Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/19/2001 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE July 19,2001 CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 7 :30 D.m. ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioner D'Angelo, Commissioner Ochsenhirt, COlnmissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia, Vice Chairperson ROlnero and Chairperson Meloni MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Honan STAFF PRESENT: Planning Division: Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Steve Carlson, Senior Planner Mike Lappen, Senior Planner Allison Knapp, Consultant Planner Adam Lindgren Barbara Hawkins Sgt. Mike Newell Barry Mammini City Attorney: Engineering: Police Dept.: Bldg./Fire Prevo AGENDA REVIEW NO CHANGES ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NONE CONSENT CALENDAR APPROVED 1. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of May 17, 2001and June 7, 2001. Motion D' An2:elo/ Second Sim to approve the Consent Calendar. Chairperson Meloni abstained from the May 17, 2001 minutes and Commissioner D'Angelo abstained from the June 7' 2001 minutes. PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEMS 2. Metro PCS/Whalen & Co./Tetra Tech, Inc.-applicant APPROVED P.G. & E./Robert E. Schlegel-owner 811 Airport Blvd. UP-OI-053 and Categorical Exemption Class 32 Section 15332 In-Fill Development Project Use Permit allowing a co-location of a third wireless communication facility situated at 811 Airport Boulevard in the Planned Commercial (C-1) Zoning District, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.105. Senior Planner Carlson presented the Staff Report. Mary Anne Miller, Tetra Tech, Inc., gave a presentation of the project. Commission concerns were: S:\Minutes\finalized\07190 lRPC.doc Page 1 of 6 Approved on April 4, 2002 · The fence height should cover the tallest piece of equipment and it is not reflected in the conditions of approval. The conditions show that the fence will be 6 feet tall and that is not the size of the tallest piece of equipment. · The noise level exceeding what the Zoning Ordinance limits. · The generator will be turned on after 4 hours when standards have been 6 hours after a power outage. · Screening the cell site with additional landscaping. They discussed this issue at length and it was found that the landscaping requirements should be the decision of the Park & Recreation Commission. Staffs response: · With regard to the fence height it needs to be as high as the tallest piece of equipment. The applicant noted that the tallest piece of equipment is 5 feet tall. · The Zoning Ordinance requires no Inore than 65 decibels of noise. The site is located across the street frOln a hotel and the distance attenuates the noise by some decibels. · The condition with regard to the time the generator would be turned on would be Inodified to reflect that the generator should not be turned on until 6 hours after a power outage. · There will be screening along Armour and Airport. There cannot be any at the base of the tower as PG&E is strongly opposed to having any landscaping near their towers. Motion Sim / Second Romero to approve the use permit with the modified condition. Majority voice vote. 3. GPA-99-061/MOD2, DSEIR-99-061/MODl & ZA-OI-021 CONTINUED Project Proposal: The City of South San Francisco is proposing to establish the East of 101 Area Transportation Improvement Plan, which includes specific infrastructure improvements, a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance and program, and traffic fees. The program will include: Changes to the Transportation Element. Specifically, the Supplemental EIR and Amendment to the Transportation Element will list specific transportation and roadway improvements. The Element and Supplemental EIR will also increase focus on alternative transportation modes (for example, shuttles) and transportation demand management. Changes to the other elements for consistency. For example, the Planning Sub-areas Element needs to be amended. Changes to the East of 1 01 Area Plan. The East of 101 Area Plan will updated to reflect the General Plan policy direction. TDM Program and Ordinance. The document includes a comprehensive and enforceable TDM Program. Traffic Fee. The City is currently preparing a nexus analysis to support the implementation of a traffic fee. Chief Planner Sparks introduced the item. Senior Planner Lappen and Michael Dyett, Dyett & Bhatia, gave a PowerPoint presentation. Public Hearing opened. Mr. Jeff Johnson's comments were: · Are alternative mode reductions just a peak hour goal? · Are there measures similar to this one implemented in other communities? Does it work? · How does a project get approved? Staff response: · TDM programs are implemented all over the peninsula but each City is unique in how they handle theIn. Trip reduction rates are being achieved by other cities. s: \Minutes\finalized\07190 lRPC.doc Page 2 of 6 Approved on April 4, 2002 · South San Francisco is working on implementing this program in order to limit a gridlock problem in the future and meet trip reduction rates. This also is being used to discourage single occupancy vehicles in the E-1 0 1 area and encourage public modes of transportation. · When an application has more than 100 ADT (average daily vehicle trips) it requires a use permit. A TDM (Transportation Demand Management) program is required from the applicant. It will be reviewed by staff, and then approved by Cormnission and Council action. After final adoption of the TDM a yearly review is conducted to determine whether projections are being met or not and in some cases a tri-annual report will be required. Mike Paccelli, Chamber