Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08.06.98 Minutes MINUTES CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE August 6, 1998 CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL / CHAIRMAN COMMENTS PRESENT: Chairman Barnett, Vice Chairman Teglia, Commissioner Romero, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Baldocchi, Commissioner Honan ABSENT: Commissioner Masuda ALSO PRESENT: Planning: City Attorney: Police: Park & Recreation: Engineering: Steve Carlson Adam Lindgren Patrick Whitnell S gt. Massoni Barry Nagel Richard Harmon APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 16, 1998 Motion-Teglia/Second-Honan - approved by majority voice vote. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Max's Plaridel E. Fuentabella, Owner/Applicant 1155 EI Camino Real UP-93-950 One Year Review - Use Permit to allow a full service restaurant within 200 feet of a residential district with closing at 10:00 P.M., located at 1155 EI Camino Real, in a Retail Commercial(C-l) F:\FILE CABINE1\OLD PC\WORKING\MINUTES\1998\080698.WPD Page 1 of 10 Zone District in accordance with provisions of South San Francisco Municipal Code Sections 20.22.030, 20.22.040(c), and 20.22.060 (a). 2. City of South San Francisco, Applicant ZA-98-047 and ND-98-047 Zoning Amendment and Negative Declaration to provide a definition for "cremation facilities" within the Municipal Code and to prohibit cremation facilities in the city. Vice Chairman Teglia asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak. No one chose to speak. Motion-Teglia/Second-Baldocchi - to approve the Consent Calendar. Approved by majority voice vote. PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEMS 3. South ParklKaiser Foundation, Owner Summerhill Homes, Applicant Site bounded by West Orange Avenue, Railroad Avenue, and the future North Canal Street ND-98-004, GPA-98-004, RZ-98-004, PUD-98-004 and SA-98-004 General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Planned Industrial to Medium Density Residential (8 to 15 units per acre), Reclassification of the site from Planned Industrial (P-I) to Medium Density Residential (R-2-H) Zoning District, Planned Unit Development to allow lots smaller than the City's minimum requirement of 5,000 square feet and reduced setbacks, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and Development Agreement with provisions for senior housing fund, the park in-lieu fees, and the construction of Colma Creek Linear Park allowing up to one hundred fifty-three (153) lots for single family residences and common area, situated on a vacant 18.9 acre site bounded by Orange Avenue, Railroad Avenue and the future North Canal Street (APN 014-042- 030), in accordance with SSFMC Titles 19 and 20. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren advised the Commission that he would be stepping down for this item due to a possible conflict and Mr. Whitnell would be staffing this item on behalf of the City Attorney's office. Commissioner Romero informed the Commission that he would also be stepping down due to an employment conflict. Sr. Planner Carlson presented the Staff Report and pointed out typographical errors on page 7 of the report, items 4 and 5, which should read "will not" . .. He pointed out a change to the Development Agreement with regard to the insurance provision, and an error in the resolution which refers to "City Council" which should read Planning Commission. Assistant City Attorney Whitnell added that the change to the Development Agreement is reflected on page 14 of the Development Agreement, Section 21, to the deductible amount, which F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\080698.WPD Page 2 of 10 will be increased from $10,000 to $50,000, at the request of the developer. He stated that it has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney who also serves as the risk manager for the City. He stated that since the public hearing was closed at the last meeting, the item would require that the Public Hearing be reopened. He further stated that since the Chair was not present at the last meeting, he would not be able to vote on the issues discussed at that meeting. However, he could vote on the Development Agreement. He indicated that the action would require two motions, one with the project approvals discussed at the last meeting, and the other with the Development Agreement. Vice-Chairman Teglia asked if the issues would require a unanimous vote or a majority of the quorum. Mr. Whitnell stated that he felt it would require a majority of the quorum, but would like to consult with Mr. Lindgren and report back. Motion-Sim/Second- Teglia to open the public hearing. Approved by majority voice vote. The applicant, Mr. Egan provided a presentation on the project and Development Agreement. He stated that the only item with which he is not in agreement with staff is the installation of the bridge, where he proposes that it be part of, and included in the scope of the linear park and applied against the fees along with the rest of the park. Commissioner Baldocchi asked what the setback are on Railroad Avenue. Virginia Heinwood of 129 So. Magnolia spoke against the project expressing concerns with traffic impacts, the effect on schools, and the density issues with respect to the size of the lots. Ralph Raiders Staben of 644 Railroad Avenue spoke against the project, speaking of the lack for strong foundation on the existing homes in the area and the problems endured with shaking during removal of the Guy F. Atkinson building. He also raised issues of flooding from the canal which would create problems with plumbing. Chairman Barnett asked if there were any other members of the public who would like to speak, there being none, he closed the public hearing and opened it up to the Commission. Assistant City