Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.18.99 Minutes CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE November 18, 1999 CALL TO ORDER! PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TAPE 1 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL / CHAIRMAN COMMENTS MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Honan, Vice Chairperson Sim, Commissioner Baldocchi, Commissioner D' Angelo, Commissioner Meloni, Commissioner Romero, and Commissioner Teglia MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Teglia * AGENDA REVIEW: Chief Planner Sparks reviewed the agenda and the Caseload Status. He noted that the City Council granted the Costco appeal, and certified the EIR. He added that the project was approved with some additional conditions in regard to landscaping. * Commissioner Teglia arrived at 7 :40 p.m. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of October 21,1999, November 4,1999 Regular Meeting and November 9,1999 Special Meeting Minutes. Motion Meloni / Second Sim to approve the Consent Calendar with corrections. Commissioners Teglia and Commissioner Baldocchi abstained from November 4th, and November 9th minutes. Commissioner Meloni abstained from the November 9th minutes. PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEMS 2. Oakmont Vistas/Thomas Callan, Jr., Gilbert Anda, Owner Hansen, PSC, Applicant Oakmont Drive @ Westborough Blvd. UP, GP, RZ, PUD, PM, SA & ND-98-054 The proposed project consists of the construction of three separate developments on a vacant 10-acre site located at the southwesterly comer of West borough Boulevard and Oakmont Drive. Parcel 1, approx. 4.9 acres located in the northeast portion of the site, is proposed for a mini-storage facility with a resident caretaker's unit. Parcel 2, approx. 5.02 acres, is proposed for a 33-unit single family residential subdivision, with associated parking, private streets and common (open space) area. Parcel 3, located on the southwestern comer of the project site (comer of Fleetwood Drive and Westborough Boulevard), consists of a . 173-acre single family lot. Since the entire project G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\111899.doc Page 1 of 11 APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 17, 1999. site is currently zoned "R-I-E-P" (single family residential), and since the proposed mini-storage use is not allowed in an "R -1" area, the development of the proposed mini -storage facility will require the adoption of a General Plan Amendment and a rezoning of the property. Vice Chairperson Sim noted that he would not be participating in the discussion of this item. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren stated that Vice Chairperson Sim owns property in proximity to the proposed development. Senior Planner Kalkin presented the staff report. John Courtney, Environmental Consultant-Lamphier & Associates, noted that they identified 17 impacts that were potentially significant, and each one had a set of mitigation measures associated, which would reduce those impacts to a less than significant impact. · The development would change the existing use because it would be going from a vacant site to a developed site, which would modify the existing view. · The storage facility would create a visual impact because it would be in a residential area. · During construction of the project there would be generation of dust and exhaust, which would be mitigated through the implementation of dust suppression measures. · Geotechnical reports have been performed in the area and the site is in a geotechnically hazardous area in terms of its relation to the San Andreas fault. He added that the site would be subject to severe seismic shaking or fault rupture. · The development of the site would increase peak runoff, erosion, and non point source pollution. · Airport noise would temporarily impact the development but could be mitigated through design and engineering measures in the homes. Mark Crane, Crane Transportation, addressed the projection of traffic volumes from the residential portion and the mini warehouse project. He noted that there were other mini warehouse facilities in the local neighborhood and they surveyed those facilities during peak traffic time to see how they were doing. He added that they were generating traffic at about 20%-30% lower than the national average rate. He noted that his projections for the new facility are based on the historical national rate and not the reduced rate from the local facilities. He added that the residential units traffic projections were increased by 20% to provide a conservative analysis. He mentioned that the residential units would generate 60% of the traffic and the mini warehouse would generate about 40% of the traffic. He concluded that the project traffic would not have a significant impact. Chairperson Honan asked if there were traffic projections for the weekend. Mr. Crane noted that they did not look at weekends but historical literature indicates that residential development would generate less traffic on the weekend but the warehouse facility would generate more traffic on the weekend. Matt St. John, Questa Engineering Corporation, noted that they conducted the hydrologic and water quality analysis of the project. He stated that there were three components to the water analysis which were: · The impacts to surface runoff had an increase in peak runoffs between 7 and 13 CFS (cubic feet per second). He noted that the applicant has proposed to have a detention basin as part of the facility, which stores the runoff and lets it flow off the site at the predevelopment condition rate. · Potential impacts associated with sub drainage conditions are being reduced by creating more impervious surface on the site. He added that the streets and building paths are reducing the amount of infiltration