of Commerce: Notified the public that the Chamber of Commerce is holding an informational meeting on this item on July 20, 2001 at East Jamie Court. Public Hearing closed. Commission comments were: · When will the ferry service be in place? · They also questioned how effective it would be due to the restriction being on the tenant when it should be on the developer. · The City needs to have employers look into other modes of transportation such as residential shuttles. · Paid parking can also be looked at. · The owner needs to notify a potential occupant or tenant of the fees. This may keep some businesses from coming into SSF but the TDM program needs to be enforced. Staff responded: · The ferry service will take from 5-10 years to be active in the City. · The City cannot have many single occupancy vehicles within the E-10 1 area. The population is growing, which causes traffic to increase and E-1 0 1 does not have the capacity for the projected growth. Motion Sim / Second D' An2elo to continue the item. Approved by majority voice vote. Recess called at 9:06 p.m. Recalled to order at 9:15 p.m. 4. Marbella Duc Housing Partners, Inc., applicant Thomas Callan, owner Gellert Blvd., westside between Westborough Blvd. & Rowntree Way GP-00-053, PUD-00-053, SA-00-053 and ND-00-053 To take comments on the Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report (DFEIR) for the General Plan Amendment, Planned Unit Development, and Tentative Map to allow development of 280 residential units on the west side of Gellert Boulevard, between Westborough and Rowntree. Chief Planner Sparks gave the staff report. The description of this project has changed slightly as we go through it. We now have a rezone associated with this. We are changing it to a R-3 from a previously C-1 zoning district and set it up as a use permit which is allowable. No change in the project but will be reflected in the final EIR. Does no violence to the intent or the letter of CEQA. We also have removed any reference to a tentative map because there isn't one associated with this. That was with the earlier single-family detached project that was before you. s: \Minutes \finalized\07190 1 RPC. doc Page 3 of 6 Approved on April 4, 2002 Tonight we are asking you to conduct a public hearing as a comment meeting on the DFEIR. The comment period on the DFEIR is still opened and so it is customary to have a formal session to offer and accept comments from the public. We don't have any particular presentation on it. We will spend more time on that when we conduct the public hearing on the project and its document. Chairperson Meloni this is a hearing on the DFEIR and as such your comments will be taken down and will be answered in the Final Environmental Impact Report. Is the applicant present to give a presentation? Chief Planner Sparks The applicant is not present. The EIR consultant is present. We don't have a presentation on the project. This is just on the EIR. Chairperson Meloni Biggest concern I have with this document is that it references 74 and 280 unit developments. Especially in the traffic report, we have two traffic reports. I take it we are just using the apartment style. Chief Planner Sparks Yes, we should not have let the references to the earlier report slip through. They will be deleted from the final document. I apologize for that. Chairperson Meloni One question in the document is part of the Mitigation Measures is traffic two. Talks about an intersection at Gellert and Westborough shopping center. Says it is a LOSF now and will remain that with the development. As a mitigation measure it talks about putting a signal where the McDonalds' is at the entrance to the shopping center. That would make it less than a significant impact. Doesn't make sense because a significant impact we can't improve the intersection. They recommend not to put a signal in because it is not going to help anything and yet by doing that it reduces the impact. Chief Planner Sparks We will provide explication of that in the final. Chairperson Meloni It also talks about color buildings and glass. Will the glass on these buildings affect traffic on 280 freeway? They appear to stand tall in relation to 280 freeway. If there is any glare, would like to know about that. Another item is the noise mitigation. The mitigation measure give some hours of work: weekdays from 8 a. m. to 8 p.m., Saturdays from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m., Sundays and Holidays from 10 a.m. to 6 p.In. Personally have a problem with the 8 0' clock in the evenings is a little late to be working. Chief Planner Sparks Those numbers are not consistent with existing City practice. They will be modified. Chairperson Meloni Would recommend that Sundays and Holidays be eliminated from the schedule. A question on the geological (Geo I) it talks about some of the groundwater levels on that slope. Know that slope has had some slides on it. Talks about drilling wells up there. Concern as to the spacing of those wells in relation to the stability of the hill. If you drill too many holes vertically too close together, can effect the stability of the hill. The last question is on the geotechnical report. The report was developed with the 74 unit development and we are substantially increasing that development. Substantially increasing the type of building to be built on that. A single family dwelling versus a multi -story quite large apartment building eroding on that site will be drastically different. Think we need an updated geotechnical report that address this specific project not the old proj ect. Vice Chairperson Romero The original project that was discussed in the study session was the 74 unit single