Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03/07/2002 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE March 7, 2002 CALL TO ORDER I PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 7 :30 p.m. ROLL CALL I CHAIR COMMENTS MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioner D'Angelo, Cormnissioner Honan, Commissioner Meloni, Commissioner Sim, Con1illissioner Teglia and Chairperson Ronlero MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt Unable to attend due to conference STAFF PRESENT: Planning Division: Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner Steve Carlson, Senior Planner Mike Lappen, Senior Planner Steve Kowalski, Associate Planner Steve Mattas Richard Hannon S gt. Mike Newell Barry Marmnini City Attorney: Engineering: Police Dept.: Bldg./Fire Prevo AGENDA REVIEW Continue item #5 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR Approved 1. Approval Regular Meeting Minutes of November 1,2001 and February 21,2002. Approved 2. Embassy Christian CenterlJoshua & Diane Krishna/applicant Continued to April 4, 2002 Mehrdad Elie-owner 91 Westborough Blvd. (1st Floor) UP-Ol-090 and Categorical Exemption Class 1 Section 15301 Existing Facilities (Recommend continuance to April 4, 2002) Use Permit to locate a church within an existing office building located at 91 Westborough Boulevard in the Planned Commercial (P-C) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Section 20.24.030. 3. Spiros Kakoniktis-owner Antonio M. Brandi-applicant 90 Oak Ave. RZ-Ol-054, DR-01-054 and ND-Ol-054 Continued to April 4, 2002 (Recommend continuance to April 4, 2002) s: \Minutes \finalized\03 -07 -02 RPC. doc Page 1 of7 Approved on April 4, 2002 Zoning Reclassification from Medium Density Residential Zoning District (R-2) to High Density Residential Zoning District (R-3), Design Review of a 15 unit apartlnent building, and an Agreement with the City allowing 2 dwellings to be affordable units resulting in a density of 36.7 dwelling units per net acre instead of the maxilnum of 30 dwellings per net acre as provided by State Law, situated at 90 Oak Avenue in the Medium Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.18 and 20.87. Motion Te2:lia I Second Meloni to approve the Consent Calendar. Unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEMS 4. City of South San Francisco-owner/applicant Citywide P02-0012 Zoning Amendment Approved Proposed Text Alnendlnent to Chapter 20.74, "Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations" of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 20.74.120, "Location", to allow City-approved parking lease agreements as a lneans to satisfy off-street parking requirements. Staff Report given. Public Hearing opened. Pastor Joshua Krishna spoke in favor of the Zoning Ordinance amendment. Public Hearing closed. Commission comments were: . Would the required nmnber of parking spaces have to be met for the specified use? . How will the City know if the lease is broken in order to schedule a revocation hearing? . If the project requires an environmental review, will the parking lease agreement be reviewed as well? . This ordinance allows churches and other non-profit entities to continue growing in the community. . Adding a condition that lessor notify the City when lease is broken. . The Commission asked if the City can enter into this agreement in order to allow the City to Imow when lease has been terminated . This ordinance addresses non-residential parking and not residential parking. Staff should return with solutions for residential parking issues on a specific date. . The Commission asked that the hours of operation for future applicants not conflict with the hours of operation of the surrounding businesses. Staff response: . Yes the minimum number of parking spaces lnust be provided but can be shared on off hours. . The lessor will be required to let the City Imow if the lease has been broken. . Yes, the shared parking will be part of an enviromnental review should the project require one. . City Attorney Mattas noted that the City does not want to take a part in the deed and suggested that a condition could be added to notify the City of termination of a lease. . The zoning ordinance update will be a good opportunity to present a proposed solution for residential parking problems. City Attorney Mattas read the following language to the ordinance subsection 2b and noted that this would also be s: \Minutes\finalized\03-07 -02 RPC.doc Page 2 of7 Approved on April 4, 2002 a condition of approval on the Use Pennit application: "The use pennit shall also contain a condition of approval