Attorney Whitnell responded to Vice Chairman Teglia's earlier question regarding the quorum and voting requirements. He stated that the General Plan amendment requires four affirmative votes. The others only require the majority of the quorum. He indicated that the Commission could proceed. Chairman Barnett recommended that the Commission proceed. Vice Chairman Teglia stated he had some technical questions on the Development Agreement which he would like to discuss with the Commission. He asked staff for clarification on item 4.2 referencing the term of 10 years. He asked what would happen if the property is not developed. Mr. Whitnell responded that he did not believe 10 years was selected for any particular reason, adding that it is fairly standard language. He added that if the Commission so desired they could recommend a shorter time frame to the City Council. Vice Chairman Teglia's other question was with reference to the developer's allowance to sell. He asked, if a new developer sought to F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\080698. WPD Page 3 of 10 develop a different project, would the project be looked at again for density level? Mr. Whitnell, stated, that the Development Agreement and project approvals run with the land, therefore anyone who bought later would be subject to the restrictions of these approvals and Development Agreement, unless they came to the City for approval of a different proposal. Chairman Barnett asked if the linear park could be completed before the 10 years without the rest of the development being completed. He asked for a clarification on the annual review referred to in the Development Agreement. Commissioner Sim asked staff to respond to the concerns raised by the earlier speakers. Mr. Carlson responded. Chairman Barnett asked for a clarification on whether the interest earned on the in-lieu senior housing fee, would be kept in the fund to provide for senior housing or whether that is limited to $900,000. Mr. Whitnell responded that as he read it, the interest earned is not required to be maintained in the fund or used for senior housing. He also responded to Chairman Barnett's question regarding the annual review, stating that it was for the term of the Agreement. Chairman Barnett asked if there would be a homeowner's association. Commissioner Honan thanked staff for the detailed information provided on the schools. Vice Chairman Teglia spoke of the item brought up at the last meeting about the possibility of a foot bridge. He added that he felt that the bridge would be an integral part of the linear part, and if it didn't happen now, it wouldn't happen. He recommended that the foot bridge be required in forwarding it to the City Council, allowing time for further review by the developer and staff. Commissioner Honan stated that she was not interested in forwarding the change to Council, and felt that a consensus vote of the Commission should be considered before pursuing that action. Commissioner Sim stated that he has previously spoken for the bridge was still in favor of considering it, understanding that economics may not make it feasible. He added that he would support Commissioner Teglia's recommendation provided it does not impact the other benefits to the City. Commissioner Baldocchi and Chairman Barnett spoke in agreement of Vice Chairman Teglia's recommendation for the foot bridge. Commissioner Baldocchi also pointed to the need for a walkway or some other vehicle for crossing the street, and expressed a concern with the lack of distance for vehicles backing out of their driveways onto Railroad Avenue. Vice Chairman Teglia asked if the Commission is interested in looking at the 45 foot lots on Railroad Avenue for the possibility of increasing them to 50 foot lots, adding that he could provide details on ways in which that could be accomplished to improve the aesthetics and lower the density of project to improve the parking. Commissioner Honan asked if the developer has been consulted regarding the impact of F: \File Cabinet\Old PC\ working\minutes\1998\080698. WPD Page 4 of 10 changes being proposed, and voiced a concern that the proposed change may not blend with the rest of the development. Mr. Egan responded to the concerns raised by the Commission with regard to the 45 foot wide lots on Railroad. He indicated that one of the reasons for having 45 foot wide lots on Railroad Avenue was in an effort to compliment the houses on the other side, none of which have a driveway, some are apartment buildings, some single family homes, some of the lots are 35 feet wide, some are 40, none are greater than 50. He added that the proposed homes are consistently larger than the existing homes which don't have driveways or curbs and the proposed development does. Mr. Carlson commented that eliminating homes as per calculations on the parking spaces may not generate an increase, or very little increase. He also pointed out that the Tentative Subdivision Map does not reflect provisions for the recommended increase in width for the lots along Railroad Avenue, which may require that the map be redrawn. Vice Chairman Teglia provided a specific proposal for not changing existing streets. He recommended leaving homes 148 through 153 alone, and eliminating two of the homes in the area of 41 through 52 which would allow 54 foot lots in that section. Commissioner Sim requested clarification on the elevations, and added that eliminating two units would lead to less housing where a shortage exists. Chairman Barnett asked the Commission if they are interested in requesting that the Development Agreement provide that interest earned be retained in the fund. Some members of the Commission stated that they did not feel that it was a good idea. Motion-Teglia/Second-Honan to adopt the resolution recommending that the City Council