The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-05-2008 PC e-packetCITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE June 5, 2008 7:30 PM WELCOME If this is the first time you have been to a Commission meeting, perhaps you'd like to know a little about our procedure. Under Oral Communications, at the beginning of the meeting, persons wishing to speak on any subject not on the Agenda will have 3 minutes to discuss their item. The Clerk will read the name and type of application to be heard in the order in which it appears on the Agenda. A staff person will then explain the proposal. The first person allowed to speak will be the applicant, followed by persons in favor of the application. Then persons who oppose the project or who wish to ask questions will have their turn. If you wish to speak, please fill out a card (which is available near the entrance door) and give it, as soon as possible, to the Clerk at the front of the room. When it is your turn, she will announce your name for the record. The Commission has adopted a policy that applicants and their representatives have a maximum time limit of 20 minutes to make a presentation on their project. Non-applicants may speak a maximum of 3 minutes on any case. Questions from Commissioners to applicants or non-applicants may be answered by using additional time. When the Commission is not in session, we'll be pleased to answer your questions if you will go to the Planning Division, City Hall, 315 Maple Avenue or telephone (650) 877-8535 or by a-mail at web- ecdt~ssf.net. Mary Giusti Chairperson Wallace M. Moore Commissioner Eugene Sim Commissioner Marc C. Teglia Vice-Chairperson Stacey Oborne Commissioner John Prouty Commissioner William Zemke Commissioner Susy Kalkin, Chief Planner Secretary to the Planning Commission Steve Carlson Senior Planner Vacant Associate Planner Gerry Beaudin Senior Planner Bertha Aguilar Clerk Please Turn Cellular Phones And Passers Off. Individuals with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services to attend and participate in this meeting should contact the ADA Coordinator at (650) 829-3800, five working days before the meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE June 5, 2008 Time 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER /PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL /CHAIR COMMENTS AGENDA REVIEW ORAL COMMUNICATIONS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING 1. Wong, Steven H/applicant Wong, Steven H/owner 132 James Court P08-0013: PUDM08-0002 & DR07-0077 PUD Modification application to allow a 600 sq ft addition to the rear of an existing dwelling in a Planned Unit Development at 132 James Court in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.78, 20.84 & 20.85 2. Rosanna Olsen-Donio/applicant Donio, Rosanna 8< Pascal B./owner 848 Kipling Ave P08-0032: UP08-003 Use Permit allowing the conversion of a small day care facility accommodating 8 children into a large family day care facility accommodating up to 12 children in an existing dwelling within 500 feet of another large family day care facility, and a 4 foot tall fence in the 15 foot required front setback and the public-right-of way, situated at 848 Kipling Avenue (APN 010-153-070), in the (R- 1-E) Single Family Residential Zone District, in accordance with SSFMC Section 20.11.060 and Chapters 20.16 & 20.81. 3. Thomas Lefort/applicant Todd Magaline/owner 320 Shaw Rd P07-0129: UP07-0023 & DR07-0077 Use Permit and Design Review allowing a production bakery (food preparation facility) in an existing industrial building, with 24 hour operation, outside overnight storage of up to 6 vans, an Planning Commission Agenda - Cont'd Page 3 of 3 June 5, 2008 outdoor utility yard, and generating over 100 average daily vehicle trips, situated at 320 Shaw Road Unit #B, in the Industrial (M-1) Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.30, 20.81 & 20.85. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 4. Kathleen Keppinger/applicant Nancy J. Scott/owner 1373 Lowrie Ave P05-0126: UP05-0026 & DR05-0071) One Year Review -Use Permit and Design Review allowing a food production and a limousine service, with landscape upgrades and open at-grade parking accommodating up to 23 parking spaces, generating in excess of 100 average daily vehicle trips and 24 hour operation, situated at 1369 and 1373 Lowrie Avenue (APN 015-115-430) in the Industrial (M-1) Zone District, in accordance with SSFMC Chapters: 20.81 and 20.85 5. A Resolution determining that the Proposed Capital Improvement Program FY 2008-2009 is consistent with the City's General Plan. ITEMS FROM STAFF ITEMS FROM COMMISSION ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC ADJOURNMENT usy Kal In Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco NEXT Regular Meeting June 19, 2008, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, MEETING: South San Francisco, CA. Staff Reports can now be accessed online at: http://www.ssf.netldeats/commslplannins~/astenda minutes.asp or via h tt a: //we b l i n k. s sf. n e t SK/bla s:~,4gewdas~plawwLwg covutnn%ss~ow~2oo8~o6-os-oSRFC,4gewda.doc ~~~~H~~S~~~ 0 A y J O c'~LIFOR~1~ DATE: TO: Planning Commission Staff Repot June 5, 2008 Planning Commission SUBJECT: Design Review and Residential Planned Unit Development Modification allowing a 600 square foot first story addition at the rear of an existing single-family dwelling located at 132 James Court in the Single-Family Residential Planned Unit Development (R-1-E-P) Zoning District in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC) Chapters 20.16, 20.78, 20.84 and 20.85. Owner and Applicant: Steven H. Wong Case Nos.: P08-0013 [PUDM08-0002 & DR08-0005] RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve PUDM08-0013 and DR08-0005 based on the attached Findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The project site is located in a Planned Unit Development (PUD) known as Hillside Estates. The Hillside Estates PUD was approved in 1980, and has a total of 41 single-family units. In accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.84, a modification of the PUD is required for any addition that exceeds 10% of existing gross floor area. The subject site is 7,936 square feet and contains atwo-story, four bedroom single-family dwelling with 1,839 square feet of living area. The proposed 600 square foot first story addition is proposed off of the rear of the existing house. The addition will provide area for a handicapped-accessible kitchen remodel and a new accessible bedroom and bathroom. A wall between two existing upstairs bedrooms will be removed to create one new master bedroom, so the resulting house will continue to have four bedrooms. The proposed total floor area for the house is 2,439 square feet and parking for two vehicles is provided in a two car garage. 132 James Court is located at the end of a cul-de-sac. The site shares front and side property lines with other properties in the same PUD zoned for single-family development. The rear property line abuts Chestnut Avenue. The project site's General Plan land use designation, Low Density Residential, allows single- Date: June 5, 2008 To: Planning Commission Subject: P08-0013 132 James Court Page 2 of 3 family dwellings. The project complies with the General Plan goals and policies. The present Low Density Residential (R-1-E-P) zoning allows the proposed addition, subject to the Planning Commission approval of a Modification to the Residential Planned Unit Development. The proposed development complies with the City's minimum development standards as displayed in the following table: Development Standards Total Site Area = 7,936 s uare feet Minimum/Maximum Existin Pro osed Covera e 50% (max.) 18.4% 26% Hei t 35 ft. (max.) 21 ft. 21 ft. Parkin 2 s aces (min.) 2 s aces 2 s aces Front Setback 15 ft. (min.) 16.25 ft. 16.25 ft. Ri t Side Setback 5 ft. (min.) 5 ft. 5 ft. Left Side Setback 5 ft. (min.) 6.46 ft. 6.46 ft. (14 ft. for the new addition) Rear Setback 20 ft. (min.) 49.29 ft. 34.29 ft. The proposed development meets all the City development standards including parking, lot coverage, setbacks, and height. The lots and dwellings in the immediate vicinity of 132 James Court are of similar size and development intensity. The proposed 600 square foot addition complies with existing pattern of development. The proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.37 is well below the General Plan standard of 0.5 for a low density area. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The project was reviewed by the Design Review Board at its meeting of March 18, 2008. At the meeting the Board determined that the scale of the first story addition of 600 square feet was in keeping with the City's Design Guidelines and with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The Board recommended an increase to the slope of the roof of the addition, including resizing the upstairs bedroom windows, and using composition shingles to better integrate the addition to the existing house. A change to the window in the new bathroom was also recommended. All of these changes have been successfully incorporated into the plans. The change to the roof design and the resulting changes to the upstairs bedroom windows resulted in Date: June 5, 2008 To: Planning Commission Subject: P08-0013 132 James Court Page 3 of 3 a requirement to add two new windows in the upstairs bedrooms to provide for emergency egress. Other proposed exterior changes include replacing all the existing windows to match the new ones and adding a new deck at grade at the rear of the addition. A previous design proposed cutting into the rear slope to construct the new deck, but the current design does not impact the slope. The Design Review Board recommended that the Planning Commission approve the development. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING A neighborhood meeting was conducted on Tuesday May 20, 2008. Notices were sent to property owners and residents within 500 feet of the subject property. The meeting was held from 5:30 to 6:30 PM and no neighbors attended. The applicant and Maureen Morton of the City's Planning Division staff were present. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City staff determined that the proposed development is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with Section 15301(e), Minor Additions to an Existing Structure. Because the project has been determined to be exempt, the Planning Commission need take no further action regarding the environmental review. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION: The construction of a 600 square foot addition to the existing single family dwelling is consistent with the City's General Plan, with all applicable requirements of the City's Zoning (SSFMC Title 20) and is compatible with the surrounding residences. Tt is therefore recommended that the Planning Commission approve P08-0013, including modification of the PUD and approval of the design, based on the attached draft Findings and subject to the attached draft Conditions of Approval. C -' 1(I~~,v~~ Maureen Morton, Contract Planner Date: June 5, 2008 To: Planning Commission Subject: P08-0013 132 James Court Page 4 of 3 ATTACHMENTS: Draft PUD Findings of Approval Draft Conditions of Approval DRB Minutes -March 18, 2008 Plans DRAFT FINDINGS OF APPROVAL 132 JAMES COURT P08-0013 PUDM08-0002 & DR08-0005 (As recommended by City Staff on June S, 2008) As required by the Planned Unit Development Procedures [SSFMC Chapter 20.84], the following findings are made in approval of a Modification of a Residential Planned Unit Development, allowing a 600 square foot addition to an existing single-family dwelling at 132 James Court in the R-1-E-P zone, based on public testimony and the materials submitted to the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission which include, but are not limited to: Plans prepared by Dominguez Associates, dated/revised 4/23/08; Design Review Board meeting and minutes of March 18, 2008; Planning Commission staff report of June 5, 2008; and Planning Commission meeting of June 5, 2008: The subject site is physically suitable for the 600 square foot addition to the existing single-family dwelling. The dwelling with the addition is similar in style to existing adjacent dwellings and has a similar floor area ratio. The City's Design Review Board recommended approval of the proposed single-family dwelling addition. Conditions of approval require that the development conform to the City's development standards. 2. The 600 square foot addition to the existing single-family dwelling was reviewed and recommended for approval by the City's Design Review Board to be in accordance with the City of South San Francisco Design Guidelines and to provide a high quality of consistency with the existing neighborhood. The dwelling with the addition shares a similar floor area ratio as the existing adjacent dwellings and will be in conformity with the adjacent residences. The addition will reinforce a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability by matching the development quality and design and providing needed handicapped accessibility. 