Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/16/2001 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE August 16, 2001 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 D'Angelo, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Ochsenhirt, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia and Chairperson Meloni MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice Chairperson Romero City Attorney: Police Dept.: Bldg./Fire Prevo Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Steve Carlson, Senior Planner Mike Lappen, Senior Planner Kimberly Johnson Sgt. Mike Newell Barry Mammini STAFF PRESENT: Planning Division: AGENDA REVIEW Chief Planner Sparks brought to the attention of the Commission that Item 2 was recommended for continuance and that it should be to September 6th. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Troy Smothers-Opus West Corp.-owner/applicant Mt. Cove/Ed Breavell-owner/applicant; Gainey One Trust/Dave Kingery-owner/applicant. 4000-7999 Shoreline Ct. PUD-98-044/MODl & ND-98-044 Previously Certified PUD Modification allowing a revised sign program for the Opus Development in the Planned Commercial (P-C) zoning district, in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.76 and 20.86. Motion Commissioner Honan ISecond Commissioner Sim Voice V ote/Unanimous PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEMS 2. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance City Of South San Francisco-owner/applicant Citywide S :\Minutes\08160 lRPC.doc Page 1 of 12 ZA-OI-067 The City of South San Francisco proposes an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that will ensure that all residential development, including all master planned and specific planned communities provide a range of housing opportunities for all identifiable economic segments of the population. The project includes: a. Establishment of an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and associated Density Bonus Ordinance (Chapter 20.125,) related to establishment of a minimum level of all approved residential development that will be restricted to and affordable to lower-income households, and requiring that all developments consisting of four or more units provide affordable units on site. b. Modifications to Chapter 20.16, R-l Single-Family Residential District Use Regulations, Chapter 20.18 R-2 Medium Density Residential District Use Regulations, and Chapter 20.20 R- 3 High Density Residential District Use Regulations for consistency with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. (Recommending continuance to August 29,2001 Joint Study Session) Chief Planner Sparks recommend that the Commission to their next regular meeting which is September 6th Don't know if you have received formal notice, but 2 weeks from tonight the City Council wishes to conduct a another joint study session. This is a topic that has generated a great deal of interest from a number of segments of the community. There is a lot of not necessarily misinformation, but a lot of questions flying around about it. They want to get together with you and figure out more clearly where we ought to be going with this before you have a formal hearing on this. That will be two weeks from tonight. Chairperson Meloni Asked the staff to please make sure to send out notification to the Commission to remind them and also a packet. Chief Planner Sparks We will make sure that occurs. However, the recommendation is not to continue this to the study session but to your regular meeting which is September 6th. Motion Commissioner Sim /Second Commissioner Honan Voice V ote/Unanimous 3. ItalFoods Walter Guerra-owner TSH Architects-applicant 205 Shaw Road UP-93-943/MODl and Negative Declaration ND-OI-043 Addition of 13,700 square foot warehouse to an existing building containing 85,707 square feet of warehouse and 7,450 square feet of office. Site area is 178,574 square feet (4.1 acres) in the Industrial (M-l) zoning district in accordance with SSFMC Sections 20.30.040 and 20.91.020. Senior Planner Carlson Senior Planner Carlson gave the staff report. Besides the expansion to the building, ItalFoods is looking to expand the hours of operation beyond 12 A.M. Essentially the application complies with the City's standards. A significant issue in the design of this project was a requirement by the City's Fire Marshal that there be an access driveway around the building, a fire-lane access to circumnavigate the side and rear that had to do with the size of the building. The applicant has gone through several months of redesign and has finally complied with that. That would necessitate the removal of a loading dock at the rear of the re-location of the trash facility. The architect had placed the trash facility adjacent to Shaw Road and our recommendation is the trash facility be re-located on site so that it is less obscure and so the design of the facility comply with the South San Francisco Municipal Code. S :\Minutes\08160 1RPC.doc Page 2 of 12 Chairperson Meloni I noticed in the Negative Declaration that the parking space count states 91 and the staff report states 90. It is only one space but we should have some consistency there. Senior Planner Carlson When we prepared that initially, they had proposed 91. The concern was that a parking space that's near a loading dock and our recommendation was to remove that. They still will comply with the parking requirement. Chairperson Meloni I counted the parking spaces on the plan and I don't come up with 90. I went out to the site and looked around. I know along San Mateo Avenue there are some existing parking spaces adjacent to the diagonal ones and 1'm concerned with the back up space. I think that should be looked at. Chief Planner Sparks It is quite straight forward if they don't have the requisite number of spaces that meet the City standards we won't not sign off their tenant improvements. This will not get occupancy. Chairperson Meloni The only other question is the landscaping. If they are going to all the trouble of cleaning up the site the landscaping could be enhanced. Commissioner Honan In the report it states that there are 67 vehicle