Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.04.00 Minutes CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE May 4, 2000 CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TAPE 1 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioner Baldocchi, Commissioner D'Angelo, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Romero, Commissioner Teglia, Vice Chairperson Meloni and Chairperson Sim MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Planning Division: Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Steve Carlson, Senior Planner Susy Kalkin, Senior Planner Mike Lappen, Consultant Planner Allison Knapp, Consultant Planner Steve Mattas Richard Harmon Sgt. Mike Massoni Rocque Yballa City Attorney: Engineering: Police Dept.: Bldg./Fire Prevo AGENDA REVIEW Chief Planner Sparks suggested that item #4 be moved to the end of the agenda, due to an exhibit not being available. He added that item #6, Oak Farms, might have a large number of speakers and suggested that this item be considered for earlier discussion. Chairperson Sim noted that the Commission would take Chief Planner Sparks' recommendation and consider Oak Farms as the first Public Healing item. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Ronald, 55 Daly Court, noted that there is a meeting tonight on the proposed project on Commercial and Oak. He added that Oak is to be fixed from Commercial to Grand, but he is concerned with the other half of the street from Commercial to Old Mission Road. He noted concerns about the lack of adequate drainage and lack of sidewalks which is a big pedestrian safety issue. He asked the Commission where to direct his questions because he gets different answers from different people. Jackie Williams, 242 Longford Drive, asked if her comments fall under the EI Camino COlTidor Redevelopment Plan item. She was under the impression that there were not going to be any oral comments received on the EI Camino Corridor EIR. Chairperson Sim noted that her comments would be taken under the item. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of Minutes for April 20, 2000 Regular Meeting. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\2000\050400 RPC.doc Page 1 of 12 Motion Te2lia / Second D' An2elo to approve the minutes with corrections made by Commissioner Teglia. Approved by majority voice vote with Commission Meloni abstaining. PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEMS Moved to the bef!inninf! of Public Hearinf!s under Af!enda Review 6. Oak Farms Oak Farm Ltd., Owner Standard Building Co., Applicant E. side of Oak A ve./SE corner of Oak Ave. and Grand Ave. PUD-99-067, SA-99-067 and EIR-99-067 Planned Unit Development and Tentative Subdivision Map and Development Agreement for a 32 unit detached single family residential project on a 2.65 acre site. Senior Planner Kalkin and Consultant Planner Knapp gave a staff presentation. Bob Kent and Bob Mantegani, Standard Building Company, presented their project to the Planning Commission, showing illustrations from an existing project in Mountain View which was used as a model for the proposed project. Commissioner Teglia asked what would the view of the project would be from the street. Mr. Kent pointed out that the Mountain View project showed the view from the street and that is essentially how the project would look. Commissioner Teglia asked if the street would be fronted by the garages which is the rear of the house. Mr. Kent noted that the first five units face the street and the rest of the project fronts onto the Common Area, which is in the spinal cord of the project. Public Hearing opened. Mr. Ronald, 55 Daly Court, noted that no one showed any exhibits detailing how the westerly edge of Oak' A venue would be treated. He asked what the street would look like and if there would be a retaining wall. Senior Planner Kalkin noted that the applicant is being required to install curb, gutter, and sidewalk, two traffic lanes and street parking, a total of approximately 40:t feet of pavement. She noted that the applicant is not being required to put a sidewalk on the other side because the right-of-way is intended to be significantly wider than the 40 feet, since there is an 80 foot right-of-way. Mr. Ronald asked what would hold the dirt from going out into the street, like it is doing now. Senior Planner Kalkin noted that street consttuction would have to be worked out with the Engineering Division when the design plans are formulated. Mr. Ronald noted that a retaining wall would need to be built because the property is higher than the street. Vice Chairperson Meloni asked if part of the street is owned by the City and half owned by the County. Engineering Development Specialist Harmon noted that the City owns the street, however, the County property that is unimproved and is being farmed is owned by the County as part of the Courthouse property. He added that several years ago the County was planning on developing a parking lot on the propeliy, and the City asked that the County pave its side of the street. However, the County abandoned those plans. Vice Chairperson Meloni asked if there was anyway the County could take care of Mr. Ronald's concerns. Engineering Development Specialist Harmon noted that there were legal opinions going back and forth with regard to the City imposing conditions on the County and resulted in the County losing interest in the project. He added that there have not been final plans as to what the final grades would be next to the unimproved County portion. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\2000\050400 RPC.doc Page 2 of 12 Commissioner D'Angelo noted that the Commission could make a formal request to the County to address the issue. City Attorney Mattas noted that the Commission could request that the City Council forward that request to the County. Debbie Wydler, 916 Commercial A venue, noted that she was also concerned about the dirt on Oak Avenue because it lands into her house. She asked what sewers the homes were going to be connected to. She added that there were improvements on Commercial down to the 800 block and the sewers on her block are very old and have backed up. She noted that the City said it was her fault and years later they had to go out and dig for three days because the pipes were broken. She also noted that the sewer line had been fixed to accommodate them because it had broken and raw sewage had leaked out into the street. She noted that it took four days to clean the health hazard. Development Specialist Harmon noted that the 32 more units will not have an impact on the sewer line. Mrs. Wydler noted that this has happened to 916 Commercial and other homes are connected to that line and this may happen to those property owners. Ms. Wydler was also concerned with the proposed parking area behind her property, adding that she does not want teenagers behind her new bedroom. She feared that if the parking is away from homes and landscaped it will become a hangout and she does not want that in front of her bedroom. She noted that she understood that garages would face her home. Engineering Development Specialist Harmon responded that he was not aware of any problems with the sewer line in this area nor with dirt sliding on Commercial. He added that there is a 10-inch sewer line that runs along Commercial and he has not heard of any problems, but these may have been resolved by the Maintenance Division. He added that there was a sewer study done in the area and some areas, including Grand A venue and Mission Road near the County Courthouse, were upgraded. Vice Chairperson Meloni asked if the Oak Farms project could be tied to the sewer line on Oak A venue that goes out on Mission Road. Development Specialist Harmon noted that the developer would have to analyze the grade to see if this could be done. He added that it may result in a deeper sewer line along a private street. Vice Chairperson Meloni noted that there is a line in front of the Kingdom Hall. Development Specialist Harmon noted that there is one there and it is shown as a 6 inch line on the plans. Sergeant Massoni noted that kids hanging out is always a problem and if there is a complaint the Police Department would respond to those. He added that wherever there is a park area it becomes a place where people can congregate. Commissioner D'Angelo asked if there is a street light in the area, and suggested that it be considered, though it would heed to be directed away from the existing homes to avoid becoming a nuisance to neighbors. Tom Wydler, 916 Commercial A venue, noted that his property sits 3-5 feet below the site and asked if the applicant can extend their retaining wall all the way down to their property line to avoid runoff from the project site into his yard. Bob Mantegani noted that a keystone wall would be built to get the water to flow out into their private driveway, which will then go through an easement in between houses and will flow out to the stormdrain. He added that there will be no water going to the Wydler's property. He proceeded to explain the drainage plans for the project. Mr. Wydler noted that he and his wife asked that the area behind them be all landscaped without parking because they were concerned with people congregating in the parking area. He noted that there may be a problem with the Police Department responding to calls since it is a private street. Sergeant Massoni noted the only thing that cannot be enforced on a private street is vehicle code violations, but nuisances or disturbances can be enforced by penal code laws. Mrs. Wydler wanted to know where the drainage easement would be. Mr. Mantegani showed Mrs. Wydler where the easement was on the plans. Mrs. Wydler asked what would happen to the existing drain pipe on the Oak Farms site. Development Specialist Harmon mentioned that the developer would be responsible for blocking off the corrugated pipe which goes back about 50-60 years. He noted that it would not be used by the G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\2000\050400 RPC.doc Page 3 of 12 new development because a new drainage system is being installed. He eXplained that it was designed to collect water from Grand Avenue and areas North of Grand. The water going into that pipe was cut-off