3. The project complies with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. 4. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of the site of Low Density Residential and the Housing Element that encourages the development of housing to meet the City's fair share housing need. The proposed 600 square foot addition to an existing single-family dwelling will not be adverse to the public health, safety or general welfare of the community, or unreasonably detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements. The development is designed to comply with the City design guidelines and the architectural theme of the surrounding residential enclave. Conditions of approval are attached which will ensure that the development complies with local development standards and requirements. DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 132 JAMES COURT P08-0013 PUDM08-0002 & DR08-0005 (As recommended by City Staff on June S, 2008) A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. The applicant shall comply with the City's Standard Conditions and with all the requirements of all affected City Divisions and Departments as contained in the attached conditions, except as amended by the conditions of approval. 2. The construction drawings shall substantially comply with the Planning Commission approved plans, as amended by the conditions of approval including the revised plans prepared by Dominguez Associates, dated/revised 4/23/08, submitted in association with P08-0013. (Planning Contact: Maureen Morton: 650/877-8353, Fax 650/829-6639) B. ENGINEERING DIVISION 1. The proposed retaining walls will cut into the abutment slope that supports Chestnut Avenue. The applicant shall retain a soils engineer to inspect this slope and to prepare a soils investigation analyzing the condition of the slope and shall prepare recommendations for the installation of the proposed retaining walls that will insure the stability of the abutment slope and the street improvements that are supported by this slope. This soils report shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. The wall design and construction shall conform to the requirements of the approved soils report. Upon the completion of the retaining wall construction and prior to receiving a final inspection of the new addition, the project soils engineer shall inspect the walls and adjacent slope and shall submit a letter to the City Engineer stating that the work was performed in accordance with their recommendations and that the condition of the slope between the walls and the Chestnut Avenue sidewalk appears to be stable and in good condition. 2. The building permit application plans shall conform to the standards of the Engineering Division's "Building Permit Typical Plan Check Submittals" requirements, copies of which are available from the Engineering Division. The owner must comply with all setback requirements. 3. The owner shall, at his/her expense, repair any broken sidewalk, curb and gutter fronting the property, prior to receiving a final inspection for the new addition. 4. The owner shall connect the roof downspouts of the new addition to the existing drainage system within the lot. This work shall be shown on the building permit plans. (Engineering Division: Sam Bautista: 650/829-6652) C. POLICE DEPARTMENT 1. Municipal Code Compliance The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.48 of the Municipal Code, "Minimum Building Security Standards" Ordinance revised May 1995. The Police Department reserves the right to make additional security and safety conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailed/revised building plans. (Police Department: Sergeant Jon Kallas: 650/877-8927) The Board had the following comments: 1. The shorter version of the monument sign is preferred. Recommend approval with conditions. 4. OWNER Reinertson, Robert APPLICANT Zarc, LLC c/o Randy Ly ADDRESS 26 S. Linden Avenue PROJECT NUMBER P08-0018, UP08-0018 & DR08-0011 PROJECT NAME Zarc Int'1 Use Permit (Case Planner: Gerry Beaudin) DESCRIl'TION Use Permit to allow an electronic waste collection and non- hazardous metal buy-back facility at 26 South Linden Avenue in the Planned Industrial Zone (P-I) District in accordance with SSFMC Sections 20.32, 20.75, 20.81, & 20.85. The Board had the following comments: 1. Recommend repainting the building with a neutral color. 2. Improve site screening by using taller plant materials to create a hedge outside the fence, with species such as Escallonia, Cotoneaster parneyi or Texas Privet. 3. Verify accessibility parking requirements with the Building Division. 4. Replace Fragaria chiloensis groundcover with more vigorous species in interesting patterns such as Agapanthus, Cotoneaster `Lowfast', Euonymus fortunei `Colorata', Hemerocallis hybrids, or clumping grasses. 5. Provide a queing space outside the North Canal entry gate to allow vehicles to wait for gate opening without blocking the street. approval with conditions. OWNER Wong, Steven H APPLICANT Wong, Steven H ADDRESS 132 James Ct PROJECT NUMBER P08-0013 & PUDM08-0002 & DR08-0005 PROJECT NAME PUD - 132 James Ct (Case Planner: Gerry Beaudin) DESCRIPTION PUD Modification to allow a 600 sq ft addition to the rear of an existing dwelling in a Planned Unit Development at 132 James Court in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.78, 20.85 & 20.89 The Board had the following comments: 1. Consider relocating the bathroom to improve window placement on side walls. 2. Increase the pitch of the addition roof to match the existing roof, and raise and/or resize the bedroom windows to accommodate this change. 3. Use composition shingles on the addition roof, consistent with the existing roof. 4. Reference 128 James Court for design direction, as that addition is well integrated with the dwelling. Recommend approval with conidtions. 132 JAMES COURT 132 JAMES COURT 1 36 JAMES COURT 128 JAMES COURT •.~ ~~ r r, N~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ NQO ~~U ~~ W~ N~~ MQO ~- ~ U N ~ W~ co ~ ~ Sao r- ~ U -~ ~:; ,»i ~-: r, .:~ ';) t ,~ . ~:: a' N F- W ~ ~~~ NQO ~-~U N ~ W ~ ~~~ NQO r- ~ U N~ w~ o ~ ~ ~QO ~~V ~~~Pr~~ ~ ~sg~i O~~ ~m]y+~~W Enti~i~~ ~ ~ r 0 D ~t x O ~fioAQ fioAQfiioAifi m a n ~. ~A~~~Tr77ppfi m ~~ A~ E o EZZ~Z~ ((pp A~Z m7 rriz-~fiilfA~ i~Y' ~ ~( ~ H iDDDDD Tl Zl1~m,~~f1i~ pb ~" A~ O m ~ p m frtfll D3~ L°°~~D € ~V ~D~ ~ ~ m 5 m *_ L~ r t> A ~~ ~f. ~~~ ~ ~p0 ~~ ~ ~ ~ A 4 s ,~.70''~ - ter. ~ c~~~0~ Di ~ 7mp ~ ~ ~ + ~ ~ 9 0 ,~,~ aeeppgga) m ~p 5p ~p ~' mmmmm ~I '' p rp ~ D r n , (~: y0~00 ~ .gym ~O~n~ rEn nti --- o tiv ~y.,.•.• m ~D~Si~im e~X~ ~o ~~~~~ ~ ~A ~~my =_~~~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~~ mm ~ a~~~ ~~ o zz ~~ fh r~ vA m~i O $~~ ~A ~ ° ~~r z m v'" ~ ~ m m lD E ~ u d ZW ~~O m y~0 P ~~~ m~ h $ ~ ~\O and ~ r tl m m ~ U ~{ v D Zz_ D D ~~~ ~_j . D ~' z m li u -b0 rn ~~ v z z m z z z rfl ~~ wAUCwAr i 0 o xv v v D g~ ~ __._ ` . \ ~n~~ ~ ~ m rn ~m m m ~~ ~ ~ • - E ~ Z Itl D Z m m ~ ~ DRIVEWAT ; O X ~ X N O E N Z r / y o ~ E v~ / i ~ o Z ~• : i A `. .._..... ........t ......... ......... CONCRETE......,..... ~ ~ O ~ _ ......_ m ~ N = 11389' m? ............................................................................................. D ADJACENT BUILDING ~ m n•- ~ ~ rn m v v A A O O ~ "' ~ z m n' A D s = `~ ~ '` L D ~ rn ;; E ~1 7C D O ~• _, ~ p s _ _._ _ n O 3 = m z ~• m ~ ~ D O A ~ O D 3 ~ T _ .\ 3 r- U7 ,~' . D L ~ ° ~ > o NEW RE,4R ,4DDITION FOR THE WONr~ RESIDENCE s oatc6iF~. m ~ '^ m 132 J,4MES COURT - SOUTH S,4N FRANCISCO, CA 9~408m ~„ ~ ~ t,~,~ rn z o~ ;~u~ m m m ° DOMINGUEZ ASSOCIATES 40 HUUBOLDT COURT PAGFICA, CA. 94044 ~, $ ~ ~',~'~ N m (650) 359-D947 FAX (650) 355-2N5 ,~ N3~ A ,.~- _m• ,•. ~~~ 4~~ ~~a .ice v ~~ ,0]0 DP (N) 6068 %DR`O ~ •~:. :::.~'. ,:, b ~' ~ ~ i D ~. ,: ..._, , ~ ,; ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~~ y ./ i/ ,,.. , m xi ~ iy d ... •'uiQ' .,,e b• r" r @;,S m ij, Z X G~ ~...::.... r ..:: :::::::.: _ <~ S ~_ ~ _.......... ' i 4 i i ~ ~ o S c. m `. is ............ I :;, ~ . %~. E o ~ . ::: i I GABMET9 ~P. '. , m '. ~~ m o ..., ~_. ~. ..., ' n+ ~ 1....._ . ......... .... .... .... .....~I ~~ ~ A ® m ~ , 0 ~ ' m D .. .. ............... hh O ~ -.._~ .m.,\ 3 ~_; ~ ~ :e.~.:_._ _~~ ~ _ _ ~ '~$ m? ~ ',~ . R1 1030 9LD fN) 5036 9LDP fNJ 5036 9LDP I ~ _ - ~ _ - ~ ® '~ - - - .......... ........................ ::OE::::::::::::::::::::::::::: m ~ - I 5'-7• I n._4. gpr A~~ ~~5 ~a s D ~ %' ~ ) -~ Y >>'. Q E ~ ~ ~ D~ m n ~ r D a O Y: 6 r N ~ b m ~ x N I~ ^~ m ~7 K m m +,r 07 O 1° E '- 0 `• (~ ~ ~ s ~ }? m -• ~ r Y rZ ~ ~ r ~ m ~ O m O ~~ A ,% s 3 ~; ~ 1 .}~ ~i ~ `\ A Dx j ~ 1 X r ~p ~ ~ R N E6 ~ E ? 3 @~ ~ A d0 q e ~ E mn m MA A m U N m ~ ~, m tines ~ ~ ~ ~n3 ~ Q e ~ p ~5 m a D> ~ D D ° m D o NEW REAR ADDITION FOR THE WONCs ~SIDENGE .S ° ~"~'~Rfo m ~ ~' ~ ~ 132 JAMES COURT - SOUTN SAN FRANCISCO, GA 94m8m ~ „ ~ ~ ``~~ ~~ ~ m m ~ ~ DOMINGUEZ ASSOCIATES 4D HUUBOLDT COURT PACIFICA, CA. 94044 ~,~ $ e ~, ~ A (650) 359-D947 FAx (650) 355-2445 a a3 fNl 3040 C.49ErtEN1 ~ ~ : iZ ., p A A ~ !e ~ O ~ 3 K $ ~ ~; ~ s;;; D ,.::: = r ::: r ~ E D A i ;;, K !':: e s T 0 4 ~3 $ N ~ / r~ O 8 (p D L .......... BLDP 30 0 G N ~(R)7030 BLDP 30 0 G N 13'~ I ~o _.,,,, :~~ o °~H s . ~ Planning Commission n .. lA° Sta Re o rt ~l ~ .ff P IFOR DATE: June 5, 2008 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Use Permit allowing the conversion of a small day care facility accommodating 8 children into a large family day care facility accommodating up to 12 children in an existing dwelling within 500 feet of another large family day care facility, and a 4 foot tall fence in the 15 foot required front setback and the public-right-of way, situated at 848 Kipling Avenue (APN 010-153-070), in the (R-1-E) Single Family Residential Zone District, in accordance with SSFMC Section 20.11.060 and Chapters 20.16 & 20.81. Owner & Applicant: Rosanna & Pascal B. Donio Case No.: P08-0032 [UP 08-0003] Env. Doc.: Categorical Exemption Section 15061(b)(3) RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve a Use Permit allowing the conversion of a small day care facility into a large family day care facility accommodating up to 12 children in an existing dwelling within 5001ineal feet of another large family day care facility, and a 4 foot tall fence in the 15 foot required front setback and the public right-of--way, subject to making the fmdings of approval and adopting the conditions of approval. BACKGROUND: The approximately 4,800 square feet (SF) site consists of a single-story dwelling with a total floor area of 1,150 SF with a single car garage and a 30 foot long driveway. The applicant is proposing to expand the number of children at the day care facility to 12 children, although the immediate plan is to accommodate only 10 children. The facility, which has been operating as a small day care facility for several years, currently accommodates up to 8 children (State of California Community Care License #414001466). The hours of operation would be Tuesday through Friday between 9 AM to 4 PM. The facility will employee one assistant. The applicant's written narrative provides a more detailed description of the operation. The site is adjacent to other single family dwellings. Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: P08-0032 June 5, 2008 Page 2 of 4 DISCUSSION: The project site's General Plan Land Use Element designation, Low Density Residential, allows large family day care facilities. The project complies with the General Plan goals and policies that specifically encourage day care facilities in all land use district and zoning districts. Large day care facilities accommodating up to as many as 14 children are allowed uses in an (R- 1-E) Single Family Residential Zone District, subject to meeting the requirements contained in Section 20.11.060. Because the proposed facility is within 500 feet of another large family day care facility at 917 Gibbs Way (licensed for up to 14 children situated Z00 feet from 848 Kipling Avenue on the same block), Section 20.11.060 (g) requires an approved Use Permit by the Planning Commission. The site and buildings generally comply with current City development standards as displayed in the following table: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Site Area: 0.11 acres [4,800 SF] Floor Area: 1,150 SF Floor Area Ratio: Maximum: 0.5 Existing: 0.24 Proposed: 0.24 Lot Coverage Maximum: 50% Existing: 24% Proposed: 24% Landscaping Minimum: N/A Existing: NA Proposed: NA Automobile Parking Minimum: 1+ Existing: 1 Proposed: 1+ Passenger Loading Area Passenger Loading Area Setbacks Minimum Existing Proposed Front 15 FT 15 FT 15 FT Left Side S FT 8 FT 8 FT Right Side 5 FT 5 FT 5 FT Rear 20 FT 55 FT 55 FT Note: 1. The existing single family dwellings was constructed with only one garage space. 2. Landscaping generally not required for single family dwellings except for parking areas adjacent to streets and lanes (SSFMC Section 20.73.040). 3. The SSFMC Section 20.11.060 and a condition of approval require an on-site passenger loading area and employee parking space. Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: P08-0032 June 5, 2008 Page 3 of 4 The SSFMC Section 20.11.060 requires that the facility provide a passenger loading area and sufficient parking for all employees. The paved driveway is sufficiently wide that it can accommodate two spaces adequate for meeting the staff parking and passenger loading requirements. The on-street curbside area can accommodate 2 additional parking spaces for dropping off children at the facility. While the applicant does not expect any parking conflicts, should conflicts occur she is willing to adjust the drop-off hours and sign-in process. The hours of operation, detailed in the applicant's narrative, and the availability of on-street parking in the vicinity of the project, should result in little or no conflicts with neighboring residents. The requirement for a one year review will provide greater assurance that any parking conflicts can be addressed in a timely manner. If parking congestion does occur the applicant can also institute a curbside staff sign-in that will eliminate the need for parents walking their children from the parked vehicles into the facility. These procedures should also speed up the sign-in process resulting in a faster curbside vehicle turnover. A condition of approval has been added that will require on on-site loading area and a one year review. A neighborhood meeting is being conducted the week of May 30. The results of the meeting will be reported to the Planning Commission at their meeting. A portion of the existing 4 foot tall wood fence and gate along Kipling Avenue is located in the minimum required 15 foot setback. Fences over 3 feet in height maybe allowed within a minimum required front street setback with a Use Permit approved by the Planning Commission [SSFMC Section 20.73.020 (d)(1)J. The City engineering and planning staff have conducted a field review and determined that the fence does not represent asight-line obstruction, and because it is a rolling gate parallel to Kipling Avenue it will not obstruct the sidewalk. To ensure that vehicles do not block the sidewalk, staff recommends that the gate be left open during drop- off and pick-up hours. The applicant will also need to obtain an Encroachment Permit from the engineering division to allow the fence and gate within the public right-of--way. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The project was not reviewed by the Design Review Board since no exterior improvements are proposed. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA), City staff has determined that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the provisions of Section 15301 Class 1 Existing Facilities. Because the project has been determined to be exempt, the Planning Commission need take no action regarding the environmental review. Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: P08-0032 June 5, 2008 Page 4 of 4 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve a Use Permit allowing the conversion of a small family day car facility accommodating up to 8 children into a large family day care facility accommodating up to 12 children within 500 feet of another large family day care facility, and allowing a 4 foot tall fence in the 15 foot required front setback and the public right-of--way, subject to making the findings of approval and adopting the conditions of approval. St e arlso error Planner Attachments: Draft Use Permit Findings of Approval Draft Conditions of Approval Applicant's Narrative Letters of Support Photographs Plans DRAFT FINDINGS OF APPROVAL USE PERMIT 08-0003 848 HIPLING AVENUE (As recommended by City Staff June 5, 2008) As required by the Use Permit Procedures [SSFMC Chapter 20.81], the following findings are made in approval of a Use Permit a Use Permit allowing the conversion of a small family day car facility accommodating up to 8 children into a large family day care facility accommodating up to 12 children within 500 feet of another large family day care facility, and allowing a 4 foot tall fence in the 15 foot required front setback and the public-right-of--way, subject to making the findings of approval and, based on public testimony and the materials submitted to the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission which include, but are not limited to: Site and Floor Plans prepared by the applicant; Planning Commission staff report, dated June 5, 2008; and Planning Commission meeting of June 5, 2008: The proposed change from a small day care to a large day care accommodating up to 12 children with one staff member and the 4 foot tall fence and gate situated in the a portion of the 15 foot front setback and the public right-of--way will not be adverse to the public health, safety or general welfare of the community, or detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements. The facility has operated for several years as a small day care operation with no complaints received by city staff from adjacent neighbors. The well maintained site helps reinforce the visual quality of the existing surrounding residential neighborhood. A loading area and parking for staff will be provided. The location of the facility within 500 feet of another large family day care on Gibbs Way is sufficiently separated from the other facility so that it will not adversely affect the character of the residential area and will provide a unique language immersion program not generally available in the community or offered at other day care facilities. The 4 foot tall fence and gate do not obstruct the driver sight- line Conditions of approval are required which will ensure that the use of the site complies city requirements and that drop-off and pick-up will not adversely affected the area. 2. The proposed change from a small day care to a large day care accommodating up to 12 children with one staff member, and the 4 foot tall fence and gate situated in the a portion of the 15 foot front setback and the public right-of--way comply with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of the site of Low Density Residential and the goals and polices that specifically encourage the development of day care facilities throughout the City and in all land use and zoning districts. The location of the facility within 500 feet of another large family day care at 917 Gibbs Way is allowed by the zoning code subject to an approved Use Permit by the Planning Commission. Conditions of approval will ensure that the location of another day care facility will not alter the character of the area nor cause adverse parking conflicts. 3. The proposed change from a small day care to a large day care accommodating up to 12 children with one staff member, and the 4 foot tall fence and gate situated in the a portion of the 15 foot front setback and the public right-of--way, situated in the (R-1- E) Single Family Residential Zone District adjacent to residential dwellings comply all applicable standards and requirements of SSFMC Title 20 including Section 20.11.060 Large Family Day Care Homes. The proposed large family day care is the principle residence of the operator and is incidental to the use of the property, adrop- off and pick-up area with be provided to minimize parking conflicts with other nearby residents, anoff-street parking space is being provided for the one employee, a condition of approval will require that the gate remain open during drop-off and pick- up hours so that the sidewalk is not blocked by vehicles, a condition of approval will require that the owner provide a copy of the state license to city staff, the facility has been operated without complaints from adjacent residents, aone-year review will be required to ensure that the operation remains compatible with the neighborhood, and the Use Permit allows the facility to be located within 500 feet of another large family day care facility situated at 917 Gibbs Way. PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P08-0032 8481{IPLING AVENUE (As recommended by City Staff on June 5, 2008) A. PLANNING DIVISION: 1. The applicant shall comply with the City's Standard Conditions and with all the requirements of all affected City Divisions and Departments as contained in the attached conditions, except as amended by the conditions of approval. 2. The construction drawings shall substantially comply with the Planning Commission approved plans, as amended by the conditions of approval including the plans prepared by the applicant, in association with P08-0032. The project hours of operation shall be limited to weekday hours between 9 AM and 4 PM. A maximum of 12 students and one staff member are allowed as described in the applicant's written narrative associated with P08-0032. Any extension of the hours of operation or an increase in either the number of students or staff, or any other aspect of the project for which a Use Permit is being sought, shall require a Modification of the Use Permit be first approved by the Planning Commission. 4. Prior to the final inspection, the owner shall obtain an Encroachment Permit for the 4 foot tall fence and rolling gate along the project frontage in accordance with City Engineering Division standards. 5. The applicant shall utilize the driveway as the drop-off and pick-up area and employee parking as outlined in the applicant's written narrative submitted in association with P08-0032. Any change in the drop-off and loading procedures shall first be approved by the Planning Commission or its designated representative. 6. The Use Permit shall be subject to a one-year review by the Planning Commission. At the time of the review the Planning Commission may amend, add or delete conditions of approval, extend the periodic review, or take other action. 7. Prior to the start of the large family day care, the applicant shall provide documentation of a valid license from the State of California to operate the facility for a maximum of 12 children. (Planning Contact: Steve Carlson, Senior Planner, 650/877-8353, Fax 650/829-6639) B. ENGINEERING DIVISION: I. SPECIAL CONDITIONS a. The existing wooden fence is located within the City's right-of--way and maybe taller than the Planning Department requirement. The fence will need to comply with the regulations. Should the wooden fence stay within the right-of--way, the applicant shall obtain a revocable encroachment permit and comply with the Planning Department's criteria. b. The applicant is advised that any on-street parking can not be reserved for the operation of this daycare center. The owner shall, at his/her expense, repair any broken sidewalk, driveway approaches, curb and gutter along the entire frontage of the property. d. Any work performed in the City's right-of--way shall require an encroachment from the Engineering Division. The owner shall apply and pay all fees and deposits for the encroachment permit. (Engineering Division contact: Sam Bautista, Sr. Civil Engineer 650/829-6652) C. POLICE DEPARTMENT requirements: I. Municipal Code Compliance The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.48 of the Municipal Code; "Minimum Building Security Standards" Ordinance revised May 1995. The Police Department reserves the right to make additional security and safety conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailed/revised building plans. (Police Department contact: Sergeant Jon J. Kallas 650/877-8927) D. FIRE DEPARTMENT 1) All buildings shall provide premise identification in accordance with SSF Municipal Code Section 15.24.100. 2) Project must meet all applicable Local (SSFMC Chapter 15.24 Fire Code), State and Federal Codes. (Fire Department contact: Tom Carney Fire Marshal 650/829-6645) To the attention of the Planning Commission, April 21, 2008 This letter has the purpose to explain the practical way in which the home family daycare, located at 848 Kipling Ave. operates and why I am requesting a use permit. Because a neighbor on Gibbs way, within 500 ft. holds a large family daycare license, I'm requesting a use permit to obtain a large family daycare license for 12 children instead of 8. I expect I would not have more than 10 children in care at one time, but I still need to obtain a capacity change license through community care licensing. Some children attend only two days a week, and increasing the capacity would allow them to "make-up" days after they've been out ill. Having additional children will also help cover the cost of running a quality program. For the past five years, I've operated the business with the help of a "live-scanned" assistant, although not required by law for a capacity of eight. The daycare is unusual in that it's only open Tues.