The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-15-2009 PC Packet CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE January 15, 2009 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 bye-mail at web- [email protected]. Mary Giusti Chairperson Wallace M. Moore Commissioner Roberto Bernardo Commissioner Stacey Oborne Commissioner John Prouty Commissioner Rick Ochsenhirt Commissioner William Zemke Commissioner Susy Kalkin, Chief Planner Secretary to the Planning Commission Steve Carlson Gerry Beaudin Senior Planner Senior Planner Linda Ajello Associate Planner Billy Gross Associate Planner Bertha Aguilar Clerk Please Turn Cellular Phones And Paaers 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. In accordance with California Government Code Section 54957.5, any writing or document that is a public record, relates to an open session agenda item, and is distributed less than 72 hours prior to a regular meeting will be made available for public inspection at the Planning Division counter in the City Hall Annex. If, however, the document or writing is not distributed until the regular meeting to which it relates, then the document or writing will be made available to the public at the location of the meeting, as listed on this agenda. The address of the City Hall Annex is 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE January 15, 2009 Time 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS AGENDA REVIEW ORAL COMMUNICATIONS PRESENTATIONS Resolutions Commending Eugene Sim and Marc Teglia for their service on the Planning Commission REORGANIZATION Election of 2009 Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of meeting minutes of December 4, 2008. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Use Permit - New SFD Leozadio Zalvalza/Owner Octavaio Venegas/Applicant 813 Linden Avenue P08-0081: UP08-0012 & DR08-0040 Use Permit and Design Review to allow construction of a new single family dwelling at 813 Linden Avenue in the Retail Commercial Zone (C-1-L) District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.22,20.81 & 20.85 3. Alfonso Perez/applicant Alfonso Perez/owner 534 Avalon Dr. P05-0114: PUD06-0003, PM05-0001. & DR05-0064 Modification of a Residential Planned Unit Development and Design Review allowing 2 new single family dwellings and a Tentative Parcel Map allowing a lot line adjustment between lots 56 and 57-A and a lot split of lot 56 resulting in lot areas of 9,228 SF, 11,787 SF and 11,739 SF, situated at 534 and 538 Avalon Drive, in the Single-Family Residential (R-1-C-P) Zoning District, in accordance with SSFMC Title 19 and Title 20 Chapters 20.16, 20.84 & 20.85. Planning Commission Agenda - Cont'd January 15, 2009 Page 3 4. Parking Co America Airport/applicant Hanna, Elias S/owner 160 Produce Ave P06-0088: PUD 07-0003, UP06-0020 & DR06-0072 Commercial Planned Unit Development Permit allowing a combined on-site and off-site landscape area of 14,113 square feet instead of the minimum requirement of 47,350 square feet. Use Permit and Design Review allowing a new canopy entry and landscaping, 24-hour operation, generating in excess of 100 average daily vehicle trips vehicles, fences greater than 3 feet in height within the minimum required street setbacks, and expanding the existing commercial parking use on several lots adjacent to San Mateo Drive, in the Planned Industrial (P-I) and the Industrial (M-1) Zoning Districts, in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.30,20.32,20.73,20.81,20.84 & 20.85. APNs 015-113-210,015-113-290,015-113-330 thru 350, 015-113-440, 015-114-390, 015-114-420, 015-114-450 thru 500 ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 5. 18 month Review - New Wave Lounge - Use Permit Kelly-Moore Paint Co/Owner Billy Ket Chau/Applicant 107 Hickey Blvd P06-0040: UP06-0013 18 month review - Use Permit allowing a cocktail lounge with daily hours of operation from 3 PM to 2 AM and allowing karaoke and limited live entertainment consisting of piano playing, within 200 feet of a residential zoning district at 107 Hickey Boulevard in the Commercial (C-1) Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.22 & 20.81. ITEMS FROM STAFF 6. Appointment of a Housing Element subcommittee. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC ADJOURNMENT ~ < SUsy Kalkin Secretary - 0 th~Planning Commission City of South San Francisco NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting February 5, 2009, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA. Staff Reports can now be accessed online at: htto://www.ssf.netldeots/comms/olannina/aaenda minutes.aso or via htto://weblink.ssf.net SKlbla s:'V'\gevc~~s\Pl~vcvc,vcg cOV>tV>t'sS'OVC\::200..;J\Oi -i5-03 RPC Agevc~~.~oc MINUTES December 4,2008 -- CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER I PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 7:30 D.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioner Oborne, Commissioner Moore, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Prouty, Commissioner Zemke, Vice Chairperson Teglia and Chairperson Giusti ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Planning Division: Susy Kalkin, Chief Planner Girard Beaudin, Senior Planner Billy Gross, Associate Planner Bertha Aguilar, Admin. Asst. II Brian Crossman, Assistant City Attorney Sam Bautista, Senior Civil Engineer Sergeant Jon Kallas, Planning Liaison Tom Carney, Code Enforcement Office City Attorney: Engineering Division: Police Department: Fire Prevention: CHAIR COMMENTS AGENDA REVIEW No Changes ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of meeting minutes of November 20, 2008. Motion Commissioner Prouty I Second Commissioner Sim to approve the Consent Calendar. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 2. Study Session Zoning Ordinance Update Citywide P07-0136: ZA07-0007 Zoning Ordinance Update Use Regulation Module #1 - Base District regulation discussion including the land use for each of the base zones. Vivian Kahn, Dyett & Bhatia and the Planning Commission went through the memo explaining the State and Federal laws with regards to certain uses. Commissioner Prouty commented on restricting the number of people and locations of houses for persons with disabilities and property rights discrimination with regards to telecommunications. Ms. Kahn noted that Federal and State laws require that the City accommodate individuals with disabilities through the Zoning Ordinance. She pointed out that the telecommunications law is consti3ntly changing and that the ordinance update will provide regulations based on current laws in the Zoning Code. Vice Chairperson Teglia stated that the Commission is encouraging underground vaults for telecommunications equipment and wants to make sure that the gUidelines are in the code to avoid any confusion. Commissioner Sim questioned if the public schools could have a joint use potential to which Ms. Kahn replied that Planning Commission Meeting of December 4, 2008 .. State Law allows jurisdictions to regulate public schools. A concern was raised with schools being redeveloped and maintaining the playing fields as parks within the redeveloped site. Ms. Kahn stated that they are proposing to retain the school zone and if a new use is proposed, a rezone would need to be requested. Vice Chairperson Teglia reiterated his concern with the telecommunications language not being strong enough and suggested having additional gUidelines specifying the requirements. Ms. Kahn noted that the telecommunications regulations will be revised as part of module 3 of the Zoning Ordinance Update. Vice Chairperson Teglia and Ms. Kahn discussed the appeal process of Chief Planner or Zoning Administrator decisions. Commissioner Oborne reminded Ms. Kahn that the Commission had requested examples of zoning regulations from adjoining communities as an example of how they phrased or organized requirements to make developments appealing or to see how they deal with specific uses. Ms. Kahn informed the Commission the consultant team has looked at hundreds of codes, but that each jurisdiction must be looked at separately and codes developed accordingly. Commissioner Zemke noted that the purpose statement for Residential districts [page 9 of Module 1] needs to be broadened to reflect the desire to enhance quality of life for the residents and the definition should include a reference to parking. Ms. Kahn noted that the next module will look at the development standards for uses. Commissioner Prouty concurred with Commissioner Zemke's comment. The Commission and Ms. Kahn when through a table-by-table review of Module 1: RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS TABLE - Comments Clarification of the difference between the new classifications RH-30 and 40 and the existing R-3J & L classifications was requested by Commissioner Prouty. Ms. Kahn explained that this eliminates an additional reference table because the classification now has the density included in it. A concern was raised with tandem parking being allowed for all residential zones and it was suggested that this flexibility needs to be restricted (\I7ce Chairperson Teg/ia). Ms. Kahn informed the Commission that State Law requires tandem to be allowed for a second unit. Residential GrouD uses A question was raised with regards to limiting over-concentration of such uses(/I7ce Chairperson Teg/ia). Ms. Kahn stated that the requirements are subject to State law and the City has very limited jurisdiction over these uses. Vice Chairperson Teglia question if these can be denied due to over concentration. Ms. Kahn noted that this is not the case and that only the State can deny these uses. Concern was noted with allowing single room occupancy, how the City currently handles them and Commissioner Oborne suggested potentially considering stronger regulations. Ms. Kahn noted that there are standard requirements included in the zoning code for them. Staff responded that they currently do not require a Use Permit but with the Zoning Code update it would be regulated. Single room occupancies also help the City fulfill the housing needs for the Housing Element. Community Assembly uses Vice Chairperson Teglia questioned how the City can deal with homes becoming churches and was not supportive of making it subject to a Minor Use Permit (MUP) process. Ms. Kahn stated that a religious use requires a use permit but if a religious service is being conducted in a home it is difficult to regulate. Commissioner Prouty concurred with Vice Chairperson Teglia and encouraged that community assembly be subject to a use permit. Ms. Kahn provided the definition of community assembly to which Commissioner Prouty reiterated that the use should be subject to a Condition Use Permit (CUP) and could allow it to be a MUP in a commercial zone but not in a residential zone. Commissioner Sim was concerned with having religious assembly being allowed in the biotech areas. Ms. Kahn noted that these uses are not being allowed in manufacturing, freeway commercial, business commercial or in the s:\McvcL<tes\i2-04-0g R'PC MCVCL<tes.~oc 'P~ge 2 of 4 Planning Commission Meeting of December 4, 2008 -- business technology park zones but are proposing to allow them in the commercial districts with a CUP. She added that they could require a CUP for any community assembly use in a residential area. Commissioner Sim suggested having better gUidelines and encourage these uses in other areas. Ms. Kahn clarified that where they are permitted by right or with a MUP is a signal that it is more likely to be encouraged in those districts and it is an indication to the applicant that they are not encouraged in other districts. Home OccuDation Business License A concern was raised with business vehicles being stored in residential areas. Ms. Kahn noted that a distinction needs to be made between trucks taken home from work and those that have businesses at home. She added that the number of vehicles needs to be limited for a home business. A comment was made about restricting auto shop businesses being run from a home. Ms. Kahn noted that a repair shop is not permitted in a residential area. Commissioner Oborne stated that more regulations and requirements requires more staff to enforce them. Concern was raised with taking a person's livelihood away with too many restrictions and cited a section that states that a garage or shed cannot be used for storage of materials. Staff responded that the current zoning code has this language and the intent is to discourage use of the garage, which is intended for parking, for storage of materials. The Planning Commission, staff and Code Enforcement Officer Carney discussed the enforcement problem, number of cases, staff available for enforcing, citation process and appeal process. COMMERCIAL OFFICE & MIX USE TABLE- Comments GroUD residential Commissioner Prouty was concerned with allowing senior care in the East of 101 area. Ms. Kahn noted that a map will be proVided so that the Commission knows where these areas are and noted that these uses are restricted to areas of 101. Commissioner Oborne reiterated her concern with single room occupancy uses and stressed the need for additional conditions on noise, hours and character of the neighborhood in order to maintain the quality of life of the neighborhood. Community assembly Ms. Kahn asked if the Commission would be comfortable with retaining the small and large distinction and allow small uses with a MUP and larger ones with a CUP. Commissioner Prouty and Commissioner Oborne were comfortable allowing the smaller community assembly uses with a MUP as long as parking standards are met. Commissioner Prouty and Senior Planner Beaudin discussed approving small and large religious assembly through the MUP process. Commissioner Prouty was concerned with allowing religious assembly in the EI Camino Corridor while the City is currently looking at retail development opportunities. Commissioner Sim clarified that it could be a theater or gallery of some type. Commissioner Prouty was not comfortable with allowing this with a MUP. Staff replied that the Planning Commission can always appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision. Commissioner Sim understood from the applicant that the uses less than 3500 square feet could be MUP approvals and staff also feels that those greater than 3500 square feet could also be subject to the same MUP process. Ms. Kahn asked that the Commission look at including uses that would draw people to a retail area. Commissioner Oborne clarified that the concern is the EI Camino Corridor and these types of facilities cause concern because of the City's plans to improve the corridor. Ms. Kahn explained that the City currently has a General Plan Amendment underway and a Specific Plan for the EI Camino area which will cover the Commission's concerns. Vice Chairperson Teglia requested a map be brought for the next session. Personal Services Ms. Kahn noted that they will review personal services further for specific uses like licensed massage, fortune s:\McvcVttes\:12-0-4--02 RPC McvcVttes.cloc p~ge 3 of -4- Planning Commission Meeting of December 4, 2008 .. tellers, tattoo parlors etc... The Commission noted that tattoo parlors should not be included as a permitted use in any area. Communication Facilities Commissioner Oborne questioned if there are ways to regulate aesthetics to which Ms. Kahn noted that the application has to meet the requirements of the Code. Commissioner Prouty commented that the application should go through the Design Review process. Senior Planner Beaudin replied affirmatively and added that they are still going to be subject to the CUP process. Vice Chairperson Teglia noted that communication facilities need to, at least, go through the MUP process and should not be permitted by right. Ms. Kahn noted that they will hold this change until the Commission reviews the telecommunications facility chapter requirements. APPENDIX A - STANDARDS AND REOUIREMENTS- Comments Commissioner Oborne questioned if staff felt the standards for adult oriented businesses are sufficient. Chief Planner Kalkin noted that there none in the City and they are only allowed in the East of 101 area away from the freeway. Ms. Kahn added that they are not allowed within 600 feet of another adult oriented business and have additional screening and design requirements Direction aiven to Staff and consultant. ITEMS FROM STAFF Chief Planner Kalkin requested that the Commission cancel the Planning Commission meeting of December 18th Consensus 0' the Commission to cancel the December 18. 2008 meetina. Chief Planner Kalkin added that Vice Chairperson Teglia and Commissioner Sim are ending their terms on the Planning Commission and thanked them for their service to the City. The Commission echoed Chief Planner Kalkin's comments. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION Commissioner Zemke noted that the Historical Society is hosting a historical tour and invited those interested in purchasing tickets to view historical South San Francisco. Vice Chairperson Teglia and Commissioner Sim expressed their gratitude to the Council and Commission for allowing them to playa big role in the City's development projects. ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC Meeting adjourned at 10:07 p.m. ADJOURNMENT 10:07 P.M. Susy Kalldn Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco Mary Giusti, Chairperson Planning Commission City of South San Francisco SK/bla S:\MCVCL-ltes\:L2-0-'1--0l? RPC MCVCL-ltes.~oc p~ge -'1- of -'1- - ~'t\\ SM' g ~ - ~~\ o n i>< t;; ~ g C'. ~"i': ~lIFOF.~ Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: January 15,2009 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Use Permit application to allow construction of a new single family dwelling at 813 Linden Avenue in the Retail Commercial Zone (C-I-L) District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.22, 20.81 & 20.85. Project Numbers: Applicant: Owner: P08-0081: UP08-0012 & DR08-0040 Octavaio Venegas Leozadio Zalvalza RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the use permit application to allow construction of a new single family dwelling at 813 Linden Ave based on the attached draft findings and subject to the attached draft conditions of approval. BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION: The 7,000 square foot site has an existing two story single family dwelling fronting on Linden Ave. The proposed project includes the construction of a new two-story single family dwelling at the rear of the lot, fronting on Hickory Place. Parking will be provided in an attached two-car garage. The site is adjacent to other dwellings and nearby commercial development. The site is zoned C-I-L - Retail Commercial- which allows residential type uses, including single-family detached and duplex dwellings, with a use permit. The General Plan land use designation for the property is Downtown High Density Residential. This designation allows a maximum density of 30.0 units per acre for lots smaller than a half-acre. The development complies with the City standard development standards as displayed in the following table: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Site Area: Density: Maximum: 0.16 acre [7,000 SF] 21.8 DulAc. Proposed: 18.8 DulAc STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Use Permit Application - 813 Linden Avenue DATE: January 15,2009 Page 2 Height Maximum: 35 FT Proposed: 30 FT 7 IN Landscaping: Minimum: 10 % Proposed: > 10% Automobile Parking Single Family and Duplex Minimum: 2IUnit Proposed: 2IUnit New SFR Size: 2,196 SF (3,262 SF for both residences) Existing SFR Size: 1,066 SF Lot Coverage: Max: 50% Proposed: 34.7% Setbacks: Front Side Rear Minimum 15 FT 5 FT 10FT Proposed 18 FT 5 FT > 10FT Note: Existing dwelling provides one parking space and is not required to provide two spaces since the new units are not attached to the existing dwelling. A previous project was approved at this location but was not constructed (UP 02-0094 & DR 02-0094). As part of that previous approval, the applicant proposed a new open parking space for the existing dwelling, but the DRB advised eliminating the open parking space adjacent to the new duplex and replacing it with garden area. The Planning Commission agreed with the DRB recommendation. Design Review The Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed the proposed project during the October 21, 2008 DRB meeting (Minutes are attached). In general, the DRB liked the design, with the following minor comments: . Create a side entry with front landscaping to create a formal entry into the dwelling, revise proposed front entrance to windows. . Match the color of the railing on the deck to blend in with new dwelling. . Re-Iocate the washer and dryer from the garage. The garage must be 20 x 20 interior clear of all structures/ appertenances. Staff has incorporated these comments into the conditions of approval, requmng that the revisions be made prior to the issuance of building permits. STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Use Permit Application - 813 Linden Avenue DATE: January 15,2009 Page 3 Neighborhood Meeting The applicant conducted a Neighborhood Meeting on December 18,2008 at Tepa Market at 801 12 Linden A venue. The meeting was attended by City staff and five residents, including a City Council member. At the meeting, the residents were generally supportive of the project, with no substantive comments. The residents were informed that they would receive a mailed public notice to the Planning Commission meeting on January 15, 2009, and to speak to the Planning Division staff should they or others have additional questions or concerns. No comments have been received at the time of staff report publication. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Staff has determined that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 - Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Therefore no further action is required by the Planning Commission CONCLUSION: The construction of a single family residence to the site creating a total of two dwellings is consistent with the City's General Plan and with all applicable requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinances. The minor comments identified by the DRB and by staff will be addressed through the draft conditions of approval. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Use Permit allowing two dwellings in a Retail Commercial (C-l-L) Zone District, and the Design Review of a new single family residence, based on the attached draft findings and subject to the attached draft conditions of approval. B!~ Associate Planner Attachments: 1. Draft Findings of Approval 2. Draft Conditions of Approval 3. Design Review Board Meeting Minutes, dated October 21,2008 4. Site Photos 5. Revised First Floor Plan and Elevations per DRB comments 6. Plans, dated September 15,2008 SK/GB/bg FINDINGS OF APPROVAL UP 08-0012 813 LINDEN AVENUE (As recommended by City Staff January 15, 2009) As required by the "Use Permit Procedures" [SSFMC Chapter 20.81], the following findings are made in approval of Use Permit 08-0012 to allow construction of a new single family dwelling at 813 Linden Avenue in the Retail Commercial Zone (C-I-L). These findings are based on public testimony and the materials submitted to the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission which inc1ude,but are not limited to: plans prepared by Venegas and Razo Ent, Inc., dated September 15,2008; Design Review Board meeting of October 21,2008; Planning Commission staff report, dated January 15,2009; and Planning Commission meeting of January 15,2009: 1. The proposed two-story single family residence with an attached 2-car garage 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 a high quality of fit with the existing neighborhood. Conditions of approval are attached which will ensure that the development complies with local development standards. Payment of child care: impact fees will help to improve childcare services within the City. 2. The proposed two-story single family residence with an attached 2-car garage complies with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of the site of Downtown High Density Residential. 3. The proposed two-story single family residence with an attached 2-car garage located in the Retail Commercial Zone District adjacent to other commercial and residential uses complies with all applicable standards and requirements of SSFMC Title 20. * * * .. PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 813 LINDEN AVENUE P08-0081: UP08-0012 & DR08-0040 (As recommended by City Staff on January 15, 2009) A. PLANNING DIVISION requirements shall be as follow: 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 Venegas and Razo Ent, Inc., dated September 15, 2008. 3. The landscape plan shall be revised to include street trees along Linden A venue, more mature shrubs, trees shall have a minimum size of 24 inch box and 15% of the total number of proposed trees shall be a minimum size of 36 inch box. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the City's Chief Planner. 4. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall revise the plans in accordance with the comments of the Design Review Board of November 13, 2008. The plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City's Chief Planner. 5. In accordance with the SSFMC Chapter 20.115 the applicant shall pay the childcare impact fees estimated to be $1,979.00 [rate of $ 1,979.00 per new dwelling unit]. (Planning Contact Person: Billy Gross, Associate Planner, 650/877-8535, Fax 650/829-6639) B. BUILDING DIVISION requirements shall be as follows: 1. Window/ door openings on south elevation are limited to 25% of the wall area. (Building Contact Person: Jim Kirkman, Chief Building Official, 650/829-6670) C. ENGINEERING DIVISION requirements shall be as follows: 1. 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 site plan shall show all dimensions. 2. The owner shall hire a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer authorized to practice land surveying to certify that the new foundation forms for the new addition conform with all setbacks shown on the approved building permit plan from confirmed property lines and that all easements, if any, are verified and in conformance with recorded documents. A letter certifying the foundation forms shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for approval prior to pouring the addition's foundations. 3. The owner shall, at his/her expense, repair any broken sidewalk, driveway approaches, curb and gutter along the entire frontage of the property, prior to requesting a final inspection for the new addition. 4. The owner shall install a City Standard "property line" sewer cleanout on the existing building sewer lateral in accordance with City Standard Drawings No.4 and No.5, so that the building sewer lateral can be properly cleaned. All work shall be accomplished at the applicant's cost. The new sewer lateral must connect to the existing sewer lateral. One sewer lateral shall serve one lot. 5. The owner shall, at his/her expense, design and construct a drainage system that will route storm water run-off from the new building addition's roof areas towards the public street gutter, so that storm water will not flow into adjacent private property or across the public sidewalk. Said run-off shall be collected within the property and shall be drained towards Hickory Lane or Linden Avenue, whichever has better grade, using the City standard Curb drain detail. 6. 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 Contact Person: Sam Bautista, 650/829-6652) D. FIRE DEPARTMENT requirements shall be as follows: 1. Install fire sprinkler system per NFP A 13FD/SSFFD requirements under separate fire plan check and permit for overhead and underground. 2. Install exterior listed horn/strobe alarm device. 3. Provide fire flow in accordance with California Fire Code Appendix III-A. 4. All buildings shall provide premise identification in accordance with SSF municipal code section 15.24.100. 5. Project must meet all applicable Local (SSF Municipal Code, Chapter 15.24 Fire Code), State and Federal Codes (Fire Prevention contact person: Luis Da Silva 650/829- 6645) The Board had the following comments: 1. The DRB members prefer the ex isiting fayade over the proposed project as shown. 2. Re-Design and shorten the drive aisle. Check with the Fire Department on fire access requirement. 3. Carry the stonework around the south and east elevations of the building. 4. Re-Design the front entry to create a more inviting entrance. 5. The proposed signs look like window elements instead of sign age. Consider removing the trim around the signs and keeping the sill to better intregate the signs with building. 6. The landscaping plans are lacking tree specifics Add some larger scrubs or dwarf trees in the front elevation to compliment the London Plane street trees. 7. Provide some type of vegetation / planters in the parking area. There could be planters forward of each angled parking stall which would allow trees and shrubs to soften the parking and views to the fencing and walls. Add some cutouts for vines to grow on the rear (west) elevation. Look at adding planters with curbs along the north elevation instead of the proposed bollards. 8. Look at changing the parking space angle from 45 degrees to 30 degrees to ~d~ 'veai WI 'h"',",UIIIII"'lId illll, ul'..1 n itl, C9Adition S. 9. OWNER APPLICANT ADDRESS PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME Leozadio Zalvalza Octavaio Venegas 813 Linden Avenue P08-0081, UP08-0012 & DR08-0040 Use Permit - New SFD (Case Planner: Billy Gross) DESCRIPTION Use Permit and Des ign Review to allow cons truction of a new single family dwelling at 813 Linden A venue in the Retail Commercial Zone (C-I-L) District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.22, 20.81 & 20.85 The Board had the following comments: I. The DRB members liked the design of the new single family dwelling. 2. Create a side entry with front landscaping to create a formal entry into the dwelling, revise proposed front entrance to windows. 3. Consider re-designing and expanding the kitchen area to the rear to provide more counter space. 4. Match the color of the railing on the deck to blend in with new dwelling. 5. Re-locate the washer and dryer from the garage. The garage must be 20 x 20 interior clear of all structures. Recommend Approval with Conditions. ""'iiI ~ Vi> ....jJ ""'iiI IF o o ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I' S ~ ~- !:! ~ ~p 36'-6" 2" 21)' o ;- ~ .. ;, ~ ~ T-ff' 16'*fr 35' 15'6" o '< S- to 13'~6" '0' a. S- S- to 8.... ZA"VAlL.ZA _::Ell_Y~::Ell~Cl::Ell 8I3 LINDlIlll!ir A'IllEIll!irUlE! BO'UTH: &AX F'RANc:I8C!O CA.." 940&0 ... _!2I!;_~"'_"""''''''''''--A ZA~"'" '7;& 6I5O-S'7Z-254& ~ ;, o r o ;- .. ~ ;, . ~ ;, 8j .. ~ ~ to '" ~ CD '" () 5" 0 [ ::> Q a. 5" 5" III Cil Q Q III ~ N Co> 0 ~ -.j N -.j CO 0> ~ rn ~ rn p rn p ;!l P ." ;!l :-l m~!li ~~ .-s..~ 'l" '" ~ ~[~! ~ ~ ~ ~I i i ~ i i!l " 3 1" " -. ~ II ~' ~IIII~ 9l>!;l:~UB-0S9 "lit ~ i I YZlY^'I'ZYH.UIVft'i'VN't'DJ:I1 !-i !1I . ~ ' 0lI()I06 'YO oosr.lNW:I NVS HJJlOS m ~ ! ~ ! ij 1i<C 'i .. fjJ.i 3nN3I\V N30Nn tIe i as 1> i~ ~ r t f I!ld 30N30lS3H VZ1VAVZ ~ o I- we> ...Jz U::O O:::! 0::::> a.m ~ ~ ~ o ~ ---------.--------- ~ : ---------- I '" M o 3i Ii :< ir: I- .., e> Z o Ci) s: Ii ~ () w o s: Ii o () () ::> I- en JHDIHH ElSDOH ,vIE 9 - ,\lZ z 0 Z 0 l- I dj ~1' <( Dr Dr I- > <( + iO + ~ W > ..J l~"H asnoH ,VIE 9 - , \lZ W l~H"'noH ,vlE-,Of W ~ ..J ~ ::c W I- 0:: :J: 0 Z I- 0 l- I- f/) W ~ W 0:: 0 W l- LL. ~ 0 Z W ...J u:: 0 a: a. ~ l~ w a. o ...J en LL. o o 0:: ~mu~ ~mu~ Inl II111I11 813 LINDEN SITE PHOTOS . , Elevation with existing single-tiunily dwelling. ~ "~p- j.-- ., - ~'~~;f !:f,_~:' . .:. pj:-e- w .~ a * ~. Rear yard fronting on Hickory o ~ c (f) rn III I m rn -l ::;: Z ~ ~.9 <0 rn o r ." rn D (0 ~ 6 ~ z ii lFW ~ ~ ~en Oz OG) Or ~ enm -"TI 0)> ~ zS:: G)j= n D "TI-< -c Zz en- ~ :r:~ 0 ~ ~ lFW ~ (Fij] ~ ~ 9 ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ @ en o )> r m -- ()) = II o o o o o o o o o o o D en ~c c-u Or om OX m x ~ m :0 o :0 "TI Z en :r: Z .A.. ""'V" .A.. L Z.A.. "R E S I I:>> E N" C E 813 x...I~EN .A. VEN'UE SOUT~ SA.NFRANCISCO CA.,94080 1'IIXA.:RT]H[A. & LEOZA:DIO ZA.."V A.LZA.. 650-872-2546 < '" ....0 "- CD ~ 0- OJ < o ",n '" . 0" S.WQ)' '" CD CD ~ :T:T< cO. m co (J) (1) 0" " cO. m ~~~ CT OJ en ~ '< ll> m ~(t) po OJ n " ",'" 0- 0- ~ ~'< CD '" ~ :'f C> " b') () g' l> Q..D C= ~ ~ :;t ~ n 0 l/'l 0 2..~ D' ~ S' ::s:- :33: ~:T -- '" n ., 2- D n p ::J - m :T = !? CT mi""ga'~~ ~ Q- ff ~. ~ 5' =r C:;' - D ::J n 0-2-~~Q.~ e.ng-~;:~ n 0 - __ '" ., ~g-~.g~~ !l>.,::no'" 5.. ~ &. ; !. -+::J!,CL:T ~ S' ~:;t n:2 g", g,3 ~~ ~~ "< "'::J -+ 0 ~.tO ~ -to) () ~ c Ul m Ul ~ ::j o m ." " <0 s;: Z ~ D ~ () o < m ^' m c;l ~ ^' ^ ..... z G) c.n -0 )> () m c.n () o z c.n -f ^' C () -f ..... o Z -f -< -0 m o () () C -0 l> Z () -< G) ^' o C -0 0) c ..... r o ..... z G) ~ ..... m G) ~ -f () o < m ^' m c;l ~ ^' ^ ..... z (j) c.n ~ () m c.n z 9 o " ro m o ^' o o ~ c.n (j) l> ^' l> (j) m c.n m () o Z c;l " r o o ^' " ..... ^' c.n -f " r o o ^' '" N ~ o o c.n p " ~ Z.A.'V.A.LZ.A. 'RESII>ENCE N z ^' I W I 0- w ~ c.n p " ~ ~ ~ o :..., 1.11 W o ..... N " N 1.11 ~ c.n p " -f N W = z ......... -f o -f l> r r ..... < ..... z (j) l> ^' m l> N ..... '" 0- 1.11 ~ c.n p " -f z ......... ....... e ro c ..... r o ..... Z (j) " o o -f -0 ^' ..... Z -f r o -f () o < m ^' )> (j) m r o -f l> ^' m )> N o Z ..... Z (j) () I ..... N )> )> )> )> )> )> () () () )> I I I I I I I I I < 0- 1.11 ~ W N - W N ..... ~ ^' Z m c.n " c.n -0 -0 )> ..... ^' 0 ..... 0 0 l> m ^' ..... r () 0 ^' c.n () c.n -f 0 0 r ^ -f 0 m -f LI m 0 " -f -f m ~ Z -0 -0 () ^' " c;l " r en N -< r l> r -f 1-1 " " 0 l> Z " z c;l m c.n r 0 Z !j 0 .... r r ~ 0 0 ^' )> Ci' )> m m < l> m c 0 Z l> X Z -f ^' -0 c;l !j c.n ~ r Z c;l -f -0 l> ~ 0 ...... c.n r Z 0 () m )> ^' " ;0 z )> m r Z () 0 :;0 -0 r m m m m < r ;0 m < !j )> m -0 !j ~ ~ < ...... l> r ...... 0 (Jl )> 0 -0 1-1 .... Z Z z z c.n m c.n c.n (j) I-----t Ul ~ d m Z () m 813 LI~EN AVE:NUE SOUTH: SAl!ir FRANCISCO CA,94080 1VI.A._T~ &; LEOZADIO ZA "iTALZA 630-8'73-2346 ro c ..... r o ...... Z G) " o o -f -0 ^' ..... Z -f ..... W 0- ~ ~ 1.11 " o o o <5 0- 0- c.n P " ~ N ~ N '" :..., 1.11 c.n p " ~ c.n p " -f c.n p " ~ W ~ :..., ~ l> -0 Z # o - N I ..... ~ - I - N o c.noo 0- CW -fr ~Z c.nO l>m zz "l> :;0< l>m zz ()c ......m c.n () o l> o o ;0 m c.n c.n o ~ Z m ;0 -0 ;0 o ~ m () -l ~ )> ^' -f :J: )> 1-1 Z " o ;0 S ~ 1-1 o Z () )> '" ~ o 00 o r m o N l> o ...... o N l> < l> r N )> < '" "'0 0. <1l en () . c. ::> < o ",n m <1l 0 0 ~w1ii <1l - (1) "0 3 t :T:T< .0. en ~ en lG ~~. :J cO' 0.> m "0 ~ ::> en 3 CD ~ ::loa> 0.> CY m Qf~ffi po ::> ~ D- B ~.~~ D- st C. 3 (1) iil ~ n" < .01 oc <1l N n'" 0 0 I\) " "0 (1) 0 <0 3 F- e ... OJ 0 (1) co :=!. 5- 0 - t:l ~ [F=! <0 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ @ g ~ () ~ c (fl m (fl I m m -i Z (fl ~ 0 N ~ o "U ;:; ): Z HICKORY ELECTRCAL POLE 50' PROPERTY LINE 36' - 6" deck avbove .- ~ (fl !!) C en 0 CJ m 0 -l ~ 0 C OJ w (}1 <D ""U )> ~ x ~ r 0 m ^ Q" X Ldeci(-av-bove WAY one way . r--------------. --oJ ' I ' 351 35' BETWEEN NEW AND EXISTING HOME (~y (~) -----1 I I """'0'==""=...+" .- !!) I o s:: m :E o o .- ~ !!} a: ~ I SO?5 0 lC 0 ~o s:: ~ m sr COCRETE SIDEWALK I LINDEN 0 :i !\ 0 C/l II 0 - ::l ll> 0 3 ~ <l> "0 - <l> <l> 0.. "! :.0 I ~ , ) :'-"':;:':"'_-:':::,:';'::~ o () 01 o PARKING SIGN co Oi en m -l OJ )> o ^ ~ I\) "0 ii ~~ -L ~ 0 -U ::D .- 0 !!} -U CJ m c ::D ""U -l r -< m r X z m () AVENUE 813 LIN:I>EN.A. VE~ Z.A.."V.A..LZ.A.. "RESII>EN"CE D SOUT~ SAN" FRAN"CISCO CA.,940S0 ~ 1VI.A.._T~ &; LEOZA.:DIO ZA."V A.LZA. 650-875-2346 :E <D 0 X 0 ~ 0. ~ (fl 00 a: -c :i" lC EJ I o s:: m < '" ....0 0. <D 0"'0 m c. ::J s.W6i <D <D :r:r< <5. (J) lC ~ 3~. :0 <<50 n> CT ::J (J) ~g~ "< po n> IllCJ< ::J ~.~~ C. 0. <D OJ 0:0 < 0<: <D N &]'" 0 0 "0 <D '" 3 ?l- .... 0 <D 00 a ::r 0 p ~ ~ ~ 1==:::1 ~ ~ m [FiiI r IT] m 0 -l JJ n ~ 0 )> r ~ ~ "'U 0 r ~ m ~ ~ t ~ ~ l1' '0. t f' f!:' f ,. .. c)'prt>.ss-.ot ". ~ ....~-~ G''''''1>- ~ " "'~ -1'.. ~ f ,. ?j ;:-. .~ ;; :< ~ !! " >> .. " ;: j iiJ SJ [email protected] i ! ~ r ~ ~ ~';:y E ~ ;. ;~ .....A,~ ~,lIt"<! 0"..",.. ~ Gl'9 A"e> '::J"t: o~.tn ~H~ ..l 8;> &~. lC'u,,/l,. .0, G.., "" ..9/"0' ~to'J ~' f>~ ~O~t '1i ,<> ~ o ''; . 0> K &"" .(IO.r-9~~_. () ~ c (Jl m (Jl '" =i o m ." ;J1 <0 )> Z ~ ~ Sprl1Cl!-<~ ii' ! !; t M"pr~ At..p '. ~ \ t a 0@L\ <!\ '.:.~~?~ '\ <> 7- % .. ~OI"b ~ ...~~ ~ -' \. .....- ~o ~ !1 <J I f! 'b ;f .}.. Ot,r::.P. ~,ye ! .... HiClrory-PI } t~ .~ ~ A1f& 1 ~ ;~i ;f ~ , <!> S' f / -I CertllIPI. CY.Drt>.s . .s-'1~e: .<II'%, 8"'0 OI'~fJe-'~'"^",, -1.. <Il.:f"q, ~~~."?<Il." " ..,.. ,;t.O' '\ '''.. &~ ~~q..~ 0, G' 'Blvt1 (Jl I m m -l Z () ASlJ"'It-~. 'l-~ g .>. .; -A-V!?'UtJ<J,y .. "J ~[~. _ III (1: ~ g.! HICKORY one way . (N) 8.S. I\) o (J) m -l OJ )> o ^ "1 (f) m -i OJ )> () ^ ~ q :.. %. ~'" .'\ ..v''f!'' Qt-\ta ,.. $. ! .>. J f.{SPrlJc~.A.; ,;>" ~Q~? ,.,~ ,fl ~lb ; q , &el -'\~p.) .... .... o -.\1' ~"'~~d ~~;y"'" .' , . t;l. ~,f) (ll~~ ~!'...,,~ - ~ "1l-tof " ~ o~o 'q;:';t'l ""L-,.., '.". -. ~ j '" '5" H" f [;J .ff i~ ,,,,~o ill $I> ',a; 'C, .. ;{?~. I 1!1 iO Ocn 0_1 Z, )..... () ;.'" j, =1:i r11 nI iT! 0 .......... m ......... I o s:: m o o o o @ PROPERTY LINE 501 (f) () )> r m sidewalk -- -'- q II LINDEN AVENUE z o ~ :D ^ Z G) (f) G) Z ......... J.:!:! -l JJ m m o o ...... .,J::.. o "1J :D o "1J m :D -I I -< r Z m < men C/l AO 0. C1l a. :J ~. ~ ~ ~~ m C1l '" C1l @.... ::T=r< <<5' C/l <D if! ~ 3~' " cO' Ol CT :J (Jl ~:e ~g~ '< Ol P" m "CD l1<> :J ~ ~.~g} a. a. m ill 0" < Dc: C1l N om 6" 0 " U C1l <0 3 -~ ... 0 (!) "" ~ S' 0 ~ 813 Z .A.. 'V' .A.. L Z.A.. 'R 'E S I X> 'E 1lliT C 'E LI::J.'Iill>EN AVENUE SO'U~ SA.N' F'~CISCO CA... 94080 ~T:JEl[.A. &; LEOZAI>>IO ZA. V'.ALZA. 650-8'715-2546 =00 ~ ~ ~ 9 =00 ~ CO CO ~ @ C/) () )> r m -' ~ o :! c en m -n ;0 en -< ... ;'J o 0 -n 0 <0 ;0 " ~ z II ~ en :I: m m -< z <:) ~ ~ - " , , " 21' 15' 6" " 2' 6' - 9" 2' .---' C.L / Jo i 30 - 70 L '" / / 0, / .I ~ '" I\) .j>. ~ 0 -'" S: 0 ~ --, '- ~ CJ1 0 ::J a> " - <C -' 0 c- I ~ ~ q I\) 0 l\) ~ 20' 13' - 6" -=- 0 l\) ~ , I\) l\) 0 -'" ~ I\) <C -" ~ 0 - / t\) I'-- ~ .... d~ .I - I\) t\) 0 <C (\) .j>. ~ ~ ~ 28\ 0 " " 0 c- .J::>. c- -..j J\) ~ 0 UJ r- 8 r~ CO I\) CO ~ I " I\) "lJ C- O ~@ "1 pantry c: I\) "0 0 '" l\) "- c; O'l ~ 10' '" I I fWl II 0 '" 36 .... -'" "-l u 1101 .... ~ q O'l cO' '" -" -" c; ~ , .j>. ~ ~ '" co ^ , 0 '" 0 . ;:+: c1 w , CD () a. q '" ~ C11 ::J ~ 0 0 0 w (\) ::J 0 ~ '" ::J 0 ^ ::J .., <C ~ ") 30 - 50 30 - 50 30 - 50 30 - 50 Il.~ ljSO.70 'Ui "1 q / FD / / 4' 4' 4' 4' 4'-6" C.l. C.L c.L. 7' - 6" 16' - 6" 8'-6" 2'.6~ 351 " , " " Ul < c. (1) m '" "'0 Cl. :J < 0'"0 ~ ~. s.WQj (1) (1) ::r::r< cO' en co ~ tn CD 0" O' cO' Ol ~g.~ o::r :J en ~ '< Ol @ ~ro l/O :J ~.~~ Cl. Cl. (1) ill oO' < Oc: (1) N g'" 0' 0 -0 (1) <0 3 .F- A 0 (1) ex> ;l :)' 0 0 36' 6" Z.A..V".A..LZ.A.. 'RESI'I>EN'CE 813 'LINDEN AVENUE D SOUTE[ SAN' FRANCISCO CA, 940S0 l!II.A.B.TEI:A &; LEOZADIO ZA'V' ALZA 630-S'73-2346 (\) () o ::J a. <C .., o Ul Ul ..... 6" o .., :::h .... Ul - ..... 6" o .... t\) .... (\) t\) -+-0 6" o .., -'" CO l\) l\) l\) -'- --.J ~ CO l\) 0 O'l CJ1 0 CJ1 ~ ~ (f) (f) (f) 0 0 0 "Tl "Tl :-I ." ;-l ;-l ~ Inl n o ~ (gl 19'-6" 6' - 9" CL , 4'-101/2" 4'-71/2" 4'-71/2" CL ~ 0 ~ 30 - 30 30 - 30 30 - 30 ] 0 17' - 6" "1 "":! ~ U) () 0 r- q C11 "! 0'"3 ~ () 0 COO) c- Q.en I\) oeD U) I\) I\) I\) co 0.... I\) 3 0 I\) ~~ C11 ...... 0 ~ rrl I\) () 0 I\) ! I\) I\) fU co co 0 w II 0 II () I\) c- o c.. 0 C11 :iE '" 0 :::l 0 .l>o 0'" I\) 0 CO 0 "":! Q. "1 .... ~ ...... ...... 0 '" ~ 0 0 ~ 0 en CX! - en 3 <0 .;. .-+ 0) I\) 0 c 3 r q 0 Co> Vol !=J c1 W Q. ~ '" ~ C11 '< '< 'TI 0 0 !=J I\) 10' 0 3-6 - 30 3-6 - 30 3-6 - 30 ~ CX! ~ () r- ~o, C.L 16' @ en () )> r m ...... ~ II () ~ c (J> m (J> ::t m (J> ~ m () Z 0 ~ <:) Z 0 '" ." 0 r a ." 0 <0 0 ;u ~ -0 );: Z 630-8'72-2346 < '" AO "- (1) 0",,, m a. :::l s.w&' (1) (1) ".".< <15' en en g] ~~. " cO' 01 <J :::l en ~~~ '< l/O Ol :::l "Dl'" a. a. ~.C5 rA (1) iil " " < 0<= (1) N "lll 0 0 Dl -0 (1) <0 3 F- A 0 (1) '" ~ :::l 0 " Zi.A.. 'V.A.. L Zi.A.. 'R. E S I I> E N"C E en..3 LINDEN' A. VE:NUE SOUTlS: SAN' FR.A.N'CISCO CA, 94080 l.VIA.lRTELA. .... L:E:O~IO Z.A. 'V ALZ.A. ~ <0 ~ ={I ~ n F [Fij] ~ ~ ={I = o ~ :D ~ o m () ^ ~ BUILDING HEIGHT + 28 ' - 6 3/4" \ ~ \ ..... 1- - - - - ---., \ 0 [ftH] 0 ~ 0 ft 0 OJ rtm\1 [] II II E3 B r 10' 10' ~ N (j) Z -; 0 :n + :n + :u :u - 30 ' - 3/4" BUILDING HEIGHT '---- IFill ~ ~ ={I IFill F n ~ ~ ={I = o ~ + "'U :D 0 'TI r m @ 0 @ 'TI (j) en OJ () () c )> )> r m r r m 0 -' -' Z ~ ~ G) II -l ~ ~ 0 (j) 0 C -l I () ~ c (j) m ~ (j) -l l>> (j) o en C o :i "T1 m <0 r m ~ 6 z (j) I m m -l Z ~ 9 Z.A.~.A.LZ.A. 'RESY:DEN"CE 813 LINI>EN ,A.:VENUE SOUT~ SAN' FRAN'CISCO CA.,94080 D ~ ~T~A. & LlI3l0ZA.I>IOZA.'VA.LZA. 650-8'72-2346 (j) -l C () o o ..-.. m - "'U :D o 'TI r m o 'TI CD ...... tv r Z o ::0 o z G) ~ m :D ~ (j) o z G) Qo -l :D ~ m z ~ m z c - m . -1 =- =- - :D \ 0 \ 0 \ n T1 1 1\ f ~ (j) r 0 m IIf "'U III m III ~L , "; [ftH] 1.1 0 [ftH] 0 I II II 0 I II J - II I I II I II /I /I ... EEEHE ~ i~ EEEHE .. - '.. .... 30' - 3/4" BUILDING HEIGHT , .. + < C1> ~ U> "'0 0- 0- :::> 0,"0 '" C1> o. c: (6) U> C1> co t 5'",< ,;;' en ro UlCOe)" " <6' ~ ~C6 C' :::> en i '< ro -0" ,. po :::> Q3 "CD 0- S 5.