Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09.14.00 Minutes CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE September 14, 2000 CALL TO ORDER I PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TAPE 1 The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL I CHAIR COMMENTS MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioner Baldocchi, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Romero, Vice Chairperson Meloni and Chairperson Sim MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner D'Angelo and Commissioner Teglia STAFF PRESENT: Planning Division: Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Mike Upston, Senior Planner Allison Knapp, Consultant Planner Econ. Community Dev. Marty Van Duyn, Director City Attorney: Adam Lindgren AGENDA REVIEW Senior Planner Upston noted that there would be a Gellert Due Housing study session and a Terrabay study seSSIon. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None STUDY SESSION ITEMS 1. GP-00-053, PUD-00-053, SA-00-053 and ND-00-053 Gellert Blvd., westside between Westborough Blvd. & Roundtree Way MarbellalDuc Housing Partners, Inc., applicant, Thomas Callan, owner General Plan Amendment, Planned Unit Development and Tentative Map to allow development of 74 single family homes on the west side of Gellert Blvd. Senior Planner Upston gave a brief presentation of the proposal. Carol Ann Painter, Project Manager - Duc Housing Partners, gave a presentation. Chairperson Sim asked what the Design Review Board comments had been. Ms. Painter noted that the Design Review Board liked the project in whole. She noted that they were asked to change the intervals between the trees and were also asked to reduce the parking. Commissioner Honan asked why they had to reduce the parking. Ms. Painter noted that there were parking places in front of the public art display and were asked to take out four spaces in order to have the public art visible from Gellert Boulevard. S:\Minutes\091400 SPC.doc Page 1 of 6 Chairperson Sim noted that the staff report stated that the proj ect is in tune with the character of the City and asked if it was true. Ernie Gorrill, Bassenian Lagoni Architects, noted that the City has a great deal of houses with Mediterranean styles and added Spanish and Italian styles. Chairperson Sim asked if the homes can be seen from Gellert Boulevard. Mr. Gorrill noted that architecture will be seen on the wall. He added that the existing neighborhoods above will look down on attractive tile roofs. Vice Chairperson Meloni asked how high the wall on Gellert Boulevard would be and what types of materials would be used. Ms. Painter noted that page 8 of 17 on the plans show that there will be a lot of detail on the back of the homes because it will be seen from Gellert. She noted that the wall will be a maximum of eight feet tall, two of these feet will be used as a retaining wall. Vice Chairperson Meloni asked what the setback was from the wall to the back of the sidewalk on Gellert. Ms. Painter noted that it was 10 feet from the face of the curb. Commissioner Romero asked what the backyard setback is anticipated to be. Ms. Painter noted that they are proposing a minimum of 15 feet and some will be larger. Commissioner Romero asked if there was a possibility to push the project back and allow more of a setback along Gellert. Ms. Painter noted that yes it can be done but it will result in having a higher retaining wall. She noted that for every foot that is pushed back the retaining wall goes higher 1 Yz - 2 feet. She noted that it is very sensitive and they are proposing to have a sidewalk on one side of the street, which saves four feet and will have an 18 foot driveway. Commissioner Romero asked if they were 20 foot driveway. Ms. Painter noted that half would be 20 feet and the other half would be 18 feet. Commissioner Romero asked if there would be any walkways in the open space areas. Ms. Painter noted that the landscaping is natural implementation to a more formal implementation as it gets closer to the public art. She noted that plants put too much weight on the slope and don't want to turn up the soil too much to move the slope. Commissioner Romero asked if there could be walkways on the open space area for individuals to use from the new development, as well as, existing neighborhoods. Ms. Painter noted that they can look at that along with benches that need to be put into the open space area. Commissioner Romero noted that the area should be looked at more closely and the entire site should be treated as one. he was not supportive of the 5 foot setback from the wall on Gellert. Ms. Painter added that they could look at adding stairways because it is the only way the existing neighborhoods can access the walkway. Chairperson Sim echoed Commissioner Romero's comments with regard to the 5 foot setback along Gellert. Recess called at 7:35 p.m. Recalled to order at 7:45 p.m. 2. Terrabay Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment San Bruno Mtn. TERRABA Y: The applicant has modified their application from 1) a 448,300 net square foot office to a 686,200 gross square foot office with 7,500 square feet of retail on the ground floor on an 18.08 acre parcel; 2) from 250 unit residential condominium development to 80 units of single family attached dwelling units on a 14.96 acre parcel; 3) Create a Preservation Parcel consisting of 25.73 acres to preserve the Native American shell mound and lands north, west and south of the shell mound; 4) Create a 2.69 acre "Buffer Parcel" south of the Preservation Parcel for landscaping and surface parking; 5) Plus 80 unit condo tower on an 8.22 acre parcel (previously referred to as the Commons Area). Consideration of addendum to certified Final SEIR- State -#97 -82077 Council Resolution Consultant Planner Knapp gave a brief presentation of the proposed changes to the project. S:\Minutes\091400 SPC.doc Page 2 of 6 Jack Myers and team gave a presentation on the project. Vice Chairperson Meloni asked how much the increase in width on the commercial towers was. Mr. Hartman noted that it was an increase of 4 feet per side. Vice Chairperson Meloni asked if the footprint of the tower and the parking area have