-Fri. from 9:15-2:00 and closed some of July, all of August, some of September and an additional 4 weeks for winter and spring breaks. I've offered to watch some children until 4:00 recently after my husband was laid off. Regarding arrival and pick-up: As a qualified preschool teacher, I offer a rich, educational experience, which has attracted families who are willing to commute from farther away, thus resulting in staggered arrival times. It has yet to happen that all families arrive at the same time. Several children are picked up earlier due to lessons or parents wishing the children to nap at home. Having stated that, there are two full sized drop-off spots in the driveway, which could also serve as one turn around spot. There is 23 feet of drop-off space between our driveway collar and our neighbors, and almost the same amount between the other collar and the corner of our property in front of our front lawn. If drop-off traffic congestion is a concern for the commission, I'm happy to provide a teacher who could conduct a sidewalk drop off service in order to respond to that concern and alleviate any parking issues. Again, the goal is to add only two children per day than the current capacity. Since several families bring siblings and/or ride-share, it results in less cars than the number of children each day. As far as concerns for neighbors, there have never been complaints from any surrounding neighbors. The fact that daycare opens and closes before and after conventional work hours, some neighbors passing by our home in the evening with whom I've chatted commented that they didn't even know there was a daycare held here after I've mentioned it. Thank you for taking the time and attention to consider this request and please don't hesitate to contact me if there are any concerns. Very sincerely, -Rosanna sen-Donio 650-994-2540 Roger and Vickie Lewis 901 Gibbs Way South San Francisco Ca. 94080 Attn: South San Francisco Planning Commission We are aware that our neighbors at 848 Kipling Ave. have run a small family daycare for the past several years. They advised us that they are in the process of requesting a use permit to expand their capacity to accommodate a few more children. This letter is to confirm that we support this endeavor. Moreover, we would also like to verify that the family daycare hours does not create any concerns, is not disruptive and does not create major parking concerns. If you would like to clarify anything or if you require additional information please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully Submitted, ~~ icScu. ti-----• Roger and Vickie Lewis Ruth P. Beauchamp Educational Consultant 650-400-9630 4/22/08 I am writing on behalf of Rossanna Donio and her preschool. Our family has been with her for over two years. Both of my girls have been enrolled in her program, which consists of play, singing, art, gardening and socialization, for example. We have never had a complaint and appreciate her excellent communication with parents and children. Both my husband and I are educators and have no hesitations in recommending Rossanna s program. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at the above phone number. To Whom It May Concern: Apri121, 2008 My name is Annette Doherty. I am a mother of two and an physical therapist. My husband Patrick is a firefighter serving the city of San Francisco. For the past five years my children have attended the family daycare located at 848 Kipling Ave. in So. San Francisco. Our family has been very pleased with the quality of care and education our children have received there and have highly recommended it to other families. Because the caregiver, Rossanna, has informed us she is applying for a use permit to accommodate two more children into the program, we wanted to make a statement that we are happy with the program, and have never experienced any problems in the way of parking, pick-up and/or drop-off. Others, as ourselves, sometimes ride-share with other families. We haven't noticed any concerns in the area of parking or safety issues. Please accept this letter as a support for the use permit application and know that in this time when quality childcare is so hard to come by, there is a really beneficial program for young ones at 848 Kipling Ave. for which we are very grateful. Sincerely, -Annette Doherty --- . ,,~l:~ FRONT OF HOUSE FROM FRONT LAWN ~_: -~ ,_ ; ~~ r- 1__ ~: ?~, BACKYARD/BACK OF HOUSE .. i - ~. .. ' .. - ~..~ . ..._~r .. ._.. : ' ~ _ i~ f .1 P ~ r S# '. rn ~. ~` ~ - ~~y~ 1~~ P ~ ~ J~: ~ : I ~ 1 ~ .Y.g .,P,.ys ~.C~ ~~ Sf •• .. 1 . e'T {/et fb ~ ~~ y _ Y' `16 ~ .,Y ~.yr, -~ R:. . s~:._' ~, ~~+ r 7$`5~x~15w R~'+ ~. `'~ 'S ~^y~~ ~ VIEW LOOKING OUT TO STREET FROM THE HOUSE DRIVEWAY ., - _ ,,. - ...~ `~ i ~~ ~. }- .,,, .,~,-E~~~~ ~~ ~;, ~~°;. _ ~. ..; -.~ ~~~ •~,~ .~ ~ ~- FROM ACROSS THE STREET/GIBBS WAY JOSE FROM ACROSS THE STREET (red car is in the neighbor's driveway) (23 feet of parking space between both collars) 3 6~ Scale SCALE: imm=2 in. 848 KIPLING AVE ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~,~ 'F 12 ~ z 3 4 S C ~ 5 ~ iv 'Z r; i4 K '6 ~~°~X~~s~~~ Planning Commission 0 .. ~~.° Sta Re o rt qL ~ .ff .P IFOR~ DATE: June 5, 2008 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Use Permit and Design Review allowing a production bakery (food preparation facility) in an existing two tenant industrial building with 24- hour daily operation, the overnight outdoor storage of 6 vans, an outdoor utility yard, and generating in excess of 100 average daily vehicle trips, situated at 320 Shaw Road Unit #B (APN 015-164-200), in the Industrial (M-1) Zone District, in accordance with SSFMC Sections 20.30.030(c), 20.30.040(a), 20.30.040 (b) and 20.30.040(1), and Chapters 20.81 & 20.85. Owner: Todd Magline Applicant: Thomas Lefort Case No.: P07-0129 [UP 07-0023 & DR07-0077] Env. Doc.: Categorical Exemption Section 15061(b)(3) RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve a Use Permit and Design Review allowing a production bakery (food preparation facility) in an existing two tenant industrial building with 24-hour daily operation, the overnight outdoor storage of 6 vans, an outdoor utility yard, and generating over 100 average daily vehicle trips, situated at 320 Shaw Road Unit #B, subject to making the findings of approval and adopting the conditions of approval. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The 3.18 acre site is developed with a 67,320 square foot one-story two tenant building, constructed in the 1950's. The main driveway is shared with the multi-tenant industrial building at 310 Shaw Road. Historically, the site was developed as a single lot and later the rear lot area was split off to form 310 Shaw Road. Both multi-tenant buildings have been used for a range of industrial uses. The new production bakery would occupy Unit #B and contain 39,615 square feet of floor area. The proposed project includes interior improvements including the construction of a bakery production area and a reduced office area of 2,850 square feet. The bakery will employee up to up to a maximum of 50 persons and run three shifts. Deliveries will be made daily with 6 panel vans starting as early as 5:30 AM. Other bulk customers (e.g. Trader's Joes) will pickup by there own trucks. Delivery of raw products, (e.g. flour, sugar, etc.) will occur a few times weekly. Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: UP 07-0023 & DR 07-0077 June 5, 2008 Page 2 of 3 The project site's General Plan land use designation, Mixed Industrial, allows industrial uses. Industrial uses, including food preparation facilities, are allowed uses in an Industrial (M-1) Zone District [SSFMC Section 20.30.020(c)]. Businesses operating on a 24 hour basis, involving outdoor overnight vehicle storage, outdoor utility yards and businesses generating in excess of 100 average daily vehicle trips are allowed, subject to an approved Use Permit by the City's Planning Commission [SSFMC Sections 20.30.040 (a), 20.30.040 (b) and 20.30.040 (i), respectively]. The site and building complies with the General Plan goals and policies encouraging reinvestment and maintenance of improved sites. The improvements comply with the City's development standards as displayed in the table in Exhibit #A. The facility has a total of 74 parking spaces of which 35 parking spaces are the minimum number required for Unit #B [SSFMC Section 20.74.070]. Based on the applicant's estimate of a maximum shift of 50 employees and three shifts per day, the 35 assigned spaces will not likely be adequate for both customers and employees, or for employees alone especially during shift changes. In order that an adequate number of parking spaces are available, and to minimize the use of on-street parking facilities and to reduce vehicle trips, a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) is required. In this regard, conditions of approval have been added requiring a TDM Plan, aone-year review, and that any increase in the number of employees or vehicles stored on-site will require prior review and approval by the Planning Commission. While additional on-site parking is available, it will be utilized by the future occupants of the adjacent tenant space Unit #A. The loading and truck parking are situated at the rear of the building and are adequate to serve the business. The utility yard will provide storage for a nitrogen tank that is utilized in the bakery production. The tank is too large to be able to be accommodated inside the building. The utility yard is located at the back of the building and will not be visible from the street. Views of the tank will be screened by a wall system that uses the same materials as the abutting trash enclosure. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The project was not formally reviewed by the Design Review Board because the building improvements are interior changes, and the exterior has recently been painted. The rear utility yard enclosure was reviewed informally by the Design Review Board architects who recommended some minor changes to the fencing and screen wall. The plans have been revised to incorporate the suggestions. Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: UP 07-0023 & DR 07-0077 June 5, 2008 Page 3 of 3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed development was determined by City staff to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3). Pursuant to these provisions the project was judged not to have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Because the project is exempt, in accordance with the CEQA, the Planning Commission need take no further action. CONCLUSION: The proposed project complies with the General Plan and Zoning Code development requirements. The proposed project has been reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. Conditions of approval are recommended to meet city development standards including to reduce potential temporary parking impacts associated with shift changes at full building occupancy, as well as require aone-year review. Therefore, it is recommended that the Planning Commission approve a Use Permit and Design Review allowing a production bakery (food preparation facility) in an existing two tenant industrial building with 24-hour daily operation, overnight outdoor storage of 6 vans, an outdoor utility yard, and generating over 100 average daily vehicle trips, situated at 320 Shaw Road Unit #B. ve Carlson, Senior Planner Attachments: Appendix #A -Development Data Draft Findings of Approval Draft Conditions of Approval Applicant's Narrative Photographs Plans EXHIBIT #A 320 Shaw Road APN 015-164-200 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Site Area: Total 3.18 acres [138,500 SF] Floor Area Existing & Proposed: Tenant #A (Vacant) Sub Total 27,705 SF Tenant #B BayBread Office 2,850 SF Production 36,765 SF Sub total 39,615 SF TOTAL 67,320 SF Floor Area Ratio: Maximum: 0.4 to 0.6 Existing: 0.49 Proposed: 0.49 Lot Coverage Maximum: 60% Existing: 49 % Proposed: 49% Landscaping Minimum: l0% Existing: l0% Proposed: l0% Automobile Parking Tenant A Minimum: NA Existing: NA Proposed: TBD Tenant B Minimum: 35 Existing: 35 Proposed: 35 TOTAL Minimum: 35 Existing: 74 Proposed: 74 Setbacks Minimum Existing Proposed Front 10 FT 22 FT 22 FT South Side 0 FT 5 FT 5 FT North Side 0 FT 30 FT 30 FT Rear 15 FT 100 FT 40 FT Notes: 1. 6 foot landscaped setback required of parking lots along property lines. 2. Parking based on a rate of Office: 1 stall per 300 SF; Industrial: 1 stall per 1,500 SF. DRAFT FINDINGS OF APPROVAL USE PERMIT 07-0129 320 SHAW ROAD UNIT #B (As recommended by City Staff June S, 2008) As required by the Use Permit Procedures [SSFMC Chapter 20.81], the following findings are made in approval of Use Permit 07-0129 allowing a production bakery (food preparation facility) in an existing two tenant industrial building with 24-hour daily operation, overnight outdoor storage of 6 vans, an outdoor utility yard, generating over 100 average daily vehicle trips, situated at 320 Shaw Road Unit #B, based on public testimony and the materials submitted to the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission which include, but are not limited to: revised Landscape, Site and Building Plans prepared by Grey.Studio, dated March 2008; Planning Commission staff report, dated June 5, 2008; and Planning Commission meeting of June 5, 2008: The proposed bakery production facility in an existing two tenant industrial building with 24-hour daily operation, the overnight outdoor storage of 6 panel vans, the outdoor utility yard, generating over 100 average daily vehicle trips will not be adverse to the public health, safety or general welfare of the community, or detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements. The project has been designed in accordance with the City of South San Francisco Design Guidelines to provide an adequate quality of fit with the existing surrounding industrial developments. The new landscaping will make the site more visually pleasing. Conditions of approval are required which will ensure that the development complies with local development standards, the approved plans, and that a Transportation Demand Management Plan be prepared and implemented to minimize parking impacts to other businesses. 