approve: 1) the Mitigated Negative Declaration, 2) the General Plan Amendment, and 3) Rezoning of the site. Approved by the following voice vote: Ayes: Vice Chairman Teglia, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Baldocchi None Chairman Barnett, Commissioner Romero Commissioner Masuda Noes: Abstain: Absent: Motion-Teglia/Second-Sim recommending that the City Council approve: 1) The PUD allowing reduction in lot size and setbacks, the vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, and 2) Development Agreement, with provisions for examining the feasibility for a foot bridge allowing access to the linear park, and modifying the map reducing the number of homes on Railroad from 20 to 18 concentrating that savings from sections 40 to 53. Approved by the following voice vote: F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\080698.WPD Page 5 of 10 Ayes: Noes: Abstain: Absent: Vice Chairman Teglia, Commissioner Baldocchi, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Honan Chairman Barnett, Commissioner Romero Commissioner Masuda Chairman Barnett called for a recess at 9:05 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 9:15 p.m. ADMINISTRA TIVE BUSINESS 4. Items from Staff a. Study Session Oakmont Vistas/Storage USA - Proposed residential and mini- storage development on a 10-acre site located at the southwesterly corner of Wesborough Boulevard and Oakmont Drive. Sr. Planner Carlson informed the Commission that the Study Session was being provided at the request of the developer and introduced Mr. J ohn Ward. Mr. Ward stated that he wanted to keep the forum informal and interactive since it was not a public hearing, but rather a study session. He provided background information on the site, pointing out the difficulties involved in developing it and the amount of thorough analysis which has gone into the process prior to submitting the application. He stated that they have conducted three neighborhood meetings which were followed up by a letter, and have encountered some challenging concerns. He stated that this is the start of the project, and an environmental study will be required before responding to some of the concerns. He introduced Mr. Tronoff, and asked that he speak on the factors that were considered during the layout of the buildings and explain how the residential and storage relate from a planning and engineering standpoint. Mr. Tronoff informed the Commission that he has been involved with the Westborough area since 1960 and provided background information on the site including information related to the San Andreas Fault, previously proposed projects and recommendations for addressing the geological issues. He provided details on design techniques used in the proposed project. Commissioner Sim asked to see cross section information and expressed concern for the visual effects from both angles. Mr . Ward presented renderings of the care keepers building. Commissioner Baldocchi asked for clarification on the location on the map of the existing home on Oakmont Drive. Commissioner Honan asked if the masonry wall would be in front of the homes. Chairman Barnett asked for further details about the geological aspects, adding that a major seismic event wouldn't make much difference. F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\l998\080698.WPD Page 6 of 10 The meethlg was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. ( ~~~ Planning Commission City of South San Francisco vtary OmrjS10n th S ~n Francisco JH:is NEXT MEETING: Special Meeting August 13, 1998 _ Regular Meeting August 20, 1998, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA. F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\080698.WPD Page 10 of 10 B. J. Goltiao, 3440 Oakmont Drive, spoke against the project citing concerns with the change in zoning, and traffic generated by the project. Elmon M. Elmore, 2575 Bantry Lane, spoke against the project citing concerns with a warehouse going in such a short distance from his house. He added that the area has constant ground movement which causes pipe damage. He voiced a concern with additional traffic that would be generated, dust and dirt caused by the construction, adding that commercial facilities were not appropriate at this location. Bridie George, Fleetwood spoke against the project citing a concern with the public storage facility. Mark Dumpit, 2272 Shannon Drive, spoke against the project citing concerns with the storage facility. He stated that other storage facilities I~xist in the immediate area, and proposed area should be dedicated to homes. He also had a concern with the change in zoning. Jesus, 2300 Shannon Drive, spoke against the project stating that current homes have been built without insulation, have water problems due to being built on streams which causes damage to pipes which sometimes go into the homes. He also expressed a concern with the storage facility going in next to homes. Albert Waters, 2266 Shannon Drive, spoke against the project expressing concerns with the quality of life in the community stating that they have worked hard to establish the community. He stated that he was shocked at the thought of building in the middle of an earthquake zone is being considered. He stated that pipes in the area are always in need of replacement across Skyline and Westborough. He stated that they went to Menlo Park and found out that there are three streams that come down Skyline into Colma Creek. He stated that from Daly City to Monte Verde pipes had been replaced with corrugated piping which flows into the gutter, causing the loss of two houses. Docey Chatterjee, 3301 Oakmont Drive, spoke against the project stating that their home is lower than the proposed development. She stated that sunlight is now at a premium, and the fence and trees would affect the sun and