~~ 0- 3 <D OJ u>'" < 0" C1> N Oc 0 0'" 0 <D '" 'U <0 3 ;a. '" 0 <D S' a> ;a. 0 p E ~ n <0 ~ ~ '"U :0 ={\ ={\ 0 ." ~ r n m 0 ." F n -; :0 n m F m ~ -; n 0 z ~ ~ 0 :0 ={\ ~ -; I 4- t==:l + ={\ <0 28 I - 6 3/4" House Height 30 I - 3/4" House Height t==:l ~ ~ -+ ~ -+ <0 en t~ H; t '"-./ -........ ~ j\/ 10' 10' -J ( \ ........ I I I I I I I 10 10 1 0 I I I I I I '-/ @ en (") )> r m ~ ~ ~ () :.! c (f) m "" (f) Z I 0 m ;>J m -< - -; :0 s: 28' - 63/4" HOUSE HEIGHT I + --------------~ @ en (") )> r m -;""0 0:0 zO 0'" :or -;m ICD C r o Z G) ~ ~ ~ Z.A."VALZA R.ESII>EN"CE < '" ","0 0- (l) o "", ill 0. :::J ~WQ) (l) (l) :T:T< <c" (f) <0 '" CD 0- " to" 0> ~ ~~ C" :::J (f) '< 0> -"" Qo :::J OJ ",m " ",<0 0. 0. ~.~ ~ (l) Dl "" < Oc (l) N bl'" 0 0 "0 (l) <D 3 ?- "'" 0 CD '" ~ S" 0 " 813 LINI>EN" ..A. VE:N""U'E SOUTlHI: S.AN" FRANCISCO CA, 94080 1VI.A.:R.TlHI:.A. &; LlElOZAI>IO ZA.:V.A.I..Z.A. 630-8'72-21546 ~ co co ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ i/1l ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ @ (j) o ~ r m -" - co = II -" Q) ""0 Q) ::J CD en CD 3 Q) ""0 CD .--.. z ~......... ......... ......... .................. 0 (j) .........O~ z)> O:s: :::D-u mm friO J~ m z o m ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ( / / , c> I I _J I I I I Li I I I I I I I I I t I (J) I~ I~ I~ I I I I I I I I ) .-.. m --- -f :::D m m 3 CD >< (") Q) ::J - CD Q) ~ :::r CD .., o o z o :::D m -f m /.'_~I_____ _.. ) /\ .', I' / \ /'. 1\' r' , " '1 / I \ ' / ./ r......)r... / '\ .' \ ( \ , , '--',- . ;(\ j 1 ~ >.. J '\ ~vz .. r../ , '--.." ^()/ ) '.. . "- ! / J '-v '7 (j ,................._\ ^ -.-.,,/ ,--__I \- '> \ I I en ~ Q) I .., Q) I (j) 3 I ::J .-.. CD ::J ----- --- ~ ----- t Q) ....-- ~ ::J Ii ! j Ii --------------1 I 1 1 1 () ~ c: en III ::0 o o ." )> ~ ~ co '; Q ti a w ~ ~ "U r )> Z ZAV'ALZA RESII>EN"CE 813 LINDEN A.-VENUE SOUT:H SAN" FRANCISCO CA,940S0 J:UAlRT~ &; LEOZA:l>IO Z.A.:VALZA 630-872-2346 ~ ~ ~g g- a. @o: ~~~ ca' ~ .... VI (1) o' =' cO' ~ 2.~ ~ :::s ~ @~i6 .. Qo ::J mCO 0.. ~'Cii rA ~ 8 E <D om 0- '" "0 'R 3 o C1l ~ 3. < C1l ::J C1l (Q OJ en OJ ::J 0- OJ N o C1l ?- 5' " Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: January 15,2009 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: 1. Modification of a Residential Planned Unit Development allowing a lot line adjustment, lot split, new drainage system and two new single family dwellings. 2. Tentative Parcel Map allowing a lot line adjustment between two adjacent lots (538 Avalon Drive -lot 56 and a vacant parcel-lot 57-A) and splitting the resulting larger lot 56 into two lots (56-A and 56-B) with areas of 11,739 square feet and 11,787 square feet, respectively. 3. Design Review of a two new 4 bedroom single family dwellings. Property Location: 534 & 538 Avalon Drive in the Single Family Residential (R-1-C-P) Zone District. SSFMC: Chapters 20.68,20.78 & 20.85 and Title 19. Owner & Applicant: Alfonso Perez Case Nos.: P05-0064 (PUD 06-0003, PM 05-0001, & DR 05-0064) RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve P05-0064 subject to making the required f"mdings of approval and adopting conditions of approval. BACKGROUND: The matter was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of August 21, 2008 in order that the applicant could incorporate the city's comments into the plans. City staffhas reviewed the original Westborough 288 lot subdivision file and alisoils studies prepared for the subdivision. The subdivision does not contain any conditions of approval that restrict the development of the site for single family dwellings, the lot line adjustment, or the lot split. Several soils studies were prepared for the original 65 acre subdivision. These first reports were general in nature and served as a guide for land planning, mass site grading and drainage. The Geotechnical Studies prepared for the proposed project do not contain any inconsistencies with Date: January 15,2009 To: Planning Commission Subject: 534 & 538 Avalon Drive Page 2 of 6 the original subdivision reports. The current reports were peer reviewed by the City's geotechnical consultant, Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc. DISCUSSION: The proposed Avalon Drive project site is comprised of two parcels -lots 56 (538 Avalon Drive - developed with a dwelling) and 57-A (534 Avalon Drive - a vacant parcel). The project includes a lot line adjustment between lots 56 and 57-A and splitting lot 56 into two lots (56-A and 56-B). The development would also necessitate site grading to improve drainage and to create two building pads allowing the construction of two 4 bedroom two story single family dwellings. A similar development proposal involving only lot 57-B was approved by the City in 1989 (PUD 88-8), but never constructed. Parking for two vehicles will be provided in a two car garage for each dwelling. The driveway aprons will provide additional parking spaces. The site is adjacent to other single family dwellings and a vacant lot. Because the site is on a slope and in an area with drainage issues, the owner was required to submit conceptual dwelling plans, Geotechnical Reports, and site drainage, building foundation and retaining wall plans. The project has been in the review process over the last two years in order that Geotechnical Reports, a site drainage plan and building foundation and retaining wall plans could be prepared and peer reviewed by the City's consultant, and to allow the design of the proposed site improvements and dwellings to be revised to better comply with the city's Design Guidelines and development standards. The revised plans incorporate the city's consultant's comments, city staffs concerns and the Design Review Board's comments. The project site's General Plan Land Use Element designation, Low Density Residential (maximum of 8 dwellings per net acre), allows single family dwellings up to a density of 8.0 units per net acre. The proposed development density of3.7 units per net acre complies with the density limits established by the General Plan. The project generally complies with the General Plan goals and policies. The key policy pertinent to the development is Policy 2-1-17 [page 63] as follows: "Steep hillside areas in excess of a 30 percent grade should be retained in their natural state. Development of hillside sites should follow existing contours to the greatest extent possible. Grading should be kept to a minimum." The proposed development complies with Policy 2-1-17. None of the existing Avalon Drive slopes are natural. The existing slopes, including the project site, are the result of grading operations associated with the original subdivision development in the early 1980s. The Date: January 15,2009 To: Planning Commission Subject: 534 & 538 Avalon Drive Page 3 of 6 development of the new dwellings and terraced retaining walls generally follow the contours of the slope, and the limited amount of grading (creating the building pads, retaining walls and improving the site drainage) will be kept to a minimum. The site is in a Low Density Residential (R-I-C-P) Zone district that allows the proposed density and single family dwellings. The applicant is requesting a Modification of the Residential Planned Unit Development allowing a lot split creating lots with areas of 11,739 SF and 11,787 SF and two new dwellings. The lot line adjustment would result in the existing developed lot 56 being reduced in size to a lot area of9,228 SF. The proposed new and revised lot areas and the dwellings comply with the City's development standards as displayed in Exhibit A. The new two-story 4 bedroom dwellings will have floor areas of2,900 SF (534 Avalon Drive) and 2,900 SF (536 Avalon Drive). While these two new dwellings are slightly larger than several of the existing area dwellings, they are comparable to the largest dwellings, and due to the larger proposed lot areas, would have lower floor area ratios (F ARs). Due to the sloping nature of the development site, the new two-story dwellings will have building heights of 32 feet, which are less than the maximum allowed height of 35 feet. The new dwellings will generally reflect the heights of other existing two-story dwellings that line Avalon Drive. Parking will be provided on-site in a two car garage with driveway aprons capable of accommodating two vehicles each. The site is adjacent to other single family dwellings of a similar design style, massing and height. A Tentative Parcel Map is proposed and to allow a lot line adjustment between lots 56 and lot 57-A, and to allow splitting oflot 56, with an area of24,526 SF, into lots 56-A and 56-B. The map will allow for the development of two new dwellings on similarly sized lots and will result in lot areas as follows: lot 56-A (9,228 SF), lot 56-B (11,739 SF) and lot 57-A (11,787 SF). The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed map and determined that it complies with the City requirements delineated in Title 19 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Because the project involves a Tentative Parcel Map, and not a subdivision map, the project is final with the Planning Commission, unless appealed. An analysis of the key development characteristics of the dwellings fronting on Avalon Drive including address, lot area, floor area, FAR and bedrooms per dwelling, contained in Exhibit B, show that the proposed lots better comply with the existing pattern of development. The proposed lot areas of9,228 SF, 11,739 SF and 11,787 SF comply with the minimum lot area of 8,710 SF required by the R-I-C-P Zoning District and generally match the lot sizes and pattern of development of the surrounding residences on the westerly side of the street. Of the 16 lots surveyed that front on Avalon Drive the uphill lots [520 Avalon Drive thru 546 Avalon Drive range in size from 7,000 SF to 11,700 SF. The easterly side ofthe street [513 Date: January 15, 2009 To: Planning Commission Subject: 534 & 538 Avalon Drive Page 4 of 6 Avalon Drive thru 551 Avalon Drive] has lots which are noticeably smaller ranging in size from 4,340 SF to 7,360 SF and averaging 5,683 SF per lot. The majority of the lots meet the minimum General Plan density of 8 dwelling per net acre (a minimum lot area of 5,445 SF per lot). However, the majority of the lots examined do not meet the minimum Zoning Code requirement of8,710 SF per lot. At 24,526 SF, lot 56 is the largest single lot, and of the lots surveyed, approximately 3 to 4 times the size of the average lot and more than double the size of the second largest lot - 546 Avalon Drive. The proposed lot split resulting in lots of 11,739 SF and 11,787 SF is more in keeping with the size of uphill lots in the subdivision, and conform with the Zoning and General Plan density requirements. The size of the proposed new dwellings, while slightly larger than the other existing dwellings, is proportionate to the lot sizes. The proposed Floor Area Ratios [FAR] of 0.32, 0.24 and 0.25 are well below the area FAR average of 0.48. The proposed 4 bedrooms in each dwelling match the neighborhood average of 4 bedrooms per dwelling. The new development, while increasing the demand for on-street parking, will result in the loss of at most only 2 parking spaces. It is consistent with the single family neighborhood design of one driveway per dwelling. On-street parking amounts to approximately to one or two spaces per dwelling. The proposed dwelling will result in the loss of approximately 2 on-street spaces and will provide a total of 8 on-site spaces [a ratio of 1 vehicle space per bedroom]. The development site frontage currently provides public parking for several vehicle spaces, more than any other single lot along Avalon Drive. The site's topography required specialized studies regarding slope stability and storm water runoff. While the existing engineered slopes are part of the original mass grading of the entire Westborough 4Band 4C subdivision, it is evident from physical observation (and validated by the on-site field research) that the storm drainage system has not been properly functioning. The owner's studies included a Geologic and Geotechnical Report and a Geologic Report Update (prepared by Romig Engineers, Inc., dated April 13, 2005 and August 28,2006, respectively), Structural Calculations for Retaining Walls and Typical Foundation Details (prepared by Fulcrum Structural Engineering, dated October 28, 2005 and October 11, 2005, respectively), and Grading, Drainage, Erosion control, and Drainage Remediation Plan (prepared by Wilson Engineering and Transportation Consultants, dated July 28, 2006). The reports were peer reviewed by the City's long-time consultant, Cotton, Shires & Associates. The reports and independent review determined that the sites are suitable for development of single family dwellings, subject to the implementation ofthe recommendations contained in the reports and the peer reviewer. Engineering Division conditions of approval require that the development follow these recommendations regarding grading, foundation design and the design Date: January 15,2009 To: Planning Commission Subject: 534 & 538 Avalon Drive Page 5 of 6 of storm water drainage facilities. These measures will help to insure the stability of the proposed revised engineered slopes and that storm water is removed from the site - thereby ensuring the protection of uphill properties along a small portion ofValleyview Drive (also part oft4e original subdivision). Conditions of approval also require that the grading and construction activities comply with the City's Noise Ordinance [SSFMC Chapter 8.32], that a Storm Water Prevention Plan and dust suppression measures are implemented, that the construction manager minimize disruptions to the neighborhood, and that city staff and Avalon Drive residents are kept informed of key construction events. Copies of the reports and reviews are available on request by contacting the Planning Division staff and will be available at the Planning Commission meeting. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD After the site reports were approved by City staff, the applicant revised the conceptual plans incorporating the report recommendations and staff comments. The project was then reviewed by the Design Review Board members at their meeting of December 18, 2007. The Board suggested that the applicant revise the plans to accomplish the following: 1. Soften views of the retaining walls by adding climbing vines. 2. The 536 Avalon Drive rear windows should be revised to provide better proportion to the dwelling. 3. The roofs should have a consistent 4 in 12 pitch. 4. The tree species should be identified on the plans. Consider Japanese Maple or Magnolia's. 5. The 534 Avalon south elevation horizontal skirt moulding should be continuous around the building. The applicant has revised the plans incorporating the Board's comments. Copies of the Design Review Board meeting minutes are attached to this staff report. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING The proposed development was reviewed and supported by the Westborough Homeowner's Association. The owner also conducted a neighborhood meeting on April 29, 2008 at 33 Arroyo Drive. The meeting was attended by the applicant's designer and engineer, a representative of the Planning Division staff and several neighbors. The proposed development plans and site issues were reviewed by the project architect and engineer. The neighbors asked several project related questions and expressed support of the development. No one spoke in opposition. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Date: January 15, 2009 To: Planning Commission Subject: 534 & 538 Avalon Drive Page 6 of 6 The City staff determined that the proposed development was Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] pursuant to Section 15332: Class 32 In Fill Development Projects. 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. RECOMMENDATION: The lot line adjustment and lot split creating two new lots and the construction of two new 4 bedroom single family dwellings are consistent with the City's General Plan and the City's Zoning (SSFMC Title 20) and Subdivision Ordinances SSFMC (Title 19). Conditions of approval require that the grading and construction activities comply with city development standards and that the recommendations contained in the specialized site reports are implemented. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve P05-0064. 6~~~ SteVe Carlson, enior Planner ~ ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Development Standards Exhibit B: Avalon Drive Development Data Draft Tentative Parcel Map Findings of Approval Draft Residential Planned Unit Development Findings of Approval Draft Conditions of Approval DRB Minutes December 18, 2007 Site Photographs Building Elevations Plans EXHIBIT A Page 1 of 3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Proposed New Lot & Dwelling Minimum Lot Area: 8,710 SF Density: Maximum: 5.0 DulAc Height Maximum: 35 FT Automobile Parking Single Family Minimum: 2 Floor area: Lot Coverage: Maximum: 50% Setbacks: Front Sides Rear Minimum 15 FT 5FT 20FT 534 Avalon Drive - Lot 57-A Proposed Lot Area: 11,787 SF Proposed: Proposed: Proposed: Proposed: Proposed: Proposed 15 FT 9+FT 70+ FT DulAc: 3.7 32FT 2+ Driveway Dwelling: 2,470 SF Garage: 430 SF Total: 2,900 SF [4 Bedrooms] 14% EXHIBIT A Page 2 of 3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Proposed New Lot & Dwelling 536 Avalon Drive - Lot 56-B Minimum Lot Area: 8,710 SF Proposed Lot Area: 11,739 SF Density: MaxirilUm: 5.0 DulAc Proposed: 3. 7 DulAc Height Maximum: 35 FT Proposed: 32 FT Automobile Parking: Single Family Minimum: 2 Proposed: 2+ Driveway Floor area: Proposed: Dwelling: 2,470 SF Garage: 430 SF Total: 2,900 SF [ 4 Bedrooms] Lot Coverage: Maximum: 50% Proposed: 11% Setbacks: Minimum Front 15 FT Side 5 FT Rear 20 FT Proposed 15 FT 5+ FT 80+ FT EXHIBIT A Page 3 of 3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Proposed Revised Lot 538 Avalon Drive - Lot 56-A Minimum Lot Area: 8,710 SF Proposed Lot Area: 9,228 SF Density: Maximum: 5.0 DulAc Proposed: 4.7 DulAc Height Maximum: 35 FT Existing: 32FT ( staff estimate) Automobile Parking: Single Family Minimum: 2 Existing: 2+ Driveway Floor area: Existing: Dwelling: Garage: Total: 2,514 SF 400 SF 2,914 SF [4 Bedrooms] Lot Coverage: Maximum: 50% Proposed: 15% (staff estimate) Setbacks: Minimum Front 15 FT Side 5 FT Rear 20 FT Existing 15 FT 5+ FT 80+ FT EXHIBIT B AVALON DRIVE DEVELOPMENT DATA ADDRESS LOT AREA FLOOR AREA FAR BEDROOMS 520 9350 2400 0.26 4 524 7000 2400 0.34 4 530 8015 0 0 0 57-A 11787 2900 0.24 4 56-B 11739 2915 0.25 4 56-A 9228 2914 0.32 4 542 11050 2400 0.22 4 546 11700 2400 0.22 4 513 5900 2754 0.47 4 519 7275 2754 0.38 4 531 7360 2932 0.40 4 533 5500 2632 0.48 4 539 4340 2754 0.63 4 541 5055 2632 0.52 4 547 5175 2754 0.53 4 549 5000 2632 0.53 4 551 5550 2754 0.50 4 Lot Area Average: 5,567 SF Lot Area Median: 7,275 SF Floor Area Average: 2,651 SF F AR Average: 0.48 FAR Median: 0.40 Bedroorn/DU Average: 4 Notes: Lot Area and Floor Area in Square Feet Proposed lot areas and Dwellings not included in calculations. FINDINGS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP P05-0114 534 & 538 AVALON DRIVE (As recommended by City Staff January 15, 2009) As required by the Tentative Parcel Map Procedures [SSFMC Title 19], the following findings are made in support ofP05-00114, approve a Tentative Parcel Map allowing a lot line adjustment between lot 56 and 57 -A and a lot split of 56 into lots with areas of 11,739 SF and 11,787 SF, based on public testimony and the materials submitted to the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission which include, but are not limited to: Architectural Plans prepared by Sandra Jimenez, dated July 28,2006; Civil Engineering Plans prepared by Wilson Engineering & Transportation Consultants, Inc., dated July 28, 2006; Geotechnical Investigation, prepared by Romig Engineers, Inc., dated April 13, 2005; Geotechnical Report Update prepared by Romig Engineers, Inc., dated and August 28, 2006; Geotechnical Investigation, prepared by Romig Engineers, Inc., dated October 20,2005; Structural Calculations for Retaining Walls and Typical Foundation Details, prepared by Fulcrum Structural Engineering, dated October 28, 2005 and October 11, 2005, respectively; Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control, and Drainage Remediation Plan, prepared by Wilson Engineering and Transportation Consultants, dated July 28, 2006; Geotechnical Report peer reviews conducted by Cotton Shires & Associates, Inc., dated September 8, 2006 and November 13,2006; Design Review Board meeting of December 18, 2007; Design Review Board minutes of December 18, 2007; Planning Commission staff report of January 15,2009; and Planning Commission meeting of January 15,2009: 1. The proposed lot line adjustment and lot split resulting in lots with areas of 9,228 SF, 11,787 SF and 11,739 SF conform with the requirements ofthe State Subdivision Map Act and to the requirements of the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Title 19 "Subdivision Code". The map conforms to City standards with regards to design, drainage, utilities, and road improvements. No offers of dedication are required. The lots will generally exceed the sizes of the adjacent lots in the project vicinity and exceed the City's minimum lot size requirements of 5,000 SF. Conditions of approval will ensure that the development complies with City development standards. 