trips per day that will be increased, however there are no new additional employees. How do you come up with more trips per day with no additional employees? Senior Planner Carlson It's a warehouse, so they will have trucks coming to and from. It's not just their own trucks. They will have deliveries to the site. That's based on theoretical assumption based just on square footage of the building. Commissioner Honan Would that also encounter why the hours are extended from 12 midnight to 3AM? Senior Planner Carlson No. Other than it's an average, it is on a daily basis. The source of it was the Institute of Transportation Engineers. It's an average that they calculated for buildings of a certain size. They do that every few years. They update and expand it. They've taken a number of different studies and different types of building and uses and come up with averages. The only way to truly know is to take a traffic study after the project is operational. Dewey Chong, TSH Architects, representing ItalFoods, the current tenant on site. We have gone through several redesigns, but understand we want to meet all codes, restrictions etc with the City. We believe we have arrived and satisfied the City's requirements for access, parking and particularly landscaping. We have resubmitted landscape plans and realized we were a little shy as an existing condition for the landscaping required. We submitted landscape plans for additional landscape around the building where we could. Certainly this warehouse would help them a great deal as a tenant in South San Francisco. They are growing. Their needs are growing. This warehouse would accommodate their upcoming needs. It is pure warehouse in terms of trips we do have access with a grade-level door to the new addition, but it is purely warehouse. That is why there is zero employees. It's just an expansion of what is there. Commissioner Teglia I think with staff's conditions it's a good project. Commissioner Sim I share that sentiment and I also want to reiterate landscaping. That was a very important comment. Motion Commissioner Sim /Second Commissioner Te2:lia Voice V otelUnanimous 4. Sprint PCS/The Alaris Group/Kelly Pepper-applicant P.G. & E.-owner E. Grand & Gateway Blvds. UP-OI-025 and Categorical Exemption Class 32 Section 15332 In Fill Development Project Use Permit allowing the co-location of a second wireless communication facility on a portion of a P.G.&E. Site situated southerly of the comer of East Grand Avenue and Gateway Boulevard near the Union Pacific railroad main spur line in the Planned Commercial (P-C) zoning district. Senior Planner Carlson gave staff report. This project was before you on June 21 st. The Commission continued the matter to give the applicant an opportunity to discuss with P. G. & E. representatives the ability of landscaping the perimeter of the P. G. & E. yard. It is roughly at the comer of Gateway Boulevard and East Grand Avenue. The applicant has met with the P. G. & E. representative and P. G. & E. has indicated that they don't think it is S:\Minutes\08160 lRPC.doc Page 3 of 12 possible to have a landscape screen along Gateway Boulevard, but are willing to add slats to the existing chainlink fence. Kelly Pepper, Sprint PCS, met with P. G. & E. They determined that because of the location of the existing fence being adjacent to the sidewalk, we would not be able to encroach on the sidewalk. We would need to move the fence back in order to provide the landscaping you requested. They have an access road wraps around that gives them access to their northwest portion of their substation. If we were to move the fence back and put landscaping, we would encroach on their vehicle access to their substation. In addition, they have underground utilities all along in that area. That would make landscaping very difficult. As a compromise we have offered to provide vinyl slats if that is something that the Commission would like to screen the substation. Commissioner D'Angelo If you propose putting these slats, what intervals would they be replaced and maintained? Kelly Pepper, Sprint PCS, We usually have people that go to the site once a month to keep an eye on our landscaping, whatever is proposed at a specific site. Though a condition of approval or just our normal maintenance of a site, we would maintain it so that they wouldn't become faded or if they became damaged. Commissioner D' Angelo It's the wind, the drying out, the cracking and the breaking and then they just look like they are broken and laying there. Would like to be sure there is some maintenance involved in maintaining it. Kelly Pepper, Sprint PCS We would certainly be happy to maintain it, but not sure exactly at what intervals we would do it. If there is something specific you would like or staff could develop an appropriate condition. Commissioner D'Angelo I would like to suggest that at least. Commissioner Teglia This was a requirement that I suggested be put on P. G. & E. and while it isn't quite as nice as it could be. It's defmitely an improvement. I'm tickled pink that we got this far. I think we could just make a simple condition of approval. Chairperson Meloni To the staff, the Design Review Board asked for landscape screening that would not exceed the fence height. Were they talking along Gateway Boulevard? Senior Planner Carlson They were talking about the actual wireless communication facility itself. Chairperson Meloni I'd like to see that because that is what the Design Review Board recommended. I just get this feeling that P. G. & E. holds us hostage. Because it is their facility, what we want to complete our standards and what we pass on to all our applicants, they are exempt from it. I don't buy that. They are a landowner just like any other landowner. I would be willing to sit down with staff and a representative from P. G. & E. to talk about this because whenever we ask for something the automatic answer is always no. They always have a reason. If staff could arrange that, I would be willing to talk about this because this is going to keep happening. Commissioner Teglia I would like to join the Chair when meeting with P. G. & E. It is important for