Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/17/2003 MINUTES July 17, 2003 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TAPE 1 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS PRESENT: Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Meloni, Commissioner Sim, Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt and Chairperson Romero ABSENT: Commissioner Teglia STAFF PRESENT: Planning Division: Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Steve Carlson, Senior Planner Steve Kowalski, Associate Planner Bertha Hernandez, Admin. Asst. II Kimberly Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Richard Harmon, Development Review Coordinator Sergeant Jim Thane, Planning Liaison City Attorney: Engineering Division: Police Department: AGENDA REVIEW No Changes ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of May 15,2003 and June 5, 2003. Approved Commissioner Honan, Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt and Commissioner Sim noted that they would abstain from approving the June 5, 2003 minutes due to being absent from that meeting. Motion Ochsenhirt / Second Sim to approve the Consent Calendar. Approved by majority voice vote with 3 abstentions. PUBLIC HEARING 2. Kevin P . Cronin-Owner/Applicant 320/334 Victory Avenue P03-0042 and Categorical Exemption Class 15061(b )(3) Review for Exemption Approved Use Permit to allow the conversion of an existing industrial building from single tenant to multiple tenants in the Industrial (M-l) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC 20.30 & 20.81. Senior Planner Carlson presented the staff report to the Commission. He noted that the Commission could consider adding a specific condition that would require the applicant to include the ADA requirements with the final construction plans subj ect to the review and approval by the Chief Building Official. s; \M~J/\,ute.s \fi-J/\,Cl LL.zed\2003 \07-i.T-03 RPC-. doc. 'PClge i of i? Jerry E. Ewell, draftsman, noted that they want to create leasing space and they have complied with all City requirements. Commission comments: · Where are the trash enclosures on the site? · The handicapped access on the parking stalls is on the wrong side. · Who would be maintaining the landscaping? · The Commission was concerned on why there was 10% landscaping being provided, what the minimum required landscaping is and if in lieu fees could be applied. · A question was raised with regard to the front entry area having fencing around and if it would be extended all the way across. Applicant's response: · The trash enclosures are within each tenant space in a designated area as shown on the plans. · There are four ADA parking spaces required with access on the right side and one of the stalls has access on the left-hand side. · With regard to the landscaping maintenance there will be a drip system and a company will maintain it. Staff's response: · The 10% landscaping is due to the geographics of the site. It is difficult to provide more landscaping near the parking area and the loading docks. · A project is subject to in lieu fees only if it falls under the 10% landscaping. The Commission can then make a special finding that there is no possible way that landscaping can be provided. · The applicant plans to have a fence and also intends to have a gate at the entrance. Motion Meloni / Second Sim to approve P03-0042 and UP03-0006 with the additional condition that the applicant include the ADA requirements with the final construction plans subject to the review and approval by the Chief Building Official. Approved by unanimous voice vote of those present. 3. Frank & Nannette Diokno 22 Vista Court P02-0019 and Negative Declaration ND02-0019 Continued off calendar (Continued from May 15, 2003) The Modification of a Residential Planned Unit Development involves the construction of a 2 story single family dwelling containing 5 bedrooms and a total living space of3,754 square feet and on-site parking for three vehicles, in accordance with the provisions of South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.84. The Parcel Map will allow the existing 24,225 square foot lot at 233 Vista Court containing an existing single family dwelling to be split into a total of two lots with areas of 13,335 square feet (new lot) and 10,890 square feet 22 Vista Court), in accordance with SSFMC Title 19. Recess called at 7:51 p.m. Recalled at 8:02 p.m. Senior Planner Carlson presented the staff report to the Commission. Commissioner Honan asked what was the proposed square footage. Senior Planner Carlson stated that the applicant responded to a Commission comment to terracing the house and in doing so eliminated one room resulting in a reduction of approximately 300 sq. ft. Public Hearing opened. S: \M LlI\,ute.c; \fl-II\,Gl LLzecl\:2003 \07-i 7-03 R.."PC-. cl DC "PGlge :2 of g Speaker (all in opposition) Gary Belaga 21 Vista Court Cesar Formoso 111 V alleyview Way Dennison Raval 108 Valleyview Way Frankie Acob 19 Vista Court Michael Chan 17 Vista Court Victoria Chan 17 Vista Court Sandy Leow 17 Vista Court Brenda Leus 157 Appian Way Amelia Abalos 106 Valleyview Way Zita Rey 23 Vista Court Chito Desausido 26 Vista Court Vivian Ramos 25 Seville Way Charlene Abalos 106 Valleyview Way · A video was played showing views that would be lost from adjacent homes if this new structure would be built on 22 Vista Ct. The video also showed the slope on said property. · Neighbors were concerned with parking issues. · Many stated that the representation that Homeowners Association approved this project without any opposition from the homeowners was not accurate. · The mass of the home will be an eyesore to the neighbors. Some neighbors noted that the motive for building this home is for personal gain by the owner and they may turn around and sell it after it's been built. · The Homeowners