Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/20/2001 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE September 20, 2001 CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TAPEl 7:30 D.m. A moment of silence was taken for those that died in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioner D'Angelo) Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Ochsenhirt, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia, Vice Chairperson Romero and Chairperson Meloni MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Planning Division: Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Norma Fragoso, HCD Steve Kowalski, Associate Planner Kimberly Johnson Richard Harmon S gt. Mike Newell Ray Honan Mike 0' Connell City Attorney: Engineering: Police Dept.: Water Quality: Bldg./Fire Prevo AGENDA REVIEW Chief Planner Sparks noted that the August 16th minutes were not available for approval at the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS CONSENT CALENDAR Approved with the exception of 1 and 2 1. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of August 16, 2001. 2. City of South San Francisco-owner PCA-00-006 Abandonment of Portion of Public Right-of-Way (Second Lane). General Plan Conformity finding for a potential sale by the City of South San Francisco of property located within the Second Lane public right-of- way behind 211 Baden Avenue in the Downtown Commercial (D-C) District, in accordance with Section 65402 of State Planning Law. 3. GPA-99-061/MOD2, DSEIR-99-061/MODl ZA-OI-021 & ZA-OI-021/MODl East of 101 City of South San Francisco-owner/applicant (Recommend continuance off-calendar) S :\Minutes\09200 1 RPC.doc Page 1 of 19 Project Proposal: Approval of the East of 101 Area Traffic Impact Fees Ordinance. Commissioner Teglia pulled item 2 from the Consent Calendar. Item #1 pulled from the Consent Calendar under Agenda Review. Motion Te!?]ia/Second D'An2elo to approve Consent Calendar iteln 3. Unanimously approved. Item #2 - Consent Calendar City of South San Francisco-owner PCA-00-006 Continued Abandonment of Portion of Public Right-of-Way (Second Lane). General Plan Conformity Finding for a potential sale by the City of South San Francisco of property located within the Second Lane public right-of- way behind 211 Baden Avenue in the Downtown Commercial (D-C) District, in accordance with Section 65402 of State Planning Law. Chief Planner Sparks explained that Item 2 is what we commonly refer to as a 65402 finding. It's a requirement that the Commission find any sale of City property consistent with the General Plan. This particular one is about the lane about the backside of the new Giorgi building. It turned out when that building was being constructed the building inspectors found that the footings protruded 6 inches into the City property. Since the building was reasonably well underway at that point, the City administration concluded that the easiest fix was to sell that portion that would be over the footing to Mr. Giorgi. The item is a technical finding of consistency with the General Plan. The validity of whether we should do that or not is not before you. The finding is simply a matter of whether the action is consistent with the General Plan. Since the lane isn't part of the General Plan Transportation Element and since it wouldn't affect the ability to use the lane, and since the building itself is consistent with the General Plan classification and the zoning in the area, our conclusion is that is in fact consistent with the General Plan to approve that sale. Staffs recommendation is that you find consistency as required under Section 65402. Commissioner Teglia Would like some information on this. If you look at Baden Avenue, you start at the bottom. You have Taco Bell, the Fire Station. There used to be a house right there. They all tend to line straight up. They all have a uniform setback. You continue on up the street to the next block and find the same uniform setbacks with double wide sidewalks. You come to this project and it sticks out like a sore thumb. I don't recall approving that. I do recall bringing it up when the foundation was first poured. Didn't seem to get much reaction at that time and it seelned to continue on. According to this report, the Building Department knew about it at the time the footings encroached on the City right-of-way. I believe we had other requirements for this particular site including landscaping on Baden. I'm sure there are some ADA requirements for the width of the sidewalk on Baden Avenue and I'm not seeing those there. Now we have a report well after the fact that turns out he encroached on a public right-of-way and okay to fix it we are going to sell him the public right-of-way. Why wasn't the project red-tagged when we first found they were out of bounds? Does this set any sort of a precedent? If I want to build a garage in my backyard in the alley and I want a little extra room and I want to encroach on the alley, will the City sell me part of that alley? Could you respond? Chief Planner Sparks Only in part. I don't think it would necessarily set a precedent. The City always has discretion about how they are going to handle any of those issues. The judgement was made in this case that the simplest way to resolve this issue was to sell the essentially 6 inch wide strip along the lane against the building. There are a lot of issues with that particular building. I understand that but this particular item is a finding of consistency with our General Plan. Commissioner Teglia I understand that but where I guess I am having problem is, I look at a building that we originally thought looked