staff to continue keeping an open dialogue on this. While I'm happy with getting the slats, there are definitely options. Maybe Design Review could offer some very small slit in the ground allowing to plant, such as ivy, it needs very little to sustain itself. It would climb all over a fence that would definitely be an improvement. Along that stretch we have a decorative wood fencing. Perhaps that would be an option. Would like to put P. G. & E. on notice that we realize that they reap a financial windfall with these applications and we hope that they would like to give back to this community in the future with these sorts of projects. Motion Commissioner Te2lia /Second Commissioner D'An2elo Voice Vote/Unanimous 5. So. San Francisco Bart Station Transit Oriented Development Plan & Ordinance City Of South San Francisco-owner/applicant GPA-OI-041, ZA-OI-041, RZ-OI-041and Negative Declaration ND-OI-041 Proposed Project: The City of South San Francisco is requesting approval of a Negative Declaration and adoption of a Zoning Amendment and Rezone to create the Transit Oriented Development Plan and Zoning District for the 1/4 mile area adjacent to the SSF BART Station. The Plan and District will include specific development and design standards. (Continuedfrom August 2,2001) Senior Planner Lappen gave powerpoint presentation that summarizes the Transit Village Plan and Ordinance and staff report. Our consultant team is here, Rick Williams and Erin Miller, from Van Meter Willams Pollack to S:\Minutes\08160 lRPC.doc Page 4. of 12 answer specific questions and also to assist me as we go through this very detailed project. The purpose of the public hearing is that staff recommend that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council do three things, adopt a Negative Declaration, adopt a General Plan Amendment and adopt a Zoning Ordinance. Rick Williams, Van Meter Williams Pollack Mike summarized everything. Would just like to emphasize that this was a collaborative effort. The City has been very supportive of the open process in getting everybody input all the way along, so there shouldn't be any surprises to this plan. The neighborhood is really looking forward to seeing some of the improvements come in. They have been very fearful of the BART station and they now they have expressed at the community meetings that the City has been taking a proactive stance to ensuring that their quality neighborhood remains that way. We appreciate all the efforts that everybody has put in towards that direction. Chairperson Meloni Like to thank Mike Lappen for the outstanding job. Something the town needs. A problem I have is the building heights. Commissioner Teglia I concur with the Chair's comments. During subcommittee meetings, you had a rationale for 55-foot height limits. Has your opinion changed on that? Rick Williams It really hasn't. The reasoning behind the 55-foot height limit was to ensure that we had a good clear view to Hillside Boulevard for the residents above. I have gone out and looked at the situation further and realized they are very high up and they will still retain that view at the 65-foot height limit. The General Plan height limit for that area is actually 80 feet, so even the 65 is bringing it down somewhat. The thinking that the City Council had in the study session was to encourage to be able to have the Development Community meet the affordable housing goals. One way of kind of balancing that was discussed whether or not the height should remain 55 and have the potential of exceeding that up to 65 if those affordable housing goals are met. Right now the requirement for the 25% is a fairly substantial requirement and that was the discussion we had. I thought that was a good reason behind raising the height limit was to attempt to achieve the affordable housing goal. If they didn't achieve that then maybe that 65-foot height limit wouldn't be necessary. Commissioner Teglia Using El Camino as the base, what is the height of the homes up on the McLellan development? Rick Williams I don't have that technical information. Just visual counting, it looks greater than 65 feet. Commissioner Teglia I was a little concerned that the focus was a little narrow. Through the General Plan Amendments we are entitling the landowners. Biggest concern is that we still require whether it be as your powerpoint on site improvements to circulation as well as additional site improvements. If we need to chop into some of the vacant land to improve that area, is that still an option or are we creating entitlements here? Are we creating entitlements here? Chief Planner Sparks There are no entitlements granted by this particular project. These are design standards. Until we actually grant entitlements for a specific project that option remains. It is one that we would rather not have to undertake if we can solve it by other means. As indicated during the presentation, the Police Department and Planning have been working with Costco to try and deal with the queuing issue. The gas queuing issue has gone away of its own accord as the price differential has dropped to 20 or 30 cents rather than 50. We have no idea what will happen in the future, but interim measures that Costco has taken has alleviated a lot of that. They have submitted a plan to us to redo their internal circulation that we believe will go a long way toward taking care of the gas queuing problem. The larger scale issues of what happens at peak times like Christmas, we are still discussing those. We are very much aware that this has been a much more successful facility than either they or we anticipated. Weare dealing with our own success. Commissioner Teglia We still have full control to make sure that entire site is developed that proper densities, ingress, egress and other options can still be imposed by the City. Chief Planner Sparks We have control until a project is approved. Commissioner Teglia I remember in the industrial area that certain improvements needed to be put in to accommodate or mitigate traffic etc. and one developer would end up paying for it and then receiving reimbursement later on as other developers developed their