requiring the pennittee to provide written notice to the City of termination of the lease". Motion Te2:lia I Second Sim to recormnend that the City Council adopt this ordinance. Approved by unanilnous voice vote. 5. Welch Family Partnership-owner Continued to April 4, 2002 TetraTech Wireless/Peter Clement-applicant 631 EI Camino Real UP-01-085 and Categorical Exemption Class 32 Section 15332 In-Fill Development Use Permit to allow the installation and co-location of a telecommunication facility consisting of three rooftop antennas and associated mechanical equipment at 631 EI Camino Real in the Retail Commercial (C-l) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.81 and 20.105. Applicant requested that the item be continued to April 4, 2002. Motion Honan I Second Sim to continue the iteln to April 4, 2002. Approved by unanimous voice vote. 6. Liberty Bank! Larry Woods-owner Projects International-applicant 500 Linden Ave POl-0007(UPOl-0005) and Categorical Exemption Class 32 Section 15332 In-Fill Development Projects Approved Referred landscaping and color scheme to DRB Use Permit to allow construction of a new 4,022 square foot, 2-story addition to the existing bank building, totaling 14,127 square feet for the new and existing, designated Mixed Downtown High Density Residential and Community COlnmercial in the General Plan and located in the C-l Zone and the downtown Central Redevelopment Area. Staff report given. Senior Planner Lappen pointed out that condition C-l would be relnoved and condition A-8 would be added to require a childcare ilnpact fee. Public hearing opened. Henry Kardilowits, SSF Rotary Club, spoke in favor of the project. Public Hearing closed. Commission issues raised: . The Commission felt that the color palette looked too bright. . They questioned if the neighbors on Lux Avenue had any concerns with the glass wall facing theln do to that elevation. . Will the parking lot landscaping be upgraded? . Why is the fire sprinlder requirement being waived? . They asked that the permit be conditioned to have a landscape plan for the parking lot also. . The building is not aesthetically pleasing and needs to be worked on in order to be aesthetically pleasing. Use of different construction materials could make reach that goal. . The Commission asked that a color board be submitted in order for theln to have a better representation of what the building colors will be. s: \Minutes\finalized\03-07 -02 RPC.doc Page 3 of7 Approved on April 4, 2002 . This proj ect can improve the area substantially. . They expressed their desire to have the landscape plan included the parking lot landscaping return to theln at a later meeting after having gone through DRB. . The Commission requested that the applicant return to the DRB and the Commission with a different color schelne, or the color options given to the DRB. . Applicant agreed to submit a color board and a landscape plan that would include the parking lot. Applicant's response: . The color on the building is a salmon color to brighten up the area. A lot of concrete around the area. . The 4,000 square foot addition is below the required threshold for adding sprinklers within the building. . The addition will be in process while the business is operating and this limits the amount of work that can be done to the building itself. Staff's comments: . The Lux Avenue glass elevation has not had any opposition fronl the neighbors. The DRB asked the applicant to submit a landscaping plan that would show adequate screening for residents from the building. This is included in the Conditions of Approval for the Use Permit. . The wall facing Lux Avenue is approximately 11.5 feet away from the property line. Chief Planner Sparks recommended the following language for the motion: Adding condition A-8 regarding childcare fees and removing condition C-l regarding fire sprinklers. The COlnmission would also amend condition A-6 asking the applicant to return to the DRB and the Planning Comlnission for review and approval of the color palette and landscape plan. Motion Meloni I Second Te2:lia to approve the Use Permit with mnended conditions. Approved by unanimous voice vote. Recess at 8:35 p.m. Recalled at 8:46 p.m. 7. Britannia East Grand Cherokee San Francisco LLC-owner Slough Estates-applicant 450 East Grand Ave. (Easterly terminus of East Grand Ave.) PUD, GP, UP, DR, DA-01-006 and EIR-01-006 Continued to April 4, 2002 Britannia East Grand Master Plan (EIR, PUD, GP, UP-OI-006) to construct a phased development consisting of nine officelR & D buildings totaling approximately 783,533 sq. ft., an 8,000 sq. ft. childcare facility, a 