family homes. It is my understanding that the City went back to the applicant and indicated that we wanted to increase the density because of the ABAG requirement of 1333 additional units that we need to provide. Is that accurate? Chief Planner Sparks That is reasonably accurate. Vice Chairperson Romero I don't disagree with providing affordable housing or even increasing density on this particular site. Weare going way overboard with 280 units. That is four times the amount that the applicant had originally submitted. Especially in an area that already significantly impacted by traffic and who's impacts will not be alleviated with this project. The deficiency would remain and this would be a significant and unavoidable impact. If we are not able to fix the problem, why are we going to add to it? Too much for the neighborhood. Chief Planner Sparks This actually is not a COlmnent on the document proper, but on the project. What we are looking at here is a balancing of desired City objectives and housing is a major issue. We haven't very many sites. The amount appropriate to put on this site is a matter of judgement for this cormnission and the City Council to make. The message from the Council was to try to get as many units as we reasonably can on those few sites we have left in this City. This is an outgrowth of that. S:\Minutes\finalized\07190 lRPC.doc Page 4 of 6 Approved on April 4, 2002 Vice Chairperson Romero I think reasonable is great, but is 280 reasonable? Chief Planner Sparks Again, that is for you and the Council to decide. Vice Chairperson Romero Are the mitigations indicated in here reasonable to offset those impacts. I don't see any mitigations. Chief Planner Sparks That is a comment on the document. Commissioner Sim I would like to share with Vice Chairperson Romero comments. I drive through that area everyday and I think that is a relevant comment to the DFEIR. Would appreciate if you could get some resolution in the EIR for that area for those issues. If the housing does go in there, it is already impacted significantly by the traffic in the morning hours and after. I will be looking at that very carefully. I live in that area. Commissioner Teglia Concur with the other commissioners. A new comment on the docmnent, under impacts not to be found significant regarding recreational facilities. South San Francisco in general has less than 10% open space park land around town. Considered to be below average or standard. This particular site is hilly terrain. The recreational facility is a significant hike uphill. I would think that needs to be reviewed. Trying to n1aintain a certain quality of life and think as we continue to increase in our development we should consider that an increase of quality of life is important not a decrease. Think you have to have some on site recreational facility. It could be a patch of land on small part within the site. That particular impact has not been well studied and needs to be reviewed. Chairperson Meloni Have a comment about the retaining walls, the height of the retaining walls being so massive. Pretty massive buildings right on the street. Suggest to incorporate the buildings with the retaining walls. This reduces view blocking, space in front could ITmke a linear park. Would help to reduce height of buildings. Combination could be a little reduction in density. Could use the structure itself as part of the retaining walls and the parking underneath. Could get more stability. Commissioner Sim Totally support Chairperson Meloni. I do feel this is an impact issue. Aesthetics is an issue addressed in the DFEIR. Commissioner Ochsenhirt If you are looking for an example, look at Colina, a condominium proj ect that goes up to Westborough, built into the hill there. There are some creative living senarios that projects being built into the hill. Chairperson Meloni Will these buildings be owned individually or by a group? Chief Planner Sparks That is unlmown at this point. Chairperson Meloni asked Chief Planner Sparks if there was a Inotion needed to close the comment hearing. Chief Planner Sparks Just close it. We will take the comments back to the consultant and deal appropriately. Vice Chairperson Romero Is there a closing time for comments to be submitted by the public? Chief Planner Sparks Yes, the comment period closes on the 31 st of July. Vice Chairperson Romero So any comments from the public would have to be in by 5 :00 p.m. on July 31 st. Chief Planner Sparks We sent out something over 400 notices regarding the EIR and the comment period at the time the comment period opened. We covered the neighborhood and other interested parties we could identify. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 5. Items from Staff Chief Planner Sparks asked the Commission if they wanted to hold a Public Hearing on the Marbella Subdivision on August 2, 2001 even if the EIR was not available. He noted that the Commission had concerns on hearing the item due to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance not being approved by Council. Consensus of the Commission to not hear the item until the EIR was available. 6. Items from Commission NONE 7. Items from the Public NONE s: \Minutes\finalized\07l90 lRPC.doc Page 5 of 6 Approved on April 4, 2002 ADJOURNMENT 9:38 D.m. Motion Ochsenhirt/Second Sim to adjourn. ~r:'~~ Thomas C. Sparks Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco ~~~~. Michael eloni, Chairperson Planning Commission City of South San Francisco NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting August 2, 2001, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA. TCS/blh s: \Minutes \finalized\07190 1 RPc. doc Page 6 of 6 Approved on April 4, 2002