Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07.06.00 Minutes CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE July 6, 2000 TAPE 1 CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS MEMBERS PRESENT: Planning Commissioners: Commissioner Baldocchi, Commissioner D'Angelo, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Romero, Vice Chairperson Meloni and Chairperson Sim Design Review Boardmembers: Robert Williams, Mark Horton MEMBERS ABSENT: Planning Commissioners: Commissioner Teglia* Design Review Boardmembers: Esta Kornfield, Michael Nilmeyer and Aris Ruiz STAFF PRESENT: Planning Division: Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Allison Knapp, Consultant Planner Adam Lindgren Richard Harmon Sgt. Mike Massoni Rocque Yballa City AttOlney: Engineering: Police Dept.: Bldg./Fire Prevo AGENDA REVIEW Chief Planner Sparks asked the Commission that item #4, Olympian Oil, be continued. He noted that the Commission was had considered a joint meeting with the Design Review Board but only two were able to attend the Planning Commission meeting, which are Robert Williams and Mark Horton. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Jackie Williams, 242 Longford Drive, noted that there is a 6 story building being proposed in Daly City at Hickey and 280. She added that an application has been submitted for a building permit. Mrs. Williams noted that she recently became aware of the project on June 29th. She added that staff was aware of the project and so were Councilmembers Fernekes and Mullin. She added that there was a community meeting on June 29th for SSF residents. She noted that the application was going to be based on a 1986 EIR and the project will not go before the City Councilor the Planning Commission. Mrs. Williams noted that she went before the Daly City Planning Commission with a petition of 136 signatures and 9 public speakers. She added that the Planning Commission decided to send the issue to Council and Planning staff noted that it was not necessary. She noted that there is nothing that can be done about this and proceeded to read the petition presented to Daly City into the record. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the South San Francisco Planning Commission has no jurisdiction over this project. He added that staff has been interacting with Daly City Planning and the City Council is aware of the issue and any direction must come from City Council. He noted that it is a policy issue and Mrs. Williams can express her feelings to the City Council at their next regular meeting. Mrs. Williams noted that the permit would be issued by next Wednesday and it would be to late for any action. G:\File Cabinet\minutes\2000\070600 RPC.doc Pa!!e 1 of 8 CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of May 18, 2000 Regular Meeting Minutes. 2. Pac BelllMichael Li, Applicant Mehrdad Elie/ Alliance Bancorp, Owner 91 Westborough Blvd. UP-00-032 Use Permit to allow a wireless communication facility consisting of roof mounted antenna and at-grade equipment cabinets, situated on and adjacent to a commercial building in the Retail Commercial (C-l) Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.22, 20.77 and 20.83. 3. GTElWhalen & Co., Inc., Applicant South San Francisco Unified School District, Owner 400 "B" St. UP-00-031 and Negative Declaration ND-00-031 Use Permit to allow a wireless communication facility consisting of an antenna mounted on a light standard and an at-grade equipment shelter, located at South San Francisco High School, 400 "B" Street, within the South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD) in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.77 and 20.83. Motion Honan / Second Romero to approve the Consent Calendar. Approved by unanimous voice vote. PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEMS 4. Belle Air Island Olympian Oil/George Firenze, Applicant Bay Investment Co., Owner 305 North Access Road UP-00-064 and Negative Declaration ND-00-064 Use Permit to allow construction of a 24-hour commercial card-lock fueling facility with vehicle parking in accordance with SSFMC 20.32.030( c). Chief Planner Sparks asked that the item be continued due to some unresolved issues with the parcel. He suggested continuing the item to July 20,2000. Motion Meloni / Second Honan to continue the item to July 20,2000. Approved by unanimous voice vote. 5. Zoning Amendment City of South San Francisco-owner/applicant Citywide ZA -00-044 Zoning Amendment to establish and apply a school zone. Chief Planner Sparks presented the Staff Report. Public Hearing opened. G:\File Cabinet\minules\2000\070600 RPC.doc PaQ"e 2 or R Jackie Williams, 242 Longford Drive, noted that two schools are missing in the staff report are the ones of most concern to her, which are Foxridge and Serra Vista. She noted that they were the reason why the process was begun and they need to be included. She added that policy 5.2.1-1, talks about working with the SSF Unified School District on appropriate land uses for school sites no longer needed for educational facilities. She added that CEQA regulations note that it is a Class 5 exception because of a minor alteration in land