slightly different in that place. We thought they would conform with the neighborhood. My understanding is that building inspectors go out and they find somebody has gone out of bounds you stop s: \Minutes\09200 1 RPC.doc Page 2 of 19 them and you make them change the foundations along with many other changes of this project. I don't understand why this did not happen. Then after the fact, the simplest solution is to let it go and sell them the right-of-way. Something doesn't seem right here. Chief Planner Sparks I simply don't lmow how to respond. Commissioner Teglia I thought so. The only comment I have is from beginning there was something wrong with this project. I don't think any other project would be allowed. I'ld like to have some answers as to why that's happening. As for a General Plan Conformity finding, I found that happens to be an incredibly heavily traveled lane. It is a lane that not only it is a thoroughfare ahnost it has heavy commercial traffic. Class A vehicles doing deliveries there. Selling part of that right-of-way doesn't seem to make sense. If something like that was to occur, I remember some other mitigations in the beginning. For instance, an offer to beautify that entire corridor with a brick wall down the side. I would think some sort of consideration along those lines would be appropriate. I don't find this being conforming. Commissioner D'Angelo How about the ADA requirements for the front of that structure? Chief Planner Sparks They are required to meet ADA standards. I have no personal knowledge of how it is being set up, but I'm sure that the building wouldn't be allowed to be built in the absence of meeting those standards. Commissioner D'Angelo Today I was in Redwood City with an electrician and workmen to removing the base of street lights because we didn't have ADA requirelnents on a street that is less than 5 years old. We have a pole right in the middle of the street we have to have a minimum I think of 36 inches. Can Engineering tell us if we have ADA compliance? Chief Planner Sparks You can ask Richard Harmon, Engineering Division ADA compliance comes under the jurisdiction of the Building Division. As I haven't gone out there the sidewalk and the City fence has gone up since the sidewalk has been closed off. I can tell you that when I reviewed the plans for the building it appeared from my review of the plans that there was sufficient width of the sidewalk to accommodate ADA requirements. According to the plans, was at least 5 feet wide which would be plenty wide enough. However I'm not sure the building got constructed exactly according to plans. Commissioner D'Angelo I would agree with you. Therefore if it is something less it would be something that would have to be looked at, aIn I correct? Richard Harmon, Engineering Division If the sidewalk is a width that is less than required by ADA it would be a real problem to the City. Commissioner D'Angelo May I request that we have a report at the next meeting. Chief Planner Sparks Yes. Assistant City Attorney Johnson Just to clarify, the ADA has very specific trigger requirements in addition to the standard accessibility requirements in terms of when a sidewalk or street has to be modified in order to conform to ADA. In terms of the City's responsibility, it depends in part on who owns or who is responsible for the maintenance of the sidewalk So as not to mislead the Cormnission, it may be the result of this discussion we may in fact determine that it is not the City's responsibility. Vice Chairperson Romero Mr. Harmon, do you find that this sale is going to cause any problem with the lane, decreasing the size of it or making it more difficult for anyone to drive down the lane? Richard Harmon, Engineering Division To be honest with you, I was not aware of this sale until I saw it on the agenda. I don't know whether or not it has been reviewed by the Engineering Division. Vice Chairperson Romero Do you know if the forms were reviewed before the cement was poured? Richard Harmon, Engineering Division That would be something you would have to ask the Building Division. They are responsible for the building foundation and measuring the forms. Vice Chairperson Romero Does anyone know if it was approved before they poured? Chief Planner Sparks I don't know. You have already asked for a report back; it will cover all these things. Mike O'Connell, Fire Prevention/Building I have no personallmowledge of that project since I didn't do any inspections there but typically when a foundation is formed prior placement we do a rebar and holddown inspection and check setbacks at that time. Typically we check setbacks to what is commonly referred to as the stemwall which would be the outer perimeter of the building. In this case, what possibly may have happened is S :\Minutes\09200 1 RPC.doc Page 3 of 19 below grade there was an over excavation of the trench for the foundation which caused the encroachment. When they set the stemboard for the outside perimeter for the foundation rather than taking it all the way down to the bottom of the trench they brought it down to a point below grade when they filled that stem some concrete sloughed out which gets it out past the building in a below grade situation. That mayor may not be the case but that could have happened. Chief Planner Sparks My understanding is that this will not decrease the pavement width. The usable width of the lane. This was just the simplest way to avoid requiring that they jackhammer it up and remove that portion of the footing. Vice Chairperson Romero That's going to weaken the building. Chief Planner Sparks That presumably would. Commissioner