when the new drain system was installed on Oak A venue and there is no longer any City water flowing through that pipe. He added that the developer will be required to seal the pipe and all the water from the development will go to a new system, which will go through the easement on Commercial Avenue and tie into the existing storm drain system on Commercial A venue. He added that there is a condition that requests the developer to conduct a study of the existing storm drain system and if the downstream system on Commercial A venue does not accommodate their run-off, then the developer is required to design and install an onsite retention system on the property. Mrs. Wydler noted that there is water that goes through the corrugated pipe. Development Specialist Harmon noted that it may come off the Oak Farms property. He added that it is not coming off of Grand A venue because it was sealed up. He added that the developer would cement the pipe up so that no water would go through it. Commissioner Romero asked if there was any way that an investigation be done about the problems that the individuals have brought up and that it be given to Council. This way the sewer capacity would be acceptable and could handle any additional flow. Development Specialist Harmon was not concerned with the capacity because the pipe is large and the last study showed that there were no problems. He added that there may have been a failure 8 years ago that was corrected by the maintenance division. He noted that the streets division could be contacted to see if they have the records with any problems. Commissioner D'Angelo noted that a 6-inch line is normal and a 10-inch line is enough for that area and should not be an issue. He noted that because the Wydlers have a below level sewer connection there will always be a problem, and it does not matter how many homes are developed. He noted that the Wydlers can install a backflow device or an overflow device outside the house. He pointed that if there is a below grade line there will always be infiltration and it has nothing to do with new construction. Development Specialist Harmon explained that the sewer lines are about 90 years old and are still functioning. He noted that the sewers are made out of clay, which is extremely durable as long as it doesn't suffer any pressure type damage. Vice Chairperson Meloni noted that the issue could be resolved by adding a condition of approval that the developer televise the sewer line, and that will indicate whether or not it needs to be repaired. Mrs. Wydler asked if there would be any effort made to clear what is going from the farm to the sewer when the corrugated pipe is blocked off. Vice Chairperson Meloni noted that the pipe would be solid and there would be no more water and any storm water will run through the street, down through the easement and into the storm line. Ms. Wydler noted that the storm drain goes under her property and there is water going under her property all the time. She asked where the water would go if the pipe is sealed. Vice Chairperson Meloni noted that the water is underground water that is coming from Oak Farms and it will not be there anymore when Oak Farms is developed. Mr. Wydler noted that it will still be there because there is a water table under their property and they still are going to get water. He added that he has plugged into the cOlTugated drain and water constantly runs through it. Mrs. Wydler noted that her husband has connected a French drain around their home so that they would no longer get flooded inside. She added that they don't want it sealed off at their property. Vice Chairperson Meloni noted that it would be plugged off at the end of the Wydlers property. Public Hearing closed. Commissioner Honan asked if the front landscaping would be maintained by the Homeowners Association and asked for additional explanation on the proposed borrowed landscape easement concept. She noted that each home has 3 feet and another 3 feet that are bOlTowed and asked, if someone wanted to build a fence, how that would be handled. Mr. Kent noted that fences are included in the plan which run perpendicular to the fronts of the homes creating fenced six-foot wide yards between each home. Each home would have access to one six-foot wide yard; they own 3 feet and bOlTOW 3 feet. Commissioner Romero asked if each homeowner would have G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\2000\050400 RPC.doc Page 4 of 12 access to either side of their home. Mr. Kent replied that the property owners would have access to either side of their home for maintenance purposes through a recorded "maintenance easement". Commissioner Baldocchi noted that the DRB made a comment about simplifying the front elevations, and asked how the developer would accomplish this. Mr. Kent noted that the Design Review Board didn't like the gingerbread that was on the Victorian Style. Commissioner Teglia noted that this concept that was shown to the Commission during the study session because the applicant felt that the Commission would lean towards it or something similar. He noted that the density and the