property. You had to have the mitigation to get the first development in, but it wasn't fair to put it all on one developer. At least the liability is on the developers. Concerned that some of the detrimental parts will be built before the mitigations. Wondering if one of our S :\Minutes\08160 1 RPC.doc Page 5 of 12 implementations, requirements, strategies etc. would be to explain that the EIR is going to say you have an impact and unless these mitigations are put in first you won't be able to do the development. Senior Planner Lappen As with each project requiring an entitlement, each project would also require a negative declaration or a environmental document that would have to go with it in it's evaluation. Commissioner Teglia Any future prospective purchases of these properties will know about this prior to purchasing. Chief Planner Sparks You are suggesting a phased plan identifying specific improvements on a priority basis that need to go in together or as antecedents to other parts of the project. Commissioner Teglia I want to see all the nice mitigations, the park, the pedestrian walkways. I want to see everything before the impact of development. I want to see the nice wrapping before we build the core. Chief Planner Sparks We'll carry that recommendation. Commissioner Sim The infrastructure is fundamental to having implementation of these ideas. I commend Mr. Williams and his staff for the implementation part of this study. The way you constructed and scoped it out very specifically what should happen gives us a foundation base to start from. Phasing strategy is important. Hierarchically speaking which is important to set the precedent for that area. Your implementation was right to the point, but I think the next strategy is to scope it out more thoroughly as to fundamental areas that need to be improved prior to these coming on bOaI"d. I'm really interested in the design part as the other Commissioners have pointed out if this would encourage the entire community to upgrade the design that's exciting. Concerned about the height. Obviously there is some opportunities with the height, 55 feet-65 feet, until I see a cross section and study the basis of that 55-65 feet relative to the topography in the McLellan and other areas. I would be open- minded at this point with our preference being sensitive to height. We could study visual corridors. As part of the design we start taking away the massive profile to create that focal views out into the distance. That might actually bring a little character to the development. Commissioner D'Angelo I remember during the General Plan we discussed the density of the housing on Mission and I think it was decided to keep it what is was similar to the neighborhood which is low density. Now we have a proposed project to go medium density and we going to higher structure sizes. Seems we are looking to change the nature of the neighborhoods there. Am I correct that those neighborhoods now are low density? Rick Williams We took some special measures due to that desire to allow for a slightly higher density along Mission Road. If you will notice in the height restrictions the current neighborhood height limit is actually 35 feet. What we did on the parcels that back up against the existing neighborhood is reduced the portion of the property adjacent to the existing residents down to 25 feet. We may have raised the density along the very narrow frontage along Mission Road, but we actually lowered the height limit from what the existing height limit was on the property. Commissioner D'Angelo When you came and gave the presentation, did you tell the neighborhood that this proposal was to change the density? Rick Williams Yes we did. Commissioner D'Angelo I don't remember it and I was there. This Commission at least all but one on it about 2 years ago rejected any changes and kept it low density. Seems like now we are trying to change the General Plan so that we can get around that density. I'm not in favor of it personally. I'm not in favor of changing the density on Mission Road. I'm not in favor of changing the height. I'll be very clear about it. I hope we get to vote individually on these because I don't think it enhances those neighborhoods. I don't think the neighborhoods want to change their densities and the entrance densities coming into their neighborhoods. Rick Williams We did very clearly talk to them about the densities along Mission Road both at the open house and the initial meeting at the high school. We got a good turn out at both of those and a very positive response. But we also did a couple other things that we felt very important. It isn't just to create more housing plus the transit. That's one of the goals, but the other trade off to that the development community has is lower the height restriction adjacent to that residential neighborhood. So instead of 35 feet which someone could build now, you can have a single family house up against the existing single family house that is 3-stories tall we've reduced it. We have actually lowered the visual connection and then by maintaining the existing density along the thin line adjacent to Mission Road we've created more of a barrier there and it actually acts to protect the neighborhood. Any noise along Mission Road actually become more protected from the neighborhood. We also incorporated S:\Minutes\08160 lRPC.doc Page 6 of 12 design guidelines to protect the neighborhood while incorporating additional density within what we feel is the really strong pedestrian cOlTidor to BART from the existing single family neighborhoods. Commissioner D'Angelo Let me again state I disagree with you. I see where the corridor around the 1,4 mile is. I know where the farmland is. I know it goes right up the back of single family houses and I will bet we will see the projects come in for that medium density housing right up to the back of those homes. Commissioner Sim On the point of that Commissioner D'Angelo brought up, obviously these are guidelines and during the process the City Council and the Commission has the discretion to take feed back from the community as each projects come aboard. So this doesn't