2. The proposed lot line adjustment and lot split, resulting in lots with areas of9,228 SF, 11,787 SF and 11,739 SF, comply with the South San Francisco General Plan . Land Use Element designation of the site of Low Density Residential and the minimum lot size requirement of8,710 SF contained in the South San Francisco Municipal Code Title 20 Zoning Regulations. * * * FINDINGS OF APPROVAL MODIFICATION OF RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT P05-00114 534 & 538 AVALON DRIVE (As recommended by City Staff January 15, 2009) As required by the Planned Unit Development Procedures [SSFMC Chapter 20.84], the following findings are made in support of a Modification of a Residential Planned Unit Development allowing two new 4 bedroom single family dwellings containing 2,900 SF, a lot line adjustment and lot split creating lot areas of9,228 SF, 11,739 SF and 11,787 SF, 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: Plans prepared by Sandra Jimenez, dated July 28, 2006; Civil Plans prepared by Wilson Engineering and Transportation Consultants, Inc., dated July 28, 2006; Geotechnical Investigation, prepared by Romig Engineers, Inc., dated April 13, 2005; Geotechnical Report Update prepared by Romig Engineers, Inc., dated and August 28, 2006; Geotechnical Investigation, prepared by Romig Engineers, Inc., dated October 20,2005; Structural Calculations for Retaining Walls and Typical Foundation Details, prepared by Fulcrum Structural Engineering, dated October 28,2005 and October 11, 2005, respectively; Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control, and Drainage Remediation Plan, prepared by Wilson Engineering and Transportation Consultants, dated July 28, 2006; Geotechnical Report peer reviews conducted by Cotton Shires & Associates, Inc., dated September 8, 2006 and November 13,2006; Design Review Board meeting of December 18, 2007; Design Review Board minutes of December 18, 2007; Planning Commission staff report of January 15, 2009; and Planning Commission meeting of January 15, 2009: 1. The subject site is physically suitable for two new 4 bedroom single family dwellings with lot areas of 11,787 SF, and 11,739 SF and a lot with an area of 9,982 SF, already developed with a single family dwelling. The new dwellings are similar in style and size to existing adjacent dwellings, but have smaller floor area ratios. The new lots, while larger than many of the adjacent lots, generally conform to the pattern of development in the project vicinity and the larger development. A Geologic and Geotechnical Report has been prepared by the applicant's consultant and independently reviewed and approved by the City's consultant. The peer review determined that the site is suitable for development contingent on the peer reviewer's and the report recommendations being implemented. The City's Design Review Board recommended approval of the ,proposed single family dwellings, the lot line adjustment and lot split. Conditions of approval require that the development of the site follow the recommendations contained in the reports and conform to the City's development standards. 2. The proposed lot line adjustment, lot split and the construction of two new 4 bedroom single family dwellings has been 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 fit with the existing neighborhood. The new dwellings are similar in design and size, but owing to their larger lot sizes, have smaller floor area ratios that the existing adjacent dwellings. The proposed lot sizes conform to the minimum lot size requirements of both the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. The new dwellings will reinforce a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability by matching the development quality and design of the established neighborhood. 3. The proposed lot line adjustment, lot split and the construction of two new 4 bedroom single family dwellings, with a resulting density of 3.7 dwelling units per net acre, will result in a land use intensity no higher than that permitted by the General Plan Land Use Element designation of the site of Low Density Residential with a maximum density of 8.0 units per net acre and the maximum density of 5.0 units per net acre allowed by the site's Zoning of Single Family Dwelling Zone District [R-l-C-P]. 4. In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] pursuant to Section 15332: Class 32 In Fill Development Projects, the proposed development including a lot line adjustment, lot split and the construction of two new 4 bedroom single family dwellings project, was judged not to have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. 5. The proposed lot line adjustment, lot split and the construction of two new 4 bedroom single family dwellings are consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of the site of Low Density Residential and the Housing Element that contains goals and policies encouraging the development of housing to meet the City's fair share housing need. 6. The proposed lot line adjustment, lot split and the construction of two new 4 bedroom single family dwellings will not be adverse to the public health, safety or general welfare ofthe community, or unreasonably detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements. The development is designed to comply with the City's Design Guidelines and the architectural character of the surrounding residential enclave. Conditions of approval are attached which will ensure that the development complies with local development standards and requirements, provides proper site drainage and slope stability, and minimizes disruption to the neighborhood residents. Payment of childcare impact fees will help to improve childcare services. 7. The proposed lot line adjustment, lot split and the construction of two 4 bedroom single family dwellings comply with the City's adopted Design Guidelines. The development was reviewed by the City's Design Review Board at their meeting of December 18, 2007 for conformance with the City's Design Guidelines and the quality of fit with the existing neighborhood and was recommended for approval. * * CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 534 & 538 AVALON DRIVE P05-0064 (As recommended by City Staff on January 15, 2009) 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 Jimenez & Associates, dated July 28, 2006; Civil Engineering Plans prepared by Wilson Engineering & Transportation Consultants, Inc., dated July 28, 2006; Geotechnical Investigation, prepared by Romig Engineers, Inc., dated Apri113, 2005; Geotechnical Report Update prepared by Romig Engineers, Inc., dated and August 28, 2006; Geotechnical Investigation, prepared by Romig Engineers, Inc., dated October 20,2005; Structural Calculations for Retaining Walls and Typical Foundation Details, prepared by Fulcrum Structural Engineering, dated October 28,2005 and October 11, 2005, respectively; Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control, and Drainage Remediation Plan, prepared by Wilson Engineering and Transportation Consultants; dated July 28,2006; Geotechnical Report peer reviews conducted by Cotton Shires & Associates, Inc., dated September 8, 2006 and November 13, 2006, submitted in association with P05-0064. 3. The landscape plan shall be revised to include spacing the fruit trees a minimum of 28 feet on center, more mature shrubs with a minimum size of 5 gallon, trees shall have a minimum size of 24 inch box and 15% of the total number of proposed trees shall have a minimum size of 36 inch box. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the City's Chief Planner. 4. Prior to the issuance of any Building or Grading Permit, the Final Parcel Map shall be subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer and recorded with the San Mateo County Recorder's Office. 5. The owner shall comply with the recommendations Geotechnical Investigation, prepared by Romig Engineers, Inc., dated April 13, 2005; Geotechnical Report Update prepared by Romig Engineers, Inc., dated and August 28, 2006; Geotechnical Investigation, prepared by Romig Engineers, Inc., dated October 20, 2005; Structural Calculations for Retaining Walls and Typical Foundation Details, prepared by Fulcrum Structural Engineering, dated October 28,2005 and October 11,2005, respectively; Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control, and Drainage Remediation Plan, prepared by Wilson Engineering and Transportation Consultants, dated July 28, 2006; Geotechnical Report peer reviews conducted by Cotton Shires & Associates, Inc., dated September 8,2006 and November 13, 2006. 6. Prior to the issuance of any Grading or Building Permit, the owner shall prepare a construction management plan. Prior to the start of any construction activities the owner's construction manager shall meet with the City Engineer and Planning Division staff representative to review the construction plan. The plan shall be designed to minimize disruptions to the residents along Avalon Drive. The plan shall include provisions for an on-site manager with a telephone contact for residents, advising residents two weeks in advance of all significant construction stages and events, providing a periodic newsletter and meetings with property owners and residents along Avalon drive addressing construction scheduling, especially during ht site preparation, grading and foundation stages. Off-haul or importation of any fill or concrete and construction materials shall be limited to weekdays and day light hours of 8 AM to 5 PM. Not more than one truck hauling material shall be allowed to stage on Avalon Drive. Construction staging areas and the construction management plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer and the Chief Planner. 7. In accordance with the South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.115, prior to the final inspection, the owner shall pay the Child Care Fees in effect at the time of the final inspection estimated in the amount of$3,958.00 (2 dwellings x $ 1,979.00 per dwelling (low density) = $3,958.00). (Planning Contact: Steve Carlson, 650/877-8353, Fax 650/829-6639) B. ENGINEERING DIVISION: 1. 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 site plan must show any or all easements located on the properties. The owner must comply with all setback requirements for both properties. 2. The owner shall hire a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer authorized to practice land surveying to certify that the new foundation forms conform with all setbacks from confirmed property lines and that all easements are verified and in conformance with the plans for both properties. A letter certifying the foundation forms shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for approval for both properties. 3. A grading permit shall be obtained for each property. The owner/developer shall pay all deposits, bonds, and fees associated with the grading permit. The owner shall also comply with all geotechnical recommendations, at no cost to the City, listed in a letter prepared by Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. dated November 13, 2006. 4. The owner shall, at hislher expense, repair any broken sidewalk, curb and gutter fronting the both properties. The grade of the proposed driveways shall be no more than 12%. 5. The owner shall install a City Standard sewer cleanout for both properties, so that the building sewer lateral can be properly cleaned. All work shall be accomplished at the applicant's cost. 6. The owner shall coordinate with the California Water Service Company regarding water service. 7. The owner shall, at his/her expense, design and construct a drainage system that will route storm water run-off from the building roof areas towards the public street gutter, so that storm water will not flow into adjacent private property. Said run-off shall be collected within the property and shall be drained towards the City street using the City standard Curb drain detail. 8. 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. A separate encroachment permit shall be obtained for each property. 9. A Parcel Map has been recorded with the configuration shown on the plans to accommodate the construction of the new single family homes. Should the Planning Commission request property lines be moved, the owner shall hire a licensed land surveyor to prepare documentation for a Lot Line Adjustment with all the necessary exhibits. (Engineering Contact: Sam Bautista, 650/829-6652) c. POLICE DEPARTMENT 1. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.48 of the Municipal Code, "Minimum Building Security Standards" Ordinance revised May 1995. The applicant can obtain this information free of charge by contacting the South San Francisco Police Department. A. 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. B. Doors Exterior Doors 1. Exterior doors and doors leading from garage areas into single- family dwellings shall be of solid core with a minimum thickness of one and three-fourths inch. 2. Exterior doors for single-family dwellings and garages shall have deadbolt locks with a one-inch minimum throw in addition to dead1atches. The locks shall be so constructed that both deadbolt and deadlatch can be retracted by a single action of the inside doorknob. Alternate devices equally resistant to illegal entry may be substituted subject to prior approval ofthe police department. Strike plates shall be secured to wooden jambs with at least two and one-half inch wood screws. (Refer to subsection (a)(1)(H) of this section.) 3. Doors leading from enclosed garage areas into single-family dwellings shall have deadbolts in addition to deadlatches and shall meet the single action requirements of subsection (a)(1)(B) ofthis section. 4. Vision panels in exterior doors or within reach of the inside activating device must be of burglary resistant glazing or equivalent as approved by the police department. 5. Openings for delivery of mail will be allowed and those openings shall be no larger than twenty-four square inches. Openings located within three feet of any locking device shall be constructed to prohibit access to the interior doorknob. 6. Exterior doors swinging out shall have non-removable hinge pins or hinges with studs. 7. Exterior doors swinging in shall have rabbeted jambs. 8. Door frames shall be installed or protected to prevent violation of the function of the strike. a. Door jambs shall be installed with solid backing in such a manner that no voids exist between the strike side of the jamb and the frame opening for a vertical distance of six inches each side of the strike. b. In wood framing, horizontal blocking shall be placed between studs at door lock height for three stud spaces each side of the door openings. Trimmers shall be full length from the header to the floor with solid backing against sole plates. c. The strike plate for deadbolts on all wood-framed doors shall be constructed of minimum sixteen U.S. gauge steel, bronze or brass and secured to the jamb by a minimum of two screws, which must penetrate at least two and one-half inches into solid backing beyond thesurface to which the strike is attached. 9. On pairs of doors, the active leaf shall be secured with the type lock required for single doors in subsection (a)(1)(B) of this section. The inactive leaf shall be equipped with lever flush extension bolts or equivalent, protected by hardened material with a throw ofthree-fourths inch at head and foot. Multiple point locks, cylinder-activated from the active leaf and satisfying the requirements above may be used in lieu of flushbolts. 10. An interviewer or peephole shall be provided in each main entry door and shall allow for one hundred eighty degree vision. Sliding Patio Doors Sliding patio type doors opening onto patios or balconies which are otherwise accessible from the outside (this includes accessibility from adjacent balconies) shall comply with the following: a. Single sliding patio doors shall be adjusted in such a manner that the vertical play is taken up to prevent lifting with a pry tool to defeat the locking mechanism. b. Deadlocks shall be provided on all single sliding patio doors. Mounting screws for the lock cases shall be inaccessible from the outside. Lock or hook bolts shall be hardened steel or have hardened steel inserts and shall be capable of withstanding a force of eight hundred pounds applied in any horizontal direction. The lock or hook bolt shall engage the strike sufficiently to prevent its being disengaged by any possible movement of the door within the space or clearances necessary for installation and operation. The strike area shall be reinforced to maintain effectiveness of bolt strength. . c. In addition to the primary locking device, auxiliary or secondary locking devices shall be provided on all accessible sliding-glass doors. d. Double sliding patio doors shall be locked at the meeting rail and meet the locking requirements of subsection (a)(2)(B) of this section. C. Windows 1. A window, skylight or other natural light source forming a part of the enclosure of a dwelling unit shall be constructed, installed, and secured as set forth in subsection (b)(2) of this section when such window, skylight or light source is not more than twelve feet above the ground of a street, roadway, yard, court, passageway, corridor, balcony, patio, breezeway or any portion of the building which is available for use by the public or otherwise tenants, or similar area. A window enclosing a private garage, with an interior opening leading directly to a dwelling unit, shall also comply with subsection (b)(2) of this section. 2. Window Protection. a. Windows shall be constructed so that when the window is locked it cannot be lifted from the frame, and the sliding portion of a window shall be on the inside track. The vertical play shall be taken up to prevent lifting of the movable section to defeat the locking mechanism. b. Window locking devices shall be capable of withstanding a force of two hundred pounds applied in any direction. c. Louvered glass windows shall not be used. d. Accessible windows that open should be equipped with secondary locking devices. D. Garages Overhead garage doors shall be provided with a locking device or automatic door opener and shall not have bottom vents except those doors having double louvered or shielded vents or approved alternate devices to protect the locking mechanism. Garages shall be used for the normal parking of vehicles and storage of limited automotive supplies only. Garages shall not be used for human inhabitation at any time. E. Keying Requirements: Upon occupancy by the owner each single unit in a tract constructed under the same general plan shall have locks using combinations, which are interchange free from locks used in all other separate dwellings. F. Numbering: All residential dwellings shall display a street number in a prominent location on the street side of the residence in such a position that the number is easily visible to approaching emergency vehicles. The numerals shall be no less than three inches in height and shall be of a contrasting color to the background to which they are attached. The numerals shall be lighted at night. G. Landscaping: All shrubbery shall be trimmed down to no greater than 36 inches, so as not to obscure natural surveillance. All trees adjacent to the home shall be trimmed up to no less than seven feet, so as not to provide a natural ladder for unauthorized roof access. (Police Contact: Sgt. Jon Kallas, 650/877-8927) D. FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. The buildings are required to be fire sprinklered. Separate plans are to be submitted to the Fire Marshal1. 2. Plans shall conform to NFP A 13 D and City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 15.24.110. 3. The required fire flow is 1500 gallons per minute at a residual pressure of20 per square inch from the two nearest hydrants. Provide a plan showing the existing fire hydrants. 