Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09.21.00 Minutes CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL SERVICES BillLDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE September 21, 2000 CALL TO ORDER I PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL I CHAIR COMMENTS MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioner Baldocchi, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Romero and Vice Chairperson Meloni MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner D'Angelo, Commissioner Teglia and Chairperson Sim STAFF PRESENT: Planning Division: City Attorney: Bldg./Fire Prevo Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Adam Lindgren Thomas Ahrens AGENDA REVIEW Chief Planner Sparks noted that there were no changes to the agenda. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of August 3, 2000 and August 17,2000. Motion Honan I Second Romero to approve the minutes of August 3, 2000. Approved by unanimous voice vote. Motion Honan / Second Romero to approve the minutes of August 17, 2000 with Commissioner Baldocchi' s corrections. Approved by unanimous voice vote. PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEMS 2. Zoning Amendment City of South San Francisco-owner/applicant Citywide ZA -00-044 Zoning Amendment to create and apply a "School Zone" within the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Chief Planner Sparks presented the staff report. Public Hearing opened. S:\Minutes\092100 RPC.doc Page 1 of 5 Dr. George Kozitza, Superintendent of Schools (SSFUSD), noted that the School Board has gone on record opposing the imposition of the School zone for all of its sites. He added that the School District feels that the rezoning will comprise and delay the School Districts decision making process. He mentioned that the rezoning is detrimental to the general community because they rent and lease property to the community. He added that imposing requirements for a use permit make it difficult to use the facility, which makes it difficult for the School District to rent the facility out to groups. He mentioned that they rely on lease and rental income to maintain those facilities and the closed ones. He stated that a letter from Chief Planner Sparks lists 9 uses that are permitted with a use permit and he requested that these uses be permitted without the use permit requirement. He provided a list of over 30 groups that use the School Districts facilities, some of which don't have a use permit. Commissioner Romero asked if allowing the current uses without use permits is allowable. Chief Planner Sparks noted that some of the uses would be and some aren't. He noted that the permitted uses with a use permit were extracted and included in the school zone. He mentioned that the existing circumstances are not intended to change with the rezone and the adoption of the school zone will not change this circumstance. He added the concerns of the School Board have been addressed and there is no change with what will be permitted that what is now permitted in the R zone, which is what most of the schools are currently zoned. He noted that if a school is sold, it will not be R -1 and the developer will need to apply for rezone and a general plan amendment to propose a residential subdivision on any school site. Commissioner Romero asked noted that if the SSFUSD starts sending applicants to the Planning Division to apply for a Use Permit it won't become an enforcement issue. He noted that it is to the discretion of the school district whether to refer a possible tenant to the City to apply or not. He added that if the use is minor, such as, the Girl and Boy Scouts it would be unreasonable to require a Use Permit. Mr. Kozitza mentioned that this is why they were asking that there not be a requirement for a use permit. Chief Planner Sparks noted that there is a requirement for a Use Permit in the R -1 zone at a school and if use that requires a use permit goes into the school site, the School District should ask them to go to the Planning Division. Commissioner Romero mentioned that it is a benefit to have the City involved in the decision making process. He suggested having a fee waiver in order to have the uses lease or rent the school site. Commissioner Romero asked if the S-zone designation is separate than the Use Permit issue. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the zoning amendment has been drafted so that it will not be two separate issues. He mentioned that anything that requires a use permit in the R-1 zone underlying a school should have a use permit if it goes into the school site. He added that under the current circumstances applying the S-zone will not change that. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren added that the accessory use provisions allow minor uses which only occupy a small portion of the area which are of a type that is customarily incidental to the principal use of the building. Chief Planner Sparks noted that a PT A meeting or sale, which is customary for a school, will not pose a problem. Mr. Kozitza noted that they d not disagree with that but those uses are not exempt. The ordinance does not specify if it is short term or long term uses. Commissioner Honan asked if approving the S-zone would change the existing use permit process for the uses going into the school sites. Chief Planner Sparks noted that it is correct and the uses requiring a use permit under the existing zoning will require one under the S-zone. Commissioner Honan asked if the uses would require a Minor Use Permit, what does the applicant have to do to obtain the permit. Chief Planner Sparks noted that these uses do not require a Minor Use Permit but require a standard use permit with Commission approval. He added that depending on the use the fee mayor may not be waived. He noted that the school zone is being created and nothing else is being changed from what now is existing. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren noted that the accessory use provisions should allow for a simple process for portions that are accessory for school use that have portions of the school site leased for a related school purpose. S:\Minutes\092100 RPC.doc Page 2 of 5 Vice Chairperson Meloni asked if the Commission can recommend waiving the permit fee for the school uses and the non-profit organizations. Commissioner Baldocchi noted that this is a good idea if the uses will be benefiting the general public. She added that the school zone was brought up to have a sort of community center in the area if it will not be a school. Dr. Kozitza noted that the Commissioners should abstain from voting on the item if they live within 300 feet of a school due to a conflict of interest. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren noted that the comment was not correct and advised the Commission not to take Dr. Kozitza's suggestion. He noted that there is not a conflict of interest because of the public generally exemption, which provides that even where there would be a conflict of interest, there is not if the impact of the decision would be the same as the impact on the public generally. He further advised that the economic impact of the decision would be zero and therefore the Commission's decision would not be a conflict of interest because it would not be material to their interests. Sophie Mason, 10 Arlington Drive, noted that the City is changing and more families with young children are coming into the City. she asked that the Commission approve the S-zone. Jackie Williams, 242 Longford, noted that corrections had to be made to various documents attached to the staff report. She noted that 2 closed school sites, Foxridge and Serra Vista, are not mentioned under the items for discussion and would like them included. She added that chapter 20.49 noted that the school zone use regulations are incorrect and that the changes in reference numbers need to reflect the titles of the sections. She added that the Skyline Elementary is not in South San Francisco and that should be corrected on the staff report. She mentioned that table 5.2-1 did not reflect that Ponderosa is a South San Francisco school and should show this. She added that a page was missing and asked that the missing page be added. She mentioned that the school board believed that the pending zoning amendment had caused a tenant not to move into Serra Vista school. She added that some type of action will be taken by the school board on September 28th a day after it goes before the City Council. Lastly she asked why parochial schools were not added into the zone. She added that it has been a year of discussion and the item should be approved once and for all. She asked if the school board try to sell surplus school property that is being leased. Chief Planner Sparks responded to the comments as follows: He noted that Mrs. Williams wanted closed school sited included and he mentioned that there is no damage done by that. He mentioned that the language refers to schools under the jurisdiction of the school district and the change will be noted. He noted that item 2 was a typo and will be corrected. He apologized if there is a school that is outside the jurisdiction of the SSF listed and noted that it would be corrected. He added that the map would be made consistent. He noted that the page that was inadvertently left out of the school board policy will be added for the next staff report. He mentioned that one of the school boardmembers indicated that the pending zoning had probably caused a tenant not to move into SelTa Vista school and could not address that. He added that the hearing was double advertised and gave the School Board more time to review it and comment on it. He concluded that the issue of the parochial schools was not brought up neither by the Commission or the Council in initiating the zone and is a different situation to address. Commissioner Romero asked that if the basic difference between the zone and private schools is that the public school sites are on public land. Chief Planner Sparks noted that there is a large body of law that regulates public schools and have their own elected boards and many independent jurisdictions. Commissioner Romero noted that they are only looking at the land use aspect of the site. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren noted that there is a significant body of law that controls the public lands where schools are sited. He mentioned that private schools and parochial schools are not subject to that entire body of district control. Commissioner Romero noted that the purpose of the amendment is to approve zoning for the sites. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren noted that the use, after the school is closed is that it works with the surrounding zone. He mentioned that the purpose of the zoning ordinance is to require a higher level of review be applied to a potential reuse of a property. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the flexibility in zoning available to the City is quite limited because of the requirement that it be consistent with surrounding zoning. He mentioned that in most S:\Minutes\092100 RPC.doc Page 3 of 5 instances that would result in the school site being zoned R -1. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren noted that the use at a school site will be the same but the process should be more public as a result of the ordinance. Commissioner Romero noted that the existing zoning is not being taken away but by adding the designation there is an additional level of review. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren noted that there is a new zoning category being created, and instead of allowing a school after it has been declared surplus to become the type of use that is in its surroundings, it will have to go before the Commission for rezoning and a General Plan Amendment. Vice Chairperson Meloni asked that Mrs. Williams' first comment be incorporated into the discussion portion of the staff report. Chief Planner Sparks noted that he would do so. Motion Baldocchi / Second Honan to recommend the school zone for approval to the City Council with a recommended condition to waive the fee for Community oriented uses. Roll call: Ayes: Commissioner Baldocchi, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Romero, and Vice Chairperson Meloni Noes: None Absent: Commissioner D'Angelo, Commissioner Teglia, and Chairperson Sim Abstain: None ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 3. Items from Staff · Chief Planner Sparks noted that there are no items for the October 6, 2000 meeting and asked the Commission to formally cancel the meeting. Vice Chairperson Meloni asked that the cancellation be advertised. · Chief Planner Sparks pointed out that the City has won a State wide award for Comprehensive planning. Vice Chairperson Meloni commended staff for the work that what was done on the General Plan. · Chief Planner Sparks noted that the Council had a special meeting on September 21, 2000 to review the Bay West Cove proposal. He added that the applicant has responded to the comments made by the Commission and the Council. · Chief Planner Sparks noted that Terrabay still has some unresolved issues and noted that the sports bar application has been appealed to the City Council. 4. Items from Commission Commissioner Honan thanked the Planning Division for allowing the Commission to go to the luncheon to receive the State award. 5. Items from the Public Don Mason, 10 Arlington Drive, asked what the Commission's recommendation to staff was with regard to Costco and how they got around the mitigation on traffic. He mentioned that every time they attend a meeting they have to listen to the Commission and the public doesn't get an opportunity to express themselves properly. He wanted to know if an ADA requirement was in the recommendation to Council. He noted that he is a disabled veteran and at times cannot pump his gas. He requested to know if the ADA was in the Commission's recommendation to Council. Vice Chairperson Meloni noted that the Commission denied the Costco project and the ADA requirements are a S:\Minutes\092100 RPC.doc Page 4 of 5 State requirements enforced by the Building Division. He mentioned that Costco is a public building and has to have facilities available to the disabled. Assistant Building Official Ahrens noted that there is no requirement in the ADA to provide water and air at a service station. Mr. Mason noted that air and water are required under the California Disabilities Act. Assistant Building Official Ahrens explained that there is no requirement to provide restroom facilities at the service station facility but are to be provided in the store, which are handicap accessible. Vice Chairperson Meloni explained that the City can only do what the law tells them to do and noted that the City will make sure that new projects meet all the regulations and standards required by law. Ida Ganino, RHL Design Group, noted that they were at the meeting because they understood from the Design Review Board that the Valero station would be heard at this meeting. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the application is a sign permit and that they would receive a notice of the meeting in the mail before the meeting. 6. Adjournment Motion Romero Second Honan to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Approved by unanimous voice vote. U~- /' -( /1~. i'~ (ktv ( ) u~ene Sim, Chairperson Planning Commission City of South San Francisco ~r;~ Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting October 5,2000, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA. S:\Minutes\092100 RPC.doc Page 5 of 5