5,000 sq. ft. fitness center, 8,000 sq. ft. of restaurant Ire tail use and two (2) five-to seven-level parking garages; a General Plan Amendment to delete the proposed East Grand Avenue roadway extension to Point San Bruno Blvd.; Design Review of nine R & D Buildings and Parking Structure A (DR-OI-006) and consideration of a Development Agreement (DA-O 1-006) Staff Report presented. Bill Rogalla, Slough Estates, and DES Architectural finn presented the project to the Commission. Richard Booth TDM Public Hearing opened. Public Hearing closed. S:\Minutes\finalized\03-07-02 RPC.doc Page 4 of7 Approved on April 4, 2002 Commissioner Meloni noted that his issues had been addressed. He was in favor of keeping East Grand closed and not opening it up because this will allow an increase in traffic. Commissioner D'Angelo pointed out that LOS projections do not have any future changes from the City and it is leading to gridlock in the East of 101 area. Principal Planner Kalkin clarified that the nmnbers shown in the staff report for the LOS are without mitigation. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the Transportation hnprovelnent Plan and fees for these improvements were adopted by the Commission and Council and will be ilnplemented to lneet those improvements. Commissioner Honan was concerned with Childcare Center and mitigating traffic. The enlployees will drive to work with their children and will need to park their cars in the garage. Another concern she had was the parking lot size. She pointed out that the high wind conditions concern her as well, especially in the large open space area. Commissioner Meloni asked if the development of the project is based on building all of the buildings at one time or is the construction divided in phases. Mr. Rogalla noted that the project is being divided into two phases because of the existing ICI Paint factory. Phase I, everything that is to the north of the property will be built as soon as possible. Phase II, the bottom half of the project, will be built after the clean up of the factory site. Comlnissioner Meloni asked what the applicant would do with the open space if the market does not allow for the construction of Phase II. Mr. Rogalla noted that they would landscape that area and make it appealing to the market. He pointed out that they currently are under negotiations for that site and do not expect this to happen. If this does occur they will then landscape the site. Chairperson Romero asked what type of problems the developer was having with the cleanup. Mr. Graff, consultant, noted that the toxic portion of the site is capped and the soil relnediation has been signed off by EP A and DTSC. There will not be additional relnediation of the site. Building over it will maintain a cap over the site. The Phase I portion is not capped and has been remediated. Any soils that were a concern to agencies has been relnoved. The Phase II area has soils that contain chelnicals underneath the current ICI buildings, which will be removed during demolition and 2-5 feet of fill will be placed over the entire area. The lead is not volatile and does not go into groundwater as long as there is a cap on it and the buildings will be acting as such. Chairperson Romero asked what the potential for seepage is and will the digging that takes effect to install the landscaping expose the lead. Mr. Graff pointed out that in order for the development to maintain the grades the entire southern portion of the site has to be built and it is filled with 2-4 feet of excavated soil from the clean portion of the site. They are not worried about rainwater infiltration of the site because the lead is not soluble. The current lead will be below all the major construction work Where trenching is being done, and where soil will be disturbed, it is handled under specific soil management plans. The construction workers have to be specially trained to be able to operate in that type of soil and the soil will end up underneath buildings and roadways as it is dug. Commissioner D'Angelo asked if the childcare center was being built over lead area. Mr. Graff replied that the area in which the childcare center was not used during the history of the site. Commissioner Honan noted that pilings would have to be placed and they would need to dig to do this. Mr. Graff stated that pilings would displace soil as you go down to the bearing elelnent. Pile caps will be located within the fill material. Cormnissioner Teglia asked what the status on the slough cleanup was.. Mr. Graff noted that the Water Board and BCDC recently did a flyover on the property and are