4. The buildings require fire alarms. 5. Provide a horn/strobe at the front of each building, which will activate upon fire sprinkler or alarm notification. Plans shall conform to NFP A 72 and City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 15.24.150. 6. Provide adequate premise identification (address) on the buildings per the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 15.24.100. (Fire Marshal: Luis DaSilva, 650/829-6645) E. WATER QUALITY CONTROL 1. In areas where plans call for a silt fence only, please add fiber roll wattles. A silt fence alone is not acceptable. 2. The onsite catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Logo (No Dumping! Flows to Bay). (Stormwater Coordinator: Cassie Prudhel, 650/829-3840) MINUTES SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Meeting of December 18, 2007 TIME: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: 4:00 P.M. Nelson, Nilmeyer, Ruiz and Williams Bill Harris Steve Carlson, Senior Planner Michael Lappen, Senior Planner Gerry Beaudin, Associate Planner Chad Smalley, Associate Planner Patricia Cotla, Planning Technician 1. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS . None 2. OWNER APPLICANT ADDRESS PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION Project 101 Associates Lowe's HIW, Inc. 608 & 720 Dubuque Ave Signs07 -0055 & P05-0097 Type "C" Sign Permit (Case Planner: Steve Carlson> Type "C" Sign Permits for a Master Sign Program for a two tenant commercial center at 608 & 720 Dubuque Avenue in the Planned Commercial (P-C) Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.85 & 20.86 The Board had the following comments: 1. Reduce the monument sign height to 8 ft. 2. Center the "West Marina" sign on the south elevation to be more proportionate with the building. 3. Review the plants abutting the monument sign base to ensure that the plants will not obscure the sign graphics. OWNER APPLICANT ADDRESS PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION Alfonso Perez Sandra Jimenez 534 Avalon Dr. P05-0114, PUD06-0003, PM05-0001 & DR05-0064 New SFR on Avalon Drive (Case Planner: Steve Carlson> PUD Modification and Design Review allowing 2 new single family dwellings and a Parcel Map to reconfigure the shared boundary line between two adjoning lots on a vacant lot in the Single-Family Residential (R-1-C-P) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 19, 20.16, 20.84 & 20.85 The Board had the following comments: 1. Soften views of the retaining walls by adding climbing vines. 2. The 536 Avalon rear windows should be revised to provide better porportion to the dwelling. 3. The roof should have a consistent 4 in 12 pitch. 4. The tree specifies should be identified on the plans. Consider Japanese Maple or Magnolia's. 5. The 534 Avalon south elevation horizontal skirt moulding should be continuous around the building. \ \. Revise the plans and recommend approval with conditions. ER APPLICANT ADDRESS PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION /' .// ~/'" / ,/ ,,/../' " F/-/ // / / .< / /// / / H Richard Haskins 69 S Linden Ave P07-0074, UP07-0010 UP - Auto Repair & ales (Case Plan : Steve Carlson) /~ / "Re-Submittal" - Use Permit and Design Review allowing / re!)se of three existing buildings for an auto repair faci . y .accommodating a maximum of 16 work bays, a ne car // wash, and auto sales with outdoor display, 111 -grade open parking spaces for employees and cu mers vehicles, tandem parking, outdoor over' t parking, off- site parking, new site improvements d landscaping, upgrades to the existing building~.1fenerating in excess of 100 average daily vehicle trip~4nd allowing fencing up to eight feet in height in the miwmum required setbacks, situated at 69 and 103 S /h Linden Avenue, in the /' Industrial Zoning Distri -1), in accordance with SSFMC / Chapters 20.30, 20~ ,20.81, and 20.85. ./ ./ The Board had the following commel"Jt /. 1. Correct the elevation labels /' sheet A6. 2. The signage should be r~' ved from the plans as no sign application is included. 3. Trees should be add to the rear of the property aligned with the driveways to provi visual interest and soften views. 4. Provide trees in ont of Building #A to soften views of the building and to carry the line trees proposed along the remainder of the street frontage. 5. Provide shr. . s with a height of 3 feet to 4 feet in front of the proposed ADA ra to soften views of the ramp. 6. Use s eading type ground cover such as spreading Gazanias rather than clu rp~g type in order to provide better durability. 7. P vIde a substitute for the Coleonema shrub such a Fortnight lily to provide greater height and durability. vise the plans and recommend Approval with Conditions '=",:::>u. AV.6J c1t-J. t::::>I2.\Vt:::.- ~. ,.,~~~.' . .. "4- " < ~ ,J.. ,~Ai~~\.\. '\11": ~'...; 't. ".. ... .. _......:LlI... \~..- ;- .-. . , ~ i#-'"' ','} .; ,-.- ',1,' .......,.. . . . ".~'t~a:~~~+{~ .. ~ il c:.,. , ,. '. r' ."'!" , ..;.' -. -_ 'L.. _........_ ilo"........ _ a r '5~ tA-V~~ Ple.1 '-I\::... ~ l& .. ..-, -~ ...lW- ~.-~ .~... ~~ . -.:.:.-- .. " 5:oe> .&JALG'N 'DR.l'-JE:-. .. . :'. ~. ill" . . -" , j!?~' l~" , _,c.~ ,,~ .~ "'~1"'., . ' ....1.: , - ~..o..L.Ot--l. ~-...Lf:::-.. ..' '-- .' . ::::0.41> .. i.:..'Tt;,i.'".:..;...~-"_. _ ','t........... ;;_.._~....,,_ ~""'~.:'..' .'. ,<.. .--.'; . . ,.~ . ,~., - '...' . j . .. ,.,' '''.~,'".., " . ~'~.'i....... . ,-,,''''.''' .- .~~-~,- -~:, ,~.~,>_.':' "1. ~ -- '-' :." . ~. . ~"'~ '.~-' .~., . ~ '.. - --.F' ~-~ --- -- --- --0;-- Oi - - 1:1 II - " J ..--. c'~ - -. .....'. "." ---- -=- S~ A>-,LA.I ~ t:::>l2-l,-..Je.. (~~ ~ ~~r~) , -- 1;1 ~. S~) =---..<\0 ,A.V",,-~ ~ve. Cl rn - rA- '-'.. ~ " ,,,,,,,-~ s~ A"Al-oN P'l2.A'-./E:. 0;;"3\ ,AN'L>...o .,,-,1'-.1. 1=*2.!-.l.IG.- i:I .:i e ~ ---- --- S><;:!>l A>>..IA~ ~'-le::... - - ....,...... - "'Y' II Il ....,....., I I ~ ----- ... C?~ AV.A.L-oN Dt:2..I'-ll=_ ~ M.L .~- - ;.~. '.', I' ~:~ ~. i1' -~..",-' ._-",.- ....... '"~ ClIOI I 1 S.p3) S~ A..VA~ DI2.\'-Je::. I - - . \.. ~ , ~ III} ~ ;u ~ J. ~ .. - ~ .. ... - , . 1:\.- ...... ~ ~ I ~ --:::-. ~ ~.: ~~ ~~ ~h} .~, , ..L ~\ "- ~. ~ r..\ ....' ~ l__--'~ ---, 'j,. I r "lI III ') ...., . .{. " ;.Cf ."r;- f-_-....l. --''- ~~. ~ nnflr\V l.. ( d v ~ _. ....-- \1 , "- :'., . ., I ~ " \.3]- ~ ...~ , ..., - - il 'a-> · , ~ ~~ Jr' , , ,11;0 J) 'I 'l It oJ I)' .\ ~f\/ -' I" .' l"~ ~I . . ~ I · . I I .. , 1 ~ Ir ,~ ili ... ,:]. I n)1~: .. . "" .. \ . .., , . ',~ .' ... ,t., 0:' ~ ~ ,. .J O{"' . /~ .!>' ~ ,. ". ;. I, ,,'/t ~ j t../'" ~ . "'1 ~/ ~. \ .1 . ..... I' . '. ."f'. J. I ;;/t- .,:0. ' t~ ", '1 ,. ~~, -, . ..., , ~ :r --' 01/ ~,'\ {/ .~ " I I ' " " \.. I ~, " " t ~~... ..' ( . ,~.~.~ , 'I ~ ~ " .., /1" ~ f i '. ~ , I I -4a l r I II r- ~;:; . - ! nl '" , In ~. ,-. .... I ,I ' C. ~ I nl ';:l I I I c:, I :J '" I I "":::1 1-' ;, .1>> I / - I Ie ! I I 10 '0 J · ~ IVI 'I , ...._~- .... ... '. 1 J I . < () z - -I ~ ::I J>. 1J , ~ \ "\ K\ >< !!iil!~llii Iii 1111!11! lilt!!!!III!!I!! II!!; ! i~~;~g~J~~~ :~ ~~~!~~~2 i~~~~~;~~&~~~~~! ~~i~~ ~ ~i~i ~m~~i~ ~~ ~~~~t~~i ~O~~~~;~~~~~;~i l~a~ '::I!II!IJI I! !i:!i~ll !1~1~!il!I!I;11 :i!l R~~~~~!~~~ 2r ~ ~~~~om ~~~~~~!~m~~~5~~ ~~ffl~ ^ili!iill! Ii !lili;i! lli!!!t!!llilli I!I! ~~~~~ ~Ji~ ~~! ~~~~~ ~i~ ~; ~8 ii~~ ~2~~ ~ ~ ~ ~" ~ In m~ ~ \l i ~~l:;l:l:~\'\'\'\'~ I ! ! ! i ~ ~ ~~Ig~~ -0 ~ii ~i~i!~~~~~~ -0 ~~I!!; l> !l 11 IJI l~!i!iii!I' ~ l-'--~:"" '-....\JI~-6 IU ~ ~I~id IU u :t l( 2 ~ I IU ~. ~~l!!i () m I () -< ~ Hllii !l' ~F R L IU !i~~i~ l> !< ~ ~ m~!1!6 ~ . ~ ~ ~~~~r~ m L ~~ i~jjfflQ~~~~ 0 l> ~ m ~ I~ U~~~~j 0 E ~ i i 0 ~ oZi~ -1 ~~ ~ ~ ~M~o ' Z l> ~ ~ 2 ~ u.m For 9 ,. ~ .. ~ . -~~ ll~ O~HI~"'~Hl2i;!1! u (;I I ~ ~ll m~ g ~iUUlilU (l> 0 ';1 ~ ~ ~ ~~ IIi z HI'" II IPF ~~~6 m c -n ~'"~~~ :I F :t -<:r: ~~ (l> Z I ~ ~ () ~: ~~.I~~~m~! ~ u if l> '" i~ n IU ~~o~i ;!1 ~~~~~Iil~! -1 ": :I B~~~i ~ ~~ ;it~~~~~~~ ~ m ill 12 <_;II X () J ~~M l> " = Z -1 iilU ~ ' ;rli!lil~ ~ r~ ~~;J! ~ i~~eGf (l> ~~ ~~~ () ~~ 2~~ ill ~ $ ~ ~ Z ~ ~i'!~ i~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~- ~8 ~ I ~m;ll -~ ~ . ~~iF~' ~r -~ill :S N ~ ~~~ lft~~~~ ~s .~ i> 1I . ~.:....... i Ilil II!I mm!! IIir1ili !ii!~l iiill!i liiillii II!i!1 i 8lil@1 ill :G H ,,~~"'~ ~~~ ~~ r"ill~h ~i&i lft.iil ~~i"~~1' ~~~~t ~ IIi! !jll mmil !11!.i.IH!.'II! 11:,11 UliIihil!il ~i~ffl ~;!~., ~1i~lmuh ~r~~;! ! ,~ )o~~ F~h~~ ~~~~~~I !l'-<~;II~t 'Iii nil Uil!iu liI!:li !i Iii uni ii!i!Jc1i l;ill u~ !;;~~ ~~~~ 6m2 @~~ ~ ~ d~ ~ ~-<\l gS~~ m~~~ ~:o ~ iji \j P~ ~ ~ om~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ; ~~ ~ i a: ~ ~ ~ 'iEfflT W;~!\'l:'lW 1'lIJ:!WDJ i1\ NEW RESIDENCE JIMENEZ & .\SSOCIATES -< ~ if ~ iji ~ COMMERCIAL & ~ If ~ S3b AVALON DRIVE SITE FLAN RESIDENTIAL DESIGN i~ '" i!! ~ ., SOUTI-l SAN FRANCISCO, CA S4080 . ~'" ~ ~ & ~ ,.,.~".,,; ''''0"""' ,......-,,,..."' tD -< ~ \ t \ ~ f t r '\ _//~' "'. ~. Ii '<). '" % ~ ~ r. I <q. 5 , '0. I % -' ., I -' ----J GJ . r. co -;. (fJ " ---n I f~ I I ~1t I ~I l i I I I , I / CD N CD (fJ --+i ~ . '" "'. ~ .., (~\ "b. ~ " ......; % ~ C) t ~ r> '" I '~ ~ '0. j % .!{ I '"'-.j (N . r. CD -;. ~~ (fJ --+i ~ '1-. ~ \ ~ ;.~ \~\ : ~ -:-% ~ -~~.~-' 'r ~ r. ~ ~ 'l>\ ~i ~. ~ ~t " n 'X) ,"'1 !'>J "0 ~;') I\. >1 '" _ r%Jf --- " ~ ~J \ ~~/ \.... //. .,.,// h\ / .-,// ~//).,,{;\ // ,." // // l'I,,/ '" .,,' ,,.'" " "'. ,~r-//.... ~ /// \ \ r t . ~~ I '\ '% ~',l,'.!>: . ~ '$ ~ -+ ~ ~~ ~ / ~ ~ ~ . ~ /~~ . ~~ ~ / -- ' ~-/I . " (' i :\<0. -____1.,,1, \" -"(~~/ , i i I . ~ I' '\'-- --_%.' -~ ------- + ~ -----,-1 --~~ I . I ~.lr f I ! ",0 }~ "' ~ '1! '" '" ~ CO ~ <r;1J:" j ///.>f' ~- % '\'-. <q. . / / '0 % I ----' ----' '-J LN ~. CD <;;'k (fJ -+, ~. '0 -. '.!> ~ , <;;, .so, ' "'. "X ~. <J.I ~)r; ~ -!), (.~ f-r?- . <;. ~. '" '.a:: '" ":b.1 <;;. . ~ I -~._-- ~ (fJ -. -+, ({) N ({) (fJ -+, ~ ~ ~ ~ l'l "'. ~: "b' , ~~ In (J) I-~ i::!. h ~'-"l '1' //'" ?,i ~* ~" (~\ . co co N co (f) . -M~,,",. . ~~' ~ ;,;.., .l( _ ~ -:,. Ii: ~ ~ ~ l3 \// '1'. \ ~. , . ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ". ~ '" I / f / I \1 * I I I I i / ! / '1-. .... , ~ ~ "l ~i.~. '"'d' i I i I I I . I. ... I ........._~.,"'-. ..---....-;.'<;-J r iJ I -- ----~ ~"'" "''''''^-,,- 'Co. . '-" : .1-;,..;.~;.-'.h'>:.,.__.._:~ "'h~ . ~. t ~* ""~,:~ / i i I i ! () lJ IU o lJ o (P m Q (P -t m lJ r l> Z t '" '''~ .>~ 'L r- ~ o ~ L 0' 'j6 '0, 9- ~ \ -t- S! i ~ ~ [ 0 ill 0 .. NEW RESIDENCE .,. I> JI~fENEZ & ASSOCIATES '< .. ~ If (ji .. COMMERCIAL &. ~ ~ ~ ~ 536 AvALON DRIVE PROPOSED SITE PLAN RESIDENTIAL DESIGN I ~~-- ~ {!l ~ SOUTI-4 SAN FRANCISCO, CA ~4131 III ~ ~I II')> ~.Z ~o (J) o )> --0 Z GJ --0 I )> Z T ? r ~ ? f ~~~ g~~ ~ 8 g~ j~ ~0> ~~" ~ R !ii~ ~Iii~ loo!:: Q li 2> ~- GV!~ ~ " ~~ 6 Iii ~~~ ~ i E~ ~ ~ i ~ g ~~ ~ .!! loo 2 i -z ~ ~ ~ E ~ i ~ 0 i 80 g ~ ;~ ii~ i[~ ~~~~6 ~~~~ i ~~~ ~ . ~ ~~~ ~:~ ~~~i~ ~~i~ ~ ;10 ~ ~ ~~ ~~. j,J,,~ 2 ,\g ~ ~n r ~.~. ~. z g~ ~i 8 ~ i ~~ ~~ ~~ m . w ~ " ~ -:1' p -:1' ('" CJ ?- "'f CJ -:P /' P <'" \ -Z- g: " g " '" Q [ 1Hllm!!m!m ~~~@!!l~mwIlm!m millnlllmlffimmmmlllMmlllll!ll ,., 0 ~ NEW RESIDENCE s; .. ~ ~ JIMENEZ & ASSOCIATES Ul .. C OMMERtlAL & 6 0 )> g 536 AVALON DRIVE LANDSCAPING PLAN R ESJDENTJ,H DESIGN Z Vl Ul '" Z I wmIWlW ll' N '" " I'> SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 i" U> ;;j ,. """~"'~".M" '="''''.,"", l!- g ~ " g tD -< 10'-1;" 3'-0" ~ tJ; "TI ~ (fl -t "TI r () () AI ~ ~ =! ;Jl ~ .;.. ~ ~ """" vN.TIlll..ICDt ""'....,." 20'-0" ~ ~ (N'''''' vM.T"'lMEI ""'....,." ,- '\' <l' ~ (;; ~ ~ ~ ~ 1'-0" I 3 -iZ>" 11'-10" II;'-II~" 1'-1" (fl m o ~ D "TI r () () AI lJ r ~ ~ ~ ~~r---- .J!>.1- ~1- I '" --' ... ~ ~ ,- ~ (~ r- ~ I~ ~-~1-L____ ~1- 1~'-5" c'_5" '" --' 6'.0" ~iB i ~~ Iri ~ii2 F~ ~ i ~~ ~~ !.ill~ 1> ~:!I --i ~Ieg ~ i ~t ~ ~'-iZ>" '" l-0':- ~112 !o " ~ ~ i ~~ ~ ~ - :>1'.2~" 25'-1I~" T-iZ>" !i i~ !~ <l' ,- dl (:') ~ .t>.1;- l;'PI~ 13'-1" 1"'-9~" ~!2 ilt I ~1~2 ill! ~I- m- " II :!I ::! f,1 I p...Z ~~ - lil;~ '.11 .;l8 - ::! -! --' ~ :s, G'ilJ..l 13l1....l 00'116. """- .-..... -..- (N)2.. """- =-:a. ~ 9'-1~" '-iZ>" 14'-8~" 31'-3" 31;'-3" ~'-3~' !iZ !I~ III ~ !~ 8" ~~ 8'-iZ>" iz II' ~ II !I ~ '" {J:II~ (ji ,- ... lJ)1;- ~I~Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ::! U! ~ II /j; ~ '~:I 13'-I1!b'1 --' G'~ ~IQ~ '-1" 1;'-2~" 2"'-1I~ ' 1'-111 5'-2~" 2iZ>'-"~" '.1" 5'-'~' 2~'_~~L' 6'.1~' 4'-iZ>" II'-"~" 1!:J'-2~;1 r I I ____-I '" ,- ~Ii ii, <l' (;; ~ ~ "I) .... ......... -..- '" ~ 3'-iZ>" 2'-5" '-1" '-1" '.1" 1'-1" '" ~ c;coeEr '" ~ ~ 11'-2" ~ Jt '" ~~ N'= ~F b~ ~ -:! ~ ~ ~~- '. '1'1 '-1" Q ~ ... ~ 0 ........,. . ~-,'-~- '~~~.~'. ~.. ..-.~ III 8- .. NEW RESIDENCE 5 " JTMENF.Z & ASSOCIATES -< .. C;; J>. .. COMMERCIAL & ~ S3~ AVALON DRIVE PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN R ESlDENTlAL DESIGN i i! ~~."'t:<r;~h,~~..",~.l,.:_cl'fi,1"=<-,,~,,_"1-f.t - SOUTI-I SAN FRANCISCO, CA ~4lZl8lZl '~,,"lAidl.ySI1"~ s.." rn"Q'''',CA 9'\:." ~ ~ Pi,,,,,,,: "15.ln.~~sl Fu, +1,-l'n.9~' III Em.il"M."1I@obj~';~,oom -< 10 r () Srl -0 r I J>. z I \ ~ I I () r J>. I ...,-:< I ~rni I I L STRIP UNDER EAVES VENTILATION IU li- ii u @ " ] " Q C=~tL_:=:_ ~:= ,[nl: " -U l@~i ~/ ~ iiT~ / : ~,} // ~ ------::------~ .. /// I I ,,~. i i " ~" , 1\ ..* I I 100 " '~II /r<~L-- ~==l'':..)==~~: //1: ~-_: ' --~ ~ ... " "/IA I "'''''.. -.::.t .. ...~II ~~',' : :~~ I'! .h.".k~ - , - i~ ii " " / ~-- p-- -- / / / / //<'11- / ^-'" /{P / / ,<\1-// ~/ )-'~/ / / / / " " ~~ ~~~ r ~ n " " Lu --~.. STRIP UNDER EAVES VENTILATION ~~~Ug~ r~" lJ>:<:!f ~::!Iii~~!t/?: mc~ilL:~l!!r . ffl~iji~Fm O:tl>-l~l> ~=i:I~ili:I ~-<z!il~z ~t~~~ Iii 5:<:" o ~ffiJ>11 ~~~~i\I/;; ~~mO~lJ> ~~~r~ ~1ii~J~ fjj ~ i1l1!~ '-~~ m8~~8~U~~~ I~~r~~~~~~T!' 8~~;ll~ti~~tir ~2~~li;~~o~~ l!iiR~\J~~<=~J>.;$, . ~rm ~@ZZ ~IO ll\m~O"" J>.J>.~...,....~. rr ~~a:O(Pt;;-ig~ ~~~~p~~~~ ~-~~~J>.~~ ...,iRO!f QJ>.IJ>. r r ~~m~ ~1rif!!:S "'_QO ~zxm ~/)-8 ~8ti:Tl ~~~ ~@~ hl~][ ""...,ti ""I~ Ime j!!!Ei!Z ~~~~ r-Z .. !jlz~ ....Qr _...,J>. )O\Jl::! <=r~ ~~~ ~i!i! l>>mm -nm ill.... m~ :IiQ@OiPllJQt::!< m -nIr~m-nGv "f. ,!~g@m,!miil 8Q~rm~@.~JO ~tplc~~(J)~ ~~~~8~oiijm ~Illr~~~~....~ . ~r m-CPZ ~I()~tibO'-i ~~~. ~~t;\: -t (fI~l>-n()--+ ~~~~f=~~~ ~ ;-itill1~~ J>.o'f @I~ r ...~~Z O~r~ gIrT!' . ~ -n llJ ;jj~lll ~c ....llJ rm mill \J ~~~~(j~~:':~ ~~~~~2~!!:~ ~~=Ii~\'i~;!~ ~~ illiiI/,~~ I't~hOd ~~I;~~~~~m ~mm~m'B-I!';J! ~~~I~~~~l'; l\h~6ji;~c~ iIIrnm~~ii\lI\~~ ~2~1' ~O~3 . ~~r o"lt\l'!~ ~~ ~~g zril ~ Ii~~~mi ~6i~ffi"'-U . ~~";;~~ ~~I'<iO 21'~ I' r~lii~o ~1Il~~~~ ~~~iII ~ ~~~~h 2li11;,,!!l~ ~~~~~~ ~~.zi~ mlllS::! ~ o~"'~ ~ ~~li ~ ~ ~ ~i ~i~~ ~g~~ ~~~~ ~MlIl~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ li1m!~~~ ~~~ ~ 5~~~ ~m~~ ~~2~ ~~~~O~ 2-~ ~ ~,lIl~ s~:~ ~:~i ~o~2ri1~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~IIl~ ~~~o ~m~~~~ *~~ ~~B ~~~ ~m~~ ~~~g~~ ~~m ~~m ~~I ~&~~ ~~~~~i i~~ ~~~ p-~ 1~~~ ~~3~l~ - ~ 2~~ ~;~ ~~~~ ~~~:~~ I'~~ ~~ ~~lIl ~~~~ ~~~~~~ lIl~ g_ ~~~ ~~~1Il ~~~~ ~ ~i ~ ~~I' ~~~ o~ ~ B ~~8 /' Q J>.f ~ l? ~ 0 (.'11 ~,__ _ ,_ow ".{,..=. _ .>'Im.. . .2:.0 iR i NEW RESIDENCE '< .. ~ !f JIMENEZ & ASSOCIATES 0; .. COMMERCIAL & ~ II! 536 AVALON DRIVE ROOF PLAN RESiDENTIAL DESIGN IV l! i"F"~"~'$.L~~m~~,~h~HJ.,,~ i - ;:, SOUTl-I SAN FRANCISCO, CA ~4131 "",1.oiilley SI='I, l'oulPnncioco,CII. ~+,"l ~ ~ ~ Ph""","5...t;-9~!1 rU:~"-,,"-9~8l Emlil,..~'ojjn:..,.zdt,;!(!l.o.oll'l llJ --< :I lil ~~o "I{~ I!< =1 ili E m (j) -f m r m '< J>. -f ~ II r r II , r I I , , (j) o C -f I m r m '< 1> -f o Z r . liPm 11 iit~~. . r IntFnl iU~;~ . '!'~~I ! .. ... h<t I. . '. ~" .,. == .... !n 1110 ~I rc:::J c=:J . I .' . .;,(l>~ ., .~~.~! I , II ~~g~ iU ijblJ 51 ~" RESIDENCE ~;~ AVALON PR~~o, CA 941Zl!W SOUTI-t SAN FRANC m 1> (j) -f m r m ~ -f ~ z o 10 -f I m r m ~ -f ~ 14'.0" I 4.:," Z4"~~" "~(l>~ . U~ ~~I/ ~tg . . ih ." w I . 'm I ~ .. ri!g . lill~. I i I i i FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED - ".H;U - ~ AS.SOCIATES JIMENEZ ERCTAL & C OM~~iAL D E5lG'N "~~~,;~i~7.~2i~:;:'.." I .'-03" i I z ~~ ~ h ~ ~ a ~ II .. ~ Q :tJ ~ !;l If 0 tt,L,_~ ,~,,1!,,"'m::~_.~~"'""'l! ill i I; NEW RESIDENCE JIMENEZ & ASSOCIATES < .. iI (ji .. COMMERCIAL & ~ I ~ E>3b AVALON DRIve SECTION RESiDENTIAL DESIGN J>. t!! !i! ~':>b"""'--",;",.~!f<<'>,''V'''''<~'!%W-~~ ~ ;:, SOUTl-1 SAN FRANCISCO, CA ~4131 ~,...lD:jl.,.Serc<~ S.nT:-oncl....CI. ~:" ~ ~ ~ ~ Pholl<':411-~".P~ll ru:,,~-Uf-~"~~ ()l ~ - 1;",,;] ''''''l'O@:,oji"'',...,.k'';II''_",m -< V) :J: fTl fTl -i o "'1 l'V V) fTl > r. z!,!1 0(;) ~~ ;<)2 -<;<) -ofTl C" lD r (') Z > Z o "'1 o ;<) V) > i5 o o C Z ::< > Z o V) -i > M o > f.1 (") :J: r;; "'1 lD C i" o Z (;) o :::J (') > r ;::: -< (") o ;::: ;::: Ui o Z fTl X -0 ::0 fTl ~ i!z~:i!~~;.g~ fTlV)(f)I"TlV)O::IJ1 z ~~ ~ Ui I ~ ~;:::~:i!01 ~II ;<)1"Tl'_"'11 r c~:i!Z(f)1 r-< ;::: 1"Tl- >1 I !Z':i!::OBi~'1 ~I ;-ifTl>iJ"'1 ill -occf;1 fTl ~i!~al ~I (f);Q Z:;o 1 fTl1 ON-i-l"Tlll l:5 ~oi5s II o l> ~I 1 1 :;oil>Z , lD l> 0 (") I I"Tl :i!Q21"Tl11 b fTl::< 0 -i ,I ;<) I"Tlc?f 01 fTl zelfTllDl I ;::: :::h--'8fTl"ol f'l ::<l>tji!~ 1 OZ 1"TlV)11 ZO-i 0 Oil Z I ~~~~FIII >-i 0-< 1 rm:i!ft.;o;:1 I "'1 -< > (f) Z I 1 O:c """i..........ol "'1 Ui:J: ~ ~ I I f~-S 5l a III ~::IJ:J:fTl~1 "-.I"TlZ""'>1 -i-i'>fTlz :J:R\i! ;:::~ol fTl::o fTl~ 01 il -< (f):;O I fTl!,!1 fTl~ill I :;O(;)x-;<)I ~~~~2111 Z-ic>fTlI1 tnciTl~o :~oV)a, I o~:i! ffi ;:::,1 I MofTlV)fTl I .oZ(J)~ol I fTH~CijZI x:J: fTl fTl -i I 1 fTlfTl 0:J:1 I g Z -i fT11 M 0 o 1 :;: ::j Z fT1 V) V) ;::: -< :J: > Z o l> Z o o "'1 "'1 (') > r V) fT1 l> r. -i-i O:J: fT1 :::Ir ?o fT1-i ~V) (}1-o r ~::j :i!~ fT10 V)C g~ i!~ ~E zV) "'1~ ~!Z' z-i 12-0 (f);<) 00 0-0 ;:::5l CfTl zo rh ilfT1 >;<) rfT1 OZ go !"'~ "'1 o :;0 ;::: V) o > -i f':1 I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I (') J: m "'1"1 m c: ...... C Z C) o "'1"1 :!! (') )> ...... en (') m ::::0 :::j "'1"1 n ~ m a ;::: V) -0 > :;0 ;0;: JIl o :J: r;; "'1 -0 ~ Z Z fT1 ;<) 8~ 0 c> <: zr;:t <; ::<0 Z 0"'1 m 1"'1' ::::0 I I en II I ...... I - " 0 I, ~ I! ~ L~ ~ '" ...... m C C') m 3: m Z ~ (f)-i O:J: CfTl i!r o Ul-i ~c Z "'1fTl ~;E Zo 12-0 UlO OV) OfTl ;:::0 C:J: ZfT1 -:;0 QfTl -0- >z ro 00 OZ 0"'1 fTlO .::IJ ;::: V) a :::I -i r fTl l'V o o "'1 o J: m "'1"1 '"tI > Z Z m ::::0 en o m ::::0 ::! ." o ~ m :i! fT1 Ul 0;<)1 -i0fT11 )> C OJ r;:tzo o~el "'1 0 !:til (")"'1- >(f)ZI c>l>! "'1Zz ~;:::ol ~l> "'11 l> M 0' . 0;<)0 , 0 i!c fT1Z ::< '-I ell 551 fT11 (/)1 01 <;1 ~I (/)1 I I I 1 I 1 fT11 "'11 ~I fT11 UlI 01 <;1 ~I UlI I I I I 1 V) -i )> ;::: :1? ;:::z;:::1 :!) > )>1 r r;:ti!Jl3::tj PI"Tl)> , (/)O-i~;& -i:::JilOUl ~(')ili~1 fTlfTlOI OOUl~ "'1"'11 " ~:r!1 ~ CfTll fT1 0 "'1 :;0 l> 081 r;;-< ~C1 (f) 0 -z z"'1 (>~~PI ~:i!1 I (")fTll 0::IJ11 el fTl I !:tig I oell I "'1 -il -i01 1 :J:"'1 l'V 1"Tl, Zo (") I 01 tD 1 C 0 zl ~' -i I )> -1 !:;il ~I (f)1 01 "01 fTll ~l 1 I I I I , c o fT1 Z Ul fTl fTl X "0 ::0 fT1 v.> "'aO::IJ:J:i! i" Zc::\)>fT1 ~~':.(~ii1c oi5ril~~i5 "'1-o:;OO;:::fTl :i!:;O~-l fTlOl -SGzO;<)G') V)f'1V)0 G')z ;:::;O:;:Z:J:fT1 )>:<:f ;-i? :u' 5l;g:::l:J: ~f'1V)?~ O(");:::fTlfTl :;:o>o~ r'lBiil::IJUl Ri!Z'~z~ ;o-i or;:t-i f'1-r;<)fTl lDUlOfT1 -<z-iV):i! (")fTlO1-i> ~~1z-i ~~";:i!~ Z~' fTl> -i-<> ;0 -i Z;<)fT1 0-;01'1 o l>:i! :i!ili!~fT1 f'1~~:;oo ;:::(f):;:SG~ ~(")"'~fTl z~~::<Ol (;):;01'1 0 ~:::I:i! ;<) O?fTl fTl o l> r.J I 1 I I 1 I , I I O;oO;:::O-i ~~g>~~ 20cil::IJ(f) Z(;);:::)>fT10 (;)ZfTlOOO NZ-;,;-lO :i!tj,;-l>o~ fTl -iZOfTl iltD:J:OZZ :;o-<fTlrb-i !:6:i! "0 g;o:J: gJfTl2l~~~ ~Q;.go(;)tD -::<~ela~ Z -<_ Z o~C~i!:;o ~Uli!ijt5fTl~ ~g(J)fTl:;OfTl 0:2o!ll8~ ~ elc<;O ~~;:g~~ ZCijZ;:::o ;:Jtj~~b ~:J:8(f)c ogJ:;ooi5 UifTlO"'1 8z~:i!a )>~~fTllD (f)r (f)fTl roc :i!lD "'1 mM fT1fTli!2o c: -~2 Z (f)__ fTl oj? Ul Zr r -< ::::0 m o o ::::0 C m ::::0 cii (/) ~ ~ m 3: m Z ~ Ul ~ :1? r (') fT1 Z V) fT1 fT1 X il ;a fTl v.> o ~ Z m ::::0 cii (/) > ~ m 3: m z ""'" o ~ m z C') Z m m ::::0 en o m ::::0 ::! :!! o ~ m o > f.1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 I ~8:i! ~~Ui -fT10 S(")o !,!1,;-lo o c: zo;::: ;:::~!Z' l>"'1-i "00 :;O:J: >;:::)> O-V) -iZ (;)tD ~o-i~ o Z ri!::<J gfT1~ >:;ofT1 rfT1~ ~~o 0;0> zfT1z >~o t5~b fT1V)c !Il Z ~o :i!a fT1al ofT1 f:iTl "'0 O:J: ::IJz z- -0 l>)> r r -< V) fT1 )> r. z!,!1 0(;) -iZ )>> ;02 -<:;0 "OfTl C" lD r (') Z )> Z o "'1 o :;0 (/) l> i5 o o c Z ::< )> Z o Ul -i > M ""'" m o :::I: z (; J> . ::::0 ~ m ~ m ::::0 en ~ ~ m 3: m 2 ""'" ;::: -< o o ;::: ;::: Ui o Z fT1 X "0 ::0 fTl ~ ~ 2! fT1 (/) Ul ;::: -< :J: > Z o l> Z o o "'1 "'1 (') > r V) fT1 )> r. :i!Z~:i!~~ril~ fT1(f)(f)fTlUlo::<J1 z~~~UiI ~ ~;::::;O;2~1 ~I ;<)fT1'_ I r C~:i!ZUl rl ;::: fTl - > I -;iJ'" "01 "Oc:cf; fTll>1 fT1 -; ;;:: -II ;<):I:fTlO ;<)1 V);Q Z ;<) I tjl ~f;:t-i- 01 1 Oil>fTl OJ ;<)l>Oz, fTl -i (") ^ ~I "'1 :J:-Z 0 fT110-i1 I ~ fT1-~01 zelhtDl I;::: :::I'-'OfTl~1 fT1 -;' (;) rli - -<l>tj:i!:;01 OZ fTlUlI zO-i 01 O"OZ ~:i!:!::!:ti~1 ~~fT1~':.