Association disapproved the project in October 2001 by stating that the proposal violates the CC&Rs sections 5.01, 6.09 and 6.12 subsection D and the owner is saying that it was approved. · Erosion from the hill was also a concern of the neighbors. · The weight that this home will put on the slope will endanger children and the neighborhood below. · There needs to be minimal disruption and grading on the slope. · Inconsistencies and misleading information are still present in the reports. An example is that one of the studies states there is parking along Gellert Boulevard and the staff report states that there is no parking along Gellert Boulevard. · Safety measures have been taken but safety is not guaranteed for human beings. The building of this home is for profit and does not benefit the community. · The project does not ensure safety in the neighborhood, provide open-space for light and air, provide the overcrowding of land and conserve the property value according to South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20. · It is the Homeowners Association Board's practice to request approval by the neighborhood prior to approving anything. This was opposed by the neighbors and was not done according to previous procedures nor was an Architectural Committee formed. · The Board was intimidated by the threat of possible litigation. · The subdivision is not the concern of the neighborhood, but the construction of a large house. · The new home will impact the neighborhood. · There were concerns on safety during the construction and any materials falling onto the homes on Valleyview Way. The neighbors wanted to be assured that there would be no accidents. Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that all items being presented to the Commission should also be provided to staff. She added that the Lot Split application and the PUD modification on 22 Vista Court is before the Commission today. What the Homeowners Association Board did or did not do on prior projects should not be considered in the Commission's decision of the project. That CC&Rs do not contain a provision that allows the City to enforce them. s: \/V\Ll/\,lAte.s \fi-I/\,Cl LLzed\2003 \07-1-7--03 RPC-. d DC PClge 3 of 2' Assistant City Attorney Johnson added that the City would require an applicant to indemnify the City for challenges to project approvals. The parking issue is addressed in the CC&Rs and the Homeowners Association has a provision that allows them to enforce the CC&Rs with regard to parking. The Commission is limited by the nexus test. If this project has a parking issue it would require mitigation under CEQA. Views are not addressed in the CC&Rs and the Negative Declaration does not indicate a view impact. If the Commission would like to rely on this, the Negative Declaration would have to be supplemented. She noted that the property owner has the right to develop on their property for an economically viable use and neighborhood opposition to increase of profitability does not justify the disapproval of the proj ect. Nannette Diokno, 22 Vista Ct., noted it has taken more than two years since they initiated the process for the project. They have attempted to mitigate all the objections made by the neighbors by modifying plans and reducing the size of the house. W. W. Dean did not build on the vacant portion of22 Vista Ct. because it was not feasible even if they planned to do that. The developer did not do it because it was expensive and a custom design would have to be built due to the slope. She pointed out that there would be storm drainpipe, catch basin, and a concrete swale that would collect run off and mitigate the drainage and erosion issues. They provided plans that show line of sight views and shadow cast during winter and summer with which they addressed the issues raised at the last meeting. She concluded that they minimized the home by about 250 sq. ft. and modified the design. Michael Valencia, Attorney for the applicants, 600 El Camino Real, noted that the building would be the safest in neighborhood. He added that comments made about the Westborough Homeowners Association Board of Directors acting improperly and that the project being approved because there were threats of legal action are incorrect. He pointed out that the Diokno's have no obligation to go before the Homeowners Association or the Board of Directors to get permission to subdivide their property because the City Planning Commission has jurisdiction over a subdivision. The Diokno's own a parcel of real property in the City and are entitled to develop the property. Due to the objection of the neighbors, this project has taken this long. Public Hearing closed. Recess called at 9:30 p.m. Recalled to order at 9:42 p.m. Commission discussion: Commissioner Meloni noted that the Diokno's are entitled to certain property rights as far as building a residence on the lot. The Commission needs to look at compatibility of the neighborhood and design standards. He feels that the new home has not met the design standards of the City. He pointed out that in reducing the size of the house the front was redesigned. He had asked that the back elevation be stepped into the hillside to reduce the mass and does not see that the change was made on the plans. Commissioner Sim noted that this is a difficult site. He stated that it is a 52%-58 % slope and for this reason, the project must have a higher standard. He added that they do not have the information previously requested. He would have liked to see the spot elevations in the cross-sectional profile to see if the visual factor had been mitigated or not. He added that there are longitudinal frontings on the homes to the right of 22 Vista Ct. rather then narrow width fronting. He noted that he is looking for textualism and making sure that it fits and is proper. He felt that there wasn't enough information and was not convinced with the relationship with the homes below 22 Vista Ct. He asked that staff respond to Victoria Chan's comments with regard to the inconsistencies in the geotechnical report which were dates, distance from the San Andreas fault and if there was a site inspection to do the geotechnical report. Senior Planner Carlson noted that there was a site inspection as a follow-up. The same firm prepared this report and all those dating back to 1977. There is a minor inconsistency between the reports with regard to distance to the San Andreas fault; one report states that the site is .5 miles away from the fault and the other S: \M LvcL-Ltes. \fi-VCIA LLzec!