Sim I also have some concerns but obviously we are trying to mitigate it at this point. It's sort of a done deal and we are trying to make it realistic. Hopefully it won't happen again in our City. Commissioner Honan I agree with you it is a done deal and hopefully it will never happen again in this City, however, I'm not hearing any direct reasons as to how it happened and to why it happened. It scares me to say and hope that it will never happen again when we don't even know why it happened. Chief Planner Sparks We will try to get you some answers in the report back Commissioner Honan I really have a problem voting on something that hopefully we will have answers for at our next meeting. Motion Sim / Second Romero to continue the item. Unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEMS 4. Tularik, Inc./Carlos Mena-applicant Grand/Roebling Investment Co./Stan Mattison-owner 217 E. Grand Ave PUD-93-023/MODl & Negative Declaration ND-OI-055 (Continuedfrom September 6, 2001) Approved Modification of a Planned Unit Development allowing the conversion of 12,000 square foot area from warehouse to office in a building containing 18,000 square feet of warehouse space situated at 213-233 East Grand Avenue in the Planned Industrial (P-I) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.84. Chief Planner Sparks presented the staff report. Lee Vande Kerchoff, applicant gave a brief presentation. Public Hearing opened. There being no speakers the Public Hearing was closed. The Commission was concerned with having a master plan for the site. There was also concern that SOlne of the mitigations in the TDM were left blank in the ranking of being low or high. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the applicant is required to achieve the target mode shift rate identified in the TDM ordinance. Motion D' An2:elo / Second Honan - Unanimously approved. 5. Arco Kenwood Co.-owner Approved Marite R. Cruz, D.M.D-applicant 128 Brentwood Dr. UP-OI-068 & Categorical Exemption Class 1 Section 15301 Existing Facilities S:\Minutes\092001 RPC.doc Page it of 19 Use Permit to allow a dentist office to replace a music store located within 200 feet of a residential zone in the C-l Retail Zone District. Commissioner Honan stepped off the dais due to a conflict of interest. Associate Planner Kowalski presented the Staff Report Heston Chow, architect presented the Staff Report. Public Hearing opened. There being no speakers on the item the Public Hearing was closed. Motion Ochsenhirt / Second Te2lia - Unanimously approved. 6. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance City Of South San Francisco-owner/applicant Citywide ZA-OI-067 (Continuedfrom September 6,2001) Recommendation not to approve Ordinance 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. Norma Fragoso gave staff report, summarizing key areas of report. The legal framework behind this is the State Housing and Community Development and Association of Bay Area Government requirements for specific production of housing in our City. This also comes at a time when the City is also required by the State to undertake an update of the Housing Element, a component of the General Plan. The City Council over the last year has reviewed the General Plan and housing issues and potential development that we see in the City and have wrestled with the issue of how to provide housing that is affordable to all segments of our community. So that our workforce can continue to live and work in our City and how to do this with limited resources with the restrictions that we see in the market and the economy today in this very high cost market. At the last joint study session there were several questions raised regarding the proposed Inclusionary Ordinance and staff made every effort to attempt to respond to questions that were asked by City Council and Commission members. At this point I believe that staff is still proposing an Inclusionary Ordinance that requires 25% of all housing citywide of 4 units or more to have a affordable housing component. There are in-lieu fee options just to summarize for developments that have units from 4-9. For 10 units and above we would propose to require that the housing be constructed on the site. There is a certain amount of flexibility in this ordinance that will allow special cases, flexibility, ability to adjust to fit particular sites that might have constraints or small irregular sites. Staff does believe that this ordinance at this time the most effective way to address the requirement that city provide specific numbers of affordable housing units which are outlined in your staff report. Assistant City Attorney Johnson In reviewing the ordinances I want to point out to the Commission that there will be a couple of required findings that we would make before the City Council prior to their adoption specific to the Density Bonus Ordinance and you do not have those before you tonight and I apologize that is my fault. S:\Minutes\09200 1 RPC.doc Page 5 of 19 When I transmitted the ordinances to staff I omitted the findings necessary for the Density Bonus Ordinance. The findings will be substantially consistent with those that apply to the Inclusionary Ordinance including those relating to the Housing Element and General Plan consistency findings. I did want the Commission to be aware that the City Council may receive additional information particular to findings for the Density Bonus Ordinance. John Hansen, managing member of Hansen PSC/Hillside Land LLC, 661 Live Oak, Menlo Park, speaking in opposition with some of the problems I see with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Our firm