Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/15/2001 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE November 15,2001 CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 7 :30 p.m. Roll Call / Chair Comments Present Commissioner D'Angelo, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Ochsenhirt, Cormnissioner Sim, COlnmissioner Teglia, Vice Chairperson Romero and Chairperson Meloni None Absent STAFF PRESENT: Planning Division: Marty Van Duyn, ECD Director Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner Steve Carlson, Senior Planner Norma Fragoso, HCD Manager Kilnberly Johnson Richard Harmon Sgt. Mike Newell Barry Mammini City Attorney: Engineering: Police Dept.: Bldg./Fire Prevo AGENDA REVIEW NO CHANGES ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NONE CONSENT CALENDAR APPROVED 1. Metricom-applicant P. G. & E.-owner 2368 Shannon Drive UP-OI-OI0 and Negative Declaration ND-OI-0I0 (Recommending continuance to December 6, 2001) CONTINUED The proposed project will allow Use Permit 01-010 allowing the construction of a wireless communication facility consisting of an above ground equiplnent cabinet 6 feet in height and 12 antennas mounted on an existing P.G.&E. power translnission tower situated on several abutting parcels located in South San Francisco fronting on 2356 Shannon Drive (APN 091-032-080) and 2368 Shannon Drive (APN 091-032-070) and SBE 135-41-41 Parcel 1, in the Single Family Residential Zone District (R-I-E), and on a portion of adjacent parcels situated in the City of San Bruno at 2690 Muirfield Circle (APN 017-351-230),2700 Muirfield Circle (017-351-220) and SBE 135-41-41 Parcel 1, in the Single Fmnily Residential Zone District (R-l), in accordance with provisions of South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.105, and San Bruno Municipal Code Chapter 12.96.060. Motion Sim / Second Ochsenhirt to continue the item off calendar rather than to December 6, 2001. PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEMS S:\Minutes\finalized\111501RPC.doc Page 1 of 7 Approved on April 4, 2002 2. Metro PCS/R. C. Riley-applicant California Water Service-owner Avalon Water Tank! Avalon Drive UP-OI-064 & Categorical Exemption Class 32 Section 15332 In-Fill Development Projects DENIED Use Permit allowing a wireless communication facility comprised of 3 four foot tall bipolar antennas mounted on a 30 foot tall pole and ground mounted equipn1ent shelter, situated at a water tanlc on Avalon Drive in a Single Family Residential Zone District, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.105. Staff report presented. Franldin Dancy, PC Riley & Associates, represented Metro PCS. Public Hearing opened. Fred Rios, 1720 North First Street - San Jose, California Water Company; spoke in favor of the application. He noted that there are over 40 cell sites in the area without cOlnplaints. Romanie Rajhboy 63 Waverly Court Members of the lJublic slJeaking against the application Cruen Yue Lee John Leone 54 Waverly Court 130 Valleyview Way John Chan 64 Waverly Court Irene Chan 64 Waverly Court Yvette Jaime 59 Waverly Court Edwina Wong 60 Waverly Court Marjorie Sieux 11 Canyon Court Kristy Delarosa 2501 Eucalyptus Way San Bruno Aida Tapang 56 Waverly Court Betty Ngai, 151 V alleyview Way Iggie Rajhboy 63 Waverly Court Yolanda Jaime 59 Waverly Court Lucito Jaime 59 Waverly Court Adam Rajhboy 63 Waverly Court Henry Ngai 151 V alleyview Way Sidney Lmn 54 Waverly Court Pmnela J. Sieux 11 Canyon Court . They asked the Commission to deny the permit. . They obtained 149 signatures from the neighborhood opposing the project. . They were concerned with the height of the towers, and the noise emerging from the generators when there is a power outage . They also pointed out the issues with radiation and its link to cancer. . They were not satisfied with the answers provided at the two previous meetings and were not convinced that the proj ect would benefit her neighborhood. · The neighborhood pointed out that the 30 foot cell tower is an eye sore for the area . The neighborhood opposed the installation of the antenna would lower the property value. . They pointed out that this approval would only benefit Metro PCS. . They suggested that the City have a plan to show where cell towers can be installed. Attorney Pamela J. Sieux, representing Marjorie Sieux presented a melno to the COlnmission with the issues on the project. Assistant City Attorney Johnson pointed out that the Commission may wish to continue the item in S:\Minutes\finalized\111501RPC.doc Page 2 of 7 Approved on April 4, 2002 order to review the melno. Ms. Pamela 1. Sieux gave a brief summary of her issues and noted that the use is not healthy for the public, consistent with the General Plan, and it does not comply with SSFMCC20.I05 such as being in a non-residential area, and that co-location in residential areas is not encouraged. Public Hearing closed. Commissioner Teglia did not see any need in continuing the meeting and recormnended denying the project. He pointed out that there was no benefit to the cOlnmunity, it being a detriment to the public good. The thirty-foot antenna is not aesthetically pleasing. The Cormnission in the past has opposed generators near a school zone or residential areas. Commissioner Romero noted that there is not a problem with Ms. Pamela Sieux's information because she is a member of the public. The antenna is too close to the area and the health and safety issues are very important. He was not convinced that there is no risk factor. He also recormnended denying the application. COlnmissioner D' Angelo does not want to continue the item and asked what were the ilnplications if the Commission denies the project, being that the Commission received a memo frOln an outside attorney. Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that the document that the attorney sublnitted contains statements that may inhibit the Commission in the future from making decisions. Since they were submitted into the record those comments are now part of the record for the decision and a continuation is recommendable to allow the City Attorney's office to respond to the memo. Commissioner Teglia asked if the Commission was constrained if they deny the application without taking into consideration the memo due to lack of review time. Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that if the Commission makes a clear statement on the record that they have not reviewed the memo nor relied on it to decide, then the memo can be struck from the record. The COlnmission can take their decision based on the testilnony at the meeting only and not on the memo submitted at the meeting. Commissioner Honan noted that Cal Water did not go to any of the community meetings, and that there was a radio frequency study done. Chief Planner Sparks noted that COlnmissioner Honan was correct. She thanlced the neighborhood for their input to the Commission. Motion Te2:lia / Second Honan to deny the project based on the COlnmission comments and the Public Hearing COlnments presented at the meeting. Ayes: Commissioner D'Angelo, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Ochsenhirt, COlnmissioner Siln, Corm11issioner Teglia, Vice Chairperson Romero Chairperson Meloni Noes: None Abstain: None Unanimously approved by roll call vote The Commissioners stated individually that their decision was based on their findings and public testimony without reviewing the memo presented by Attorney Pamela J Sieux. Recess called at 9:28 p.m. Recalled to order at 9:40 p.m. 3. MARBELLA CONTINUED TO 12/6/01 a. Marbella Housing Subdivision (GP, RZ, SA, PUD, & EIR-00-053) Approximately 14.9 acres located on the west side of Gellert Boulevard, nortb of Westborough Boulevard (APN s 091-661-240/250/260/270/280/290/310/320/330). S:\Minutes\finalized\111501RPC.doc Page 3 of 7 Approved on April 4, 2002 The purpose of this meeting is to take public comments on the Draft EIR and a public hearing to consider a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, Planned Unit Development and Development Agreement to allow development of 280-unit residential condOlniniun1 project on a 14.9 acre vacant site. The project would be configured in six four-story buildings with both underground and surface parking. The following entitlements are included in the request: · General Plan Amendment: 1) to change the current land use designation of the site from Mixed Community CommerciallMedium Density Residential to High Density Residential; and 2) modify General Plan Policy 3.11-1-2 regarding the Westborough/Gellert Urban Design Plan. · Rezoning to change the zone designation frOln C-l Retail Commercial to R-3-L Multiple Fmnily Residential · Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map · Planned Unit Development Permit with exceptions to: 1) allow private streets; and 2) permit an increase in height limits allowed in the R-3 Zone frOln 50 feet to 70 feet. b. Development Agreement (DA-00-053) Consultant Planner Knapp presented the staff report. Joe Finelli, Due Housing Vice-President presented the project to the Commission. Ken Rhode, Jeff Harvey and Frank Burlager gave a brief description on the architecture of the building and the geotechnical aspects of the entire proj ect. Public Hearing opened. Marjorie Sieux 11 Canyon Court Gabriel Arias 2412 Williams Court Victor Chow 2400 Westchester Court Jackie Williams 242 Longford Drive Wayne Toring 3829 Radburn Drive The concerns were: . Traffic will be a problem because congestion is already at LOS F and it can't get any worse. . The traffic impacts should not be overridden. . The project has grown in size from 74 units to 280 units. . How is low income restricted or detennined. . Overcrowdiness of schools needs to be addressed. . The land not being deep enough to accommodate the developn1ent. . There will be too many cars in the area and overflow of vehicles may use the shopping center across the street for parking. . The slope may not be as stable as engineers say and there n1ay be landslides in the future. Public Hearing closed. Commissioner Teglia asked what the urban design plan was directed towards. Principal Planner Kalkin noted that it was prefaced to a mixed-use commercial development and there was no interest expressed from the development community to pursue those design guidelines. Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that policies related to visual impacts are implemented and discussed in the EIR. S:\Minutes\finalized\111501RPC.doc Page 4 of 7 Approved on April 4, 2002 Comlnissioner D'Angelo pointed out that usable open space is needed. This project is for families and there are no mnenities like swirmning pools, tennis courts, and ballparks. The traffic is unworkable. Commissioner Honan agreed with Commissioner D'Angelo. She questioned how low income housing is balanced for working people and at the same time being affordable. Commissioner Ochsenhirt was concerned how the park fee and tot lot are related in the Development Agreelnent (DA). He also questioned why the project would not have childcare fees. Assistant City Attorney Johnson mentioned that the Development Agreement would vest the applicants' rights with regard to childcare upon approval. The childcare impact fee was removed because the DA was in the draft stages and in order to achieve affordable housing it was not deelned appropriate to speculate a childcare