2. The proposed bakery production facility in an existing two tenant industrial building with 24-hour daily operation, the overnight outdoor storage of 6 panel vans, the outdoor utility yard, generating over 100 average daily vehicle trips complies with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of the site of Mixed Industrial which allows food preparation facilities and encourages the maintenance and improvements of existing buildings. 3. The proposed bakery production facility in an existing two tenant industrial building with 24-hour daily operation, the overnight outdoor storage of 6 panel vans, the outdoor utility yard, generating over 100 average daily vehicle trips is adjacent to other industrial uses and complies all applicable standards and requirements of SSFMC Title 20. PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 320 SHAW ROAD P07-0129 (As recommended by City Staff on June S, 2008) A. PLANNING DIVISION The applicant shall comply with the City's Standard Conditions and with all the requirements of all affected City Divisions and Departments as contained in the attached conditions, except as amended by the conditions of approval. 2. The construction drawings shall substantially comply with the Planning Commission approved plans, as amended by the conditions of approval including the revised plans prepared by Grey.Studio, dated March 2008, submitted in association with P07-0129 [Use Permit 07-0129 & Design Review 07-0077]. 3. Prior to the final inspection, any and all dead landscaping and missing plants shall be replaced in kind. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the City's Chief Planner. 4. The project shall be subject to a one-year review from the effective date of the Planning Commission decision. At the time of the review the Planning Commission may modify, add or delete conditions of approval, take other action or extend the review. 5. The 24 hour daily bakery production shall be limited to a maximum of 50 employees and overnight outside storage of 6 panel vans. Any increase in the number of employees, number of parking spaces or any other aspect of the project for which a Use Permit is being sought, shall require a modification of the Use Permit to be first approved by the Planning Commission. 6. Prior to the issuance of any Building Permit, the owner shall provide written documentation that the trash enclosure has been reviewed and approved by a representative of the South San Francisco Scavengers. The plans, including the comments from the South San Francisco Scavengers, shall be subject to the review and approval by the Chief Planner. 7. Prior to operation the owner shall obtain and thereafter maintain a Business License from the City of South San Francisco. 8. Prior to the issuance of the Building Permit for the interior work, the applicant shall provide a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) to alleviate potential parking in the street. The TDM Plan shall be prepared by a qualified traffic engineer acceptable to the city and shall comply with the minimum requirements contained in SSFMC Chapter 20.120 and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City's Chief Planner. (Planning Division: Steve Carlson, Senior Planner, 650/877-8353, Fax 650/829-6639) B. ENGINEERING DIVISION 1. STANDARD CONDITIONS The developer shall comply with the conditions of approval for commercial projects, as detailed in the Engineering Division's "Standard Conditions for Commercial and Industrial Developments", contained in our "Standard Development Conditions" booklet, dated January 1998. This booklet is available at no cost to the applicant from the Engineering Division. 2. SPECIAL CONDITIONS A. The owner shall, at his/her expense, repair any broken sidewalk, curb and gutter fronting the property. B. The owner shall install a City Standard sewer cleanout, so that the building sewer lateral can be properly cleaned. All work shall be accomplished at the applicant's cost. C. Any work performed in the City's right-of--way shall require an encroachment from the Engineering Division. The owner shall apply and pay all fees and deposits for the encroachment permit. (Engineering Division: Sam Bautista, Senior Engineer, 650/829-6652) C. POLICE DEPARTMENT requirements: Municipal Code Compliance The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.48 of the Municipal Code, "Minimum Building Security Standards" Ordinance revised May 1995. The Police Department reserves the right to make additional security and safety conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailed/revised building plans. Building Security 1. Doors a. The jamb on all aluminum frame-swinging doors shall be so constructed or protected to withstand 16001bs. of pressure in both a vertical distance of three (3) inches and a horizontal distance of one (1) inch each side of the strike. b. Glass doors shall be secured with a deadbolt lock' with minimum throw of one (1) inch. The outside ring should be free moving and case hardened. c. Employee/pedestrian doors shall be of solid core wood or hollow sheet metal with a minimum thickness of 1-3/4 inches and shall be secured by a deadbolt lock' with minimum throw of one (1) inch. Locking hardware shall be installed so that both deadbolt and deadlocking latch can be retracted by a single action of the inside knob, handle, or turn piece. d. Outside hinges on all exterior doors shall be provided with non- removablepins when pin-type hinges are used or shall be provided with hinge studs, to prevent removal of the door. e. Doors with glass panels and doors with glass panels adjacent to the doorframe shall be secured with burglary-resistant glazingZ or the equivalent, ifdouble-cylinder deadbolt locks are not installed. f. Doors with panic bars will have vertical rod panic hardware with top and bottom latch bolts. No secondary locks should be installed onpanic-equipped doors, and no exterior surface-mounted hardware should be used. A 2" wide and 6" long steel astragal shall be installed on the door exterior to protect the latch. No surface-mounted exterior hardware need be used on panic- equipped doors. g. On pairs of doors, the active leaf shall be secured with the type of lock required for single doors in this section. The inactive leaf shall be equipped with automatic flush extension bolts protected by hardened material with a minimum throw ofthree-fourths inch at head and foot and shall have no doorknob or surface-mounted 1 The locks shall be so constructed that both the deadbolt and deadlocking latch can be retracted by a single action of the inside door knob/lever/turnpiece. A double-cylinder deadbolt lock or asingle-cylinder deadbolt lock without a turnpiece may be used in "Group B" occupancies as defined by the Uniform Building Code. When used, there must be a readily visible durable sign on or adjacent to the door stating "This door to remain unlocked during business hours", employing letters not less than one inch high on a contrasting background. The locking device must be of type that will be readily distinguishable as locked, and its use may be revoked by the Building Official for due cause. 45/16" security laminate, 1/4" polycarbonate, or approved security film treatment, minimum. hardware. Multiple point locks, cylinder activated from the active leaf and satisfying the requirements, maybe used instead of flush bolts. h. Any single or pair of doors requiring locking at the bottom or top rail shall have locks with a minimum of one throw bolt at both the top and bottom rails. 2. Windows a. Louvered windows shall not be used as they pose a significant security problem. b. Accessible rear and side windows not viewable from the street shall consist of rated burglary resistant glazing or its equivalent. Such windows that are capable of being opened shall be secured on the inside with a locking device capable of withstanding a force of two hundred- (200) lbs. applied in any direction. c. Secondary locking devices are recommended on all accessible windows that open. 3. Roof Openings or: or: a. All glass skylights on the roof of any building shall be provided with: 1) Rated burglary-resistant glass or glass-like acrylic material.Z 2) Iron bars of at least 1/2" round or one by one-fourth inch flat steel material spaced no more than five inches apart under the skylight and securely fastened. 3) A steel grill of at least 1/8" material or two inch mesh under skylight and securely fastened. b. All hatchway openings on the roof of any building shall be secured as follows: 1) If the hatchway is of wooden material, it shall be covered on the outside with at least 16 gauge sheet steel or its equivalent attached with screws. 2) The hatchway shall be secured from the inside with a slide bar or slide bolts. The use of crossbar or padlock must be approved by the Fire Marshal. 3) Outside hinges on all hatchway openings shall be provided with non-removable pins when using pin-type hinges. All air duct or air vent openings exceeding 8" x 12" on the roof or exterior walls of any building shall be secured by covering the same with either of the following: or: 1) Iron bars of at least 1/2" round or one by one-fourth inch flat steel material, spaced no more than five inches apart and securely fastened. 2) A steel grill of at least 1/8" material or two inch mesh and securely fastened and 3) If the barrier is on the outside, it shall be secured with galvanized rounded head flush bolts of at least 3/8" diameter on the outside. 4. Lighting a. All exterior doors shall be provided with their own light source and shall be adequately illuminated at all hours to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises and provide adequate illumination for persons exiting the building. b. The premises, while closed for business after dark, must be sufficiently lighted by use of interior night-lights. c. Exterior door, perimeter, parking area, and canopy lights shall be controlled by photocell and shall be left on during hours of darkness or diminished lighting. 5. Numbering of Buildings a. The address number of every commercial building shall be illuminated during the hours of darkness so that it shall be easily visible from the street. The numerals in these numbers shall be no less than four to six inches in height and of a color contrasting with the background. b. In addition, any business, which affords vehicular access to the rear through any driveway, alleyway, or parking lot, shall also display the same numbers on the rear of the building. 6. Alarms a. The business shall be equipped with at least a central station silent intrusion alarm system. NOTE: To avoid delays in occupancy, alarm installation steps should be taken well in advance of the final inspection. 7. Traffic, Parking, and Site Plan a. Handicapped parking spaces shall be clearly marked and properly sign posted. b. Off-Street Parking Required: All vehicles associated with this business must be parked on the premises. No vehicles maybe parked or stored on the public street. NOTE: For additional details, contact the Traffic Bureau Sergeant at 650/829-934. Misc. Security Measures Commercial establishments having one hundred dollars or more in cash on the premises after closing hours shall lock such money in approved type money safe with a minimum rating of TL-15. (Police Department: Sergeant Jon Kallas 650/877-8927) D. FIRE DEPARTMENT Install fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13/SSFFD requirements under separate fire plan check and permit for overhead and underground. 2. Fire sprinkler system shall be central station monitored per California Fire Code section 1003.3. 3. Install exterior listed horn/strobe alarm device. 4. All buildings shall provide premise identification in accordance with SSF municipal code section 15.24.100. 5. Provide Knox key box for each building with access keys to entry doors, electrical/mechanical rooms, elevators, and others to be determined. 6. The South San Francisco Fire Department is presently considering initiating a study of its offensive capabilities at the scene of hazardous materials emergencies. If it determines that a study is necessary, the study may conclude that the Department should supplement its training, staffing, equipment or some combination thereof, and may identify potential funding sources. Those potential funding sources may require a financial contribution from property and business owners benefiting from the Department's additional capabilities. 