dictate that we are going to go wild and zone it up. It gives us the opportunity and the vision and determination to see where the future of the City might go. This gives us some guideline. If we are in shortage of housing and traffic is an issue in this whole region, we just start addressing it. It 's not a solution of how these buildings will be designed and it will go through a discretionary process and that's what.should happen. Commissioner Ochsenhirt Thank you staff and Rick. I want to go directly to what is driving this project in the future and that is the ABAG requirement and the Inclusionary Housing Element that we are going to be dealing with for the next few months. This is what is going to determine what kind of development is going to be done here and what kind of height and what kind of density. We can talk about the change in zoning but still it is going to be up to what is going on in our City at the time when a developer comes in with a project. I agree with Mr. Williams. I attended the open house at the Magnolia Center and it was discussed about the changing the zoning to a higher density. I also agree with Commissioner D'Angelo in that the reaction from the people in our neighborhood and Sunshine Gardens was not positive. It was rather irate that such a height would be up against the single family homes there. We do have an issue to deal with, but again with new development and new times there is always changes to your neighborhood. I believe in protecting my neighborhoods and making the sure the quality of life remains at a level which is acceptable to those people who have had their whole life in that neighborhood. It's important. However, we do have people behind us coming into those neighborhoods and times do change and we have to look at other alternatives. It's just not always our choice or the City Council's choice. There are higher bodies than ours that are requiring us to do certain things in our cities and if we don't do those things we will be penalized. We need to forward and need to look to alternatives. That is why this height issue is important. Something we need to come up a plan, 55 or 65. If that's what we need to live with then that's what we need to live with. We need to understand that the people in the community need to hear that. We need to get it out to them. If the process says 2 community meetings are enough, we can go forward now. That is not always the case. We may need to go back to them. How can we have a street with no lights or no sidewalks? Are we just having lanes? Rick Williams The base street is being constructed by BART. It's a relatively utilitarian street. It includes sidewalks and street lights per City standards. What we are recommending is a higher quality streetscape environment. BART is working with us to ensure that some of the utility lines they are putting in are in an easily accessible location so that it will not be a huge financial hardship to go in and put in new lighting to replace their lighting at a higher quality more reminiscent of the lighting downtown. So it has that pedestrian quality feature as well as widening the sidewalks to create a wider pedestrian zone as well as adding street trees to the street to add that quality of a pedestrian that people are looking for. What they are building will be a street and it will have sidewalks and lighting, but we are saying we think it should be better than that. Commissioner Ochsenhirt So we are in the same situation at the Hickey extension, McLellan Boulevard, what is being built now is your base. You will still have lights and things like that. As we move forward whether it is Colma or South San Francisco or County we would like to see enhancement or be it the school district along their frontage with the high school. Rick Williams That is correct. Commissioner Ochsenhirt Moving on to private projects. The shining star is going to be this corner of Mission and McLellan. I'm hearing childcare or some kind of private project there. Then I hear things like SamTrans or the City itself being involved. Is that really private? Rick Williams The issue with SamTrans is that they have the linear area over the BART tracks. Currently it's a little technicality. Right now it is under SamTrans ownership, but eventually it will be transferred over to BART. That is part of the whole station area. It provides the opportunity for a private developer that is developing that S :\Minutes\08160 1RPC.doc Page 7 of 12 comer say a daycare to work out a deal with SamTrans and/or BART to possibly use some of that linear park area for additional open space associated with the daycare. As you all know the City has been looking at provisions for daycare and has been having ongoing daycare studies. Two days ago I was contacted by a consultant looking for daycare locations. I told them to wait until we finished this meeting to give them a more solid answer as to the direction for daycare on this particular site. The private community that develops daycare is waiting to hear what everybody has to say to finalize this plan and then would like to look seriously at this site for a potential daycare or mixed use development. Commissioner Ochsenhirt When we talk about the parcels on the eastside of Mission, 1330 -1410, moving them up into the rezoning. In the staff report, the propelty owners who presently have the single family homes will be encouraged in the future to either sell their homes to someone or they could develop it themselves into a multi- unit instead of a single family home. That's really a long term. If the City or the developers or this whole TOD gets tired of waiting are we talking some kind of push on these property owners? Or are we just going to allow it to develop or if it doesn't it doesn't develop? Chief Planner Sparks I think we are talking that we will allow it to develop if it does and we probably won't push it unduly at least at this point. Who knows what will happen 10 years hence, but this City Council and any ones in the immediate future are probably not going to be looking at serious urban redevelopment in that vicinity if the property owners are not in favor of that. On major streets