layout looked like a condominium complex with a lot of negative draw backs. He added that his understanding of City policy was moving away from private street and noted that the proposal has a private street and an alley behind the street. He noted that the purpose of a PUD is to get a superior project and he noticed that there are a lot of exceptions being requested to the basic standards. He was concerned that there would be a lot of parking problems with a private street. He noted that the narrow lots with 3 story homes seems out of proportion. He added that the side setbacks is creative but 6 feet is too narrow; and 10 should be the minimum. He noted that the developer is building far too much. He added that there are 18 foot driveways and the City has encouraged 20 foot driveways and there have been rare exceptions where they are allowed. Senior Planner Kalkin noted that there have been several recent projects approved with 18-foot driveway aprons. She noted that in one of the most recent exceptions the concern was that sidewalks were adjacent to those area s, and that this project does not have sidewalks adjacent. She added that the PUD ordinance identifies 18 foot driveway aprons as being an acceptable length. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the City in the foreseeable future there will be an increase in density. Commissioner Teglia noted that townhomes or condominiums should be looked instead of single family residential. Chief Planner Sparks noted that at the workshop staff and the applicant got the impression that the Commission preferred single family detached. Commissioner Teglia agreed and noted that he would prefer single family detached. He added that the project does not reflect single family detached, but rather a townhomelcondominium density level. He noted that with single family detached there should be public streets and sidewalks and some of the minimum standards. Commissioner Baldocchi noted that she had some serious reservations with regard to the demolition of the barn. She suggested that Council consider the preservation of the barn and would like that to go with their recommendation. She noted that it is important to keep and maintain historical artifacts in the City. City Attorney Mattas clarified a memo from his office relating to the appropriateness of a condition of approval requiring rehabilitation of the structure because the project is not causing the deterioration of the barn _ deterioration is being caused by natural conditions. He added that the memorandum focuses on the Commission's and Council's ability to impose rehabilitation as a condition of approval. He added that if the City decides to rehabilitate then it would be up to the City Council because it would require public funds to be able to do that. Commissioner Honan noted that Commissioner Teglia's concerns are valid, but reality strikes her. She asked what would be the approximate number of single family homes the developer would be able to put on the site given standard requirements and what would be the approximate price range versus the price of the proposed homes. She also asked if affordable housing would be able to be developed on the site. Mr. Kent noted that Redevelopment Law requires that 15% of the development be affordable housing. He noted that one of the study session proposals was a single family detached product, and the direction from the Commission was to have a new concept which is what is before the Commission. He added that they would have liked to have something similar to the Promenade but the Commission wanted something different. He noted that the direction was to have a development that met the density that the site was zoned for and the density is still not met with the current proposal. He added that the project similar to the Promenade (ex. 2,100 sq ft) would go for upwards of $500,000 versus the current proposal, ( ex. 1,700 sq ft) would be priced in the $400,000 range. Commissioner Teglia noted that the Commission wanted to keep the concepts as affordable as possible but when there are 3-story homes there is enough floor space to drive up the prices. He mentioned that if the City is G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\2000\050400 RPC.doc Page 5 of 12 to allow this type of development, then private streets should not be allowed. He added that he has no problem with the concept but would like to see public streets, larger setbacks, and two story homes. Commissioner Romero noted that he keeps in mind that the zone is not R-l but a medium to high density designation. He added that this is a very unique project because there could easily be an apartment complex. Consequently it is a superior project for that zone. He added that it is much more dense than an R-l zone but it is located in a medium density to high density area. He noted that the project reflects what the Commission asked for. He added that it is important to the community to have a more affordable project. He noted that the streets could not be converted into a public streets because then they would take up most of the site. He suggested that the Commission recommend