fee. The developer is obligated to build the tot lot and the fees are calculated by deducting the tot lot acreage from the amount of the fee. The childcare fee is referred to in the ordinance rather than in the DA. Commissioner Sim was struggling with the project because of the traffic issues and also because the City needs more housing. The project is too dense and this is the one and only opportunity to create a precedent as to what the City will become in the future. He encouraged analyzing the urbanization in the project area. Vice Chairperson Romero liked the idea of the Westborough design plan, which recormnended a maximum of 15 units per acre. He agreed with the 25% of the housing project to be affordable housing. Chairperson Meloni noted that he had recommended that the buildings be pulled back against the hill. This would take the mass of the project on the street away from it. It would create a linear park for the whole length of the project and it would give more usable open space. He noted that the traffic is worsening. He asked the traffic engineer where the traffic in the area is going to go? Mr. Mark Spencer, DKS Associates, noted that the queuing period would get longer. What was a peak hour becomes a peak period. This happens with or without the project. East to west traffic in the City is a probleln and will continue to be a problem. He recommended that another traffic signal not be incorporated near the shopping center and Gellert, but to adopt a Staten1ent of Overriding Considerations. He noted that the nUlnber of driveways becomes an issue because of too many places to come on and off the street. He mentioned that a remedy to those issues is to start thinking of limited access. This project adds up to 130 peak hour trips to congestion in the area. Vice Chairperson Romero noted that the exit at Westborough frOln 280 has continuous traffic. He suggested that a stop sign be installed. Mr. Spencer stated that this might not be a beneficial impact. Commissioner Sim questioned if the recommendation for signalization at Olympic and Westborough was still underway and how a third lane will be created in the area. Mr. Spencer noted that it is an unsignalized intersection. The restriping provides organization and the extra lane will help to get the LOS down and keep it as an unsignalized intersection. Commissioner D'Angelo asked what the additional recreational opportunities for the residents would be. Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that SSFMC 19.24.120 states that the fees must be used for the purpose of providing park and recreational facilities to serve the subdivision. Commissioner Honan suggested having 2 tot lots instead of one. Mr. Finelli noted that this is a good suggestion and they would explore it. Motion Sim 1 Second Te2:lia to reopen the Public Hearing and continue to December 6, 2001. Unanimously approved. S:\Minutes\finalized\111501RPC.doc Page 5 of 7 Approved on April 4, 2002 Recess called at 11: 10 p.m. Recalled to order at 11:20 p.m. 4. Phillip & Wendy Wan-owner/applicant. DENIED 127 Arroyo Drive PM-OI-063, DR-OI-063 & Categorical Exemption Class 15 Section 15315 Minor Land Divisions (Continuedfrom October 18,2001) Tentative Parcel Map allowing a lot split and Design Review of a new single family dwelling and relnodel of an existing single family dwelling situated at 123 and 127 Arroyo Drive in the Single Family Residential Zoning District (R-I-E) in accordance with SSFMC Title 19 and Chapter 20.85. Senior Planner Carlson presented the Staff Report. Leal Charonnat, representing the owner presented the proj ect. Public Hearing opened. Public Hearing closed. The Commission discussed the size of the lot. They noted that the uniqueness of the area needed to be preserved. A subdivision would change the character of the area and a lot that would be twice the size of the lots in the surrounding area would not preserve the character. Motion Sim 1 Second Te2:lia to deny the application. Roll Call Vote: Ayes: Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Ochsenhirt, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia, Vice Chairperson Romero, and Chairperson Meloni Noes: Commissioner D'Angelo Abstain: None Denial approved. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 5. STUDY SESSION a. Spiros Kakonikitis-owner Antonio M. Brandi, applicant 90 Oak Avenue RZ, DR-OI-054 &ND-OI-054 CONTINUED Study Session of a Rezoning and Design Review allowing for the construction a three-story 15 unit apartment building, situated at 90 Oak Avenue (APN-011-313-070, 011-313-080 &011-313-090) in the Medium Density (R-2) Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.87. Motion Te2:lia 1 Second D' An2:elo to continue the item due to the lateness of the hour. 6. Items from Staff Chief Planner Sparks noted that the City Council upheld the Commission's recommendation for denial of a cell site application at 1274 Old Mission Road. He added that they also adopted the illclusionary Housing Ordinance. 7. Items from Commission S:\Minutes\finalized\111501RPC.doc Page 6 of 7 Approved on April 4, 2002 Chairperson Meloni created a Wireless Telecommunications Subcommittee. He assigned Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia and himself to the subcommittee. The subcommittee will put together requirements that an applicant needs to meet prior to submittal of an application to the City. 8. Items from the Public NONE 9. Adjournment 11:46 p.m. Motion Sim 1 Second Te2:lia to adjourn. Thomas C. Spares Secretary to the Planni g Commission City of South San Francisco Michael Planning mmlSSIOn City of Sout San Francisco TCS/blh S:\Minutes\finalized\lll50lRPC.doc Page 7 of 7 Approved on April 4, 2002