as things change people change their minds about what they feel is the highest and best use. Do we anticipate if this plan works as we hope that it will? People will be motivated to move in the direction of somewhat more intense uses on the street frontages. I don't think the City is going to be sponsoring that to the point of acquiring those properties or doing any urban renewal. Commissioner Honan When the Planning Commission Subcommittee were at the joint meetings, was the high density discussed? Since we didn't have a report back, I'm not sure if you discussed the high density or the 55 foot verses the 65 foot. Commissioner Teglia The change in height, 55 to 65, no. We have been blindsided with that. The densities were discussed. It was brought up that it was an issue that was in last election that people didn't want high densities. The consultants thought of that as the heights were being reduced so if you were calling it medium density because of the level heights you weren't going to be able to get that higher density. Another suggestion was front loading Mission Road on Sunshine Garden side and having parking in the rear would be a buffer between the residential and the mixed use commercial. My take was that the higher density was going to be right on Mission. This map shows a very large area that goes right into the heaIt of Sunshine Gardens and I don't recall that. Chairperson Meloni The subcommittee didn't want the high to medium density. Commissioner Honan Now what I'm hearing is that we can still get quality development out of this and still what we were trying to achieve with the lower density with the higher density and the taller buildings. I agree with Commissioner Sim, I don't believe we have anything up here to show me whether 55 feet or 65 feet, the difference between it. I'm working blindsided. I'm trying to get some background. Chairperson Meloni Speaking for myself and the reason I brought the subject up, I've seen on this Commission were we say it's going to be this height and when it goes to Council it ends up being higher. My position is I understand about design development and housing needs, but our biggest concern is design quality. If you can get a design quality out of 65 feet, 10 feet isn't that big. Again like Commissioner Sim says you have got to compare it to the profiles across the street, but I'd hate to say 65 and then when it goes to Council it ends up to being 75, 85 and just keeps climbing. I'd rather start at a low number and make sure it is a quality design. If it needs to be 65 feet and that quality is still there that's fine as long as it doesn't interfere with those people. We can't see that until the individual designs come in. Right now we are looking at the zoning amendment that will say your height limit will be in this range. Even if they left it in a range say from 55 to 65. Again it's the quality of the development. Rick Williams The reason we did not discuss in the Subcommittee the issue of 55 to 65 was because it was brought up at the joint study session. That was the first time it was brought up by a Councilperson. They would have said 80 feet since that is what the General Plan currently has for the height of an office park. I don't think that anyone would do a 75-foot building because that trigger you going into concrete construction. 65 feet is the maximum for a wood frame construction. Based on that you're not going to get something higher than that S :\Minutes\08160 1 RPC.doc Page 8 of 12 because once you go to concrete then there is really no incentive to just go up 10 feet higher they would want to go up 50 or 60 or 70 or 80 feet higher and by placing that limit consistent with construction technology and what we believe is reasonable cost. We don't believe someone in this area and this market go with a concrete structure. It would be too expensive so they stay in wood frame. The threshold from a planning standpoint is both planning design and technology and code. There are building codes that don't allow you to build above 65 feet. The other thing the City Council was talking about was giving some flexibility in the height limit so that pieces of it could be a little bit lower and pieces of it <;:ould be higher and it would allow the designer some flexibility and that might correspond to some of the view corridors. One of the things the planning staff can take into account is requiring such things as that set street section through El Camino relative to adjacent neighborhoods. Have the developers when they bring in their design request that of them so that you can see as your evaluating a particular design proposal. That gives them some flexibility in design. Commissioner Honan We have an answer in regards to the bridge. It was $2.25 million. However, we are also looking into upgrading the stairway. Do we have a proposed price on how much it will cost to improve the stairway verses the bridge? Rick Williams We haven't done that, but it would be substantially less than that. I don't want to throw out a number because when I threw one out for the bridge it was dramatically too low. You could do a very nice connection. BART is actually putting in a light and crosswalk at the location. Even without that improvement of the stairs I think you'll see the stairs used a lot more because it is going to be a direct and safer access. It is similar that BART provides a standard street along McLellan. The development community creates the ambiance of what McLellan can be. The stairs up to the neighborhoods is something that can be worked on and can be done fairly cost effectively. The staircase at the Colma BART station from the pedestrian connection along El Camino Real that was done through a grant. That was done in association with that residential development. There's precedent for doing those types of projects in the area. Commissioner Honan Once the stairway is done a lot of people will be using it and that worries me. It worries me about those people crossing El Camino, elderly people, children. It is so easy when you have your mind set on catching a BART train at a certain hour and you know you can make it across that street and you don't. Sure would love to see that bridge built there. I think it is the safest way to cross El Camino. 