the project to the Council. He noted that the barn is in bad shape and does not know if it is economically feasible and the end decision would be the City Council's. Vice Chairperson Meloni asked if the Historic Preservation Commission leaned more towards one of the alternatives for the farm. Consultant Planner Knapp noted that there were no preferences. Vice Chairperson Meloni asked about the planting strip area between the curb and the sidewalk and if the City had any issues with this being maintained by the Homeowners Association. Senior Planner Kalkin noted that it is a nice amenity from a pedestrian standpoint because it removes the sidewalk a bit from the street edge. Vice Chairperson Meloni noted that he likes the idea because it would reduce the impacts of the homes on the street. He added that he likes the project because the applicant has responded to the Commission's comments. He did not agree with the DRB with regard to the design of the homes, noting the proposal mirrors the older parts of South San Francisco. He noted that he would like to see the planting strip and picket fences along the streets. Chairperson Sim noted that he is very impressed with the Mountain View Project. He commented he had visited the project and felt there is a community sense. He agreed with Vice Chairperson Meloni's comments in regard to landscaping around the perimeter. He added that there was a balance with regard to affordability and dwelling units. He shared Commissioner Baldocchi's concerns and would like to preserve historic artifacts in the City. He asked for a summary of the items and additional conditions discussed. Senior Planner Kalkin noted the following: fences and planting strip; televising the sewer line; investigate lighting in the parking area; contacting the County regarding their property; and encouraging Council to preserve the farm. Motion Meloni / Second Romero to adopt resolutions recommending that the City Council certify the EIR, approve Development Agreement; and approving UP-99-067 and SA-99-067 subject to additional conditions. Recess taken at 9:10 p.m. Recalled to order at 9:20 p.m. 2. Genentech, Inc.-Building 22, Owner/Applicant 632 Forbes Blvd. UP-00-007 and Negative Declaration ND-00-007 Use Permit and Mitigated Negative Declaration to allow construction of a new five-level parking garage comprising a total of 171,510 square feet, located on Forbes Boulevard in the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District. Consultant Planner Lappen presented staff report. Peter Yee gave a brief presentation of the proposed parking garage. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\2000\050400 RPC.doc Page 6 of 12 Vice Chairperson Meloni suggested that there be some landscaping incorporated into the parking garage. Mr. Yee noted that there are trees that will be planted in the parking area. He added that this is an element they could research this but the wind conditions and maintaining the vines may not be feasible. He suggested adding more greenery to the driveway entrances. Vice Chairperson Meloni suggested that the trees be staggered and not in a row. Mr. Yee noted that there would be no problem in staggering the trees. Commissioner Romero asked if there was only one elevator for the whole parking structure. Mr. Yee noted that it is the only elevator. Commissioner Romero asked if it was going to be sufficient if it were to break down. Mr. Yee noted that the elevator is for convenience if functional and it will work fine for the employees. He added that there are two sets of stairways. Commissioner Romero asked if there were going to be a large number of handicap stalls on the first floor. Mr. Yee noted that handicap stalls are provided next to the existing buildings in accordance with an agreement with the City. He noted that they intend to provide handicap stalls as required by the Building Division. Public Hearing opened. Public Hearing closed. Commissioner Teglia noted that Genentech always has good applications. He noted that something could be incorporated in regard to landscaping on the structure and would support this. Chairperson Sim asked if there is a way to differentiate between the street frontality and the other sides. Mr. Yee noted that they will look at softening the fa<;ade on Forbes Boulevard and bring it back to the Planning Commission. Motion Te2:lia / Second Honan to approve ND and UP-00-007 with additional landscaping and exploration of softening the fa<;ade. Unanimously approved. 3. EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment EI Camino Corridor Recommendation on the Proposed Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project. Chief Planner Sparks presented the staff report. Jackie Williams, 242 Longford Drive, noted that she was going to comment under Oral Communications and was told not to. She added that in Chief Planner Sparks presentation, he mentioned that this was not a hearing on the EIR and wanted to know when she could comment. City Attorney Mattas noted that the item before the Commission relates specifically to the removal of the high school site from the Redevelopment Area. He noted that the comments made by Mrs. Williams were misunderstood at the beginning of the meeting and if the Commission desires to take her comments they have two options; 1) the comment period is still open and comments can be submitted in writing and 2) the comments can be heard at the end of the meeting. He added that the comments submitted at the meeting are not part of the EIR and staff would not be obligated to respond to them. He added that to be sure that the comments are addressed they be put in writing and the Commission can entertain them if they wish to do so. Commissioner D'Angelo suggested closing the item, allow the comments and then reopen the consideration on the item. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the Commission can do this. He added that this is not a public hearing on the EIR and the comments have no formal standing as comments to the EIR. He noted that staff would see that they are transmitted. He noted that the City Council conducted a Public Hearing to receive comments on the document. He added that the best way to offer submit comments is in writing before 5:00 p.m., May 8, 2000. After extensive discussion with Mrs. Williams, staff and the Commission, it was decided to recess the EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment discussion to allow Mrs. Williams to comment on the EIR. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\2000\0504,00 RPC.doc Page 7 of 12 Recess taken at 9:50 p.m. COMMENTS TO THE DRAFT SEIR FOR THE EL CAMINO CORRIDOR SECOND AMENDMENT gleaned and paraphrased from testimony at the regular South San Francisco Planning Commission meeting of May 4, 2000 by Jackie Williams, 242 Longford Drive, South San Francisco CA 94080: 1. The DSEIR indicates 14,994 cars a day at the Longford-Hickey intersection. Why is this number different from prior environmental documents that analyzed intersections in the area, such as the Costco EIR? 2. Everything was put on hold in February of 1999. The information in this document [the DSEIR?] was available, but we couldn't get hold of it. 3. I didn't find out about the DSEIR until the [City Council] meeting of April 12, 2000, and was not prepared to comment on it. 4. This document [the DSEIR] came out on March 24 [2000] and then on April 12 [2000] we were told that's it. We had a lot of people here to talk but we didn't know this was going on. 5. We've had closed meetings as far the Redevelopment--so the first time the public gets to know about it, within 12 days you had oral comments and it's all over. 6. On page 5.2-14, it shows that with Costco going in, under the amendment plan it's going to be 757 homes, but before it was going to be 1240 homes. Office space was 13,000 and under the amended plan, you are going to have 189,000 square feet. Under commercial retail, existing was going to be 88,000 square feet, but in the new amended plan it is going to be 443,800 square feet. 7. After all this talk, we are not getting affordable housing. Recalled to order at 10:02 p.m. Commissioner Romero asked why the School District did not indicate the specific reasons why they wanted to be removed from the Redevelopment area in their letter. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the reasons were not given and staff was trying to accommodate the School Districts wishes. Commissioner Romero asked if there was any loss of benefit to the City and the School District by not being included in the Redevelopment zone. Chief Planner Sparks noted that there is a small p011ion of the school site that might have been developable and there may be some value to the School District and the City if that would occur. He noted that the School Board has decided that they do not intend to pursue any development in the foreseeable future and would like it removed from the Redevelopment area. Commissioner Romero asked if the school site could be removed with the exception of the area with potential development. Chief Planner Sparks noted that there is a critical time issue and the process needs to be kept in order. He added that the School District requested to remove the site and the City does not have any objections. Director of ECD Van Duyn noted that the School District did not indicate why they wanted to remove the site from the Redevelopment Plan. He added that in order to keep that separate property, there would have to be new legal descriptions and the whole are would have to be reengineered. He mentioned that there would be a lot of time and the School District would have to take it to the School Board for their review and it would be time consuming. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\2000\050400 RPC.doc Page 8 of 12 Vice Chairperson Meloni asked if the School District decided to develop the property, would they still fall under the purview of the EIR. Director of ECD Van Duyn noted that the designations would not change for the property at all. He added that the benefit to having it in the Plan would be that the Agency could assist the School District with public improvements to that site. Motion Romero / Second Honan to find the second amendment to the Redevelopment Area Plan consistent with the General Plan. Unanimously approved. 