use. She noted that if it is a General Plan Amendment it needs an EIR. She added that the SSF Unified School District policy 3280 was passed incorrectly and then corrected. She asked where the City's authority ended for the zoning amendment. She pointed out that the map shows where the schools are in the City, but omits Foxridge. She added that the zoning language, section 20.9.30, mentions administrative offices, which is going to cause a large problem with how Fire handles School District property and administrative offices. She asked for clarification on section 20.49.040. Public Hearing closed. Chief Planner Sparks noted that Foxridge and Sena Vista schools are listed and the proposed zoning for those is S - school. He noted that the zoning amendment is exempt under CEQA regulations and any applications presented to the Commission for replacement of schools are subject to CEQA at that time. He pointed out that Westborough Middle School is in South San Francisco. Commissioner Baldocchi asked if schools not in City limits are included in the zoning amendment. Chief Planner Sparks noted that they are not included in the amendment. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren noted that the ordinance does not need to limit its scope to just propelty within the City of SSF because the code by definition is limited to the scope of properties within SSP. * Commissioner Teglia arrived at 7:45 p.m. Commissioner Baldocchi asked for some background on a fee waiver being considered. Chief Planner Sparks noted that if the Commission or City Council felt that it was appropriate to grant a fee waiver then staff would waive the fee. Commissioner D'Angelo asked if there was an issue with the administrative offices changing sites and being excluded. Chief Planner Sparks noted that they are included and there is no issue if it part of the School facility. Commissioner Teglia noted that he is also excited about this zone and recalls bringing the idea up in the early General Plan process. He noted that it has involved City Council, residents, homeowners associations, and the School Board. He added that it has given an important voice to the neighborhoods. Motion Teglia / Second Baldocchi to approve the resolution creating a school zone district. Chairperson Sim asked how the City and the School District can come to a compromise if the District wishes to sell something. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the School District, pursuant to State law has to declare the property surplus, then offer it to specified public jurisdictions, and then the School District can release it for sale to any interested party if a public entity does not purchase it. He added that this is when the Commission would see an a:pplication to allow another use other than school on that property. He asked that the Commission amend the motion to apply the school zone to specified sites and adopting it. Motion Te2lia / Second Baldocchi to amend the motion to specified sites and also any and all other School District properties. Ayes: Commissioner Baldocchi, Commissioner D'Angelo, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Romero, Commissioner Teglia, Vice Chairperson Meloni and Chairperson Sim G:\File c;;Jhinel\minllles\2000\070flOO RPC:nor P'lfTP Q "f Q Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None Approved by unanimous roll call vote. Recess called at 8: 10 p.m. Recalled to order at 8: 15 p.m. 6. Terrabay Phase II & III remaining parcels /Myers Development Corp. Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment The Specific Plan is proposed to be amended to: 1) Create a Preservation Parcel consisting of 25.73 acres to preserve the Native American shell mound and lands north, west and south of the shell mound; 2) Create a 2.69 acre "Buffer Parcel" south of the Preservation Parcel for landscaping and surface parking, 3) Permit a 488,300 square foot office tower with related parking and support retail uses on the ground floor on a 18.08 acre parcel adjacent to and south of the Buffer Parcel; 4) Permit a 250 unit residential condominium on a 14.96 acre parcel that is west of the "Point Area" and 5) Permit a recreation/day care facility on an 8.22 acre parcel (previously referred to as the Commons Area). Consideration of addendum to certified Final SEIR - State Clearinghouse - #97-82077 by City Council Resolution #19-99, February 17,1999. Consultant Planner Knapp presented the Staff Report. Jack Myers, Myers Development Corporation, and his team gave a brief presentation on the Specific Plan. Commissioner Teglia noted that there is a large amount of detail and this is also returning with the precise plan approval. Public Hearing opened. lFARE2 Robert J. Vetter, 35 Lewis Avenue, is concerned with what is going to be done with the Point. He was also concerned with the underground bee hives and asked that they not be disturbed. He added that the buildings are very large. Dan Shattuc, 111 Belmont Avenue, noted that the City should be sure that the HCP has a complete delineation and a survey of the area. He added. that the plants should be accommodated and replanted and restored as necessary. He noted that planning for erosion