1'd hate to see the cost of a bridge be the cost of a life. If there is some way to put in a bridge, I would be ecstatic. To Sgt. Newell: You have discussed the queuing with Costco? Sgt. Newell Basically it came to our attention in mid July, major traffic congestion on El Camino Real. We sent our motor officers to look at the red light violations that were occurring and noticed that the problem was the influx of traffic due to the queuing of the reduced gas prices. The cars were backed out onto El Camino Real. Chief Raffaelli met with Costco in South San Francisco and discussed the temporary adjustment to their queuing process. A quick fix to eliminate the immediate problem and sit back later and look at a longer term. Basically we came up with they had a 2 week turnaround time that we should be anticipating some type of longer term plan next week from Costco that included slight reduction of parking spaces to allow more cars to be accommodated by the parking lot. Commissioner Honan With the upcoming Christmas season and the increasing of traffic, do you feel we are making headway? Sgt. Newell I do. I think the plan that Costco came up with along with our representatives is designed to accommodate a lot more vehicles than we anticipated for the gas. Come Christmastime, we are very optimistic. Commissioner Ochsenhirt We did have the one public meeting about traffic in the Sunshine Gardens and the surrounding neighborhoods. Are there plans for a second? Sgt. Newell We anticipate having another meeting in about a month or two. We still have some final plans to workout with the parking plan itself. We have about 90 percent completion on the parking plan. Needs some fine tuning and I think the hours can be modified to see exactly what the hours of restricted parking were going to be in that area. Commissioner Ochsenhirt This is what you are talking about the permit parking? Sgt. Newell Correct. That was the meeting we had regarding the permit parking plan in Sunshine Gardens near El Camino High School. S :\Minutes\OSI60 lRPC.doc Page 9 of 12 Commissioner Ochsenhirt At that meeting we also talked about mitigation of the traffic flow on Evergreen and Holly with the idea of having circles. Sgt. Newell Correct. Commissioner Ochsenhirt Will this be brought up again at the next meeting? Rick Williams We recommended in the plan that the traffic circles be tested immediately on Evergreen and Holly and it be implemented before the BART station opens. The parking permit program takes more priority. Commissioner Ochsenhirt The parking permit program also has to do with El Camino High School and the parking overflow from their lot. Commissioner Honan What worries me the most is the high density. Through the General Plan the majority of us agreed on the low density there. East of 101 we can do a TDM program which has been implemented. But you can't do a TDM program on housing. You can't tell people how they can drive their cars and how many cars they can have. One day you're going to come back to us and say we have too many houses and cars and we can't move which has already happened on the east side within 10 years. Very confused about voting on the 55-65 feet without seeing anything to document it. Assistant City Attorney Johnson The Zoning Ordinance before you has a height limitation of 55 feet not 65. 65 feet is not anywhere in the proposals before you it was merely something that was brought in response to a question proposed by the City Council. Chairperson Meloni I would rather see it stay as it is in this report. Chief Planner Sparks What is technically before you is 55 feet. It may be appropriate to allow some flexibility as the individual projects come in to look at greater height limit if implementation of that would assure you a higher quality project overall given what the other design parameters are. It is certainly within your purview to explicitly recommend that you don't go above 55 as part of this plan or anything else. You do have a General Plan Amendment exhibit (the 8th white page after the yellow pages). That exhibit shows just the frontage parcels along Mission Road what's before you in the General Plan Amendment. That is the General Plan Amendment that is before you, it is not this entire project. Commissioner Sim One other type of notion we ought to look at is leftover spaces in this Transit Village. We are talking about good design and balance of project. We have to look at heights and the density and the open spaces. We should give to the City Council the recommendation of 55 feet but that both could work but would prefer 55 feet. Chairperson Meloni I agree with Commissioner Sim. Commissioner Teglia I agree with the notion of gaining height and gaining open space, but the intent here had nothing to do with that. The intent here was maximizing density, increasing units. We are not talking about open space. The whole intent behind the height was increase density without any tradeoff. Commissioner Sim I would not be for that. Commissioner Teglia Any major project that comes before us usually if it is good enough all the rules get changed just for that one project. With regard to the densities near Sunshine Gardens, I'm not sure how the Commission wants to look at that. If we want to pull it back and say just the conidor on Mission or south of Mission Road the higher densities and leave north Mission Road as it is. Chairperson Meloni We don't feel the density is right, but through the design we have the option to turn it down. Commissioner Sim I have a problem with the study then. We should have had some discussion on open spaces. Rick Williams There are outdoor amenities required as part of the different developments and there is also open space and setbacks that are part of the development also. You are putting your best foot forward as a City to create a quality Village center as part of the town. What you are doing with this document you are raising the City's expectations to a higher level in exchange for the goals of reaching some of these other policies that the City also has. The