\::2003 \07-1-7--03 RPC._ c! oc PlAge 4- of g states that it is .75 miles from the San Andreas fault. This is minor and would not make any difference in terms of how the site would respond during seismic events. With regard to the alleged date inconsistencies, the speaker was suggesting that the data went back to 1977; but the speaker was not aware that there were subsequent studies and that the base data is the 1988 report. Commissioner Meloni asked if additional borings were done with the updates to the geotechnical reports. Senior Planner Carlson noted that City staff and the Peer Reviewing soils engineer did not believe in additional borings were needed. Commissioner Meloni suggested that another soils report would be prevalent in this case being that there seems to be seepage in the area and also water springs. He asked that a new soils report be considered. Commissioner Honan noted that any subdivision should be in harmony with the neighborhood. The new home would become the largest in this neighborhood. She asked when the procedure to get neighbor approvals stopped. Senior Planner Carlson noted that while not a requirement the Commission has asked that modifications to houses in Planned Unit Developments fIrst request Homeowners Association review and approval and then go to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Ochsenhirt felt that water drainage, land values, and views are all part of the decision making process. Commissioner Romero noted that in reviewing the CC&Rs he found items that the Homeowners Association Board of Directors could have pursued more aggressively. He noted that the issues raised by those opposing the project could have been resolved prior to the public hearing. He added that the applicant stated that the maintenance of the property was a burden for them. He reminded the applicant that this is a burden that they assumed when they purchased property. The preservation of the parcel as an amenity should have been something that the Homeowners Association should have pursued. He noted that the view corridors are a very important aspect of the project. This was a cut and fill project and over the years the site has returned to its natural state and their needs to be minimal grading on the site to preserve its state. He added that Valleyview Way will be severely impacted by the new home. He was concerned with the construction phase of the project and the safety measures that need to be taken at that stage. Commissioner Meloni noted that lots of grading would take place to do the home. He was also concerned that there is an energy dissipator on the hillside that takes the water from the swale. It then goes through the work lab to slow the velocity but water still goes downhill. The dissipator is a mechanism to slow down erosion. There is a storm line near the site and he encouraged the applicant consider bringing the water to that storm line and minimize the water on the hillside. Ms. Diokno noted that the Commission feels they have not seen the back of the home. She noted that all these details were given to the Design Review Board and they made all the modifications and complied with all of them. The front of the property is an open-space area and was not impacted by the elimination of one room. They designed the house that the slope in a way that it hides the home. Commissioner Sim noted that he does not have enough information on which to base his vote and suggested a continuance. Ms. Diokno noted that they want to comply with the City's requirements and is willing to work on the design more. Commissioner Ochsenhirt suggested that the Dioknos go back to the Homeowners Association and work on the design. They can return to the Design Review Board and then to the Planning Commission. He added that the neighbors need to be convinced. Ms. Diokno noted that they have done as Commissioner Ochsenhirt stated and that is the reason the proposal has taken so long to get to the Planning Commission. She noted that the neighbors are opposed to the home S: \MLV\.utes \ fi-V\.Cl LLzed\2003 \oy--rJ--03 R"PC-. d oc "PClge 5 of i? been built there. The neighbors were provided all the necessary information on the proposal. The letter was sent out in opposition of project and everyone has opposed it despite their efforts. Commissioner Meloni addressed the neighbors and explains that people have to develop their property. He added that hopefully the neighbors were not taking the stand that they will not approve of anything that is proposed on that the portion of the lot. He suggested that two or three people be chosen to find a size and design that would satisfy both parties. Commissioner Romero noted that the Commission's direction is to continue the item to allow the applicant and the Homeowners Association to work together to have a good design. They will then come back to City staff and return to the Planning Commission with a new proposal. Commissioner Honan asked that the house also be harmony with the neighborhood. Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that the Commission should clarify what ratios and lot coverage they desire to have in order to define the word harmony. Commissioner Romero replied that it is difficult to define due to the large square footage and the steepness of the lot. Assistant City Attorney Johnson pointed out that defining a home's square footage may not be appropriate because of the different lot sizes. She added that a small home might not work on such a large parcel. Commissioner Honan noted that the owner and the residents could find or define what harmonious means in working with one another. Commissioner Meloni stated that the City does not have a hillside-building requirement that would dictate how much is built on the property. He added that good taste and design would dictate it. Commissioner Sim suggested that the hill at the setback and stepped up. He is bothered by the thought of having neighbors from Valleyview Way look up at a four-story building. Motion Sim / Second Ochsenhirt to continue this item off calendar. Approved by unanimous voice vote. Recess called at 10:30 p.m. Recalled to order at 10:36 p.m. 4. Mau S. Lai - Owner Approved Dicksen Engineers - Applicant 204-206 Grand Avenue UP-01-028 & DR-01-028 and Categorical Exemption Class 2,15302 - Replacement or reconstruction of existing structures Use Permit to demolish an existing mixed-use building and construct a new mixed-use building with a ground-floor commercial space and eight (8) second-floor residential apartment units in the Downtown Commercial (D-C-L) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.26 and 20.81, a Housing Agreement restricting seven (7) of the eight (8) apartment units as affordable housing units in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.125. Associate Planner Kowalski presented a staff report. The Public Hearing was opened. Being there were no speakers, the Public Hearing was closed. Commission concerns: · What the new commercial use would be. · The probability of the site becoming a liquor store. · Will the building have the same design planned out for Grand Avenue? · Insufficient natural light due to lack of windows on east elevation. John Lau noted that they are looking at alternatives for good tenants for South San Francisco. With regard to natural light on the East elevation, the building is only 3 inches from the property line. Staff did not have any comments on the East elevation during TAG or DRB reviews. s: \MLlI\..lAte.s\fi-II\..Cl LLzed\::2003\O-r-i7--03 RPG.dot PClge G of ~ Chief Planner Sparks stated that a liquor store would probably not go in the area because it is an over concentrated area according to ABC standards and it would require a Use Permit from the Planning Commission. Sergeant Thane noted that the over concentration depends on the census tract. The 200 block of Grand Avenue is currently over saturated with liquor sales by ABC standards. The commission felt that the architectural design was nice. Motion Ochsenhirt / Second Meloni to approve the Use Permit. Assistant City Attorney Johnson asked that a condition of approval be added to say as follows: "In accordance with section eight of the affordable housing agreement the applicant shall pay an administrative fee for processing the affordable housing agreement prior to the issuance of building permits." Commissioner Ochsenhirt amended his motion and Commissioner Meloni seconded the amended motion to add the additional condition of approval stated by Assistant City Attorney Johnson. Approved by unanimous voice vote. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 5. Items from Staff a. Report on signs at auto dealership. Senior Planner Carlson gave a PowerPoint presentation showing the approved and existing signs for Ron Price. He added that the VW sign is wedge shaped and illuminated and not rectilinear as the plans showed. The plan showed a different drawing than what VW asked for their standard sign. Commissioner Honan and Mr. Price discussed why design installation was not stopped when it was clear that it was not what the Commission approved and where the plans submitted to the Commission originated from. Mr. Price noted he likes design and it is the standard VW design for worldwide use. Plastaline is the company that manufactures signs in the United States. Commissioner Honan noted that the Planning Commission approved the sign and they were not informed of the change. Commissioner Sim noted that the corner joint is different and their needs to be a respect protocol. Mr. Price noted he meant no disrespect to the Commission. The Commission asked that any changes be brought back to the Commission before any signs are installed. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the Commission formally can disapprove the previous design program and look at new signs. This also serves as a learning example to other businesses and the applicant. No action was taken. b. Other items Chief Planner Sparks notified the Commission that the Aetna lawsuit was concluded and the City is awaiting the judge's decision. 6. Items from Commission Chairperson Romero formed two subcommittees: · Housing Project Subcommittee was made up of Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt and Commissioner Giusti. · Fairfield Project subcommittee was made up of Chairperson Romero, Commissioner Honan and Commissioner Meloni. s:\MLJI1.,lA.tes\f/-JI1.,IALLzec;\\:':;W03\OY--i7--03 RPC.c;\Oc. "PlAge 7- of g Commissioner Giusti the noted that there is a property on the corner on North Canal and South Linden that is in disrepair. Staff noted that Code Enforcement was aware of this and is working on it. 7. Items from the Public None 8. Adjournment Motion Honan / Second Sim to adjourn the meeting. 11 :38 p.m. ~~(~~ w~~ ~~tAP Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco William Romero, Chairperson Planning Commission City of South San Francisco TCS/blh S; \MLv\'lA.tes \fL.v\,Cl LLzeril\:.:2003 \07-i 7-03 R"PG. ril DC "PClge g of g