into the soil which acts as a positive impact that causes less water to get into the ground and therefore decreases the sub drain age problem. · Water quality impacts, in particular the non point source pollution. He added that to mitigate this the applicant would have to install oil/water separators in the parking lot, and to design the detention basin to capture the first flush of runoff which is the runoff from the first Yz hour of a storm. Commissioner D'Angelo asked who was responsible for the clean up of the oil and water separator. Mr. St. John noted that the Homeowners Association would identify the responsible party. Commissioner D'Angelo asked who G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\111899 .doc APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 17, 1999. Page 2 of 11 would collect the sediment in the detention basin. Mr. St. John answered that the Homeowners Association would also be in charge of this clean up. Commissioner Meloni asked where the detention basin was located at the site. Mr. St. John noted that it is near the Tot play area. Commissioner Meloni asked if it was an underground detention basin or if it was a pond. Mr. St. John noted that it would be surface ponding. Commissioner Meloni asked if the children's safety had been thought of with a pond full of water. Mr. St. John noted that it was very shallow and the size of ponding would be less than a foot of water. Chairperson Honan asked if the detention basin could be closed. Mr. St. John stated that it is possible but it makes it much more difficult to remove sediment. Commissioner Meloni was concerned with the detention basin not being cleaned up and collecting sediment. Mr. St. John noted that the detention basins are usually cleaned up at the end of the rainy season and there is continuous maintenance on that basin. Commissioner D'Angelo asked how much the cost of the clean up was. Mr. St. John noted that it would be a minor cost. Commissioner D'Angelo asked what size the oil and water separator would be. Mr. St. John noted that it would be 10' X 10'. Commissioner Romero asked if only the residential portion is built, how would that affect the runoff from the adjacent site. Mr. St. John noted that the grading and drainage plan from the runoff of parcel 1, the storage facility, would be directed towards Bantry Lane. He added that the runoff from parcels 2 and 3 would be directed towards Shannon. He mentioned that if parcel 1 was not developed the runoff would have a less of an impact. Commissioner Romero asked if the runoff from the storage flows into the residential portion or towards the existing residential neighborhood. Mr. St. John noted that currently the runoff flows from the northwest portion of the site and out to Shannon Drive. Commissioner Romero asked if the undeveloped area, the mini warehouse, would not affect the existing neighborhood. Mr. St. John noted that it would not affect or change those conditions. Commissioner Romero asked where the water was going to go and how it was going to flow into the new residential development. Mr. St. John noted that no plans have been developed with the alternative of not developing parcell. Richard Harmon, Development Review Specialist, noted that the conditions of approval proposes the use of a stormcepter or CDS unit, which are specifically designed to collect debris. He added that the debris is collected in a container that can be lifted out. He added that the cost would be less than $1,000.00 a year to do the work. John Hansen of Hansen PSC, applicant, and his team gave a presentation. Recess called at 9:05 p.m. Recalled to order at 9: 15 p.m. Public Hearing opened. Gerald Simotas, 2760 Tipperary Ave., objected to residential portion and storage area. He noted that the land was cleaned up to build homes in the 60s, but it was never done. He added that storage facilities are used to store live ammunition and to make bombs and drugs. He preferred having the site stay at its natural stage and leaving it open space. Jerry Cimmet, 3960 Fleetwood Dr.-SB, added that he looked over plans and was concerned with the long term construction and the debris it would bring to the surrounding areas. He questioned if the development is consistent with their neighborhood, and that storage is not consistent. He reiterated the previous speaker's comment in regard to leaving the area open space. He added that the applicant has made an effort to hide the mini storage with a wall which will be a target for graffiti in the future. He also noted that debris from other areas will pile up on the wall. He questioned who would be responsible for the clean up of the debris and that the responsibility cannot be set on the Homeowners Association for the storage facility. He added that it is inviting crime to the area. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\111899 .doc APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 17, 1999. Page 3 of 11 Georgette Sarles, 170 Olympic Ct., noted that they have collected 425 signatures of residents that vehemently oppose the rezoning. She noted that the project will have a negative impact on property values, and that the rezoning will adversely change the character of the neighborhood. She added that the safety of the children and seniors is threatened by additional traffic coming from this project. She was concerned with noise, pollution, attraction of undesirable trends, destruction and endangerment of wildlife in the site, water drainage, seismic activity, and the failed substandard drain system. She added that the storage project is not aesthetically appealing. She added that they were told that the site would be an open space designation. Bernadette Aguilar Cosias, 2445 Bantry Ln., related that Bantry Lane had drainage problems during the EI Nino storm, and feared that the homes might collapse from such pressure