development community has been listening and putting in their input and understanding that they are going to have a new set of rules to have high quality development. You want to attract good developers and do good projects in your City. Chief Planner Sparks I like Mr. Williams analogy of the raised bar. The approval of this plan is not the end it is the beginning. It is going to take a lot of work. We have an excellent set of guidelines formulated here. Those won't just translate into good development. It's going to take a lot of work on the part of staff, Design Review Board, this Commission, the developers and the community as a whole. We have some excellent beginnings. S :\Minutes\08160 1 RPC.doc Page 10 of 12 Commissioner D'Angelo I remember 2 years ago we talked about Transit Village. We implored the City to have it. We voted for it. We fought for it. We didn't get it. Now we are getting promises just change the General Plan and you'll get it. I say we already have a General Plan. We have a height limit. We have a density. I say don't change it. What you are telling us to do is change the General Plan. We have to change the density, the height and there is not a bit of open space shown on this map. There is one purpose here, increase the housing, increase the density and increase the height. We fought this 2 years ago and we lost then. Now we are going to change it and we are going to lose a second time. Commissioner Ochsenhirt These parcels that we are rezoning are they notified of the change in their zoning? Assistant City Attorney Johnson They are not notified other than the fact that we fully notice these public hearings for General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance changes. Commissioner Ochsenhirt On the rezoning issue for these single family residents, are they also in the public record as a rezone? The value of the lots will go up because of rezoning and I would hope that the property owner would be notified and recorded as such. Senior Planner Lappen As required by law, we notified all property owners in the Sunshine Gardens area, the Promenade area, Buri Buri. Approximately 1500 residences in that area. Chief Planner Sparks In answer to your question, did we send to these particular people? No, but we probably should have. Commissioner Ochsenhirt Will we? Chief Planner Sparks That is a good idea. We complied with the legal requirements, but we should have notified those individuals. Commissioner Teglia What do you suggest Commissioner D' Angelo? Commissioner D'Angelo I suggest that we vote on each part of the three components separately. I'm talking about keeping the General Plan. Chief Planner Sparks the General Plan Amendment refers only to the northeast side of Mission Road, between Holly and Evergreen the frontage parcels along there. It's not the entire project most of this is consistent with the adopted General Plan. The area described is going from a low density residential to medium density residential. Commissioner Teglia The effect of not approving the General Plan Amendment simply deleting that one little section. Chief Planner Sparks You would not be recommending the General Plan Amendment to the City Council. Commissioner Teglia It would simply be changes in that small strip in Sunshine Gardens. Assistant City Attorney Johnson For clarification purposes, it would also necessitate some modification to the Zoning Ordinance and the overlay map and they have to be consistent with the General Plan as it is adopted. So other modifications would be made if the General Plan Amendment were not recommended and consequently approved. Assistant City Attorney Johnson I recommend that you entertain motion on the General Plan Amendment first and once we have a vote on that we can move toward the Rezoning Amendment and then the Negative Declaration. Motion to adopt the General Plan Amendment Commissioner Sim Second Commissioner Ochsenhirt roll call vote AYES: Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Ochsenhirt ,Commissioner Sim and Chairperson Meloni NOES: Commissioner D'Angelo and Commissioner Teglia Motion to recommend that the City Council approve a Rezone as indicated in the staff report Commissioner Ochsenhirt Second Commissioner Honan roll call vote AYES: Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Ochsenhirt , Commissioner Sim , Commissioner Teglia and Chairperson Meloni NOES: Commissioner D'Angelo S :\Minutes\08160 1 RPC.doc Page 11 of 12 Motion that the City Council adopt the Transit Oriented Development District Commissioner Teglia Second Commissioner Sim roll call vote AYES: Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Ochsenhirt , Commissioner Sim , Commissioner Teglia and Chairperson Meloni NOES: Commissioner D'Angelo Motion that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration Commissioner Honan Second Commissioner Sim roll call vote AYES: Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Ochsenhirt , Commissioner Sim , Commissioner Teglia Commissioner D'Angelo and Chairperson Meloni NOES: ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 6. Items from Staff Chief Planner Sparks Weare bringing Marbella back to you. The EIR will be finished. You will be having a study session on the 30th of August. Commissioner Teglia Suggest that staff make sure it is complete when it comes to the commission. 7. Items from Commission Commissioner Ochsenhirt Would like to formally form a subcommittee to address the issue ofP. G. & E. and landscaping. I would like to volunteer my services as well. Chairperson Meloni We need to see ifP. G.& E. is willing to come to the table. Staff can report back to us at the next meeting and then we can entertain a motion. 8. Items from the Public ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Motion Commissioner Honan /Second Commissioner Teglia V oice V otelUnanimous Thomas C. Sparks Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco Michae Meloni, Chairperson Planning ommission City of South San Francisco NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting September 6,2001, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA. TCS/pc S:\Minutes\08160 lRPC.doc Page 12 of 12