(1 !:;ial:i!ft.;O;:', -<)>UlZ O::I:-;~~I, "'1Ui:I:~:Z1 , :;:'fTlo II :r:J:'(f)a I (')fT1Ul fTl , :J::;O::I: ;;::'1 ':::t~~fT1~ :r!R\;2;:::~ol fT1;a fT1~~11 "0 -< Ul I fTl Ul fT1~"O' 1 ;<) G') X -:;0' UlZ ...,Ulol' ~~g~ii11 II ~C:iTl;<)o ~~o:all l> Ul --f C 1 I o'-':J:lD;;::11 MOfT1UlfT1 1 .oZUl~ol I fTl >CijZI x:2~fTl-;, I fTlfT1 0:J:1 I g Z -i fTl1 M 0 o 1 o l> -i f':1 I I I I I I I I I , z~~,- 2"00-; OfTl :J: )>;<);:::fT1 iTlSl>c o\ailZ O~o~ z- 0;<) Z(f) -ial-i- :J:l>l>(;) fTl~zi!ij ;:::otj? lUO-:J: . ZZfT1 :;O-i;<) fT1~tti 8(f)-< :;OO(f) 00-; l>g~ z;:::fT1 0!Z':i! ~-il> ;<)~-; ii1::<J;2 -<fT1fT1 zilr "'1:;Ol> OfT1Z ;<)ilO ;::~o )>fT1fT1 :::I0Vl ~c~ z- 0"0 fT1:::1 :;00 Z ;:::(J) -< Ul -i l> ;::: :1? C o ~ (/) fTl fT1 X -0 ::0 !1 z8~~~ 0Z~CJC/) ~C/lZO r'"OmZ ~%m Z~~ "~ ::l CJ OR" Z ~a?~ "'~ N ~~~ ~~'i j~ - -0'" ~~~ ~~.~ t'" ~~ ~o if" OUl O~ ~;:;I :<0 ~r I I I , , I I I II L~ '" '" m 2 C') Z m m ::::0 en o m ::::0 ::! ." E m o o Z V) Ui ~E (;)r 0:< "'1N N8 UlO> :J: fT1 fT1 Vl 00 0_ ~~ 00 "'1." (J) ~(/)> ;:::Oz >C::o -i-tr t) :::I: ~ (;) (/)~ (J) ZJ> ~ ~ Z r;:t"'i! o::::OfTl "'1J> oZ f:0 "'1- ~(/) zO >0 o ~ 2 m ::::0 ffi )> o ;,::: 2 o ~ . m o G') m :s: m Z ""'" '1)1 ~I N1 121 ;lll -, ~I I I I I z ;1; 2! fT1 V) V) ~ fT1 ",:;0 ofT1 I~ l C)lD> OfTlr CfTlr zZ -i ::<"0> l>X 0- fT1 .,,?Ul Ull> )> >UlZ z 0 3::~Ul )>:::1"0 ;:;I:!) fi ptj ~ all> -<V) i!~ fT1Vl Ul ;iJ~ fTlZ ~Vl c(") ;<)0 !:tiF ':::tfT1 l>O xr;:t 00 Ol> FV) fT1-i Ol> ax ;<)fT1 Ul O:J: "'l> :i!ii1 fTl :J: )> ii1 V) fTl -i ;::: -< :J: l> Z o :i! Ui o )> -< o "'1 0>01l>'1) oral ~-..J0l>~)>fT1 * 01 E(;)V)i5z * "'1>UlfTl";(J)(;) "Oo~-..J~ > * l> Z fTl'O>;<) ~ * illl> ~Vlg"05 * f!J;::: o~~!:ti;; * ;:::lU"'1;:: fT1"O * )> -i)>cNC* "O:::I:r-i~fT1--l V)? fT1tJVl -i> * l>fT1r l>Z* --f0 )>o-l>-lD rO * Zo Oil "O-.;!ocn.fTl?J * l>)>UlZ"'-(f)O ~;<) 0::<-1>- Oil * -I>-~ "';<)qlljgJ * .:-Jr rilfi:!) f:j~ * (J);::: :Oor * >l>fT1;<)fT1)>C * z"ONOO(f)Z CIlfT1UlzrfT1 * ~Cf --fl> ~E; * -iN )>Z(5 '- * fT101rOr01C 0-1>- Ol>C: O>(J) * o ofT1 ;::: 0"; * O:!)Ul"OfT1 ;::: Cr ~;<)co Z!Z' * ZfTl-Q-..J)>-; * --lOlDrli -<-tj:oO;:::O* :;oZ -i"'1~"'1* fT1<:l>-<!:: -; 00 UlC>:::I:I: * ~Erz~;::IfTl* ~~ ~fTl 8 * ell ~I 0, V)I l>1 I I ~I N, ;<)1 01 ~I ~I I '1)1 fT11 ~I 121 "01 ;<)1 ~I I I I :!)ao;<):J:;2 C Zc::\l>fTl Z(f)rfT1< (;)l> -<:;o"'c oi5ril~~i5 "'1'1):;OO;:::fT1 :i!:;O~-ifTlOl -!:6z0:;oG') UlfT1UlOG')Z ;:::;<):;:Z:J:fT1 l>::<:r ,-i? :u. 5l;g:::l:J: ~fT1Ul?!:ti OC);:::fTlfTl :;:Ol>o~ r'lBi"O;<)Ul :J:fT1)>--i fTlZV)Z> ;<)-i .r;:t-; fT1-r:;ofT1 roUlOfTl -<z-iUl;2 ofT1(}1-i)> ~~~z-i ~~;. :2~ Z~ZfT1> -i-<O ::<J -i -i~fT1 oa~~:2 :i!"O-i r'l fT1~::;:;ll0 ;:::Ulr'lO~ ~P~~!:ti Z fT1 ,., -< (f) (;)~:i! 0 ~:::IfT1 :;0 o? fTl I I >>(f)1 Ul> ZG?rill ~Z O:!::ol fT1)> :;:z>1 :;0-0 ~~~I ~~ ,On 0 -<s;:~11 OlD ~Z~. :~ "00 Z ("):J: 0 ;<)0-i0fT1 ~::OV)i5Ul~ fT1)>O-l>Ul oz?2gi5lD al-<F;;zOfT1 -<'1)ofT1O!Z' Ul>r;:tOC ~~ob~fl o )>:;O-<fT1 5~(f)l>~0 j?;o~"Oo~ rt)X>Ul:i! al"'1el~~ OlD~fTl-i:i! l>C ZfT1fT1 ::<J-i -i_ oZ(')OZ~ zo::I:"'1:i!l> Vl~~~fT1el :!::fT1[T\r>o O-iZ-i;:::'" ~~~~g 0-< fT1.Z C)>)>Vl-; zf!1c)>o ;-ifT1!Z'i5"'1 OO~ :J:o, fT1C oz 8::<' lD 01 fT1"'11 rUl 0)>1 ,:;:ZI :2~l ~r;:tP "0fT1 , :;0 V);o;: ~o M"'1 o:i! ."r'l otD l>0 r> -:;0 bO ;<)0 ~"'1 }>(J) :J:C !:tiril fTl:;O lDS -<V) o 0:;0 fT1(f) ;<)0 ~"'1 .-< i! )>fT1 Ul ~Q z~ 3:0 )>." rrl(/)* 000 oc::W O"""'~ c:::::J:m z(/)W """,J>I\) -(2' ~ ~ 0.,,00 J>::::OO .J> -Z ~Q ::::o(/) ZO -0 J> o ~ Z m ::c en (f) > ""'" m :s: m 2 ""'" o m ::::0 ::f ." ~ ""'" m o ." ""'" :::J: m o r- m ::::0 ;,::: o ." ""'" :::J: m CD o J> ::::0 o o ." (f) c:: ""0 m ::::0 < en o ::::0 (/) ""C )> ::c (") m r- S )> -c -I m Z ~ -I - < m If- =; ~~ ::! o 2 q q ,,"-<;,i ,1v' q .~ (i'en :r~ s-S CJ1 Q) f )> N q z '" .~.. '" , ~ ~~ ':i d/JI ;;; " ... "', " .. .... ... ~. !~.. 'fft 0 o. o. .' ;- 10\,: ..---- ..-- ---- ~ en :::f 2 G') c:: ::! ,... 3 ~ ~ en en ~~ m, r-I m ~/ ::! o ~ en ~ en en o 'T1 co ~ ;0 2 Co) en z~&iril ~f'1>::U >()~::u ;:;j>g~ Pr=(;)~ Vll1~O 0>00_ '~ I 2 S:n)"'(J ;Z~!~ OO;co> O'--n)=l ~(;I6~ . Ul;o /n)r- ;;;::;fTJ8 ;lCN X;c.: en PO>i!=l ~ ,..,co~~ lX:1 ~~::illl o ~~~~ r-o 'n) en ,..,~O n.. co;u>~ ,.., n)2SC1J -i2::i::u r;; fiio~~ G".lF:J2/~ m ZJ>. )> 2: o::uVlr;1 o ;u,..,~. filJ>.Qi! ~ 11r= G) fIl J>.J>. ~::!1 J>.p:1 III 0 III I/) Oc Q::u J>.~ fff-< . 11 ~m CJrC] M~ 00,..., 80 2<- -~ Qc ::u)> p;o ",-< ~~ J>.. 2", -;!g ;00> filco >-< . 0 OJ>. J>.jfl ~~ -l>~ 9c dS: r~ 10 "-/Iil S::1Il ~~ 1/)0 11s; "'Ill ,,-/0 0>2 ~O s:'" fJ~ -i CD o ::u o C ~ C Z ~ it ~ -l> o ::!1 r;; o 2 80 c- ~~ IilO 1Il'T1 ~ (/) J>. s:Oz J>.CO ;:;j "'"of r- o:r:~ (/)Q ~~ cn~;g -i.....z J>. ;:;j 'T1 5! ~~", 02 ~(') ~C;; z(') i>o '""'n..,tri~ Zog;:ZfJ 035z8V1 ~~~~ ;i~tI1 Z;;!2 ~d0 v 0 Ro Z III :r f"1 /Tl -I '" o 'TJ l\> Of c: -I -I '" '" '" '" E: !;; 0 g tol)> ;;:ttI~o50~"'~ 'E :;~m '" ::t: "'::0 m ;eC:-l-{(f)ChGn0S:'/-.tootrJ.l> <:: )>-ImO)>.-I~~oig"'J>.C:",..... nll=!~""'~""""~"'~d~m)> "'~~~~O:~~fi1"QPsm;:j fi1-<~fJn1~~~~~~~~~~ ;;{& ""0 0;:;",,,, ~ diU> .:oX.tz1"TJO.2.'mm 2 ~g~ fDt5 ~ :r.:l:J-I ("') ~m; f I!! '" p; 25 ~ ~ ~ S OS !1J .., ~ .., '" m -I m ~g~~~82 ~56rirr:~2:~ OX""", ::0 '-H <m."o mZm:>.:z-Hr- r;;~~-f;J:-o -If-4m 0 Z .... Z -1 o ~ !!! I/) :::1<- 2C Qr- 0'-< -.,,,, /'0>8 1/)0> :r r:J i/I OoOo.@O t> Ig Ik Ei2~ ~~g ~~!e t>>iii'"CD' ~~8 *- -om ~.Q) 5'. ~f~ ~fJ) 0 "'2 ijo W" ---...:.....-....~ ~ ~ g z:;:>: :;S:;!i' [11 g B 3 ~ f1: z ~ g> 5' ~ g )> 0 ~:; J' ~ P5 :i '" g !j 2-<f?,O: 0 @;e: 0 *:i 0 s.g...., 1JQ.~ ~:;:~ "W~~~~0~~0'0S~~~~~_aOg3~~'" (JJ0 x"'",,,,_,o "'Go ;;:"".." G~ _ ;:;i."~ ~~~..~~o f1:s.@.~ '" [email protected]~IlS?5,rg~ "-"-l\>"'o-llo"lQag ~0(JJ'" O_a",...,:!:; ""5' ' ---- t 0' J' ~ g g ,2 i> '" ;;: ~ ~ '::i ~ ~ ~ ': ~ g>-8 ~ 0 ... -- "' 'c~....0~2"'O_:rVl 'c_. "OO~~ l./) 0:;:0~,,:r:r...goo ~(JJVl~0~~ 00"'0 g fJ",!l!.",8'Vl"'CJr ........;&>~Ctl 'aO~:r~l3..., ~ "'-ICJr~~~::U~8SVl"'~~O'~"'~!j~~00 :r ~2m ~~q"CJr~"""~ ~Vl"O~.j>.~:; l./) '" 0100:rVlC':-l>Vl_Ol\>a:rVl ~O. .... 0 ~ pr .... o' ~ q ~ . q ~ - '-0 a P a " 0, "0 " d'..., t:; 'i 0 - 5' <;; _ g g ~ 2, cog g, 0 3 f1 '" S'6 ~ ....OlQl\>.o<o<o&"<g.o<oo~o:;:~ -0 -.. ?::;:::s N :r _- -.. :e_'~:r '" I: ~fg 00 a.o 0.. -"0 1:3 3''<{t::!.", Q. '" .<'t'.. - '< , 0 fTJ U g ~ -I 6 " ,... 0:<0 ::u 0. '< '"" ~ 00"'00 g:r3 '" o~ co,2 :;t:;1~....~ <0 ~ 5' 5'<0 g g :;:31:;:0 5'f1 ~ .g "''''0>J>.00. -0"'0 """'<l><o"'l? "", 0 if~ihQ.f&:;:~[~"'~Fo~g'i~~ g S'~Q oOo~30m~8~agoc 30 ::s <o:r-a;&>""'....~ o.o::s~ ~""~2",""31 q .VlgO~OOO,.o_C'::r~~:;:o~ ~<g. q~,2~::!....~i~io~"'~oa~I~~~ Q. ei001~611g.i>_:;g~....~O!0(JJ0 I/) -' .... e.o 0 :.. c 2, .... 0 l<o .l -l> :e 3' ........ .... jI.... g oo:r~ "0<g."~...-:;"'Vl~"'0!11J>.?: .", uo. -"'01'" '.'0 e, 0 0 ""<l>WJ ;&>goo~~aao:rfo.vaa~ a~.e:.... ~ ...."'m ...,,~::s-'<!l!.05. ~~~o., ;:;."'~ !!io,glQQ.a ~'" :;0" ~q:r -"';;:{)-~s:oo <0' .' "-0 ::s::J 0..... '< Q. Q Q -g" a ::s o 0' o 9 ---- ;;;: Q <il 9 ~~:;1~>::;t~g~8:;::;::;1~~~Qg>:;~g~~~5J' ~ '9,! ~ g ! 0''9. '" ~ '" (] ! 0 * ~ 0 s. g...., 'U a 3 ~:;: 6 .. ~ g ~:: g :r ~ !t l g.E g g ~ :r! ii ",8 f1 g ~ ~ '" ~ ~.z~~-gg....:;;:;.:r03<1>~:r&g"'iS?~5Q~ i;1' ~ <0 g '" ~ !~. ~ g g g V; () irS!.:!:; <'5' ~ I ~ :;:i(l)~g~:r"g3.~~(JJoa~~.~~lQ gCO -----~ 01~glQi?e,,;aQ0 Q~.S:~~c2-.'l~.~"tJ:;s u. ~ ~ .... w Ol () c::s 0> _'" 03 y, o ~t;:r:r'..B!!iO:o.<O"'(,.J,.,,02..... <:x>"'o g -D 'Vl"'O Oc: '" 0 -000:rS:/3 .... . q-l>o>::u"'o~""{)Qa~~~"'="'{)"'Og :r ;:;> ~O>d<ii'0::S0iidag~0. wggit(JJ~5' 00 ';&>~::r9,ooo i<O-l>O:;:Vl <l>o..j>. ~ 0 /Tl '" ...:.... 0. ri .... ~ g (jj' ~..." P a " 0, z 0 ::J i"~QqOg!qol,.,,2g8gg,gg:i" ~ ....~?: 0!f~'<0""OO~<g......lQ~;:;.~:rS g -i""vo(Oo.z",o~" "'[I1:;'<t~", 0 ~ g ~'< g 5 0 ~'!i;;:; d:' a g fi. 0:<0 ;0 Q ~?: ?!' <O"'-O;;]"';&>o:r '0:r3 -"'-'0<1> ,0 <JJzC1.... o~g. ~"" g:;:31ii8"l?~ "0' J>.~... "8J 'o~~'9."'<g. a.:S::~9i 0 1~~~~Vl~0~~ri2W"'0....g~Q,~ g ~::r"o::r~ao~o "':rO!oc,~o::u " ~N "(JJ~c"~Of1:~~~........g",,,,..._ ~ o~:;So.j>.q<o<o ''O~2.::r_~::!E03? o'B- 0 ~-l>"'::!.~_:ron)oo"",~oo~",~_.... ... i[~:'(i,,!oo f15'g-o .....'< :g <.no l./) ~g ~o"f"""~g!l\>.5"s.~g,,-/~ g ~ '2 g ''0 3'<0 ..... o~ 0 to it ~ ::!: <1lo '" ~ 11 :1. a;E ""00. 00"'''''.... "0 0 ;;;: ~ iif... g' S' C ~ '" 3 -.3 0 0 ::r a 0: ~ 6 0 '< ~ 'U ~ g ~"'!i!- g:E!'J S' ... " ~ g _'< ~ '" 5' '" ~. Ol .. '" 0. ~ '" 2: ~ ~ 3 0 g lQ ~ <> ~ 0> .0 -Ol 30 g.....100:6iJg3.."Foo 0:" 0' ",' 'O:E~ ...~ ~ 0 0'" J>. CiI R ~~S.~gQgfiilffa~~g~~g~ '9.1(JId;-o~oo.... (;"'<5800'9. ""'''-/~<1l ~",~o.""~o."'a.""3 ~Ol/-l><1l'O~oogr~"ot"',,_ i.-l>J>.~:'2"O);O<>"Q"'~. o.~,2 . c.n;;. 0 a.::soo ,_...... :.z: 0 :;: "-/ U) c..., <> <> ;;] 0 0 '" '" ~ Q ~ ~ '" J :I ~ G) 0 ~ '" :........, ~ ~ ~cn~J>.~ l6:r~0 Q,~<O~i~~o '4O)Q","'c -to ;lQQ.m.t:'o't) ~1~~!~~gOl~~"_;:;.g~2 ticoC1<.nvg~o~~C1~Q.ao>i~ .0 Ol'<o -)>"!~o_''''_'o CX;0;&>"o"'it:; "01:e",< 0" CDCD_ (bO __00 0,-+\ g'g-l'f~ogg~:;:I/)Q;~ff '" ~~og",2~.>g 'og:~"" g ~og"'g0PQ.~g~a:;:gg~i 0 S'" 8'02Ci1UlS-rf1:8:r-,~ f :.. 0 =;' "'i5' 0.0 me:,g c: '" -.s:)>!! .0 -l>gg ~''''5'a.oJ'~.;r~ig~&,< 0 ii'1'2'~'3"'!0I/)lQg""~""0"'i!5 g ~~~<O~ ~_.!g.g :;:<g.t;tg,ff-g:;: ;:;. 0- ..... 0 ?t ~ '" ~ S'" P.. ,~ U :E =: '< ~-o"':r<" -go~ 0:.:. 2 ~"'ii",lQ 0 CJr:i' 0_, ~o'" _ 19:'<O:;:~cg~<1lg....g:;1 "'0 "'00~ 13 <..iOlQ'" "'.j>.1J~ ~~"'2 g<1loo:!~(jj'fi.Qg~o)> c:~a~~ ~3/'o>)> g"'1/)6< '" f1 g ==: 3 J.. 'oJ 0 q ~ S.:;:<O ~ g !t g. J1g<o~",~o"";!;~_"'",== s:" :;'-.... '?:"''''''':'Cl02~~oo ~ ~l 2g m ~2:~ S? q! Q.5'!}'O~. 0..., oC_""<!:--'~"'31<OOQ)1 "'1'0 g;:':JUltIJ$.f:o.~t..1...,.IO....... CD'" 5 ~~ 1-'0 Q.!: 0 . 'g~l~~:;: g. '<~.... <O~g Q ~'t<l> ~ '<. SJI :yC? O>!!. ~ '-I o (,.J I/) -D C ~ '" ,D1 ~ OOl ;:';:-...J '. .... l./) o ~ :r III o '" 00 g ii: o ~3 o a ~ " 0' 0>(1):1.-0 ~r-to -'-Io)>~}>!Z]* 0/ egcn 52 * ",J>.I/) ~ (1)0 'U~ ~~O a}> ** ~ /Tl';U "',... O)>zOl0110 * ,..., -i)>CfTJ-l r-~023?;U(l) * S:~"'S:cR1,31 * ~:::i5!)>.~fTJ:::j * Ill;::! "'gJiiI -I)> * }>/T1r- J>Z * -i0 J>.o.j> 1-0 * ,zocoo-o "0" OCo.,...,;u * )>)> IIlz,,- (1)0 fij;OO~-l> ~11 * -l>g ""::uqQj~ * '''-/''''riI~:nf:J~ * I/)~;Uor- * )>.)>.~;UO"")>.C * 211NO I/)Z Ctl/TlOlzr-/Tl * ~r' -I)> Q~ * -i", )>Zd c... * /TlCJr r-o,... UlC O.j>. OJ>.C 0>1/) * o ',..., ii:o::l * O'TJl.?'UfTJz~ CPfJ::Uw z * 2n)_l5"-/)>.-I* -IOOl/Tl -<- f:J;u0 s:~ * ::uZ -I"'~ * ,..,<)>.-(s: 5! 80 OOr-J>.::i,." * ;uE,-zJ?;::t * ~A QfTJ a * fgQ 2::< So >'T1 iTI(/)=II: 000 (')C::<O o-l~ c::r:a, 2cnw ...,~~ ,"<,2~ w 00 j;~o r-)> -2 ~Q ;O(/) 2(") -0 )> "l :0 ('") m r- S ~ "'D ....., m 2 ~ ....., - ~ Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: January 15, 2009 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: 1. Commercial Planned Unit Development Permit allowing a combined on site and off-site landscape area of 14,113 square feet instead of the minimum requirement of 47,350 square feet. 2. Use Permit and Design Review allowing a new canopy entry and landscaping, 24 hour operation, generating in excess of 100 average daily vehicle trips, fences greater than 3 feet in height within the minimum required street setbacks, and expanding the existing commercial parking use to several abutting lots. Address: 160 Produce Avenue and portions of 14 abutting lots (APNs 015-13-210,015-113-290,015-113-330,015-113-340,015-113-350, 015-113-440,015-114-390,015-114-420,015-114-450,015-1134- 460,015-114-470,015-114-480,015-114-490 & 015-114-500). Zoning: Planned Industrial Zone and the Industrial Zone Districts. SSFMC: Chapters 20.30, 20.32, 20.73, 20.81, 20.84 & 20.85. Owner: Elias S. Hanna Trust (primary owner) Applicant: Farias & Marrugo Architects Case No.: P06-0088 (UP06-0020 & DR06-0072) RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission review the preliminary revised landscape plan and continue the matter to allow plan refinements and the development of a traffic safety plan associated with the driveway entry. BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION: The Planning Commission reviewed the project at its hearing on November 20, 2008. The Commission granted the applicant additional time to develop an adequate and more refined landscape plan, to provide the funds for a Traffic Study ofthe adjacent streets to be used in determining the location and design of the vehicle entry/exit, and continued the matter to their meeting of December 18. Since the December meeting was cancelled the matter has been forwarded to the Commission meeting of January 15, 2009. Staff Report To: Planning Commission Re: P06-0088 - 160 Produce Avenue January 15, 2009 Page 2 of5 The applicant submitted a scaled and dimensioned landscape plan (Concept B) on January 5,2009. At the previous meeting the applicant had submitted two Landscape Plans (Concept A and Concept B). The proposed plan provides some additional site information (e.g. dimensioned drive aisles, plant types and sizes) and landscape refinements, extends the driveway and keeps the landscaping at 7% of the total site area (the city's minimum requirement is 10% per SSFMC Chapter 20.71). As of the preparation of this staff report, the city staff has had limited time to review the plans. City staff will continue to review the plans and provide a more thorough analysis at the Planning Commission meeting. Revised Landscape Plan Concept B Produce Avenue Vehicle Entry As stated at the previous Planning Commission meeting, City staff does not support the proposed entry design as it does nothing to address the vehicle circulation conflicts on the Produce Avenue street entry (observed by both staff and the Planning Commissioners). The central issue is that vehicles entering the site slow down to a near stop in the curbside traffic lane to make the turn into the driveway. Traffic speeds observed along Produce A venue at the entry are in neighborhood of 40 MPH to 45 MPH, although the posted limit is 35 MPH. The proposed design suggests higher speed turns into the site as a technique to get the vehicles out of the Produce Avenue curbside travel lane. City staff does not support high speed exit ramps onto parking lots and considers such designs generally less safe for vehicles and pedestrians, and require higher maintenance. The need is apparent, that keeping the entry/exit on Produce Avenue will likely require a vehicle deceleration/acceleration lane that would most likely extend the entire Produce Avenue frontage. City staff recommends that a Traffic Study be undertaken by a qualified Traffic Engineer to analyze the traffic and determine the appropriate location and develop a safe entry/exit design. It is necessary to obtain traffic data for all three street frontages (Produce Avenue, Terminal Court and San Mateo Avenue) to develop and evaluate possible vehicle access alternatives. Once started the traffic study will take approximately three weeks to complete. In the days following the Commission meeting of November 20, City staff and the applicant have re- reviewed the scope ofthe Traffic Study [to be undertaken by Fehr & Peers]. The applicant has informed city staff, via their letter to the Commissioners, received January 6, that they are preparing a Traffic Study. While the applicant can undertake their own study, city protocol is to require that the study be peer reviewed by the city's traffic consultant funded at the applicant's expense. Staff Report To: Planning Commission Re: P06-0088 - 160 Produce Avenue January 15, 2009 Page 3 of5 Should the applicant agree to utilize Terminal Court as the vehicle entry/exit, (as previously suggested by both the Planning Commission and city staft) no traffic study would be required as the traffic and traffic speeds are significantly less. Under this scenario, a new exit driveway could be constructed on San Mateo Avenue to facilitate northbound travel to US Highway 101 from the site during peak traffic hours rather than allow drivers to negotiate a left turn across the Terminal Court/Produce Avenue intersection. Parking Plan The revised plan meets the minimum aisle widths and backup dimension of 25 feet for a two-way aisle and for vehicle backup, and appears to meet the City's minimum vehicle parking stall length of 18 feet. The drive aisles at the rear of the site near the produce terminal appear to comply with the City's Fire turning radius (a truck turning circulation diagram will still need to be provided by the applicant). Several stall spaces appear to be intended for bus parking but are not so designated. The plan should indicate bus spaces. Additionally, a portion of the maintenance facility has been utilized for covered parking, but is not indicated on the plans. Landscape Plan The proposed landscape plan does not meet the City's minimum landscape area or depth requirements. The proposed landscape area of 7% of the total site area falls short of the minimum requirement of 10% ofthe total site area [SSFMC Section 20.73.040(b)] The plan does not provide required 6 foot deep buffers along the property boundaries [SSFMC Section 20.73.050(a)]. The landscape depth along the three street frontage meets or exceeds the minimum standards for the (P-I) Planned Industrial and the (M-l) Industrial Zone Districts [SSFMC Chapter 20.71]. The Planning Commission can reduce landscape standards as part of the Planned Unit Development Permit if it finds other offsetting public benefits such as the perimeter landscaping is judged to be adequate to screen views ofthe site from adjacent properties and is a better design than it would have been had the minimum city standards and requirements been followed. To date the Commission has only approved reductions on a site where as part of the development a greater landscape area was able to be provided on an adjoining lot (so that the full 10%+ was achieved). The applicant's letter offers brief explanation of the landscape revisions and includes a justification for deviating from the city's minimum requirements. The letter focuses on 4 issues: landscape requirements, aesthetics, safety and phasing. In summary, the applicant believes that the landscaping of the street frontages will be adequate to screen views of the parked passenger vehicles from the adjacent streets, that the circulation conflicts at the Produce A venue entry will be addressed through a Traffic Study to be completed at an undisclosed date, and that the improvements would be phased over the course of the next year or two. Staff Report To: Planning Commission Re: P06-0088 - 160 Produce Avenue January 15, 2009 Page 4 of5 The landscape plan complies in part with the city's minimum landscape requirements and does not appear to be of a superior design providing adequate screening from adjacent properties and the public right-of-way. The landscape should be extended back from the street along the side property boundaries and a landscaped area should be provided at the Terminal Court entry. The landscaping along Terminal Court and other areas should match the 20 foot depth along Produce and San Mateo Avenues. The buses should be restricted from parking within 50 feet of the property boundaries to limit views and allow the vegetative screening to dominate the image of the site. Over the years, many applicants have requested that the landscape requirements be reduced primarily based on cost concerns; but in each case, the Planning Commission has required that the city's minimum landscaping requirements be provided. Given the current economic climate, the applicant's request is understandable. However, city staff is reluctant to recommend a permanent reduction in landscaping without a vastly superior landscape plan and some other closely related public benefit. At this time, city staff recommends that the Planning Commission require the owner to revise the landscape plan to meet all of the City landscaping requirements phased in over a 1 year to 3 year time frame. This approach has the advantage of maintaining the city requirements, allowing economic relief for the owner via a temporary reduction of the landscape requirements, and reducing the likelihood of other owners making similar requests. Should the Planning Commission want to review the city's minimum landscaping requirements [including circumstances of allowing reductions], this issue can be taken up during the current review of the Zoning Code. Any reduction in landscaping requirements adopted by the city would be applicable to the proposed development and could be integrated in the phasing plan. The Planning Commission has been reviewing this matter for nearly a year. In city staffs view the applicant has made little progress over the many months in developing an acceptable landscape plan and addressing the circulation conflicts along Produce Avenue. In light of this and the applicant's outstanding on-going code violations, the matter should only be continued to allow these issues to be addressed, only if the applicant commits to the following: · Making substantial progress in the refinement of the parking plan [designate bus and passenger vehicle parking spaces] and the landscape plan [e.g. providing more screening area along the property perimeter, identifying the plant quantities and spacing program] by February 5; and, . Provide the funds within a few days to the city for the Traffic Study (to be undertaken by the city's consultant), or agree to permanently move the entry/exit to the existing Terminal Court entry by a set date (with safety and design refinements approved by city staff). Staff Report To: Planning Commission Re: P06-0088 - 160 Produce Avenue January 15, 2009 Page 5 of5 CONCLUSIONIRECOMMENDA TION: The proposed parking lot and landscape plans partially comply with the City's minimum development standards and landscape requirements. The applicant requires additional time to incorporate the Commission's comments in the landscape plan, and provide the funds fora Traffic Study and a traffic improvement plan. Although it is not likely that a Traffic Study even if started by January 19 could be completed by mid-February, City staff recommends thatthe Planning Commission continue the matter to the Commission meeting of February 19, 2009 so that the parking plan and landscape plan can be refined, and that the Commission can review the status of the Traffic Study. ~~~~ ATTACHMENTS: Aerial Photo Applicant's Letters January 5,2009 Planning Commission November 20,2008 Staff Report Planning Commission November 20,2008 Minutes Previous Plans January 17, 2008 November 10,2008 Revised Plans January 15, 2009 Site Photos EXHIBIT B ~ Kikuchi & Associates January 5, 2009 Landscape Archirecture Enviranmenral Design Sire Planning Planning Commissioners City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 RECEIVED JAN 0 6 2008 PLANNING DEPT. RE: PCAA - 160 Produce Ave. P06-0088, UP06~0020 Dear Commissioners, Please find attached our resubmittal material for the PCAA project Use Permit. In this submittal, you will find a revised Site Plan and two photo simulations of the proposed landscape frontage for both Produce Ave and San Mateo Ave. In response to your comments from our previous hearing on November 20, 2008 we have made adjustments to our site plan as further outlined below. We have also met with City Planner Steve Carlson to discuss our revisions and have received helpful direction. We have shared with Steve study concepts of an alternative point of access as requested. And we have retained the services of a traffic engineer, CHS Consulting Group (www.chsconsulting.net) and a traffic study has been commenced. As has become evident from the previous hearings, there are 3 primary issues steering the design of this project. We have addressed these issues as follows: 1. Ordinance Compliance: Of primary concern is the conformance of this property to the City's landscaping requirement and parking standards. Please note that parking spaces and aisles have been adjusted and dimensioned and that the fire vehicle access route has been depicted. 