control needs to begin and that there has to be a second water supply. He preferred not to see any development in the Commons area which would save the plants and the developer a lot of money. He suggested to have childcare centers incorporated into the buildings, and jogging and bike trails around the development. He noted that the buffer area could be used to restore wetlands in the area and protect the shellmound. David Schooley, P. O. Box 53 - Brisbane, mentioned that it is critical to protect endangered species, open space and wildlife. He noted that the shellmound is going to be untouched. He expressed his gratitude to the developer for working with them on maintaining the shellmound untouched. He added that the hookramps telTify him and his group but will deal with that when they go through the approval process. Paula Contreras, 1006 Hillside Boulevard, shared the concerns of the two previous speakers in regard to saving the natural habitat. She noted that she does not like the high-rises. She added that there will be increased traffic with the additional homes in the area. G:\File Cabinet\minutes\2000\070600 RPC.doc Pa!!:e 4 of 8 Doug Butler, 133 Adrian A venue, noted that the towers are tall. He recalls that there has not been a mention of massive towers next to residential and asked that they be reduced because they do not fit on the mountain. He also thanked the Commission for the preservation of the shellmound. Public Hearing closed. Design Review Boardmember Williams was concerned with the view of the high-rises from the neighborhood. He added that the buildings could be scaled down and the massing of the townhouses could be increased. Design Review Boardmember Horton noted that there were 5 public speakers on the item. He added that height was the only issue that was brought up at their meeting. He mentioned that the Design Review Board did not have a problem with the design of the project but they did discuss if it was the conect land use, which was outside the Design Review Boards decisions. He added that the top of the building will appear above the mountain. Commissioner D'Angelo noted that they are not voting on the options presented to the Commission. He thanked the Design Review Boardmembers for their comments. He added that there are options not considered which may not be desirable to the developer but they would to the residents of the City. He noted that he did not like the high-rises on the residential portion but it belongs on a commercial site or on East of 101. Vice Chairperson Meloni agreed with Commissioner D'Angelo and the DRB members. He added that the residential portion is too high and will affect citizens in the lower residential areas. He noted that there are other options and suggested reducing the height of the buildings. Commissioner Honan asked if a study has been conducted on the shadows the new homes would cause on the homes below them. Project Architect noted that it has been looked at structurally and have not done a study. She questioned how low the Commission wants the buildings. Commissioner Teglia noted that the 23 story high-rises bothered him, as well as, the 3 story townhomes in the previous application. He mentioned that he could not visualize high-rises on the mountain and that they do not relate to the mountain because it towers above the mountain. He mentioned that centering the high-rise to the middle and to the back which would make it tie in better. He added that DRB liked option D but the one thing he did not like from that option was the two buildings. He noted that he has questions on the commercial pOliion and is open to mid-rise commercial. He mentioned that the Commission has to see if the project is economically feasible. He asked if the City is committing to density levels and heights, or if the Commission would have the opportunity to have full approvals on the residential portion. Consultant Planner Knapp noted that the previous plans spoke to 308 units and the Commission is now looking at 250. She added that this is a landuse plan and the Commission's concerns can be built into the plan at the moment. She added that the Commission can recommend a lower density. She mentioned that a chapter in the specific plan refers to comments and responses to comments. Consultant Planner Knapp noted that it would be important to include the minutes into the document. She added that the document notes that the designs of the buildings are subject to design review and precis plan approvals. She mentioned that the density is referenced with regard to number of units and if the Commission wants to change that, they can do so. Commissioner Teglia noted that he would recommend this. He added that the number of units should be increased. He noted that a high-rise can be done with the proper amenities. He noted that the commercial section on the Point has the pm'lcing lot wrapping around it and asked if a significant amount of the Point would have to be graded to accommodate this. Project Architect noted that a significant amount of grading will be done. He noted that a portion of the grading is done to allow planting on the site and some to allow parking. He added that they are