shade. Georgette Sarles, 485 Cherrywood Drive, San Mateo, stated that she and her husband own 15 homes in the area of the proposed project. She cited drainage problems due to ground movement. She stated that one home on Oakmont has had a lot of problems with drainage and pipes, and because of this the majority of the homeowners were unable to procure mortgages and sustained losses on their properties. She stated that the area where Goldilocks is was once the equivalent of a lake. She also spoke against the storage/warehouse facility in a residential area, stating that her experience with those storage facilities is that they are infested with rodents. She also stated that previous discussions she had with Stones and Builders, reassured her that the City would not authorize building permits there due to geological studies, and that it would be open space and a park was going to be put there. Chairman Barnett thanked the members of the public for showing up and providing views, and thanked Mr. Ward and his associates. F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\080698. WPD Page 8 of 10 Vice Chairman Teglia asked staff to respond to the comments by the previous speaker, and developer's comments regarding the park, and current owner of the property. Mr. Carlson stated it would have to be researched. Commissioner Sim stated that he did not want to lose focus on comments pertaining to bigger infrastructure issues made tonight which go beyond the project. He stated that as a city, now that the issues are on public record, perhaps staff through the Public Works Department can attempt to address some of these problems and issues by seeking historical data to avoid being caught up in emotions. He stated that Mr. Ward and staff have articulated their position, however his understanding of what the community is seeking is that they would like to see open space in that area. Francisco Aviles, Oakmont Drive spoke of the comments made regarding a park. He questioned why the park issue is being raised today, when it was promised 25 years ago. He added that the empty lot is dirty, and fires occur every year or so. He added that the hill is being used by bikers which cause a lot of dust. He added that he would like to see the land developed, and felt that the issue of a park at this late date could lead to waiting another 25 years. He expressed his concern that his home would burn down if something isn't done. Chairman Barnett reminded the audience that this was only an informational study session to allow the developer to present their project, and not a decision making session. He added that the project still requires an Environmental Document which requires a review period, and several hearings. He informed them that there would be ample opportunities for the public and the applicant to voice their position. Commissioner Sim informed the audience that the General Plan is in the process of being updated, and stated that one of the things they could do as a community of the Westborough area would be to become active participants in that process. b. Discuss September Commission meeting schedule Mr. Harnish was not available to make this presentation. 5. Items from Commission None 6. Items from the Public 7. Adjourn Motion- Teglia /Second-Romero to adjourn. F: \File Cabinet\Old PC\ working\minutes\1998\080698 .WPD Page 9 of 10 Vice Chairman Teglia asked if any thought has been given to putting a park there. Mr. Tronoff responded with some information of past park land commitments. Chairman Barnett asked why a storage facility was being proposed. Mr. Ward responded that it was due to limited options for appropriate use of the site. Vice Chairman Teglia asked Mr. Ward for feedback generated from the neighborhood meetings. Mr. Ward introduced Mr. Alan Loving, the representative for Storage USA who provided information on their operation and design of their facilities, adding that they felt it is a good use for a site that has a fault running through it. Commissioner Romero asked if the back lots on parcel one would have landscaping. He also asked about the size of homes versus the size of lots. Chairman Barnett asked staff what the timing was for the process of this application. He asked if it would be possible to have another study session to include more housing details for the development. Commissioner Romero raised a concern regarding having lot sizes half of the normal minimum required, with three level homes. He added that he felt it was too much for the residential portion of the project. Commissioner Baldocchi also raised concerns with the lot sizes, and the proposed private streets. Commissioner Sim raised a concern that due to the late hour, as a courtesy to the audience, they should be permitted to state their concerns. Vice Chairman Teglia stated that he agreed with Commissioner Sim. However due to lack of information for whatever reasons, and without plans, and renderings for the homes he found it difficult to provide recommendations at this time. He stated that his initial reaction to the plan is a concern in terms of the residential segment with the remote parking away from the homes. Commissioner Sim added that a model might be more appropriate in this case and asked that future sessions include more visuals for the audiences benefit. Commissioner Romero asked Engineering to respond to the reason for residential development not being recommended in the area where the storage facility is being proposed. Mr. Harmon responded. Mr. Barnett requested that the audience be called up in the order of the cards. Anthony Charvet, 3475 Oakmont Drive, spoke against the project citing concerns with the change to commercial and industrial use, and traffic generated by the project, and the storage facility. F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\080698. WPD Page 7 of 10