730 Mill Srreer · Half Moon Day, CA 94019 (650) 726-7100 · Fox (650) 726-7677 WvVW. hi !~uchiandassociares com Sreven 1 Ki!~uchi, ASLA, Principal Chrisropher Kanl~el, ASLA, Principal Warren 1 Darnes, Associore Thomas W Conroy, Associare 405 Alberro Way, Suire 6 Los Goros, CA 95032 (408) 356-5980 . Fox (408) 356-0085 PCAA -SSF Planning Commission Submittal Page 2 of 4 Landscaping has been designed at 7% (31 ,234 sf) of the gross site with a major emphasis on landscape screening. As expressed in the past by a number of Commissioners, "flexibility" in meeting the 10% requirement may not be necessary if the "intent" of the landscape ordinance is met. We have depicted landscaping where it is of highest visibility and of primary importance. We feel that placement of additional landscaping within the inner portions of the site will be out of character for an airport parking lot (as shown with our previous submittal option), will serve a minimal functional and esthetic purpose and may possibly necessitate the loss of additional parking spaces. 2. Esthetics: A number of Commissioners expressed the need to screen this parking lot facility from major highways and streets, thereby acknow- ledging that such a parking lot is not an esthetic contribution to the City. This further reinforces our perception that the parking lot is a transit stop, and not a location where one would linger within for enjoyment of its esthetics. We have therefore provided 82% of the total landscape as screening along both Produce Ave. and San Mateo Ave. that will visually mitigate the parking lot and it's fencing and enhance these frontages of greatest visibility for a/l passersby. 3. Safety: There have been comments regarding the safety of motorists both entering and exiting the facility as well as others passing by. The complexities of this traffic situation include: 1) the ease of entry to the facility, 2) the excessive speed of those using Produce Ave. as an acceleration lane entering southbound Hwy 101, 3) the possible added dangers caused by relocating the entry/exit to Terminal Ct. and the related increased conflicts with more traffic at a point of higher acceleration. What does need to be determined is if the current entry/exit location is a victim of increased traffic and speeding motorists for which the operators have no control over. We acknowledge that this is a complex issue and one that will require a balanced traffic study that will require thorough review and rebuttal. The current plan illustrates an entry drive that will allow for a smoother and faster entry to the site, eliminating the current 90 degree turn off Produce Ave. We would like the Commission to consider the currently depicted entry/exit as a "placeholder" design until this time consuming study and process can be completed. PCAA -SSF Planning Commission Submittal Page 3 of 4 PHASED SITE PLAN: Given the above assumptions, we have prepared the following plan that illustrates the proposed improvements in 4 Phases of construction. We hope that the Commission will recognize the benefits of a phased plan as described below. Phase 1: Produce Ave and Terminal Ct. Landscaping: 20' of landscaping will be provided fronting Produce Ave., 15' along Terminal Ct. Existing chain link fencing will be relocated to the rear of the landscaping and will be screened by new plantings. New trees will screen buildings and provide visual interest to the frontage. This phase will result in the loss of 77 parking spaces. This phase would commence upon City approval and when weather conditions are of benefit (Spring of 2009), thereby immediately addressing the City's concerns with esthetics. Phase 2: San Mateo Ave. Landscaping: 20' of landscaping along San Mateo Ave. will also involve the relocation of existing fencing, new plantings and visual interest. PCAA is currently in lease negotiations with the property owner, and pending a long term agreement, these improvements can commence. If agreements are completed in time, these improvements can be implemented simultaneously with Phase 1 improvements. However, a more likely time frame would allow construction in the Summer of 2009. Phase 3: Interior Landscape Islands: As depicted on our previous submittal, these islands would be designed as bio-swales or pollution remediation plantings. The implementation of these areas as a separate phase will again be after lease terms have been finalized. The main logic for the phasing of this work is for the facility to continue operation during construction operations. Selected portions of the parking lot can be restricted for construction, allowing for continued operation of the remaining facility. Possible implementation of this phase would occur in Fall of 2009. Phase 4: Entry/Exit Gate: upon completion of the Traffic Study, a thorough and critical review of its findings and recommendations, and the toxic chemical remediation by SamTrans, the Entry/Exit gate location and the adjacent parking lot landscaping would be implemented. This phase PCAA -SSF Planning Commission Submittal Page 4 of 4 may occur in the Spring of 2010, depending upon the responsiveness of Sam Trans. We hope that the Commission will thoroughly review this proposal and accept that certain elements of the design may evolve over a period of time. We hope that the Commission will recognize PCAA's willingness to immediately commence the initial phase of improvements as an indication of their commitment to the project. When, and if such refinements occur, PCAA will update the Planning staff and be available to address the Commission if necessary. We hope that the Commission acknowledges that this solution is one that must be both beneficial to the City as well as economically viable for the applicant. Sincerely, Steven T. Kikuchi, ASLA California Registration no. 2005 Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: November 20, 2008 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: 1. Commercial Planned Unit Development Permit allowing a combined on site and off-site landscape area of 14,113 square feet instead of the minimum requirement of 47,350 square feet. 2. Use Permit and Design Review allowing a new canopy entry and landscaping, 24 hour operation, generating in excess of 100 average daily vehicle trips, fences greater than 3 feet in height within the minimum required street setbacks, and expanding the existing commercial parking use to several abutting lots. Address: 160 Produce Avenue and portions of 14 abutting lots (APNs 015-13-210,015-113-290,015-113-330, 015-113-340, 015-113-350, 015-113-440,015-114-390,015-114-420, 015-114-450, 015-1134- 460,015-114-470,015-114-480,015-114-490 & 015-114-500). Zoning: Planned Industrial Zone and the Industrial Zone Districts. SSFMC: Chapters 20.30, 20.32, 20.73, 20.81,20.84 & 20.85. Owner: Elias S. Hanna Trust (primary owner) Applicant: Farias & Marrugo Architects Case No.: P06-0088 (UP06-0020 & DR06-0072) RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission review the preliminary landscape plan and continue the matter to allow refmements to the landscape plan and the development of a traffic safety plan associated with the driveway entry. BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION: The Planning Commission reviewed the project at its hearing on October 16, 2008. The Commission was supportive of granting the applicant limited additional time to develop an adequate landscape plan and a traffic safety plan of the entry/exit, and continued the matter to their meeting of November 20. The applicant has developed three scaled landscape concept plans, but has not provided any dimensions. Without dimensions, City staff cannot complete a full plan evaluation. As of the drafting of this staff report, City staffhas not had sufficient time to review the plans, because the plans were Staff Report To: Planning Commission Re: P06-0088 - 160 Produce Avenue November 20, 2008 Page 2 of 3 not received until late Monday November 10 afternoon. City staffwill endeavor to provide the Planning Commission with a more complete review by the pertinent City departments at the meeting. Landscape plan, Concept A, appears to meet the City's minimum requirement of 10% landscaping, but does not meet the City's minimum depth standard of 6 feet along the property boundaries, doe not meet the minimum aisle widths and backup dimension of25 feet for a two-way aisle and for vehicle backup, does not appear to meet the City's minimum vehicle parking stall lengths of 18 feet, and a section of the rear portion of the site does not appear to comply with the City's Fire turning radius (a truck turning circulation diagram will need to be provided by the applicant). The other two landscape plans, Concepts B & C, do not meet the minimum 10% requirements, nor . other minimum landscape standards, share many of the same issues associated with Concept A, and were not evaluated further. Of the three plans, Concept A appears to be the most promising. The landscape plants will be informally reviewed by the Design Review Board at their meeting on November 18 and the comments will be offered at the Commission meeting on November 20. In the days following the Commission meeting of October 16, City staff informed the applicant that a traffic safety study is necessary to obtain traffic data for all three street frontages (Produce A venue, Terminal Court and San Mateo Avenue) to develop and evaluate possible vehicle access alternatives. The study will take approximately three weeks to complete. A copy of the proposed scope of work and cost estimate for the traffic safety study was sent to the applicant before the end of October. The applicant and City staff have discussed the traffic safety study, but the applicant has not yet made any commitment to paying for the study. A study is not required if the applicant commits to moving the entry/exit to Terminal Court. Independently, without direction from City staff, the applicant has developed a couple of alternative vehicle entry designs (landscape plan Concepts B & C) using Produce Avenue as the entry/exit. City staff has no way of evaluating these designs without obtaining the street design and traffic data. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION: The proposed landscape plans partially comply with the City's minimum landscape requirements and development standards. The applicant requires additional time to incorporate the Commission's comments, undertake a traffic safety study and develop a traffic improvement plan. Although it is not likely that a traffic safety study even if started by November 21 could be completed by early December, City staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the matter to the Commission meeting of December 4,2008 so that the landscape plan can be refined, and that the Commission can review the status of the traffic safety study. Staff Report To: Planning Commission Re: P06-0088 - 160 Produce Avenue November 20, 2008 Page 3 of 3 Commission meeting of December 4, 2008 so that the landscape plan can be refined, and that the Commission can review the status of the traffic safety study. ~~/~ eve Carlson, enior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission October 16,2008 Staff Report and Minutes Plans Planning Commission Staff Report DA TE: October 16,2008 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: 1. Commercial Planned Unit Development Permit allowing a combined on site and off-site landscape area of 14, I 13 square feet instead of the minimum requirement of 47,350 square feet. 2. Use Perm'it and Design Review allowing a new canopy entry and landscaping, 24 hour operation, generating in excess of 100 average daily vehicle trips, fences greater than 3 feet in height within the minimum required street setbacks, and expanding the existing commercial parking use to several abutting lots. Address: 160 Produce Avenue and portions 'of 14 abutting lots (APNs 015-13-210,015-113-290, 015- 113-330, 015-113-340, 015-113-350, 015-113-440,015-114-390,015-114-420, 015-114-450,015-1134- 460, 015~1 14-470,015-114-480,015-114-490 & 015-114-500). Zoning: Planned Industrial Zone and the Industrial Zone Districts. SSFMC: Chapters 20.30, 20.32, 20.73, 20.81,20.84 & 20.85. Owner: EliasS. Hanna Trust (primary owner) Applicant: Farias & Marrugo Architects Case No.: P06-0088 (UP06-0020 & DR06-0072) RECOMMENDATION: Tbat tbe Planning Commission deny the application and consider other actions to achieve compliance. BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION: The Planning Commission conducted a study session of the revised landscape plans at its hearing on January 17, 2008. The Commission was supportive of landscape Option #2 (increased landscape area). The Commission last reviewed the proposal at their meeting of May 1 and continued the matter off calendar in order that the applicant would have an opportunity to address the issues. Subsequently, the applicant hired new legal representatives who met with City staff to review the project. The applicant's legal representative has submitted a letter requesting that the City provide more information regarding previous entitlements, grant what amounts to a two year waiver of the landscaping requirements and that the applicant would begin the process of hiring a new landscape architect to develop plans and begin improvement of some of the perimeter landscaping. City staffhas provided all the extant City files and records pertaining to the project site to the applicant's representatives and made every effort to assist the applicant in resolving these matters. Staff Report To: Planning Commission Re: P06-0088 - 160 Produce Avenue October 16, 2008 Page 2 of 2 City records and filed observation clearly indicates that landscaping was required in association with the previous entitlements for the project. It is evident that the landscaping has been removed and altered, and that the site is not now in compliance with the minimum landscape requirements. City staff is not aware.of any planning applications in which the Planning Commission has either deferred and/or waived the landscape requirements without an offsetting benefit as prescribed by the SSFMC Title 20. Allowing any deferral, without an offset or written agreement, would establish a new precedent. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDA TION: The proposed development does not comply with the City's landscape requirements and development standards. The applicant has had more than adequate time to develop a landscape plan and to achieve compliance with the City's minimum landscape requirements. Therefore, City staff re(;ommends that the Planning Commission deny the Use Permit and consider other appropriate action to achieve compliance. The following are suggested options: 1. Direct City staff to continue to work with the applicant to make available all City documents pertaining to the subject site. 2. Direct Code Enforcement to initiate an investigation and take immediate action to achieve compliance with the portions of the site with no approved Use Permits (Exhibit #B). 3. Direct City staff to schedule the existing Use Permit (UP &) for consideration of revocation (Exhibit #B). 4. Defer action on the item for a limited period (ex. 3 month) to allow the applicant a final opportunity to address application deficiencies prior to the City initiating revocation proceedings. ~~~~ ~ve Carlson, Senior Planner A IT ACHMENTS: Applicant's Letter City Letter of Response Planning Commission Staff Reports and Minutes December 6, 2007 January 17,2008 May 1, 2008 Exhibit # A - Summary of Past Use Permits Exhibit # B - Site Plan tJ 4. ~-~V.-"'\A.