also pushing back to allow two lines of parking. The grading of the slope will allow them to revegetate. He proceeded to show a model to the Commissioners. G:\File Cabinet\minutes\2000\070600 RPC.doc Pag-e 5 of 8 Commissioner Romero noted that the primary concern with the prior application was that everything be moved away from the northwest side of the mountain. He added that redesigning the project has addressed those concerns because it is preserving a significant part of the mountain. He noted that this will fix a damaged area of the hill that needs to be revegetated. He added that the site is situated above the valley and no matter what is built it will look down onto the neighborhood. He mentioned that reducing the size of the buildings might not solve the problem and was concerned with the entitlements that the applicant has when they purchased the land. He wanted to make sure that the existing entitlements are not expanded upon like the previous applicant tried to do with their proposal. He noted that this needs to be looked at and is not opposed to a high-rise residential development in that part of the project. He wanted to make sure that it is designed properly and the current entitlements are not exceeded by the applicant. Commissioner Baldocchi noted that this is a better project than the previous proposals. She added that she was nervous about the high-rises because it is a new concept in SSP. She noted that Mr. Williams comments with regard to bringing the high-rises lower is a good idea and would support that. She mentioned that there is a vast difference with the existing residential and the proposed residential on the mountain in the photomontages. She added that landscaping needs to be done along with architectural work. She noted that these types of projects are going into the area and it takes some time to get used to. Vice Chairperson Meloni noted that the presentation showed some landscaping and asked that the applicant return with graphics showing what the landscaping will look like at the precise plan stage. Mr. Myers noted that access and visual aspects of the project are going to be improved and they will do that for the Woods. He added that they wanted to resolve any of the issues that would come up with any consideration. He noted that by preserving the shellmound, and recognition of the habitat is something that they wanted to resolve and have accomplished it. He added that it is a struggle to find an appropriate solution considering the emotions involved with the site. He noted that landuse is very important and they have tried to reduce the density of the units to a minimum of 250. He mentioned that he needs to go forward with the commercial portion first because of a mandate with the City. He noted that this has not been a huge issue and committed to re-examine multiple alternatives for the residential areas. Commissioner Teglia noted that the 250 units on the residential site is not the driving factor but the size of each unit is. He added that this should still be opened and does not have any issue with the number of units. He noted that he was comfortable with the commercial site and has no problem stipulating to the height because it is important to recognize the contributions, like the preservation area and the shellmound. Chairperson Sim suggested that the applicant strengthen the linear design and thanked the developer for preserving certain land. He asked that the applicant keep in mind the comments given and that they return with the best solution that is desirable for the community. He added that it is a stronger scheme than the Commission has seen in the past. He asked what the height of the buildings was. Mr. Myers noted that it was a great opportunity to have these discussions. He noted that some of the Commissioners would be open to different types of towers. He noted that option A is close to having a single tower and asked the Commission for some direction on what the Commission thought was a good height. Commissioner Baldocchi is not opposed to 18 stories but it takes some time to get used to. She added that she is not clear how tall that is going to be and how it will work. Mr. Myers noted that it is hard to tell her and the objective is to deal with the tension of that uncertainty. He added that this will be providing much needed housing in the community. Commissioner Honan asked how tall the high-rise office building would be. Mr. Myers noted that it would be 210 feet and the residential towers would be 185 feet high and the other is 197 feet high. Commissioner Honan noted that having two high-rises and a large number of residential homes will look very crowded. G:\File Cabinet\minules\2000\070600 RPC.doc PaE:e 6 of 8 Vice Chairperson Meloni noted that the concept is what scares the Commission because they have never dealt with a project like this before. He added that the landscaping and the design is what makes a difference. Project Architect proceeded to give a list of where the Commission can see different high-rise projects in the area. Mr. Myers noted that they can give the Commission vivid examples of how it relates to the area, as well as, pictures from different