7. Project must meet all applicable Local (SSF Municipal Code, Chapter 15.24 Fire Code), State and Federal Codes (Fire Department: Tom Carney, Fire Marshal, 650/829-6645) E. WATER QUALITY A plan showing the location of all storm drains and sanitary sewers must be submitted. 2. The onsite catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Logo. Existing catch basins are to be retrofitted with catch basin inserts or equivalent. These devices must be shown on the plans prior to the issuance of a permit. 4. The owner must submit a signed maintenance schedule for the stormwater pollution prevention devices installed. This must be submitted prior to the issuance of a permit. 5. The applicant must install a grease removal device. The grease removal device must be connected to all wash sinks, mop sinks, and floor sinks and must be upstream of the domestic waste stream. Sizing of the interceptor must be in accordance with the uniform plumbing code. This must be shown on the plans prior to the issuance of a permit. 6. A signed maintenance agreement for the grease interceptor must be submitted prior to the issuance of a permit. 7. Install a separate process line for sample monitoring before mixing with domestic waste in sanitary sewer. This must be shown on plans prior to the issuance of a permit. 8. Trash handling area must be shown on plans and must be covered, enclosed and must drain to sanitary sewer. This drain must be connected to a grease removal device prior to discharge into the sanitary sewer. This must be shown on the plans prior to issuance of a permit. 9. Loading dock area should be designed with an over hang and any drain must be connected to the sanitary sewer system. This must be shown on plans prior to issuance of a permit. 10. Fire sprinkler system test/drainage valve should be plumbed into the sanitary sewer system. This must be shown on the plans prior to issuance of a permit. 11. Roof condensate must be routed to sanitary sewer. This must be shown on plans prior to issuance of a permit. 12. Applicant maybe required to pay an additional sewer connection fee at a later time based on anticipated flow, BOD and TSS calculations. Please submit total number of existing fixture units and total number of fixture units after improvement. This must be submitted prior to the issuance of a permit. 13. Applicant will be required to obtain a food facility permit. Contact Craig Lustenberger at Water Quality Control (650) 829-3882 prior to the beginning of operation. (Water Quality Division: Cassie Prudhel, Coordinator, 650/829-3840) i"~. _ `\ ~1 \..,, it _ 1 \, ~\^ ~ ~ ~a~~ati~~~j~ ...___ (" Jan ~ranecsco c..~}~, Bay Bread has been in business since 1996. It started as a wholesale bakery selling artisan breads to restaurants and hotels in the Bay Area. We later added grocery chains (ie.Trader Joe's, Whole Foods) to our list of customers and grew our wholesale business to over $ l Omillion. In 1998 we opened our first retail bakery in San Francisco. We now have 8 cafe bakeries in the Bay Area and plan to open several more in the years to come. Our steady growth in the recent years is pushing us to move into a bigger production facility, hence our need for the building located at 320B Shaw Road. We will bake everyday and probably 3 shifts per day. Our staff at any given time should not exceed 40-50 employees. We use 6 vans to deliver to our local customers and to our own stores. They leave early in the morning at about 5.30am and come back around mid day. Trader Joe's uses its own trucks to come and pick up once a day. We will have a 14 yard debri box for our trash that will be picked up everyday. We are also looking into the possibilities of recycling and composting with South San Francisco Scavanger. We anticipate that we will need ~ 500 gallon grease interceptor that would be cleaned by professionals once a month. Statement from tenant -Planning application 320B Shaw Rd. 02 SITE PHOTO- NORTH ELEVATION N.T.S. ____ .~ _= ~ ~e~~ "~ - ~.:*, i T O I SITE PHOTO- EAST ELEVATION N.T.S. SITE PHOTO KEY h', ii O~ 3 stud ~ 0 g rey description: EXISTING SITE PHOTOS . 101 South Park, San Francisco, Ca. 94107 P 1 s~a~e: N T s . v' 510.868.1817 f: 510.868.1818 pl'OJeCt: 3208 SHAW -BAY BREAD ddt2: 05.01.0 ~2 SITE PHOTO- WEST ELEVATION- N.T.S. ... p j ,.: _ ~ . - _. ~. . ~ ,.r _ i ~ _ O I SITE PHOTO- WEST ELEVATION-2 N.T.S. SITE PHOTO KEY ,, - ,~ grey.studio deSCflptlOfl: EXISTING SITE PHOTOS 107 South Park, San Francisco, Ca. 94107 ~:sto.86s.ist7 scale: N.T.S. P• f: 510.868.1818 project: 3208 SHAW -BAY BREAD ddte: 05.01.08 r Y~ ~! \ ~~. ~~ s- .>pX'f ~ a ~. ~tRti I~ f ~Y. {f+ k ~.y.y$~~ . 1y } .~ ~ ~ e ,' Y _ »~ ~ A f~ ,'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~r r= O I SITE PHOTO- EAST ELEVATION N.T.S. SITE PHOTO KEY ;,, grey.studio de5C1"IptlOfl: EXISTING SITE PHOTOS 101 South Park, San Francisco, Ca. 94107 ~ ~• SCd~e: N.T.S. v: S 10.868.1817 f: 510.868.1818 ' 1% itAl' BREAD ddt2: 05.01.08 z ~_ Z 3 D 0 ' W m m , ~ I Z ii iz~ 1 ~ 1 ~ IrY: I ~ i, ~ ~ ~ } ~ ~ , ~, _: j,'~- ~ ,I ~~ << I lG: ~" ( ~ - - a ~~ ~, Fyn ~r 5 °o~~a oD~ :7 n F f m n z ~~ ~~t . OaKr p m3 1. m O~y ~, omm on ~ ~? ~np ,I ~~ ;~ m° _ ~~ i~ I I L f, nm ~m Z m Z O x c z L7 m O p ;~ Z 2 < r~ Z° ?m Sp y~m s r ~c _- -zc~ AS ^y" C z Z ~ O n Z ~c D `N~ m r , A~ tiv 0 Z n ~~ ~ 00 -- o °oo ~i ~~ ^ 0o ao '~ ~O mn ~ mn QN ON m 00 ooc y cc ccm °n n° °n°n~ nn nn° - -tea y x ~ p Iw x >`~ Z "LZ1 '.t.. `~ _® hD n, ~ 5 r ,~_ ,1 NA o. - ~~ ~ , ,. a , - ~--- ~- ,_ _ ~ / ~~~~ ~~~ j ~ _ - Nz > ~ ~ o y ~ m £ m ~ m '" z o.<f..~~------.. ..-- _ i ___. _____ o o f n~ m N D N _ z y ti ~ ~ m Z Z - 'O O ~Y> 2 a m ~ - o = ~i^O Z D r 3 r ~3p ~^m ZzN ~ O D D z z z >no ~Ox oyy xD~ ~pC 3zo ,m„ ~ czi °oon zoo yam ~~n or vn' na oz z `" o ii ~c ,p o ~z me O N Z ? ~ O ~ ,n bz- ~= o ,^,oD o o- ~-FV ~ O~~ x ~i0 ~ ?m 3 Fv~ z _ c oAmN .~m,a_ ao d no c 05 f z N Z= 3 rT Tim' z n pz x~ n Oo0 <O y ,., O > r ~ OS'D ~Z ~ D pnx V~ Z DMZ DO n 0 A n0 y v v ~ O -I v Z~ n O O o f 2 O p o a o 0 z ~ F o i y _ m vO~A aOa 9~~ xaZ a_Ay i am W SOS uZ2x `^Lni nF N NZvmiOj 2f ~no~ ,^-j9n o rooa ~~ o Ao Nox m uox~ r a~,-n Pom v a o~+ _m zK ~ oaN - ~^ o a a ~ N > N F q nz~m ~ z o n ° ~ fl o p < z o n x Iv ~ c o~ mo m ~o nz ~ i - nna oo n D ^ F ~ "+ - O ~ Zn o, Zm°n Om000000 m`~naav i m p r ~ pv, a`^ o~ !^3pZ "' ^ ZZ ~ zzz _ mAnnnn~aa zm~~a~3c m n ~o i ~ a =- z~ a z z z F ,.,,., n ~ ,., - c?mpomxo z Nr^y' o z n oi ononazz~ a ir. o~^o _ 3 ~ m 3z o y z oma z ~ooo^o - Wo _ o - ~.,oc ~o~mo, 8 n tio"' z o m ~ o n °F `ono A,m„z ~~ o g m$ °om ^om o0o g o °om F £ m xo m oi,.~ z o0 o o Ox ci o~ - nnz Fna ~ o n zz v o oz n 9zq z c,,^n t m3 yv o F 3 x o rr O 0 O O Z T O D O Z z ~ ~ - yzn Tm o ~ z n "z A ~ m AAP ~: m zy >~ ooi mm ~ i r--__t,._, o i . x¢45. _\ ~ ~.., ~ , I~ i ~: -~ o~~~~~~ ,oo o , ~. ~I \ ~~ ~, I ~ ~ ill i ,~ ~ I, I 1 / ' ~~ Z I ~ \ ~ I p ~. W ~- f` I ~ \ _~~ _~ F \ \ z ox ~ ~ A n ~ ~~~~ ~ D a v Z ~ 2 ~/ 1 ~ C7 / rs ~\ `\ m m~ % ~ ~ .. ~~~ ~ n •~ m - ~ ~i / ,gym- i I o I >° I ~`! ti ~~;- ~. ~ ~ I I 3 _, J- e~ ~ < ~ ~ ~.~' ' ~- -' _ _ ~' i~'~- op~AoNw n o z~W oozo~ g o'^n z ~ ° f= o f o~m ~ 3 m u ......,, v W° ~~ nn~> ~ o~ D`Annm naz Nor= oaf a~ ~ o m~ ~ X D~ F ~ D ~ ~' ~ z ~a z ~ a ~' s - - 0 ~ O ' , 0 n I i z n `^ o ~ v ~ p °pn, ~ ~ v p ~ o I I I i z n 3 = O~ Z N Z ~~3~R: 3= _ ;F~i o~ ~ = 3 a ~ Q' w ~ ~ ~ i ~ "~ D _ 2 ~ 3 j ~ II , I S n 6e ~ i i m I N ~ ~ ~`~ _ - ~ mn ~ mk O a~B~a 4'~S a~~ ~s"~~~V ~~ °~_9 '~~~~Rkk ~~~s~~ ~Q3z $~~ ?~~ ~~~ s~~ s~ ~~ ~N°~ smw ~~~~p ~RS~ ~~ ~a g $~ ~a~ a ~§g a ~H a ~ ;~ r ~ma~ ~~ ~~ 3;§~ m~ ° ~~ Am ~ eoa~s~~ ~~~i~ ~~ a ° ~3 ~s$m ~R ~~x ~~ S8~ ~ ~'~ ~ s aR~ " ~ ~ ~ - s .s ;~a~a3s ~a-~ q° ~3~ ~'~~°s, R a a$ gY~-da-A $dve'R ~~~v i2 k3Y~~ ~ - - ~ ;a~ ~~° e~ ~~ ~e~ 33 as a$~0a x~~a ~a ~_" s $ 30o a 3# ~ ~ w$' ~. ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ x'~ g~ R ao~°S%a ~s's~ ~~ ~~~ §~Ga~=~ 3sa 4~~ u;~p~m~W :~A3 vet=~ 3:g a$d~v a~ ~Ro~ i=R ~~v ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~3 '~ a~°~§ ~,as va - $ a^ g"a s' ~~ - ~~E ~ x~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a~~a 3n € Z my ff"8 °saR m" ~$ Av' ~~4 d i k'~s °&a a R R~ - 5ka 3 oa .§° ""8 R E a "° " a Ll s-A"a 5 ~~a° e~ _~ e; e~ ~'m %~% ~$mR~' a ~;a~ ~a-- og anq ~v ae-~~ 9~a 4R° ~~ a~ a?e~ €~ ~~ sxa~a ~~~ ka a~~ ~ "x vat ~ R a ~~ a~' ,s - € € ~ ~ ~aaA~ a@ m _ "a~~a R ~ a °=3" 3a -~~~ - _ - m~a~ ~ n~ B; "P a ~ ~4d g ~a~ 3° ~ ~ `s v~ 3 B ~ q a~^A~ s~ 's~ m a R ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ '~ a~ Q ~~°'>~`3=;~% _~ ~, 2A= '~a~ ~? ~~ ~Q €~a s ~ msa~ gs ~`o - _ H _ 's„ a m ~ a Z ~s~=8x§ °~4~ -9' apx~~g °$ °'k= ~.% C =s&s R"^- "q - ~ ~ SRZ° "$ ap Y s~ ~ °~- a8- ~ ~ S ~~ >°" " 8 a 3 $° ',a°~ 3 a = °~"-, _ m $d~~° ~x~ ~5 s~Q - ~z :$~ ~ q°~ q~~' "s~q- m ~s ~n~" x~ gg~=a ~aK ~ ~ ~a ~o ~~~~ ~ ~~" ~md~ 'R a4 os~ ~ ~~ d ~ ~ a $ ~ - - ~_ °~; ~.~ ~~~s °qc ~~~V~~ ~~ 3. ~$" z~a~rg=~o'~aa m~ e'a~ yy~ $9R~ __- ~$s ~ R ~~ ~'~ ~ ~ >~"° `a &g $-a - $8 R~ 3 ~ S a ~ ~ ~ _ _ e:SA_~ %~, °'o," a^mm R ~ ., ""=_5~=i~ ~'~~ ~ `° "R a,- a ~m €~a~ 8° °°" R ° " ~ 8` II ~ " ~'g - ~ - b ° D ~`8~z s slx sS vR°" ~>~~_y's; - E ~ a% ~sa a.,> ~ ~ -~a as 9 $^_~> ~ ~~ A~- a ~° % a ~, ~ _ .s s a=o ~: r'" ~_a3:.9~ ~g°s ~ a a v`~Rg" gxa ~9<m$° -~nr~ _~ as-~ ~a ~-x "~~ €~„. ~ R~.g' ~ ~.3aa° ~°~~ as ~~ s % ff ~ ~ g esp z ~ s a ~ R<~` §~ AR~v sy",$~ 3 ire 4 ~ $s k% &"R -3~ - ~^ € zN ~ ;~m~ kR Res °R e ~ S $R g" e" ~ oR a _ ~ ~= g ~ a3 ~ s ~ ~ F s z~~ Z - - 9 € °S r % ~a° a q k ~ or ~~ - 3g g.°= 6 ~ 8 a. $e -m Sav °~ 'a; a 8 a°~ ssg _ €_ ~_ ~~ Q~x c~ as an ~s~ 'a ~ z~~ gm~°~ 'has _aS a ~~ a d Qs< _ a~>v¢ a O 2'~°s: `JAR 2 - ~R.d ~R $' s.~ ~d R~=k~~° - x 8 = Fu8° `8u E~ ~%~ "~ 9. o ~R Q~ 89 ~ C ~ ° R ~a; .d3 '~ ~ 5 a3 N Y o` ` ~$$qi a~ cn "~~a°aa ~~~~ ~ pa ~s~~~~. ~~ ~s a~.~,Ram ~ ~ g ~ 9.~sa ~~ ~8a 4~~. a~ ~ s ~g~~ ~R ~a R '-n~ §€~ xR °-~~ ~ ~s ~ $ 3 ~ " ~~~. $ ~ a a a x~aa~ ~~ a"~~az ~mm ° 36 a mbZ ~$ ~3Ro~'g R_ 3 d gz nx °3 $a. ~~ €8 §~ $z3 ~~~ °R v s :. a m ~ a s E s s ~ ~x=a. a s e° ~ ~ k~~ 3~ ~g ~N-w'so~ ~ s$"~ >~ a€~ Raz ~q ~ 0 3 z~ ~s g ~%~_~ 5~@ ~ ~$ m ~ ~ a r ~s ~ §°Q~° 3a $ 53~ a•~,o'p 2a"s,~ z ~~ ~` ~ 3 y a. 4 $ - R' 4 R~m a" °~n°a.an ~ &_~_ ~R~dP ~°~ 3~ " 9q~"~ 7 ~'~aa s$ s ~. $.kg 2~ ~ ~ R l~ asg ~g~3 S"~ s_ i $R a g ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~° s aR se a~ ~ ~ ~ €~~ ~ ~ -; ~ m % 3" s sa a~s~ x~_ a ~~ e ~ a e ~ooas~ ~Qa fl ~° ~$~~~~ °~ ~9 g8a~~~~ € s~_~ ~$ ~~~ ig ~~ ~ ~ ~~P ~ ~~ ~~~ $Ro o as ~ ~8 ~ ~ ~ $ a; ~ " 4~~$ s - N °I ~ o a, ,,, o, Z a o z ,D o n I ,._o„ 5 _a„ O I c I (1 I n O I I (n ~ 9 m m m n I I m o I ~-nnm ~ Z I OnT y9OZ ~ n ~~m I $ n ~ ----- ? A A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o m i 9 c 0 z O D Z C O I --.-~- L. _ `~-` \- O = D ~ O D Z Z - ~ZZ9 ~ F ~ y 1 z Z Z ~~ GZ1 LZi y~ ~ Z D z GZ1 n n Z s P o p m A 2 v O ~ Z F ` m x n° m A z a p r a ~ O O~~~ n~; ^+ D D '~ 'n X o A Z z $ ~~~ Lt D 3 ~ y m O A n 3 y ~ 3 Z 3 ~ ~ r 0 r H Z s y~ y Z O mN n O 2 ~ 2 3 3 ~ m 3 n ~ ? ., n m m F 2 oZ ~ m .~ ~ y O r ~ DO Z 3 ~ On m _ _ --.--- r/ -._. _._ _ - - _ -.--- -.-.-.-.- -.- - - -.- N \ -_ [ J -_ 2 o a m~^ z ~o 0 `- y ~ O 0 3 2 m m° D Z _ sP~ 3~ ~ ti ~ ma ~°~'n n ~ °p v 2 J~~ m D D m ~ p y z3 0 .~., =Z -- ~ _ V I ~ - D ~~ ~rl - , -' r s+ ~ ~_ y 3 ~ Z - O ~ O ~ I 3 i ~ D Z Z ` l.~q ~ ~. Ci D Z 1 -~,_.~ ^ .: .. ,~ ~7 _ o ~ ~ ,~ ~` =- I ~ `vl ~ C./~- O Ds I ', I "a? ~ - '. ~ n -\ ~~ ~~ ~ 2~ I I I I a~ .y / ~ ~ i~ `I_ - y L - -- - -- --Ij ~G T ~ ° -~- i ~- -- - i - . - ~-~ -_ . ox 2 0 D Lni ~ a. mZ L -_.._ ° R II ~_ Z a X _ -~ v~, ` ~.~ D _ _ I ._ _ _ ]~ ~~G° ~ ~ V T _ ~ .. ~ Dy v„CI P.m n n m ~m ~ op O pn p n D Fzs°n iZ `op~o~ N~ °~ nn om~o ~ °> ~' om~ _ y o O?~ ~snmos ~ o m~n -mzy:o n A ZO Szfn~w n~ nm~ ~ mo p a q ~ - ~ ~ a O ~ ~ " I o v, O v Q o K°~c - _ ~ 2v ~cze g ~° 3'"s"s a 2 ~ 3 p ~ O~ ~ Z ~ N ~ w ~ ~.E Osoa s3 '~R R v ~ S a o ~ ~ , ~ _ _ q3 . : l Z N O > a i T A ? I ~ _ o Z r~o ? D Z G) a r~ N 3 N H O q ~ D _ T ~ T n ~ s ~ I p ~ n mm °. D ~ ~ z ~ 3 o ~ O a v >< r ~OH v ~ D K yPv o <~, O O ~ O m o a O -D Z n r m Z D Gl O Z o 0 A" m O D C 2 O m D D k y Z - O m D f 3 0 m J D f -- ~ / N Z n r - -- C m m 1- o " o o: b m Z ifi ~ A ~ x ~ IL ~ n n ~ _ ~ ~ ' iv - ~ I ~Q=cyF ~ 0 ~ V ~ ~ O n g '^ N ~ N Z J.~#~=. ~ l ~ Q enQ.~ l o N W N s~:an " Z ~ ~ O 3 «~ 2n i mm D_ n O D m c f ~O a ZO d a 0 ~ n~ S an m N ~ o~ ~ ~3 02 0 Z Zp ~ a ap ~~ s om ~ O ~~ F m' 3a yp a Z Z$!Zi O mn nn 3m _ O}° OZ 3_ Om iP ~O y D g0 nm? Ow ^JW Om ~ O _\\\_ _ _ \ \\l\\\\\\\\ ~_ \\C~~ ;~\ \\\\\; S\~\`\\~ 29'-10' 13'-0" " D ~~ z_ "_ ~~ Z O .. n o C a Z ~".. Z n .~sk ~. ~'r, ~ ~ ~ .. `~ ~ ~ ~4 ~ I ~ I ~ ' D I i 1 '\X m ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ I ~ i ~N 0 I~ ~ =. __ -~ -. ~-:- i ~ ~ ___ . ~I j, i __ - Z ' Q A '{~ ~_- ~ _ t + Y 4 Z + ~ __ T ~ _ - { "ISM 1 ,, --_'_'___-__ -. ; 5 O .'^' .n' u ~ 'b 0"O.C ~ ~~ n n F 3 p F r r 19-0" ~I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ , j II i ~ ~ i I ~ ' {. N O 1 I I ' I m _ I ~ I A a ~ l ' D ~ i ~ m A ~ ~ ~ I I ` W ,~ I I ~ ~ I `a ~ p 3 0 ~Z O "O.Z.Zo m0y a TAD 03n cZ m ZZ ~O On pO 0_ O^`Z ~mGl DD ~Drm2 Z nZ m~„Z,Z Nm pZ ZK~ Zn ~0 ~~„~FOGI o '~" m om o0 o maz rs S n 3uD n: y° O ~' f? o o az Z O ~ Z tZl "O D 3F ~ ~ son Zy O " m 0 3 ~~ O O N y p 3 O r0 y yfsi n HS _ ~ f x ~ a^ O Z_ D Z m ~_ Z {~ v~'. v i = _m ~ n y .., ......: z ,. 