increased. Mr. Hartman noted that the tower footprint is eight feet wider and the parking foot print has decreased. Vice Chairperson Meloni noted that the Commission did not have any materials to base their comments on and found it to be very disheartening that there were no materials available. Mr. Myers noted that they had not anticipated that the original condominium property was not economically feasible. He added that they have evaluated what is feasible and what they can do with the site. He asked that the Commission give comments on the current proposal. He requested to have the public hearing on the project on October 5th which will allow them to get the project underway by next April. Commissioner Romero noted that the residential aspect of the project is being taken away and is very important b~cause affordable housing is needed in the City. He noted that the residential part of the project is being shifted over to the commercial side, which is not acceptable to him. He added that the commercial side needs to be rethought because it is too large and the 497,000 square feet of commercial was acceptable. He noted that it would be difficult for him to recommend the project to Council with a minimal amount of housing. Mr. Myers noted that they are reducing their housing by 90 units. Commissioner Romero asked what the phasing for the entire project would be. Mr. Myers noted that they intend to develop the commercial and residential components at the same time. Commissioner Romero noted that the residential portion needs to be given priority. Mr. Myers added that this concern had not been expressed when the project was presented. Commissioner Romero noted that the residential portion of the project needs to be expanded. Commissioner Baldocchi agreed with Commissioner Romero's comments. She recalls that at the last meeting there was 250 units which was the least amount that the developer could do. She had been open to having a high rise in the City and is disappointed at the change. She asked for an explanation of why there was going to be a 40% decrease in units. Mr. Myers noted that they ran into difficulty in reconciling the cost of the project with the market data that was not supporting the ratios that they were looking for. He added that they are trying to keep the concept the same. He added that the change has not been easy for them because of all the support they have built with the community. He added that they will look back on how the presentation could be modified. Commissioner Honan noted that as a Planning Commissioner she needs to figure out what is best for the City and residents. She added that the Commission needs a good presentation like the presentation on July 6, 2000. She noted that the developer is asking for a public hearing on October 5th and she could not agree to that because she needs information and a good presentation. She added that she was surprised to be losing 90 homes, and increasing the commercial component. Vice Chairperson Meloni agreed with the Commission's comments and there are also other issues that are unclear to the Commission, such as, grading, landslides, sprawling on the mountain and visibility. He added that the Commission has been put into the position of rushing into decisions in the past and does not want that happening with Terrabay. Mr. Myers apologized for any discomfort put on the Commission and did not intend to do that. He added that they were sharing a concept with the Commission and will reevaluate what they will do with the project. He noted that if he is allowed to return to the Commission the material will be properly organized and prepared. Recess called at 8:45 p.m. Recalled to order at 9:00 p.m. TAPE 2 S:\Minutes\091400 SPC.doc Page 3 of 6 Mr. Myers noted that he has failed in giving the Commission what they were looking for. He noted that the Commission felt that moving from 450,000 - 617,000 seemed aggressive on their part. He noted that they will address the bulk and mass of the buildings. He mentioned that the low rise single family attached concept is non descriptive and that the Commission cannot comment on the architecture and asked for direction on the concept. He added that the Commission has commented on the lack of specificity of the condominium tower and has tried to point out that they have brought it down to one acre buildings. He noted that they have gone down from 250 units to 80 and the site work is killing them on the cost. He added that the 100 child daycare facility will be proposed and the YMCA is interested in having a facility incorporated into the project. He added that the residential component helped drive down the economics of the project because the total inventory became oppressive in terms of what it did for the economics. Commissioner Baldocchi suggested that the commercial component be reduced because the City is working towards a job / housing balance. She added that the developer should provide more information and give the Commission more time to review it in order to make a decision. Commissioner Romero noted that the condominium site is a difficult site to develop. Vice Chairperson Meloni noted that in order to balance the project both the residential and commercial need to grow. He added that the traffic in the area needs to be reduced and increasing the residential portion will allow people to live close to work. Chairperson Sim noted that the Commission wants the project to be balanced. He noted that the buildings are too large and the aesthetics should be improved with compelling details. Commissioner Honan recalled that the tot lot was going in the condominium area because of the grading problems. She asked if it was possible to reserve some of the homes in the new residential project for those working in the commercial portion of the project. Mr. Myers noted that they are coordinating something similar to that with City staff. Commissioner Honan asked if the enlargement of the commercial part, will it go over to the shellmound area. Mr. Myers noted that they are bound by an agreement with the City, San Bruno Mountain Watch to preserve the sacred burial grounds. Commissioner Honan noted that she could not agree with the residential component having 