that would be caused by the new development. She is against the storage unit because it is out of character. She agreed with the opposition that the project would impact traffic because it is a problem in the area. Gerry Palomo, 20 Chateau Ct., noted that he has reviewed the environmental document and urged the Commission to approve the project. He noted that there will always be residents that like their neighborhood without development. He noted that the property owner has the right to develop the site in a reasonable manner. Chito Desuasido, 26 Vista Ct., is in favor of project because there is a shortage of housing on the west side of 1280. He noted that he had initial reservation in regard to the storage and after reviewing the plans he was impressed with effort and detail put into plans. He noted that self storage facilities serve a need for the community and added that that the residential and storage portions of this project go hand in hand. He urged the Commission to approve the project. George K. Ado, 2649 DuhaIIow Way, supports the project. He noted that leaving 5-acres designated as open space does not seem fair or reasonable. Tony Charvet, 3475 Oakmont Dr., opposes the project because a storage facility cannot be disguised. He is not against development, if it were compatible with the existing homes, but this development is going to be a clustered development. He added that his driveway is adjacent to the storage entry driveway and he has concern that people might go into his driveway accidentally. He noted that the storage project will destroy the neighborhood. Jerry Twentyman, 3415 Bantry Ln. president of West borough Homeowners Improvement Association, mentioned that the 3 people that are in favor of the project are not in their association or near the neighborhood. He noted that the Westborough Homeowners Association unanimously opposed the project. He mentioned that as an engineer he noticed some flaws on how the issues have been explored. He noted that as a business owner he does not see any benefits to the City or the neighborhood with the project. He noted that it is the wrong project iri the wrong location. He also noted he had submitted a letter to the Commission outlining his concerns. Chris Christenson, 97, Rockford Ave.-DC, noted that all the trash that has been thrown on the site and could easily catch on fire during the dry seasons. He added that the trash would be eliminated, water runoff is going to be corrected. He supported the project. Charlie Santos, 307 Castille Way, stated that the property is a collector of trash and is not a sight anyone would like to see as they enter the City. He requested that the Commission approve this development. George V. Rodriguez, 2409 Wexford Ave., noted that the residents cannot make a developer turn. their land into open space and pointed out that it was the responsibility of the City. He mentioned that this area is a possible dump and the debris thrown on that property could become worse if it is turned into open space. He added that the residents should be thankful to have a project like this proposed, and added that the storage facility does not impact the area. Kathryne Campbell, 2515 Tara Ln., opposes the storage facility but not the residential development. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\111899.doc APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 17, 1999. Page 4 of 11 Gil Anda, 810 Dell, Rd.-Pacifica, owner of the property, addressed the current conditions of the property. He mentioned that it is necessary to have someone clean up the property every 2 weeks. He added that they have the tall weeds removed once a year. He is anxious to have the property developed which would improve the surrounding area and give a nice view to the entrance on Skyline Blvd. Bill Nack, 1153 Chess Dr.-Foster City, speaking on behalf of the Building and Construction Trades Council of San Mateo County, supports the Oakmont Vistas project and the mini storage facility. He noted that the project will not affect the area and will fulfill a demand for new single family homes. He noted that it is unfair not to rezone as part of the project. He added that the project will be of high quality design and construction which will have a positive influence on property and the surrounding areas. He mentioned that the project will bring jobs to those residents of the City. Norman Leoncio, 1 Appian Way #703-8, noted that this has always been an eyesore and has always wondered why it has never been developed. He added that the proposal of mini storage is better than the current misuse of the property even if the San Andreas Fault runs through it. He noted that the studies and the research made by the City show that there is no impact on the surrounding areas. He expressed his support for this project and urged the Commission to approve the project. Charlotte Chan, 2405 Bantry Ln., mentioned she is against the project. She added that the traffic on Westborough Boulevard has been a problem and will continue to be a problem. She mentioned that something needs to be done on the parcel that has the proposed mini storage, but strongly opposes this project because it cannot solve the problem. She noted that it is located at the fault line and is dangerous for employees. She also related that the residential area is designed as a cul-de-sac. She added that this would cause a problem with traffic because the residents of a 33-unit development would be trying to get out of one street. Mercy Devasconcellos, 3451 Oakmont Dr., supports the residential portion of the project but is against the mini storage development. She was concerned about the traffic and how the storage facility attracts children and graffiti. Esther Young, 2434 Bantry Ln., is opposed to homes and storage units. She added that those people that are in favor of the project