0 n i z it O VLf n O z 0 ,~, ~tt ~ n ° i n ,z ;z _. ~ \ w... `. -x ~ I i ~s .. n z eµ >a ti _ t_ ` D m O, a„ yom n~ r 3 23 :,np a. im z0 Z zz xm Z II.10 n ni T Z m z -o Z o Z y Z n a 3 i ~ ;~ P 3 ,r ~'' F#- ~_,, O 'S~u' C ti. °T-a m 2 " s nFmn n0 x _p x z S_! 3 r n n F ~D m V a ON a D r ~ Do Z „n DZ vZ O O GG[-F nG PI III nIN(: ~zxs Planning Commission ~o ,.,,.,;~.~,~ 0 o Staff Report c'~tIF0R~1~ DATE: June 5, 2008 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: ONE YEAR REVIEW OF: Use Permit and Design Review allowing a food production and a limousine service, with landscape upgrades and open at-grade parking accommodating up to 23 parking spaces, generating in excess of 100 average daily vehicle trips and 24 hour operation, situated at 1369 and 1373 Lowrie Avenue (APN 015-115-430) in the Industrial (M-1) Zone District, in accordance with SSFMC Chapters: 20.81 and 20.85. Owner: Nancy J. Scott Applicant: Kathleen Keppinger Case No.: POS-0126 (UPOS-0026 & DROS-0071) RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission conduct the review and find that the businesses are operating in compliance with the conditions of approval. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission approved the conversion of an existing industrial building into amulti-tenant building comprised of a wholesale bakery and a limousine facility at their meeting of September 15, 2005. The Commissioners noted that while the parking complied with the Zoning Ordinance minimum requirements (SSFMC Chapter 20.74), they were concerned with the potential for parking spillovers onto the street and added a condition of approval requiring aone-year review. The building has been occupied by both businesses for a few months. City staff has conducted a few random site visits and has not observed any on-street parking by either business. No complaints have been received from adjacent businesses. S ve Carls n, enior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Conditions of Approval Planning Commission September 15, 2005 Staff Report Plans Photographs - 2005 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL POS-0126 City Baking Company 1369-1373 Lowrie Ave (As approved by the Planning Commission on September 21, 2005) A. PLANNING DIVISION I. STANDARD CONDITIONS The owner shall comply with the applicable requirements of the Planning Division's "Standard Conditions and Limitations for Commercial, Industrial, and Multi-Family Residential Projects" dated February 1999. II. SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. The area shown on the plans prepared by Nilmeyer and Nilmeyer, dated August 5, 2005 and approved by the Planning Commission as part of POS-0126, as amended by the conditions of approval. No outside storage shall be allowed without prior approval by the Planning Commission. 2. The applicant shall install the landscaping in accordance with the plans prepared by Nilmeyer and Nilmeyer, dated August 5, 2005, approved by the Planning Commission as part of POS-0126. The final landscape plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the City's Chief Planner. 3. Prior to the issuance of any permit the applicant shall pay to the City of South San Francisco the Cultural Arts Fund contribution allowing a landscape reduction, allowed by SSFMC Chapter 20.97, is estimated to amount to $6,429.68 (898 square feet landscape reduction area x $7.16/square foot = $6,429.68). (This is subject to a September cost of living adjustment based on the consumer price index)]. 4. The project shall be subject to a one year review from the effective date of the approval by the Planning Commission. At the time of review the Planning Commission may modify, rescind or add conditions of approval. 5. The owner shall not direct employees or customers to park in the public right-of--way. (Planning Division: Steve Carlson, PA: 650/877-8535) B. ENGINEERING DIVISION I. STANDARD CONDITIONS A. The developer shall comply with the applicable conditions of approval for commercial projects, as detailed in the Engineering Division's "Standard Conditions for Commercial and Industrial Developments", contained in our "Standard Conditions of Approval Page 2 of 7 Development Conditions" booklet, dated January 1998. This booklet is available at no cost to the applicant from the Engineering Division. B. The applicant shall obtain an encraachment permit for all work to be performed in the .City right-of--way. All frontage and utility improvements, including sewer, gas & electric connections, shall be constructed by the applicant's contractor, in accordance with plans approved by the Engineering Division staff, at no cost to the City of South San Francisco, if applicable. II. SPECIAL CONDITIONS A. Upon completion of the. building alterations and site improvements, the applicant shall clean, repair or reconstruct, the existing curb, gutter and driveway approaches, along the entire frontage of the subject parcel, as may be required by the City's Engineering Inspector, to conform to current City public improvement safety and drainage standards, prior to receiving a "final", or occupancy permit, for the subject project. B. The work shall be constructed to City Standazds and pursuant to a secured encroachment permit obtained prior to receiving a building permit for the subject project. The cost of all work and permits to mitigate the infrastructure impacts of the subject project shall be borne by the applicant and shall be performed at no cost to the City of South San Francisco. III. ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS A. New storm water. pollution control devices and filters shall be installed within the existing and new site drainage facilities located within the areas subject to travel by the guests, as required to prevent pollutants deposited on the impervious surfaces within the site from entering the public storm drains. Plans for these facilities shall be prepazed by the applicant's consultant and submitted to the Engineering Division and to the City's Environmental Compliance Coordinator, for review and approval. B. Per the Engineering Division's "Standard Conditions for Commercial and Industrial Developments", contained in our "Standard Development Conditions" booklet, dated January 1998, interior isle driveways and driveway approaches shall be a minimum of 15' (fifteen feet) in width for one-way traffic. C. All 90° angle parking stalls shall have a minimum length of 18' and a width of 8'6", pazking stalls without overhangs shall have wheel stops. D. The site line along the frontage of Lowrie Avenue should be reviewed by a Traffic Engineer to show proper sight distance at both egress and ingress driveways. (Engineering Division: Michelle Bocalan 650/829-6652) C. POLICE DEPARTMENT Conditions of Approval Page 3 of 7 I. Municipal Code Compliance The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.48 of the Municipal Code, "Minimum Building Security Standards" Ordinance revised May 1995. The Police Department reserves the right to make additional security and safety conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailed/revised building plans. II. Building Security Doors a. The jamb on all aluminum frame-swinging doors shall be so constructed or protected to withstand 1600 lbs. of pressure in both a vertical distance of three (3) inches and a horizontal distance of one (1) inch each side of the strike. b. Glass doors shall be secured with a deadbolt locks with minimum throw of one (1) inch. The outside: ring should be free moving and case hardened. Employee/pedestrian doors shall be of solid core wood or hollow sheet metal with a minimum thickness of 1-3/4 inches and shall be secured by a deadbolt locks with minimum throw of one (1) inch. Locking hardware shall be installed so that both deadbolt and deadlocking latch can be retracted by a single action of the inside knob, handle, or turn piece. d. Outside hinges on all exterior doors shall be provided with non-removable pins when pin-type hinges are used or shall be provided with hinge studs, to prevent removal of the door. e. Doors with glass panels and doors with glass panels adjacent to the doorframe shall be secured with burglary-resistant glazing2 or the equivalent, if double- cylinder deadbolt locks are not installed. f. Doors with panic bars will have vertical rod panic hardware with top and bottom latch bolts. No secondary locks should be installed onpanic-equipped doors, and no exterior surface-mounted hardware should be used. A 2" wide and 6" long steel astragal shall be installed on the door exterior to protect the latch. No surface-mounted exterior hardware need be used onpanic-equipped doors. 1 The locks shall be so constructed that both the deadbolt and deadlocking latch can be retracted by a single action of the inside door knob/lever/turnpiece. A double-cylinder deadbolt lock or asingle-cylinder deadbolt lock without a turnpiece may be used in "Group B" occupancies as defined by the Uniform Building Code. When used, there must be a readily visible durable sign on or adjacent to the door stating "This door to remain unlocked during business hours", employing letters not less than one inch high on a contrasting background. The locking device must be of type that will be readily distinguishable as locked, and its use maybe revoked by the Building Off cial for due cause. 25/16" security laminate, U4" polycarbonate, or approved security film treatment, minimum, Conditions of Approval Page 4 of 7 g. On pairs of doors, the active leaf shall be secured with the type of lock required for single doors in this section. The inactive leaf shall be equipped with automatic flush extension bolts protected by hardened material with a minimum throw of three-fourkhs inch at head and foot and shall have no doorknob or surface- mounted hardware. Multiple point locks, cylinder activated from the active leaf and satisfying the requirements, may be used instead of flush bolts. h. Any single or pair of doors requiring locking at the bottom or top rail shall have locks with a minimum of one throw bolt at both the top and bottom rails. 2. Windows a. Louvered windows shall not be used as they pose a significant security problem. b. Accessible rear and side windows not viewable from the street shall consist of rated burglary resistant glazing or its equivalent. Such windows that are capable of being opened shall be secured on the inside with a locking device capable of withstanding a force of two hundred- (200) lbs. applied in any direction. c. Secondary locking devices are recommended on all accessible windows that open. 3. Roof Openings a. All glass skylights on the roof of any building shall be provided with: 1) Rated burglary-resistant glass or glass-like acrylic material.2 or: 2) Iron bars of at least U2" round or one by one-fourth inch flat steel material spaced no more than five inches apart under the skylight and securely fastened. or: 3) A steel grill of at least U8" material or two inch mesh under skylight and securely fastened. b. All hatchway openings on the roof of any building shall be secured as follows: 1) If the hatchway is of wooden material, it shall be covered on the outside with at least 16 gauge sheet steel or its equivalent attached with screws. 2) The hatchway shall be secured from the inside with a slide bar or slide bolts. The use of crossbar or padlock must be approved by the Fire Marshal. 3) Outside hinges on all hatchway openings shall be provided with non- removable pins when using pin-type hinges. Conditions of Approval Page 5 of 7 c. All air duct or air vent openings exceeding 8" x 12" on the roof or exterior walls of any building shall be secured by covering the same with either of the following: 1) Iron bars of at least U2" round or one by one-fourth inch flat steel material, spaced no more than five inches apart and securely fastened. or: 2) A steel grill of at least U8" material or two inch mesh and securely fastened and 3) If the barrier is on the outside, it shall be secured with galvanized rounded head flush bolts of at least 3/8" diameter on the outside. 4. Lighting a. All exterior doors shall be provided with their own light source and shall be adequately illuminated at all hours to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises and provide adequate illumination for persons exiting the building. b. The premises, while closed for business after dark, must be sufficiently lighted by use of interior night-lights. c. Exterior door, perimeter, parking area, and canopy lights shall be controlled by photocell and shall be left on during hours of darkness or diminished lighting. 5. Numbering of Buildings a. The address number of every commercial building shall be illuminated during the hours of darkness so that it shall be easily visible from the street. The numerals in these numbers shall be no less than four to six inches in height and of a color contrasting with the background. b. In addition, any business, which affords vehicular access to the rear through any driveway, alleyway, or parking lot, shall also display the same numbers on the rear of the building. 