 of9 Vice Chairman Teglia stated that security was a minor issue, the violation was the major issue. Commissioner Honan asked Mr. Tse if he understood the conditions of the use permit, and had he ever read them. She asked if a fee was charged at the door at the three functions, and asked who kept the fee. He asked if he received any profit from the dance. She asked who supplied the security. She asked if he was aware that of the South San Francisco approved security. Mr. Tse responded that KMEL had charged a fee and kept the proceeds. He responded that he did not profit from the functions, and he only charged a clean-up fee. He stated that KMEL paid for the security. Commissioner Sim asked Mr. Tse, if any of these events overlapped. He asked clarification on the number of events and how they were hosted. Mr. Tse responded that the three events were hosted by KMEL, and the other event was a wedding and the only event where DOD was used for security. He responded that the function took place on Friday. Assistant City Attorney asked Mr. Tse if he could elaborate on the details on the announcements made on the radio. Mr. Tse stated that he did not know the specifics since he had not hosted it. He stated that he only heard it once briefly when they announced that there was a dance at the Shangri La. Commissioner Sim asked staff for clarification on the recommendation made in the staff repol1 for a 31 day suspension effective August 5th. He asked if the entertainment has ceased effective that date, and would that 31 days begin from this day forward in addition to the time from August 5th S gt. Massoni stated that the letter sent to Mr. Tse by the Chief of Police advising him that as of August 5th his entertainment activities were suspended. He stated that a couple of days later Mr. Tse contacted the chief and requested a meeting. He stated that he and the Chief met with Mr. Tse and following those discussions, a decision was made to find out from Mr. Tse how many events had been planned. He added that they determined that suspending those events would cause a hardship on the individuals for whom the events were scheduled. He stated that at that point Mr. Tse was told that he could hold no more events than what he already had planned until he came before the Planning Commission and the City Council. Vice Chairman Teglia, Commissioner Masuda, and Commissioner Honan expressed their concern that the applicant claims not to understand the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Romero asked S gt. Massoni if he was satisfied with the language being recommended. He asked if violations occurred after modification, would the Chief of Police be able to shut down the operations. He stated that he recognized the difficulties that the Commission is having with this, however he felt that if the Commission forwards this to Council as a revocation, they would provide him another opportunity. He stated that he did not feel that moving forward with a recommendation for revocation at this time would be inappropriate, and F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\091798.doc Page 6 of9 he added that he would like to give him one more chance, with the modifications recommended by the City Attorney. Chairman Barnett stated that he agreed, adding that he felt that although Mr. Tse acted against the conditions, by insuring that security was obtained acted somewhat responsible. He stated that he felt that the recommended modifications and provisions for review in six months were appropriate. Commissioner Masuda commented that the entertainment provisions for the March 19th approval provided for only Saturday and Sunday. Commissioner Baldocchi recalled that Friday was included, and it was determined that it had been added. Commissioner Sim stated that this is a very difficult decision for the Commission, adding that they want to be fair in acknowledging that there were serious violations. He noted that there is no official police report for that matter other than observations from some individuals. He added that he would not like to see the building vacated since it is a very difficult project site with a lot of constraints. He stated that he felt that some compassion should be shown at this time. He added that he would not be as compassionate should any other violations occur. He added that he felt that the six-month review should be imposed, but showed a concern for the 31- day suspension. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren made a recommendation that instead of treating the provision as a pure penalty, the conditions could be changed slightly to read "entertainment events shall not be conducted until such time as the City Council acts on the recommended modifications by the Planning Commission". Vice Chairman Teglia added that this could interfere with the recommendations made by the Chief of Police for functions that have already been scheduled. He stated that he would prefer to impose a penalty that does not penalize a third party. The Commissioners revisited the previously stated concerns and expressed individual desire for a procedure for addressing the violations. Assistant City Attorney suggested some additional language to support the recommendations. He also stated that before the motion, there was a speaker card, adding that the applicant has the opportunity to present witnesses or evidence presented on his behalf. Alice Bulos, from South San Francisco spoke in support of Mr. Tse stating that the applicant has accepted that he violated certain terms of his Use Permit. She noted that she agreed with the Commissioners that business is business and she was not appealing only for compassion but that Mr. Tse be given the opportunity to prove himself and continue his business. She added that the Filipino community is one that is inclined to have parties and this particular facility provides an important benefit to the community. She added that as a community they would try to insure that the business not repeat the violations. F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\091798.doc Page 7 of9 Motion-Romero/Second-Sim. - To approve that there be a six month review of the activities at the location, and subject to the modifications recommended by the City attorney, and the applicant fully comply with the modifications. A clarification was provided by Assistant City Attorney Lindgren regarding the 31-day suspension. He also suggested that the motion include words in the finding as stated on the Resolution paragraph 1 a. After the words "and hosted", add "and advertised" by KMEL radio, which he stated would strengthen the finding. Approved by the following roll call votes: AYES: Chairman Barnett, Commissioner Romero, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Baldocchi, Commissioner Masuda. NOES: Vice Chairman Teglia, Commissioner Honan ABSTAIN: None ADMINISTRA TIVE BUSINESS 3. Items from Staff a. Chief Planner Harnish informed the Commission that he has dates for the Materials Recycling Facilities Tour: October 7, 14, 15 in the morning. Chairman Barnett requested that they be polled during the workweek. Commissioner Masuda stated that Wednesday would be good for him. b. Chief Planner Harnish stated that another Terrabay study session needs to be scheduled. Vice Chairman Teglia suggested that a study session take place at the end of a regular meeting. Chairman Barnett asked if anything is being done. Mr. Harnish suggested tagging this on to the October 1 st meeting. The Commission agreed End of Tape 1 4. Items from the Commission Commissioner Honan asked if anyone in the City monitors businesses landscaping and asked why businesses are not required to maintain their buildings after they go out of business. Commissioner Masuda asked if the Economy Inn $500 referred to in the letter is an in lieu fee. Commissioner Sim reported graffiti on the transformer at Westborough Center. Commissioner Romero stated the Alta Lorna preschool also has graffiti 5. Items from the Public F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\091798.doc Page 8 of9 None 6. Adjourn Motion - Romero/Second- Masuda NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting, October 1,1998, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA. F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\091798.doc Page 9 of9