don't live in the neighborhood. She added that the sub drainage systems are already damaged and will continue to be damaged. She noted the soil gets into pipes and several homes were lost because of this problem. She added that if the sub drain system is fixed she would be in favor of the residential portion. She mentioned that the traffic is a big problem, especially on Oakmont. BJ Goltiao, 3440 Oakmont Dr., asked that the Commission consider the residents that are most affected. He noted that an economic impact study was not done on the project, and thought that there was a hidden cost in the project. He mentioned that the property values will be impacted and the society will end up paying for this in the long run. He noted that he is opposed to both the storage and the residential portions of the project. Albert Waters, 2266 Shannon Dr., noted that water runoff will create a problem and it is a danger zone because of the earth movement. He mentioned that there is a storage facility two blocks away from Oakmont A venue. He related his concern about the quality of life in the community. He asked the Commission to vote against the project. Rebecca Aguayo, 3275 Oakmont Dr., related that she moved from lower South City to improve the quality of life for her children. She added that the zoning change is going to impact the neighborhood. She asked the Commission to listen to the voices of the residents and to deny the project. Athene Chan, 2405 Bantry Ln., stated that the six foot wall would cover up the storage but would also obstruct the view from the area. She noted that the job opportunities that will be created for those in the construction field will be short term projects. She added that this would be the first commercial project on that side of the street and will G:\Fi1e Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\111899.doc ApPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 17, 1999. Page 5 of 11 encourage others to apply for a rezoning of the land. She pointed out that there is a storage facility on King Drive and that another is not needed on Oakmont Drive. She was also concerned about the traffic and potential for accidents. Dino Sarles, 1484 Cherrywood, noted that he would like the Commission to support their opposition to this project. Docela Chatterjee, 3301 Oakmont Dr., stated that her view would be obstructed because the fence is going to be built along her property. She noted that the wall would also block the sun from going into her property which will cause more moisture and increase the existing problems. She noted that the photomontages do not look realistic for the neighborhood. Veronica Wong, 2720 Oakmont Dr.-SB, pointed out that San Bruno supported it's residents in turning down a use that should not have been in their area, and urged the Commission to support it's residents Public Hearing closed. 'I'.APE2 Commissioner Romero asked why there was a plug in the line going down on Westborough Blvd. and what will happen when 5-acres worth of runoff are being directed into the Westborough line. Mr. Harmon noted that the Westborough system is a large system and the pipes are at a steep grade because they parallel the slope of the street. He added that there has not been any flooding relating to water coming out of the pipes. Commissioner Romero asked if the homes that were lost had to do with water runoff. Mr. Harmon, replied that the loss of those homes was due to the subdrain system. He added that a pipe rusted because of the characteristics of the water which caused the pipe to collapse. He noted that this created an hourglass effect and caused the loss of the homes. He mentioned that the storm drain system is a surface system that collects water from the surface of the streets and puts it into an enclosed pipe system that eventually goes to the Colma Creek. Commissioner Romero asked what was the Engineering Division's perspective in regard to the driveway lengths. Mr. Harmon, noted that the current proposal asks for 19 foot aprons on one side of the street and 18 feet on the other. He stated that Engineering Division recommends that the apron be increased to 20 feet on the side where there is a sidewalk because the sidewalk should not be blocked with any large vehicles. He added that the City standard for residential subdivisions is to have a 20 foot driveway apron. Chairperson Honan asked about the history of the site. Mr. Tronoff noted that the site was annexed to the City of Daly City and was originally graded to have 33 foot single family residential lots on it. He noted that the storm drains in the area are a part of the improvements made. He added that later it was annexed into the City of SSF and the proposal was to build an apartment building but it was not done because funds were not available. Chairperson Honan asked if there were any records on file in regard to dumping large articles in the area. Sergeant Massoni noted that the Police Department will occasionally get complaints of sofas and refrigerators being dumped on the site. Commissioner Teglia asked staff what the alternatives were on the site. Senior Planner Kalkin replied that alternatives were looked at in the environmental document and included various non-habitable uses. She noted that a playing field or tennis courts could be constructed on the site but not anything that involves construction of structures. Commissioner Teglia asked what the alternative on the site would be if the Commission upholds staff's recommendation. Senior Planner Kalkin noted that this would continue to be a fenced private open space area. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren noted that the alternatives in the Negative Declaration are all feasible and staff wanted to identify different options for the site. Commissioner Teglia noted that the applicant is not interested in the options. He questioned if the applicant chose to have single family detached homes even if they had the option of an apartment building. Senior Planner Kalkin replied that the applicant could have applied for more residential units on the buildable portion of the site. She added that the General Plan talks about cluster development and also having a G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\111899 ,doc APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 17, 1999. Page 6 of 11 development that is consistent with the development patterns in the neighborhood, noting that an apartment building would not be a compatible use in the neighborhood. Chairperson Honan asked why the residents were told that the site was going to be left open space. Senior Planner Kalkin stated that the plan documents have never identified the property as any kind of City parkland. She mentioned that it has been designated as low density residential, and the General Plan has identified that the fault traverses the site. Chairperson Honan asked the applicant if the question has risen in the various community meetings they have conducted. Mr. Ward noted that the question has come up in various occasions and they told the residents that open space was not the intent of the applicant. He added that the one question many of the neighbors asked was why single family residential could not be built on the remainder of the site. He noted that they informed the neighborhood that under the existing conditions it could not be a single-family development. Chairperson Honan asked when the last meeting with the homeowners was held. Mr. Ward replied that they have been on going and they met with the president of the Homeowners Association yesterday. Richard Harmon, Development Review Specialist, mentioned that there was a deed in the City Clerk's office that was released back to the owner by then City Attorney John Noonan. He noted that there was a proposal in the Master plan to build a park on Galway Drive, Westborough Park. He added that the City had made the 5-acre site at OakmontIW estborough a temporary park and when the Westborough Park was completed the 5 acre parcel was released back to the property owner. Commissioner Baldocchi noted that the temporary park could have misled some of the residents to think that it was going to be permanent open space. She questioned if the site was always zoned residential and not open space. Senior Planner Kalkin noted that this has been the case for at least 15 years but would have to do further research beyond that. Commissioner D'Angelo asked if the Homeowners Association discussed the park with City officials. Mr. Twentyman noted that conversations could have taken place before he was on the board. Commissioner D'Angelo asked if the Association has tried to pursue a park knowing that there was a proposed development. Mr. Twentyman noted that this has not been done in the last few years and noted that he has asked staff for information on the subject. Commissioner D'Angelo asked if the Association would be responsible for the clean up of the oil and water separator. Mr. Twentyman noted that this would require a new association because it is not within the boundaries of his association. Commissioner D'Angelo asked if the Homeowners Association was for or against both the homes and the mini storage or only against the mini storage. Mr. Twentyman replied that they are adamantly and emphatically against both items Commissioner D'Angelo asked how the developer envisions the maintaining of the oil and water separator and the cost of this. Mr. Hansen noted that Oakmont Vistas would have a separate homeowners association that would be responsible for the clean up of the scepters. Commissioner D'Angelo asked if the homeowners association would be required to clean up graffiti on the wall facing Westborough. Mr. Hansen noted that the homeowners association would be responsible for a wrought rod iron fence. He added that the solid wall is on the perimeter of the storage facility and it would be the responsibility of the storage operator to maintain that. Commissioner Baldocchi asked whether the applicant wanted to comment on or rebut any public comments that were given earlier. Mr. Hansen noted that the petitions that Mr. Ward had submitted to the Planning Commission in favor of the project has 6 homeowners that have their property abutting the subject site. He also commented on the lighting requirements for the storage area. He mentioned that the hours of operation are going to be from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. and by appointment. He added that most of the concerns voiced can be alleviated by imposing certain conditions Assistant City Attorney Lindgren clarified that the maintenance obligations for the wall and utility improvements are addressed in the Draft CC&Rs in section 5.01, which were provided in the Commission's packet. He suggested that they can supplement the language particularly pointing out the walls and the drainage improvements if the Commission wishes to do so. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\11 1899.doc APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 17, 1999. Page 7 of 11 Commissioner Romero noted that a portion of the land can be developed with residences but the other area can't even if it is zoned R -1. He noted that the Commission had previously recommended that the applicant cluster the housing into one section and leave the rest open space. He added that the applicant did not come back with that proposal but that this is a better option. He mentioned that many of the neighbors are having a difficult time with the storage area and thinks that this might work because otherwise they will then have an empty lot. Commissioner Teglia noted that the site has certain constraints and the owner has rights to develop it. He expressed his support to have the mini storage on the site because having an open lot would not make sense. Commissioner D'Angelo asked if a lighting scheme had been developed for storage area. Mr. Hansen noted that this has not been done at the time. Commissioner D'Angelo asked who would be responsible for developing the lighting plan and who would review those plans. Senior Planner Kalkin noted that the applicant would develop the plans given the standards that the City has, and Planning and the Police Department would review those plans. Commissioner D'Angelo asked what lighting is used in other mini storage facilities in the City. Mr. Jesse Morgan noted that there would be low voltage sodium lights approximately 6 feet off the ground that would be both adjacent and on the building. Commissioner Baldocchi asked how the other storage facilities across the street impacted the neighbors. Senior Planner Kalkin noted that these projects were developed more or less at the same time and it was consequently not seen as an intrusion on any existing neighborhoods. Commissioner Baldocchi asked how much control the Commission had in terms of the hours of operation. Senior Planner Kalkin replied that hours of operation could be controlled through conditions of approval. Commissioner Teglia noted that the Commission's information focuses on the housing portion and mentioned that the Commission would need to see more specific renderings with some options on what can be done on the storage site. Chairperson Honan noted that the Commission has little information in regard to the storage site. She added that the Commission had a study session a year ago and that the neighbors had a noticed meeting about a year ago. She was concerned about this and felt that the Commission should have another study session. Commissioner Meloni was concerned that the photomontages did not show enough and would like to see sections of the storage from the lower portion of Westborough and from the Oakmont A venue portion. He added that the Commission was not provided a geotechnical report and would like to have one. He wanted more detail on the storage. Commissioner D'Angelo disagreed with the need for another study session but wanted to know if the Association saw any benefit in having additional meetings with the developer. Mr. Twentyman noted that it is a good idea but the previous meetings have been poorly attended. Chairperson Honan asked Mr. Twentyman that if the Commission had a noticed meeting would they get a larger turnout. Mr. Twentyman noted that calls were made for homeowners to attend the meeting and they did not have success. He mentioned that the community is burned out because of the prolonged nature of the project. Mr. Ward noted that he asked staff if a study session would be advised and that it was suggested that they go directly into the public hearing. He added that going back to the study session would not make any sense and if the Commission wants to continue the matter for more information it could be done in the public hearing. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren noted that staff would like to have the project considered as one and not have it divided. Commissioner Romero noted that the project has been divided with recommending approval of the residential portion and the denial of the mini storage. Senior Planner Kalkin noted that they stay together as the project goes forward. Commissioner Romero asked if the applicant wants the Commission to continue the item with a possible approval of both areas or to vote on the project as is and have Council make the final approval. Mr. Ward replied that the G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\111899.doc APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 17, 1999. Page 8 of 11 Commission can give the applicant specific requests for information and they want to be responsive to the Commission's request. Commissioner Romero noted that the conditions of approval for the storage facility were not included in their packet. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren noted that the Commission can consider approval of the storage unit and staff would have to return with conditions for the Commission. Chairperson Honan wanted to see a photomontage as to how the homes fit in with the mini storage. Commissioner Baldocchi wanted to know if the item would be continued with the request to have the applicant return with more information. Chairperson Honan noted that this is the wish of the Commission. Motion Baldocchi to continue the matter and asked that the Commission express their concerns and make the appropriate requests for information. Judy Davidoff, Land Use Attorney with Baker & McKenzie, noted that the applicant is not opposed to continuing the storage component but would like the residential portion to move forward. Commissioner D'Angelo noted that the 19 foot and 18 foot driveway apron issue has not been resolved and would like to have it addressed. Commissioner Teglia noted that he is also interested in seeing the driveway apron issue resolved. Commissioner D'Angelo noted that he would like to see the graffiti and the disposal of oil and water sediment responsibility resolved. Mr. Harmon noted that in the conditions of approval from the Engineering Division in the residential project, is the 20 foot aprons, and there is also a paragraph that talks about the associations responsibility which relates to the storm scepters, drainage systems, subdrain systems and cleaning graffiti off the wall. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren noted that the Engineering Division's conditions would be coordinated with the language of the draft CC&Rs. Second Romero to Commissioner Baldocchi's motion in regard to continuing the entire project to allow staff and the applicant to provide additional information. Chief Planner Sparks suggested that the matter be continued to December 16, 1999. Chairperson Honan asked if the information would be available by then. Chairperson HOllan noted that the Commission has the option of opening the public hearing again but does not have to open it again. Item was unanimously continued to December 16, 1999, with Vice Chairperson Sim abstaining due to a conflict of interest. Chief Planner Sparks went through a list of what the Commission would like to see when the item returns for final action: · Geotechnical recommendations · Photomontages in regard to cross sections and perspectives on how it all fits together · Perspectives of the storage units from the residential areas and the existing homes · Findings and conditions on the storage facility Commissioner Teglia added that different options be explored. Commissioner D'Angelo asked to have the City's lighting standards for mini storage. Chairperson Honan asked to have a materials board available. Commissioner Baldocchi wanted to have a better understanding of hours of operation and other storage facilities in the area have as their hours of operations. Commissioner Meloni wanted to have information on the buffer between building one and the houses. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\rninutes\1999\111899.doc APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 17, 1999. Page 9 of 11 3. ParcPlace/Summerhill Homes-owner MarketShare,Inc.-applicant 10 West Orange Ave. SC-99-072 and Categorical Exemption Class 11 Section 15311 Type "C" Sign Permit allowing real estate signs and sales flags. Chief Planner Sparks presented the staff report. Bruce Fowler, Market Share, noted that they wanted 6 signs along Canal and have reduced to 3 signs at the request of the City. Public hearing opened. Public hearing closed. Motion Teglia / Second Baldocchi to approve the item. Unanimously approved. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 4. Items from Staff a. Tree Preservation Ordinance Review City of South San Francisco-owner/applicant Citywide Proposed revisions to the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. Chairperson Honan asked if Mr. Nagel would mind continuing the item. Barry Nagel, Director of Parks, Recreation and Maintenance Dept., stated that it was fine to continue and there was no urgency for the ordinance. Motion Teglia / Second Meloni to continue the item to January 20, 2000. 5. Items from Commission Chairperson Honan asked that the bylaws be heard on December 2, 1999 because they have been continued for so long. She also asked if there was an update on the gas station. Chief Planner Sparks noted that there is not an update because of the busy schedule that the Commission has conducted. Chairperson Honan asked when staff would have an update for the Commission on that issue. Chief Planner Sparks stated that they might have an update on January 20, 2000. Commissioner Baldocchi asked why the telecommunications ordinance has been continued for a year and when it is expected to be before the Commission. Chief Planner Sparks stated that the City Attorney's office has been working on this with Senior Planner Carlson and should be before the Commission and it should be before the Commission soon. She also asked for an update on the Health Center having exposed equipment on the rooftop. Senior Planner Kalkin stated that the applicant is currently working on a roof screen. Commissioner Baldocchi asked when there would be a set of design standards in draft form before the Commission. Chief Planner Sparks stated that there is a list of post General Plan tasks that staff is working on and getting these things before the Commission. Chairperson Honan asked that the Commission needs to know what the duties of the Design Review Board because they are advisory to the Commission. Chief Planner Sparks stated that the Design Review Board is advisory to the Commission and they were created to provide expert advice with regard to design issues. Commissioner Romero G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\111899 .doc ApPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 17, 1999. Page 10 of 11 asked if there was a document that indicates what duties have been delegated to the Board by the Commission. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren stated that some research could be done with regard to the relationship of the Design Review Board and the Commission. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren stated that the Commission could have a joint study session with the Board to discuss various issues. Commissioner Teglia noted that the Design Review Board are a tool and it is a good idea to have a joint meeting so they have a better understanding of what the Commission wants to see. Vice Chairperson Sim asked if there was a way of seeing what went to the Design Review Board first and then see what the outcome of those comments were. Chairperson Honan asked Sergeant Massoni to look for any records on Police reports in regard to the vacant lot for the Oakmont project. Commissioner Teglia mentioned that the League of California Cities is having its Planners' Institute in March, and recommended it to the Commission. He suggested that reservations be made early to allow the Commissioners to stay at the hotel where the event is being held. 6. Items from the Public - None 7. Adjournment Motion Romero/Second Teglia to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 1 :00 a.m. ~cfd Thomas C. Sparks ~ Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco ~~ ///'/ J~dit~ Honan, C~a~erson C~/'/ Plannmg COlllilllSSlOn City of South San Francisco NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting May 20, 1999, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\111899 .doc APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 17, 1999. Page 11 of 11