6. Alarms a. The business shall be equipped with at least a central station silent intrusion alarm system. NOTE: To avoid delays in occupancy, alarm installation steps should be taken well in advance of the final inspection. 7. Traffic, Parking, and Site Plan Conditions of Approval Page 6 of 7 a. Handicapped parking spaces shall be clearly marked and properly sign posted. NOTE:For additional details, contact the Traffic Bureau at 829-3934. 8. Off-Street Parking Required The applicant may NOT utilize the public street for the parking of any vehicles. The parking of commercial or employee vehicles in the public street may result in the immediate revocation of the Use Permit and Business License. 9. Landscaping The use of defensible plants is encouraged. All shrubbery shall be trimmed to a height of no more than three feet to maximize natural surveillance. All trees surrounding the property shall be trimmed up to a height of no less than 8 feet to preclude unauthorized climbing and access to floors above the ground level, as well as the roof. 10. Misc. Security Measures a. Commercial establishments having one hundred dollars or more in cash on the premises after closing hours shall lock such money in an approved type money safe with a minimum rating of TL-15. (Police Department: Sgt.-Alan Normandy 650/877-8927} E. FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. Submit fire sprinkler plans for alterations under separate fire plan check and permit. 2. Fire sprinkler system shall be central station monitored per California Fire Code section 1003.3. 3. All buildings shall provide premise identification in accordance with SSF municipal code section 15.24.100. 4. Provide Knox key box for each building with access keys to entry doors, electricaUmechanical rooms, elevators, and others to be determined. 5. Provide exit signs. 6. Other requirements maybe imposed based on project evolution. (Fire Marshall: Bryan Niswonger 650/829-6645} Conditions of Approval Page 7 of 7 D. WATER QUALITY DIVISION 1. Show location of the trash handling area. It must be covered, enclosed and any run-on must drain to the sanitary sewer. This must be shown on the plans prior to issuance of a permit. 2. Fire sprinkler system test/drainage valve must be plumbed into the sanitary sewer system. This must be shown on the plans prior to issuance of a permit. 3. Grease interceptors of the appropriate capacity must be installed. 4. Maintenance agreements must be submitted to the office of Environmental Compliance. 5. Install a separate process line for sample monitoring before mixing with domestic waste in sanitary sewer and downstream of the grease interceptor. This must be shown on plans prior to the issuance of a permit. 6. Install separate water meters for the building and landscape. 7. Applicant maybe required to pay an additional sewer connection fee at a later time based on the number of fixture units. Please provide the current number of fixture units and the proposed number of fixture units to Cassie Prudhel. 8. Applicant will be required to obtain a food facility permit. Contact Craig Lustenberger at Water Quality Control (650) 829-3882 prior to the bea nning of operation. (Water Quality: Cassie Prudhel 650/829-3840) ~o~~x,s~~ Planning Commission o - ~. o Staff Report c9LIFOR~~~ DATE: September 1 S, 2005 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: 1. Use Permit allowing a food production and a limousine service, with landscape upgrades and open at-grade parking accommodating up to 23 parking spaces, generating in excess of 100 average daily vehicle trips and 24 hour operation. 2. Cultural Arts Contribution allowing the development to provide 3,375 square feet of landscaping instead of meeting the City's minimum 10% landscape requirement of 4,273 square feet. 3. Design Review of exterior building improvements, landscape upgrades and open at-grade parking accommodating up to 23 parking spaces. Project Location: 0.98 acre site situated at Lowrie Avenue (APN 015- 115-430) in the Industrial (M-1) Zone District. SSFMC Chapters: 20.81 and 20.85. Owner: Nancy J. Scott Applicant: Kathleen Keppinger Case No.: POS-0126 (UFOs-0026 & DROS-0071) RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve 1) allowing a food production and a limousine service, with landscape upgrades and open at-grade parking accommodating up to 23 parking spaces, generating in excess of 100 average daily vehicle trips and 24 hour operation, 3) Cultural Arts Contribution allowing the development to provide 3,375 square feet of landscaping instead of meeting the City's minimum 10% landscape requirement of 4,273 square feet, and 2) Design Review of exterior building improvements, landscape upgrades and open at-grade parking accommodating up to 23 parking spaces, subject to making the required findings and adopting the conditions of approval. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The project includes the conversion of die existing industrial building into a wholesale bakery and a limousine facility wide exterior building and site improvements, including new parking spaces and Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: POS-0126 1369 & 1373 Lowrie Avenue September 15, 2005 Page 2 of 4 landscaping. City Baking operates on a 24 hour basis and employs 60 persons in 4 shifts. The delivery shift occurs during the early morning hours. The limousine service operates on a daily basis from 5AM to 12AM and employs 25 persons. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY & ZONING COMPLIANCE The project site's General Plan Land Use Element designation of Mixed Industrial, allows commercial food preparation and transportation uses. The site is situated in the Industrial (M-1) Zone District, which allows both commercial food preparation uses and transportation service uses subject to an approved Use Permit by the City's Planning Commission (SSFMC Section 20.30.030(c)). Businesses having a 24 hour operation, or that store vehicles outdoors, or generating in excess of 100 average daily vehicle trips require an approved Use Permit by the City's Planning Commission [SSFMC Sections 20.30.040(a), 20.30.040(b) and 20.30.040 (i), respectively]. The building generally complies with current City development standards as displayed in the following table: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Site Area: Total Floor Area: 0.98 acres [42,733 SF] City Baking Tenant A Office 1,377 SF Production 14,551 SF Sub Total 15,928 SF Limousine Service Tenant B Office 1,915 SF Production 13,474 SF Sub total 15,389 SF TOTAL 31,317 SF Floor Area Ratio: Maximum: 0.4 to 0.6 Existing: 0.73 Proposed: 0.73 Lot Coverage Maximum: 60% Existing: 73% Proposed: 73% Landscaping Minimum: 10% Existing: 10% Proposed: 7.9% Automobile Parking Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: POS-0126 1369 & 1373 Lowrie Avenue September 15, 2005 Page 3 of 4 Minimum: 22 Existing: NA Proposed: 22 Setbacks Minimum Existing Proposed Front 10 FT 49 FT 49 FT Side 0 FT 0 FT 0 FT Rear 0 FT 0 FT 0 FT Notes: 1. 6 foot landscaped setback required of parking lots along property lines. 2. Parkuig based on a rate of Ollice: 1 stall per 300 SF; Industrial: 1 stall per 1,500 SF. Limousuie based on applicant's use data. 3. While die pl~uis show 23 outside parking spaces, one space needs to be eliminated to provide a minimum 15 foot wide one way aisleway. 4. In-lieu fee required for landscaping shortfall. The proposed parking meets the minimum on-site parking requirements set forth in SSFMC Chapter 20.74. The parking required for the wholesale bakery is 15 parking spaces. The 6 delivery vehicles with be parked inside the building. Parking should be adequate as many of the employees are local and use other forms of transportation (carpooling, bicycling and walking) to and from work. The minimum required parking for the limousine service is based on the applicant's letter attached to this report. 'The limousine operator stores 25 limos inside the building and 7 of the 20 drivers take the limos to their personal residence for storage in off business hours. Drivers swap out their personal vehicles for the limos. Customers generally do not visit the place of business, but instead conduct transactions over the phone. The 7 outside parking spaces and 31 inside parking spaces should be adequate to accommodate the remaining 25 employees (working in 3 shifts). The limousine has been in operation for four to five years at this location and City staff is not aware of any complaints from neighboring businesses. The proposed 3,375 square feet of landscaping will fall short of the City's minimum landscaping of 10% of the total site area by 898 square feet. In accordance the SSFMC Chapter 20.101 the Planning Commission may allow a contribution to the Cultural Arts Fund in lieu of providing on-site landscaping. The in-lieu fee is estimated to be $6,429.68 [898 SF x $7.16 SF = $6,429.68 (This is subject to a September cost of living adjustment based on the consumer price index)]. Alternatively, the Planning Commission may reduce the parking requirement to provide for additional landscape area to meet the minimum requirement. To eliminate the shortfall of 898 SF approximately 6 to 7 parking spaces would need to be eliminated. The Planning Commission could review the project one year after build out and review the parking. At the time of the one year review, should the parking prove inadequate, the Commission could allow the payment of the in-lieu fee and conversion of the landscape area to parking. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: POS-0126 1369 & 1373 Lowrie Avenue September 15, 2005 Page 4 of 4 The project design was reviewed by the Design Review Board at its meeting of August 16, 2005. The Board approved the plan with the condition to resubmit a landscape plan for approval and concern with the trucks backing up and conflict with unprotected downspout. The applicant has revised the plans in accordance with the Board's suggestions. The minutes of the Design Review Board are attached to this staff report. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City staff has determined that the proposed development is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with Section 15332, Class 32 In-Fill Development Project. Because the project has been determined to be exempt, the Planning Commission need take no further action regarding the environmental review. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the following: 1) Use Permit allowing a food production and a limousine service, with landscape upgrades and open at-grade parking accommodating up to 23 parking spaces, generating in excess of 100 average daily vehicle trips and 24 hour operation, 2) Cultural Arts Contribution allowing 3,375 square feet of landscaping instead of meeting the City's minimuml0% landscape requirement of 4,273 square feet, and 3) Design Review of exterior building improvements, landscape upgrades and open at-grade parking accommodating up to 23 parking spaces. Steve Carlson, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Draft Use Permit Findings of Approval Draft Conditions of Approval Design Review Board Minutes-August 16, 2005 Applicant's Letter Plans i ~ ;3; ~~~~ 1~~ III a ~~ ~ N ~ ~~ ~3 ~#~e ~ ~~~ ~~ at~~~ ~ a m ~ -~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ Y ~4 ----------3nrv3nd---~iaMO~--------------- . ~-.. _:-.~..,-~---.a.w-~-.o-.,,-,~-p,-.r-~-.~..,-fi...,~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ -~ ~~: ~~ .>. ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ a ~ a$ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ Q ~ ~~ o ~ ~ ~ y~ a ~+ ~~ ~ ~ ~ , ~~ : ~~ ~~~ s ~~ ~~ 3 ~ ~ A S .,,.. i ~~~ VUUU U :G~~§ D G ~' 2 N:.~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ;~~~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~~ ~ ~~ • ~, ~ d~~~~ 1 ~~a~~ .tl ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ .~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ € ~ ~~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ Q~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ a ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~ 31~ ~ ~ N d r d d ~~ ~~ 0 (~ i ~~ ~m 4 ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ 6 1 ~ i x ~ ~ ~ } I ~ ~ ~gL ~ W ~ ~b ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ g ~~ ~ a. m pp s ~ s ~ ~ ' n ~ ~~ ~~~~~~k~~~ ~~~~~~~. ~$~~~~~i~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~" f a g ~~. ~~ b i N .' i .` ~: _i ~- `~ ~'"%~' 3= ~Y z., , , ~~+t;~f' ~r ,~a. ~ a'i'd ,a r~~ aP~ ~ ,'~~i. a, ~a.' ' S~ ;~ ~ -~ ; ~ ~ f R ~ ~ u - 1 ~~ " ~ ~ ! k'. ~d ' + Y tv ~ r ~:~ i 4 ! 1 ~, ,~ 4 r~ ~ ~ t r ~ r ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ ~, r .,~ } ' ~ 1 i ~~ ,~~ , f `, ~ ' 1 ,1 , 4 .. , l i ~'~ 1.'F i. r ~ ,. t . { 'k ': i N ° '~~ ~ # ~: ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ¢ ~: ~ 3 { . b2 t .' /~. :' : i ... ti._ ~.-. .., R ... IL ~~~`~