4. Golden State Flooring/Rick Coates, Applicant Arthur Gilbert Real Estate Dev.-owner 240 Littlefield Ave. UP-00-OI0 and Categorical Exemption Section 15301 Class 1 Existing Facilities Use Permit allowing a construction sales and material business with hours of operation. Senior Planner Carlson recommended that the item be continued since the landscape plans and sign plans were not provided to the Planning Commission as requested by the Commission. Motion Teelia / Second Baldocchi to continue the item. Bruce Chan, Landscape Architect requested to make a presentation on the landscape plans. Commissioner Baldocchi withdrew her second and Commissioner Teglia withdrew the motion. Commissioner Teglia noted that the Commission did not have the plans and being that the architect only had one available, he suggested that it be continued. Mr. Chan noted that plans were submitted for the DRB review. Chief Planner Sparks apologized for not noticing that the plans weren't in the Commission's packet. Motion Teelia / Second Honan to continue the item and have it as the first item on the next agenda. 5. ExelixislBritannia Pointe Grand Ltd. Partnership, owner/applicant 169 Harbor Way PUD-98-053/MOD2 and Negative Declaration ND-98-053/MOD2 Modification of a Planned Unit Development to allow expansion of the existing 28.8 acre business park to incorporate an additional 1.73 acres into the southwest comer of the park, and construction of a two-story, 49,000 square foot office/R&D building in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.84. Senior Planner Kalkin presented the staff report, noting that there were some additional comments received from Fogarty & Watson, and CalTrans which were in front of the Commission, and have been entered into the record. Senior Planner Kalkin summarized the comments and staff responses: 1) there is an assertion in the Fogarty & Watson letter that the project is already permitted and under construction which is in violation under CEQA. She clarified that no permits have been issued for the project. Site activity is limited to drilling indicator piles, which is considered a geological exploration and does not require a City building permit; 2) another assertion is that it is inappropriate to tier this Negative Declaration off of the General Plan EIR, and staff believes that it is entirely appropriate to have done this; 3) the letter mentioned the project having a cumulative effect of reducing the level of service on US 101 and that City funds could be jeopardized. Staff responded that the congestion management program requires that certain exclusions of traffic be allowed for interregional traffic. She added that because of the exclusions the LOS for CMP purposes would likely not fall below the level of service that is required and a G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\2000\050400 RPC.doc Page 9 of 12 deficiency plan would not be needed nor would funding be jeopardized; and 4) the letter noted that the cumulative impacts related to the storage and biohazardous waste have not been adequately analyzed in the Negative Declaration. Ms. Kalkin noted that Staff believes the issues have been adequately identified and discussed in the environmental document. Senior Planner Kalkin further mentioned that the letter from CalTrans questions staff's assumptions relative to the success of the proposed TDM measures. She noted that CalTrans was in error in its assessment of what the City assumes relative to the success rate of the TDM program. She noted that staff was comfortable with the TDM program as proposed. Public Hearing opened. Al Chamorro, gave a brief presentation of the proposal, explaining in detail the various alignment options studied for the bridge design''I'.APE2 Commissioner D'Angelo asked what the height of the bridge was. Mr. Chamorro noted that the height was 17'9". Vice Chairperson Meloni asked what the overall height was. Mr. Chamorro noted that it was 35 feet high. Chairperson Sim asked when the item would go before the DRB. Senior Planner Kalkin noted that it would be going in May. Chairperson Sim asked that it go back to the Commission after DRB review. Commissioner D'Angelo asked if there was much difference in length for the different bridge design options. Mr. Chamorro noted that it is about 120 feet long. He added that having the bridge placed above the main entrance would be detrimental to the buildings. Vice Chairperson Meloni noted that from an engineering standpoint, this would severely weaken the design because there is a hinge point as oppose to having two secure areas. City Attorney Mattas asked to clarify some of the comments with regard to the letters received on the environmental document. He noted that the letter from Fogarty & Watson asserted that the Commission cannot tier off of an existing EIR where there has been a Statement of Overriding Considerations. He added that the CEQA guidelines are clear in noting that it is not required to prepare another EIR if the only purpose is to adopt the same Statement of Overriding Considerations, which have already been