communities. Commissioner Teglia noted that there is a lot being put on a small piece of land. He noted that something has to work on that land and asked the applicant if there was a lower number of units that is still feasible for the them. Mr. Myers noted that they are having significant trouble with the mid-rise and they have brought the number down because they could not deal with the height. He asked the Commission to leave 250 units because the community needs housing and also affordable housing. Commissioner Teglia noted that the applicants presentation was very good and does not know what direction to give. Mr. Myers noted that he is hearing some Commissioners say that they are open to going higher because of their planning that is very compelling. Commissioner Teglia noted that he can see a higher single building. Commissioner Romero was not comfortable with going up to the level of option A and would like to see it stay lower than 190 or 180 feet. He added that the Commission also needs direction from Council as to how high they feel is a comfortable level. Commissioner Baldocchi asked how high the Fontana buildings near Ghirardelli Square. Mr. Myers noted that they may be 18-22 stories high. He added that this project would have a thinner slender profile as oppose to the Fontana buildings that are taller. Project Architect noted that they are thinner and are single loaded buildings. He added that those two buildings were brought up at the DRB meeting. Commissioner Baldocchi added that the proposed towers will eventually look similar to the San Francisco towers. She noted that this concept will be evolving down the peninsula because of the need for housing. Chairperson Sim noted that the ideas should not be lost and asked that the applicant return with ideas that do not make others lose their privacy. He added that they should visualize the landscaping on the hillside and that it should not be lost. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the Commission has before them the specific plan. He added that if the Commission is satisfied with the concepts of the plan and other ideas presented at the meeting, it would be appropriate to have the Commission act as recommended. He added that the Commission is welcome to go to Council when the item goes before them for decision. Commissioner Teglia noted that he would like to hear the redlined language that staff would like to put in the approval. He added that the Commission would stipulate to the commercial site, agree to having 250 units with open square footage. Recess called at 10: 10 p.m. Recalled to order at 10: 15 p.m. Chief Planner Sparks proceeded to read the motion that the Commission would take. The Commission would recommend that the City Council find the addendum to the TelTabay EIR adequate, recommend that the General Plan Amendment be approved, and approval of the Terrabay Specific Plan Amendment with two additions to table C, page 11-10 - 1) Adding a parenthetical phrase after the word Residential which would read - Residential "Conceptual except as to a total unit count not to exceed 250". 2) Addition of a footnote: Heights proposed for the office and residential component of the project are subject to design review and precise plan review and approval. Additionally, the TelTabay Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance) shall be amended to include the site development standards contained in this Plan. The Ordinance shall indicate the proposed heights are maximums (excluding mechanical) and are subject to both design and precise plan review and approval. The review may result in a reduction of the height of the project. G:\File Cabinet\minutes\2000\070600 RPC.doc Pag-e 7 of 8 Noes: Absent: Abstain: Motion Sim / Second Meloni to approve the motion as stated by Chief Planner Sparks. Ayes: Commissioner Baldocchi, Commissioner D'Angelo, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Romero, Commissioner Teglia, Vice Chairperson Meloni and Chairperson Sim None None None Approved by unanimous roll call vote. Commissioner Teglia noted that there are always questions on the hookramps and the flyover, which is a different project, but asked that information be given to the Commission in the future. Chairperson Sim noted that the Commission would like to see how these relate to the project. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 7. Items from Staff Chief Planner Sparks noted that the Housing presentation is tentatively scheduled for the first meeting in August. 8. Items from Commission - None 9. Items from the Public - None 10. Adjournment Motion Romero / Second Honan to adjourn the meeting. '... The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. J Thomas C. Sparks Secretary to the Planning ommission City of South San Francisco Eugene Sim, Chairperson Planning Commission City of South San Francisco NEXT MEETJNG: Regular Meeting August 3, 2000, Municipal Services Building, 33 Anoyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA. NOTE: Staff Reports can now be accessed on the website. www.ci.ssf.ca.us (Economic & Community DevelopmentlPlanning W ebPages). TCS/bh G:\File Cabinet\minutes\2000\070600 RPC.doc Page 8 of 8