80 units because housing is needed in the City. Mr. Myers he noted that they had attempted to get more units into the area. He noted that the design team could try and work with the footprint. He added that they would look into the residential issues. Commissioner Romero noted that the residential tower, where it is now located, would adversely affect a larger neighborhood. He added that it was not affecting such a large neighborhood where it was located before. He asked if the restoration of the Point was still going to go through. Mr. Myers noted that it is very important and a key ingredient of the plan. Chairperson Sim asked if the perennial spring was still included in the project. Mr. Myers noted that it is still included with the commercial portion. Vice Chairperson Meloni noted that the Commission at first was not comfortable with the high-rises on the mountain because it was a new idea for the City, but was receptive to the idea after the presentation made with the previous proposal. He asked if the high-rise component would still work for residential. Mr. Myers noted that the site work and the way the project was organized had become problematic in cost. He added that the condominiums on one acre was a recent addition to the project after discussing various options with staff. Vice Chairperson Meloni asked if the increase is allowed on the commercial portion of the project, would that offset the cost of the condominium high-rises. Mr. Myers noted that the commercial is being expanded because the market is supporting it. He noted that they are gathering the market absorption and rents that are being paid and the cost of the building to add it up. He added that the project will stand on its own two feet and won't subsidize the development next to it. S:\Minutes\091400 SPC.doc Page 4 of 6 Vice Chairperson Meloni noted that housing is the big issue with this project and in order to accomplish that the attached single family needs to be increased. He added that was afraid of the project looking similar to the previous proposal for that site made by the previous developer. Commissioner Romero asked how many employees are anticipated to work in the 680,000 square foot building. Mr. Myers noted that it would be between 2200-2500 people. Commissioner Romero noted that those 2500 people would be competing with the rest of the residents in the City for housing. Public Hearing opened. Jessica Barsse, 1725 Hillside Boulevard, questioned if the City and the developer consider the traffic increase the project would have on the residents of Hillside Boulevard. She added that noise and pollution are also a problem. She noted that the community center needs to be accessible to the adjacent neighborhood. She noted that property value has decreased due to increase of traffic, pollution, noise and unsafe conditions. Del Schembari, 321 Altamesa Drive, noted that in pre-meetings there was an unanswerable riddle of the job / housing balance. He suggested that all the buildings be clustered if a recreation center is built. He asked if those working in the commercial component could afford to live in the residential portion. He added that the mountain is not an ideal place to build housing and likes going offsite to build homes. Doug Butler, 133 Adrian A venue, was appalled by what was approved at the last meeting with regard to the high-rise towers and was happy they were removed. He noted that the development is still too intense and needs to be limited because of various developments in the City. He noted that the quality of life in South San Francisco has decreased in the last few years and development needs to be limited. He added that the Costco project gives the residents a cause to reflect because it is an eyesore and will cause a lot of congestion. Marie Blackowl, 407 Beach A venue, appreciated what was said about the mountain speaking because it is supposed to. She added that the 80 units downgrade looks very nice as oppose to what was proposed before. She noted that Mr. Myers has been willing to have meetings with the neighborhood and work with everyone. She mentioned that the City Council likes the project and the Planning Commission doesn't, which makes the project go back and forth. Mr. Blackowl, 407 Beach Avenue, thanked Mr. Myers for preserving the sacred burial grounds and appreciates the downsizing of the project because it is better for the City. He noted that the Costco project is clustered and should not have been approved. Commissioner Baldocchi noted that the Commission did not approve the Costco project and was unanimously denied. She noted that Council approved the project and then it went to the voters and they passed the Costco. Chairperson Sim thanked Mr. Myers for his time and noted that communication and information are very important. He noted that the Commission's is supportive of all the comments made by individual Commissioners. 3. Items from Staff - None 4. Items from Commission Commissioner Baldocchi noted that there is a fundraiser at the Community Learning Center on September 22nd and the proceeds go to the Learning Center. She urged the Commissioners to attend. Vice Chairperson Meloni asked about a Special meeting notice they had received in their mail. Chief Planner Sparks noted that there is a study session before the City Council that the Commission has been invited to. Director of BCD Van Duyn noted that it has been advertised so if the Planning Commission decides to attend there is not a violation of the Brown Act. S:\Minutes\091400 SPC.doc Page 5 of 6 Chairperson Sim mentioned that the Westborough Gellert project has the screen wall. He noted that the length of the screen wall may be too much on the project. He added that Day in the Park is on Saturday, September 16th. 5. Adjournment Motion Meloni / Second Honan to adjourn the meeting. Approved by unanimous voice vote. ~:fi:~ Secretary to the PlannIng Commission City of South San Francisco ~ The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. / Eugene s-i1Ti., Chairperson Planning Commission City of South San Francisco NEXT MEETING: Special Meeting September 20, 2000, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA. S:\Minutes\091400 SPC.doc Page 6 of 6