adopted. Vice Chairperson Meloni asked if Fogarty & Watson had commented when the Negative Declaration was originally done. City Attorney Mattas replied that they have commented throughout the whole process and have filed one lawsuit, which the City was successful in having dismissed. He noted that the Rizetto's had been tenants on the property which had been acquired through Redevelopment Agency action, and that Fogarty & Watson represent the Rizetto's. Commissioner Romero was concerned about the bridge because it seemed like the buildings were being manied. He added that if one building is sold the connection would not serve a purpose. Commissioner Baldocchi noted that Genentech has something similar. She noted that Research and Development uses are being built throughout the area and the precedent has been set in the East of 101 Area. Commissioner Teglia noted that the application is functional in the City because of the weather. He was concerned that the complex has been approved in pieces and there should be a Master Plan. He added that there may be multiple tenants in one building because it is tied together as one campus. He noted that the bridge can be a benefit and it could also be removed if need be. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\2000\050400 RPC.doc Page 10 of 12 Commissioner Honan noted she would not like to see South San Francisco inundated with bridges. She noted that she would like to see a Master Plan and is having a hard time approving a bridge. Senior Planner Kalkin pointed out that there is a Master Plan for the site approved in concept by the Redevelopment Agency in January 1999. She added that the Commission has seen the project in various pieces because the applicant has not had clear ownership of the parcels. She added that the CalTrans property, on the west side of Harbor, the final piece that would complete the Master Plan, if Britannia can acquire it. Chairperson Sim asked whether there should be a policy on bridges, if there are going to be more bridge submittals. Chief Planner Sparks noted that this could be added to staff's list of policies. He suggested that the project could be approved without the blidge, and allow the DRB to review it once more. He noted that at that time the bridge can return to the Commission. Chairperson Sim noted that he would like to see the bridge design once more. Motion Meloni / Second Teglia to approve the ND-98-053/MOD 2 & UP-98-053/MOD2 with the additional condition that the bridge would return to the Commission for approval at a later date. Unanimously approved. 6. Adult Business Ordinance City of South San Francisco, Owner/Applicant Citywide ZA-99-042 Zoning Amendment Ordinance to establish standards and regulations for adult businesses. Sergeant Massoni presented the staff report. Commissioner D'Angelo asked if this ordinance changed the operations of any of the buildings currently operating. Sergeant Massoni noted that there are no businesses in South San Francisco that are operating that would be impacted by the ordinance. Commissioner D'Angelo noted that the businesses would be restricted to certain areas. Sergeant Massoni noted that there were some recent court decisions noting that adult entertainment areas had to have enough room to move from one building to another. Commissioner Teglia noted that there were some adult entertainment business in a condominium area and asked if it would be relocated. City Attorney Mattas noted that it would be a non-conforming use. Motion Honan / Second Teglia to recommend approval of the ordinance to the City Council. Approved by unanimous voice vote. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 7. Items from Staff Chief Planner Sparks related the following to the Commission: · Applications for the City Council vacancy are being accepted. · A housing study session will be presented to the Commission in the next couple of meetings. · A Terrabay study session will also be presented to the Commission in the next couple of meetings. Vice Chairperson Meloni noted he would be out on the June 15,2000, regular meeting. Commissioner D'Angelo noted he would be out on the June 1,2000, regular meeting. The Commission noted that a study session could be scheduled at 6:00 p.m. before a regular meeting. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\2000\050400 RPC.doc Page 11 of 12 8. Items from Commission · Chairperson Sim suggested that a study session with the DRB be scheduled. · Commissioner D'Angelo noted that the County would be holding a Public Hearing on May 9,2000, at 7:00 p.m. with regard to the EI Camino Real and Hickey extension at the Municipal Services Building. 9. Items from the Public - None 10. Adjournment Motion Meloni / Second Sim to adjourn the meeting. Approved by unanimous voice vote. The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m. ~~~ Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco NEXT MEETING: Eugene Sim, Chairperson Planning Commission City of South San Francisco Regular Meeting May 18, 2000, Municipal Services Building, 33 Anoyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\2000\050LtQO RPC.doc Page 12 of 12