negotiating how they will go about cleaning up the property. Commissioner Teglia questioned why the paint factory property is not being cleaned up instead of S:\Minutes\fmalized\03-07-02 RPC.doc Page 5 of7 Approved on April 4, 2002 capping it. Mr. Graff noted that the in the majority of the sites the lnaterials that are a thereat to public health are cleaned up and what remains is deed restricted. The philosophy of the agencies is that as long as the site is used for commercial or industrial purposes the relnediation is to remove the risk of human threat to the environment and moving it to another location is seen as an added risk Bill Southern, DES Architects noted that the lead does not pose a hazard to the plant material because it does not absorb lead in its stable condition. He added that with the trees their root stays in the 2-3 foot capped soil. Motion Te2:lia I Second D' An2:elo to continue the item to April 4, 2002. Recess called at 9:48 p.m. Recalled at 9:53 p.m. 8. SandHill Property Co., 345 East Grand, LP-owner/appl. Dowler-Gruman Architects 345 East Grand Ave. UP-01-034 and ND-Ol-034 Continued to April 4, 2002 Use permit allowing a new 210,560 square foot research and development facility with a multi-story parking garage for 600 vehicles, an outdoor service yard, operating 24 hours per day and generating in excess of 100 vehicle trips situated at 345 East Grand Avenue in the Planned illdustrial zoning district (P-I) in accordance with SSFMC sections 20.32.060 , 30.32.070 (a) and 20.32.070 (b). Senior Planner Carlson presented the staff report. Ended at Tape count 2480 Sandhill property gave presentation. Public Hearing opened. Public Hearing closed. Commission concerns were: . How far does the arcade come out across the building? . The arcade look should be continued all the way across the face of the building. . There needs to be more articulation to break up the flat plane where the garage is located. Landscaping would break it up and there needs to be more detail. . Can the building be razed; was there consideration to demolish the building and replace it with a new one? . The applicant needs to show more continuity in the plans. . They asked for a materials board to be presented by the applicant. . Why are the landscaping trees being removed along Grandview? Applicant response was: . The parking was to the west of the building and carrying it down to the face of the building was not necessary . . The arcade comes out of the building approximately 13 feet from the face of the building. . They considered demolition of the building and it was not a good option because the building is still good and they saw that there was no use in demolishing an existing building and replacing it with another. Staff responded: . The trees on Grandview are recommended by the traffic consultant to be removed to provide adequate sight line distance for vehicles exiting the site at the new driveway. Motion Sim I Second D' An2:elo to continue the item to April 4, 2002 to allow applicant to respond to the S:\Minutes\finalized\03-07-02 RPC.doc Page 6 of7 Approved on April 4, 2002 COlnmission's COlnments. Continued by unanilnous voice vote. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 9. Items from Staff a. Recommendation to cancel March 21, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting due to League of California Cities Planners Institute Conference Motion Meloni I Second D' An2:elo to cancel the meeting of March 21,2002 b. Clarification regarding Giorgi Brothers Furniture Warehouse . Chief Planner Sparks reminded the Commission of study session with City Council on March 20,2002. 10. Items from Commission . Commissioner D'Angelo pointed out that traffic is getting worst along Mission. He noted that traffic is being added and no infrastructure changes are taking place. . Cormnissioner Teglia noted that he did not need a response from staff on his cormnents regarding the Giorgi furniture building and wanted theln to go on record only. He disagreed with staffs response. 11. Items from the Public Jackie Williams, 242 Longford Drive, pointed out that there is not any coordination between Daly City traffic lights and SSF traffic lights. 12. Adjourn 10:55 p.m. Motion Sim I Second Honan to adj ourn. ~~/~4 Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco l,,\ <)~"'^' ~i\lr<tt'" Willialn Romero, Chairperson Planning Con1illission City of South San Francisco NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting March 21,2002, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA. TCS/blh S:\Minutes\finalized\03-07-02 RPC.doc Page 7 of7 Approved on April 4, 2002