~ 2.0 ""--, Com"~oore a~~s~~~r ~iscussed the colors and mel~~ involved. o~~ ~ents Commissioner Sim questioned how the signs I Ight. Ms. Zamanpour replied that the signs disappear because they are lit from the interior an . lights are off or dim at night. Motion Vice Chair erson~ la / Second Commissioner Sim to approve P08-0080: DR08-0039 & ~. y unanimous voice vote. Commis' r Moore recommended that future applicants should follow these signs as an example. Parking Comp of America Airport/applicant Hanna, Elias S/owner 160 Produce Ave P06-0088: PUD 07- 0003, UP06-0020 & DR06-0072 (Continued from October 16, 2008) Commercial Planned Unit Development Permit allowing a combined on-site and off-site landscape area of 14,113 square feet instead of the minimum requirement of 47,350 square feet. Use Permit and Design Review allowing a new canopy entry and landscaping, 24-hour operation, generating in excess of 100 average daily vehicle trips vehicles, fences greater than 3 feet in height within the minimum required street setbacks, and expanding the existing commercial parking use on several lots adjacent to San Mateo Drive(APNs 015-113-210, 015-113-290, 015-113-330 thru 350, 015-113-440, 015-114-390, 015-114-420, 015-114-450 thru 500), in the Planned Industrial (P-I) and the Industrial (M-1) Zoning Districts, in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.30,20.32,20.73,20.81,20.84 & 20.85 Senior Planner Carlson presented the staff report. Commissioner Prouty questioned if a combination of the three concepts can be used to create a new concept plan. Senior Planner Carlson stated that this is within the purview of the Planning Commission and added that staff had suggested a Planned Unit Development to allow the Commission some latitude with the plan. Vice Chairperson Teglia was concerned with the vehicle entry and asked if the City had approved the current site entry on Produce Avenue. Senior Planner Carlson replied that there was an entry approved when the lots were merged. Vice Chairperson Teglia reiterated his traffic safety concern with the entry on Produce and noted that without a traffic deceleration lane, the entry would not work. Marty Olrick, Counsel for Parking Companies of America Airports (PCAA), clarified that they are a different entity from the previous business owner. He pointed out that the traffic safety issues are due to high speeds of cars on Produce. He suggested that the buses enter through Terminal Court and that the customers enter through Produce Avenue. He pointed out options to reduce parking including speed bumps, traffic signals, stop signs, and lowering the speed limit. He noted that he can provide detailed information on the number of cars that enter the site in lieu of a traffic study. Mr. Olrick continued by stating that any of the three plans will reduce the parking spaces by 7-10% which is a significant loss for them with the current economy. He further noted that they will request a Variance to minimize the 10% landscape requirement resulting in quality, neater and cleaner landscaping. He informed the Commission that they are still in negotiations with the current owner to make an investment in the community. Steve Kikuchi, Kikuchi and Associates, showed the Planning Commission 3 concepts that they are proposing. He noted that concept A achieves the 10% minimum requirement, but is over landscaped and noted that landscaping needs to be placed strategically rather than to simply reach a percentage requirement. He further noted that concepts Band C have a 90 degree entrance and a larger queuing area resulting in a reduction in landscaping and loss of usable parking spaces. Vice Chairperson Teglia stated that the flattening out the entrance could help and pointed out that the main traffic safety issues have not involved buses but rather small cars. He pointed out that option B was a favorable choice for him with a flat driveway. Senior Planner Carlson pointed out that the driveway does not meet City standards and noted that neither options Band C would change the traffic safety of the driveway November 20, 2008 Minutes Page 4 of 10 entry. He further noted that the proposed traffic study would focus on the flow of street traffic and not the volume of cars coming in and out of the property, and that without a study, staff cannot advise the Commissioner. He concluded that a traffic study would not be required if the entry were relocated to Terminal Court. Commissioner Prouty agreed with staff and also understood the applicant's concern with providing landscaping and a traffic study while they are negotiating lease extensions. He also looked favorably upon concept B because it would make ingress easier but the egress still looks difficult. He suggested including the perimeter landscaping and aisle 2 landscaping from concept A, as well as the stealthing of the maintenance building with landscaping. He concluded that the use permit needs to require the buses to enter and exit through Terminal Court. Senior Planner Carlson observed that the applicant seeks to re-establishing the entrance on Produce, but it may be a more effective solution to use the funds on the Terminal Court entry. Commissioner Oborne questioned if there is a cost assessment for the modification. Mr. Orlick noted that there has been some discussion to do so but was not aware that it had occurred. He informed the Commission that the proposals made for Produce are the most effective because Terminal Court cannot handle the volumes leaving and entering the site. Commissioner Sim stated that the option is conceptual and encouraged the applicant to show other potential options and reasons as to why it doesn't work, and added that there is no evidence that it does not work. He further noted that a licensed engineer needs to ensure that this is an entry that will work. Mr. Orlick stated that their traffic engineers are licensed and qualified and indicated that they will provide a conceptual study for Terminal Court. He explained that the parking lot needs upgrades because the surface is not suitable for one of the top parking companies in the Country. He was concerned about creating landscaping to fulfill requirements but felt more comfortable beautifying for functionality. Commissioner Sim and Commissioner Prouty requested that the plans show dimensions and aisle widths. Commissioner Prouty reiterated his safety concerns with regards to the entrance and added that he is willing to waive the traffic study if the entrance is moved to Terminal Court. He felt comfortable with reducing the 10% landscaping requirement as long as there is perimeter landscaping. He reiterated his recommendation to combine the option B entry with the perimeter landscaping from option and screening of the maintenance building. Commissioner Oborne stated that the Commission would like to see viable options to move the entry to Terminal and encouraged the applicant to show how some of the concepts will work rather to concentrate on how they will not work. Vice Chairperson Teglia stressed the importance for the applicant to work with staff and allow them enough time to review the concepts because they are relied upon to determine whether these concepts will work or not. He recommended moving the entrance to Terminal Court and maintain an exit on Produce Avenue. He also noted being open to the reduction of the landscaping requirement if it were removed from behind the gas station and placed in strategic areas such as the corner of Produce and Terminal. Vice Chairperson Teglia suggested that the applicant work out the lease agreements as soon as possible. Mr. Orlick reported that it is not simple because they are dealing with different owners and when family members are involved negotiating leases is difficult. Commissioner Sim stated that the site can be seen from the freeway and is concerned how the landscaping will look on the site. Mr. Orlick stated that they intend to beautify the site from the exterior and they will provide safety, functionality and security inside the lot. Commissioner Sim noted his preference to landscape the corner and pointed out that the applicant can contribute to the cultural arts fund. Mr. Orlick reassured the Commission that they will provide the landscaping given that they are allowed some flexibility. November 20, 2008 Minutes Page 5 of 10 Vice Chairperson Teglia questioned when the applicant plans to work with staff on the project modifications. Mr. Orlick noted that he is moving forward with the leases and will have Mr. Kikuchi work on the Terminal Court vision. He added that they will provide specific details and dimensions if staff needs them. Commissioner Prouty clarified that there need to be some trees in the parking lot but does not want to either over landscape or under landscape the site. He pointed out that there seems to be enough space on Terminal Court to use as an entrance. He added that entering the site from Produce is causing the problems and exiting from the site is not. Commissioner Sim question what comments the Design Review Board (ORB) had on the project. Senior Planner Carlson replied that staff took the item to the DRB for comments on the landscaping plan and not on layout because it was not an agendised item. He suggested to have one tree for every 12 cars on the lot and asked the Commission to clarify if they want the applicant to meet the 10% landscaping or if going below that requirement is supported by the Commission. Vice Chairperson Teglia noted that the Commission is open minded and the density of plan A can be reduced but can also increase the density on the corner of Terminal and Produce or in areas that need to be screened, like behind the Shell station and other unenjoyable areas. Commissioner Sim pointed out that he will be looking for macro scale (corner treatment) and micro scale (freeway) treatments. Senior Planner Carlson suggested that the Commission could phase the landscaping requirements so that a variance would not be required. Motion--Commissioner Sim /Second--Commissioner Moore to continue P06-0088: PUD 07- 0003, UP06- 0020 & DR06-0072 to December 18, 2008. Approved by unanimous voice vote. 5. Kais Broadway/applicant LBA, REALTY FUND 111- WB/owner 800 DUBUQUE AVE P08-0057: UP08-0008, DR08-0026, VAR08-0006 & TDM08-00004 Use Permit and Design Review allowing an outdoor emergency generator at an existing multi-tenant building, Transportation Demand Management Plan to reduce vehicle trips and parking, and a Variance to reduce parking to a total of 293 spaces instead of the minimum requirement of 325 spaces, situated at 810 Dubuque Avenue (APN 015-021-030), in the Planned Commercial (P-C) Zone District, in accordance with SSFMC Sections 20.24.070(b) and Chapters 20.81,20.85 & 20.120. Senior Planner Carlson presented the staff report. Public Hearing opened. Vice Chairperson Teglia expressed his dislike for the current generator on the site. Paul Thometz, site manager, noted he had only recently been made aware of the intensification issue. He was concerned that adding traffic impact and other fees would be an issue because they do not have tenants at the moment for two vacant spaces. He pointed out that they are committed to the TDM plan. There being no speakers the Public hearing was closed. Commissioner Prouty concurred with Vice Chairperson Teglia with regards to the generator and its being visible from Lowe's. He suggested moving the generator to a different location and added that picture 6 shows a beautiful fence with landscaping while picture 7 shows a generator box which is not fair to Lowe's. Senior Planner Carlson clarified that the new generator is going to be adjacent to the building but will still be visible from the Lowe's site. Mr. Thometz added that the enclosure will fully stealth the generator. Commissioner Prouty questioned t~e possibility of putting the generators together. Mr. Thometz noted that they will address screening the existing generator with additional landscaping. November 20, 2008 Minutes Page 6 of 10 PREVIOUS PLANS 0 <c. no ~~~ 00 ~ .. 0 0 .. ~I ~l v ~ U "'~~ ~5': ~~ I-!!l aU ~~a <:I." ~~ <~~ .8u ~~~ ~ i :ri1O g~~ 0'" ~~ uz'" 1O:z{Jl .. '~I"t; is ~ " a.S2~ g<U ~~~~ 0 a:e:~ ZW i:5w e Ii' Ii' a::J: '-"E ~~~~ 5 5 O:~ ~ii'i~ <I(~. ~~ ~~ ~~ ~,.;Cj" ~ ~ ~ I 0 i!'~ ~'" ~ 0 '" a;::....I ZU hi! I::fI)C)~~ ~ 2S.gUl'Em ~ I ~ g I lL~' :5~ o'-~ !.1i~~~.:.: ~ g 3AV 031WJ NVS ~ % ::t ~ ~ W l- 3M 031VVol NVS ~ ~ ~ 6 w~! ~~ ~~~8 gg ~ ~ I~~! g;i iii; !! !!: ~i~~ ! ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ii ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~"'! ~I""I ~U uu I~ Ih i!!~ ~~~ ~~~~ i~ iig ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ IIII III IIII II III ~3333 333 3333 33 ~~~~~ ~~~ ---- -~ '" ~ J!! 1;; B ~~I I I z. li'l!~ !h !"i~ ~~ ..is.. 8 ;~~ B~ i1~~ c;~c..i ..~.. ~ l t5 jjl ~ ':::J!lI ~ ""J\!l ~ ~ ~ i i ; I 3 ;!U i : :5 ilh::l;" jil ~j;:;: "! Iii il il~I~lllii!II~li!~il ~~ ~~i&~51 ~~~ ~~~i ~3 o~~ 00.0 ..1 3AV 3::>nam:ld .. ~ ~ " n * ~ , ~ >-w - C::Q. ~ i!; ~<(z 0 - _U<( ~~c[ ~ ~: ...lZ --I ~::s i~ Q. (D~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ll! g ~ , 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ p ; ~ ~ (D~ ~ ~ ~ 5-> ~~~ ........... ;iw ~ :;:!o!i I!;!i I id Ui ~Ii~~ ~ ~i;~ ~~~ ~~8~~ i i~~~ ~~~ ~ ~!~ I~~~ ~~~ ~I~~~~~ . ~i~ ~~~ 19~",!i1t!;~ :~~ ~'".:;: II~iili~ I..~~~i ~~~; ~~~~ii~il lil~~ ~~~~ ll'"'~ n v !l9i>!~~ ~"n ... 333 i i!1 i> i> ~ w ~ ~ 9 ~ 1.! ~ 1.! !1 g, ~ ~~~g!;~~ o9i~g~~~!;1~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ....J .... a:: !j ~ 31 ~ i:5 i:5 8: eeeeeeeee x w ~ B i)i (J)~ ~ :< \\\\~~~~\ \ \ \ ~ \~~~ 0- \\ u.. ~~ 0 \ en --0 ~""'" 'i-g. .. en -6-0 !~~ \ ,,~- \E . ~ ~~~ ~g ! UIUI ~ d ~~ oc~ " c 'H ,,0 ~~ \. SZ~ ~~0 ~il \ ~! \~ 3" ~ ~"' 0 ~~ Q. ~g l 1 3 t1 Q..- ~I!!,~ \ \,~ ~ c\i ~ r~ t-: ~i~ ~ ~t~ "- V' \ t~\t is! t\ L-------- ~ f $ \ t\ ~- "- d "'- ,. ~ ~~ Ii ~~ ~ :;;~ ~ ~, Ii ~~ t\ ~~ f~ ~~ \ "-~ ~\ t \"~ 't~ ~ ~~ ~~ ! 1: Iii et ~ ~~ f ~'~ > L----------------- 1 ~ I'~ i ~e J1~ "- i\ ~~l ~ \\ i\\ 3 ~\ l~~ '" <;' ~~~ t \~ ~h --' 'to h ~. ~\ \~\ ill ~~ '1510 'l5fJ,h I\\~H It i\ ~\ -~~---\ ~ ~ t * . t ~ CI ~ ':i t t ~ \ ~ .. ~ .. i \ & t \1 4. ik. 'i. ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~\~t~ i \ o \ \ ~ 1\ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 '" ~~ \ ~\~ ~ \ti ~ <<~ \-- io< ~ \\1' "- \\\ \ \f't ___J .}.Q~# ....~..........;.asi'O....-.......~$...".-"'-."....,.,~- ~VI -b (b ~ c ._..... 5~ .c 0 g~ 0> u.- 1!o~ ~ ~ ~~.2 ~ = VI U~ ~ VI ,,~~ <( 3~ 0- E _ 8 4i~g~~ .l:";::.og ~i~~.g g58~Q r-~~~~ ~ ~ LL '" en I- en ~~ OW ~ h ~~ S~ !l~ 0 ~~ 11. !~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ::s ~t J7 0... ~'l> J:'c~ ttl ~~~ t~~li Ill.P .~z< l>' 2~~ ~~~~' al <\~~ ~~~~~ ~ ... ~&hS ~ ~~~ ~,~a ~ hi JHI~ Iii ~~~ 'g~~ UIH2 ili~d ~ e t- l1J ~~ 3 ~ ~[ t~~ ~ ~~ ~~I ~ d ~!~ :) H i~~ 0... ~' ill" ~ Cl~ ~~~ :J ~~ ~~id /:: H ~~i iii ~~ :!i~~ ~ ~I~~ II~n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g Ii ~" ~ ~ g ~ ~ .. ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ;! l;; ~ e ClP ~ w z 9 :2 ~igg~ I-- I- ~ ~ t ~ ~~ \!) t:\!l ' z .et t ~ F ~ <tC ~ ~~ t t:~f n... eo' otj I!I ~'7R'i z ~~ c cF",19 Q ~~ m~~~mg ~ 2~ ~~h~' ~ ~ ~~ !~ghi it ~ cl~ .~~~~~ ~~ ~~ mm X~ i> ~u<f~~ h ~I~~ ~liUW \fl > ~ ~ II- > L-- " )..Q~~ lEI l- ll. W o Z o o ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ gt ~~~ ~ Ul:3 --~~~ UJ ~iJ;1i :if~~ ~ 2~~ ~~~h '" <\~~ c~~". ~ ... ~5~h ~ m HH~ ~ U~ M~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~I'~ UJ 1-!:~ oI16~ ifi ~ !iiI~~2 ~Im~~ in ~I ~ '-0 1aI.VDOSSY '8 1tf:)lneDI:IO JJi3sttoo ....... ""'""" .......".,m"""" 3S3H.l:lONOU """""'" -....... ~<b~ .- 0 .s:::.._ vv :;:)0 ~ ~<II - <II ~<( IL en en h ~~ ~:i ~S ~ o ll. g ~ ~ Ji ~ ~ i5 . d 6 ] ~ ~ ~ ~ F. ~t~ ! ~~ ~~~ ~ ~.3 th~ III I~~ tc.~~h ~ t, \!l~~1l ~ ~~ ~~~~~ ILl ,'" h~~ * ~~~ ~ ,U~ ~ !u ~h~1 !;; ~$~ @5~~ ~ ml~i'~ i15~H II) ~ . I ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~- . ." L i ~ ~ " " ~ . " ~ ~ .. ~ '" 3 ! ~ ~ J . . ~~~~~ ~Hd ~~~~~ t/JI ~ I- I- 8 ~ !t ~ ~~ ~ ~ z 9' ~t~ ~ W~ t t~~lr -' ~' ~ ~~i ~ ~~ ':J' '9 ~ ~~ n~h~ ltl 9* o~g~n ~ ~ H nHn ~~ U U!hl 1: tJ ~~ J~i'~t~ h ~I~~ 11,~h"> o l- ll.. W o z o o i5 ~ di ~ ~ ~ n l= e ~t~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~t ~~~~ III ~~e t~~~. It o~' "$"x' ~ 9~~ ~€~~~ \\: ~~~ i~~~~ ~~6~ 'z8~ ~ ~~~ ~~~i< ~ * UM ~ ~M IIS~m 1aI.~'8tH::lftlrl1:1O.LlBSNCON3UJHMHIOH1IM~stSlW'1d'IBaIU:IONOll\r.XlBl\dltO~~ \ '" .. J)(lJ ~~ :co t<; v'v ~l :> 0 H !:JII~~H rlt~~ s~ \ '" "i ~ J "- ~ u.. U) U) . <t H c( ~~- (.) ~~ 0. ~2 \l!~~ lo::z I \ .~ \!!QO ~ ~~\!! 6 ~. OliEQ~W .. " ~.. a: w w.... - nll'OU~' ~gD6 ~~~>fI)l ~ \ !-i~ ~~ ~ < . ! . { ~ y ~ 6 ~ i:( 0 ~ , ~ \ \ It. ~ Ii ~ P I: ~ l ~ ~. ~ ~~ ~ i~b\l Ii: -- &~2,~~i ~ i H~~t\ ~ ~\ ""-_._""'~_..............-~"""".......,_.....''''.....~_... - ---~- 0- ~ 11\ S ;.:::; , ill ~ lU \) :::l g ,,~, It -"" IL @J \!) Z IL I ~ \fl I D i ~ , , \!) Z I- \fl ~ i 0- ~ 11\ S z () ~ -1 ~ \fl Z It lU l- lL 4: \fl It i1i >- r- I ill ~ lU \) :::l D () It IL @J \!) Z IL ~ \fl D z :5 D lU \fl () IL () It IL ill ~ / () ~ X z ~ @J \!) Z IL / ~ \fl D z 4: -1 \!) I z I- \fl ~ ~ \) IL J 0- ~ 11\ ::::: . . , , \ I lU ~ () lU ~ X z 4: \fl @J \!) Z IL ~ \fl D ~ D lU ~ _. IL ,,''C; () ...It'c .",~ ':"- ,,' /'i.} lL . ,,' IL ' '\ 0- ~ 11\ S z () ~ -1 ~ \fl Z It ~ lL 4: \fl It ~ REVISED PLANS flJlWCt1l.....SSOCIATES Wftl'T'nHCONSl'HT0#' D~ THEIl! ~S IS Pl'lOttlBlTE l'lCJoJtOfl.PUIIlUCATlOtIO#' IIII!-l.IU.AEPI'tOOUC -- Iii ( I_ \ I 1 Ii"' I jH~~I~ ~~~ ~ I: irl1 i~~ -. \! ilia II! I II ~m. ~ ~~ ~ I I 'p.t ~~~ m I! I.~t ~h ~ \ \ .t. ~ i ~ It n U"' I a \ " I t I I ~ \ > ~ I ~ ~ /' I! a / I ~ / 4 / ~ / I I I I I \ ~ ~ i I ! J I I f (") ,... 0 .... z , . ~ 5 (") m ~ 'Il ~ Q III H~i~ ~~~~ h91 r~:r ~~~ m ~j! ~~ GI'" ~ ~ ~ <: m ~ 0' ",",''''' lTIJIIT[-O- __ I -------- -------- \ ------- '----- - "- / I I I / I , I [ I l I i I ~ , , I g11~~ u ~ ~ ~ n~p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ · ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . II ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ 1m "' '~H~~li ~~~I ~ 'IHd Ui ~ / ~ih i~~ ~ , h~t ~~~ ~ , h!.~ ~~~ ~ / m~ ~h ~ I .t. ~ i 1 / P U$ / ~ " . t is; -a -'z ~i "'0 n 0", ~~ ~o ~ .,/!j mm P z ~ . Cil C/) C/) "Tl '11~1I ~~l: zz~ ~~'" Glnl !:!!() ;ll ~ I ~ & ~~o:~~ <~~ " :;'0'0 a g8~~~ I ~ <>, " ~~I'~ ~8f- il:::l ~ n <> ~ S'g ~~_~_ .., ~lf VlA"lt ~h 0 c h ~ o. 9: - ~ 0_ 3:r~ _q. ... ~. III VI Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: January 15,2009 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Eighteen-month Review of a Use Permit allowing a cocktail lounge with daily hours of operation from 3 PM to 2 AM and allowing karaoke and limited live entertainment consisting of piano playing, within 200 feet of a residential zoning district situated at 107 Hickey Boulevard in the Retail Commercial (C-I) Zoning District, in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.22 & 20.81. Owner: Kelly-Moore Paint Company Applicant: Billy Ket Chau Case Nos.: P06-0040 (UP06-0013) RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission conduct the Eighteen-month Review of the Use Permit. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The New Wave Lounge (formerly known as the Manor House) is situated within a one-story multi-tenant commercial shopping center at the intersection of Hickey Boulevard and El Camino Real and has been operating as a lounge for many years. At the Planning Commission meeting of May 18,2006, the Commissioners approved the Use Permit allowing extended hours, karaoke and live entertainment (consisting of live piano). At the hearing the Commissioners expressed concern with potential noise impacts to adjacent businesses and residents associated with the live entertainment, and potential security concerns associated with late hours and karaoke and required 6, 12, and 18-month reviews. CONCLUSION: The South San Francisco Police Department (SSFPD) Planning Liaison has reviewed department records and determined that since the previous 12-month review no calls for service associated with the business have occurred that were directly related to the operation ofthe business. No complaints regarding noise or other issues have been received from either residential or commercial neighbors. Therefore, city staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept this report in fulfillment ofthe 18-month review. -&~ . eve Carlson, Senior PIa r Attachment: Conditions of Approval CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P06-0040 107 HICKEY BOULEVARD (Adopted by Planning Commission on May 18, 2006) 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 approved plans, as amended by the conditions of approval, including the site plan, floor plans and plan elevations, dated March 20, 2006, prepared by design division of Kitami, as approved by the Planning Commission in association with P06-0040, as amended by the conditions of approval. The final plans shall be subject to the review and approval ofthe City's Chief Planner. 3. The hours of operation shall be limited to the hours between 3 PM and 2 AM. Changes in the hours shall be allowed only after review and approval by the City's Planning Commission. 4. Karaoke and live piano playing are the only allowed entertainment venues. Change in the entertainment venue shall be allowed only after review and approval of the City's Planning Commission. 5. Noise levels shall not exceed a maximum of 50 dBA measured at the property boundary (SSFMC Chapter 8.32). Prior to the issuance of any permit the final construction plans shall include the acoustic retrofits recommended in the Acoustic Report prepared by Charles M. Salter associates dated March 20,2006. (Planning Division Contact: Steve Carlson, 650/877-8535) B. BUILDING DIVISION 1. Provide two additional toilets, one men's and one women's or post the occupancy limit at a maximum of 50 persons. 2. Additional comments at plan review. (Building Division Contact: Jim Kirkman, 650/829-6670) 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. 2. Additional Requirements a. Mandatory installation of the high-tech ceiling for sound reduction. b. Mandatory installation of carpet beneath all speakers for sound reduction. c. Both front and rear doors, and windows mustbe closed during any music being played for reduced sound to the neighborhood. d. Proposed floor plan must be submitted to Police Department prior to approval of Use Permit. e. Site must not exceed 1 DO-person maximum occupancy at any time (including employees) pursuant to the CA Fire Code. f. Two licensed, unarmed and uniformed Security Officers must be at the front door to provide security, and enforce maximum occupancy concerns. g. Use Permit subject to 6, 12 and 18-month review by Planning Commission. h. Street must be swept clean of refuse, e.g. cigarette butts, etc. nightly, prior to departure. 1. The Chief of Police may immediately suspend the Use Permit upon any singular major incident at this site, or for any violations ofthe Use Permit. (Police Department Contact: Sergeant E. Alan Normandy 650/877-8927)