purchased a piece of property at the corner of Hillside and Stonegate in November of last year. We were in contract for a period of time. Wernet with staff to check the zoning to see what we could do to see what the constraints were of the site. Did our due diligence and purchased the property in Novelnber. We made an application for 20 townhomes in February and went through Design Review. Had departmental review and there were some changes that staff wanted us to make on the project. Gave us back our application, told us to make the changes and reapply. We made those changes and reapplied in April, went to another Design Review hearing and were froze in place because of the review to adopt the potential housing policy. Specifically to my project, it is a R-2 zone. I think the Inclusionary Housing is extremely inappropriate for a R-l/R-2 zone. The reason being that those are typically that you pay much more money for the land and to build the house. It is a much more expensive product. Our market price was going to be $550,000. to $600,000. for these 2,000 square foot units. If you build a high density multi-family condominium project, your flash point for your price is $250,000. or $295,000. or $350,000. or $395,000., you can more easily deal with these moderate prices that discussed in the Inclusionary Housing standards. Our project specifically there's 20 lots. All of our costs and fees would remain the same, but the revenue would be reduced by over a million dollars. We are just a small company. We can't afford to loose a million dollars on a piece of property revenue to subsidize a policy that the City might consider. If the City truly believes that the community wants to have a Inclusionary Housing policy, the policy needs to be supported and shared by all of the community-not five land owners. They refer to meeting their goals that ABAG refers to. They can develop roughly 1331 residential units in the City Of South San Francisco. There are five different site in which they can do that-one which is mine to meet their goal. But they don't discuss the fact that what they really should be doing is looking at rezoning general plan amendments to increase densities throughout the City and to generate housing production in the area east of 101 and the biotech area where right now they can't because of the agreement with the airport, but down the road 2,3 or 4 years they can do that. They shouldn't be burdening five parcels they accommodate 1300 units with the entire Inclusionary goal of this City. If the community does want to have a policy, it is much less, in fact, totally inappropriate for R-l/R-2. I think, eventhough, Duc Housing came and said in the last study session that they supported the policy. They have a product and they have reasons for what they are doing. They can more accommodate that. But in general what this does, is it dramatically reduces the value of your land in the short term. Because you have to be able to build and sell these houses at a certain price and right now that price is fixed with the marketable variance actually sliding backwards. For that land to lose that value for that to be regained is down the future 5 to 10 years. What ever that timeframe is and then it will be paid higher prices by people who are buying the houses. In the short run, these landowners will suffer this lose to subsidize this program. They are the only ones being asked to do it. In the long run, it is the market rate homeowners that subsidize the program. The City needs to look at ways to share this burden, if this is a true community goal, with the whole community. Chairperson Meloni In the Ordinance-there is the ability to get an increase in density right? Chief Planner Sparks I defer to Counsel. Assistant City Attorney Johnson The Density Bonus Ordinance is triggered by the inclusion of20% of low income housing. The Inclusionary Ordinance would not by in by itself trigger a density bonus for an applicant unless of the 25% affordable units they chose to alter the required percentages from 10% low income to 20% low income. The reason the Density Bonus Ordinance is running consistent with the Inclusionary Ordinance is that the Inclusionary Ordinance does offer additional offsets for those projects offering a higher percentage of lower income units, because those are a greater value in tenns of being able to provide the most housing to residents in the City. We wanted to make sure we had a place the state requirements in the event a project did come forward that triggered us having to cOlnply with the state requirements. John Hansen I forgot to mention that I had e-mailed to the City a letter. One of the things I mentioned in that letter is the Density Bonus. I think it is an exception not a rule that you could benefit as a developer from a S:\Minutes\09200 1 RPC.doc Page 6 of 19 Density Bonus. Our project, for example, if you deal with height restrictions, the floor area ratio restrictions, the setbacks, the width of the street and the sidewalks and the Fire Department and the Public Works, we can only put 20 units on this property. By zone right now we could put 21, but we cannot put 21 we can only put 20. If you say you 26. I'll say great, but when I go talk to Richard Harmon and Planning I'm not going to get it. I'm only going to get 20. The only way you get a Density Bonus is with a rezone or a general plan amendment where you can have a much higher density and the rules change. Chairperson Meloni Can you Inake this work for you with a Density Bonus if you were to get the 26 units? John Hansen We can't put 26 units on there with the current zoning. Chairperson Meloni What I'm asking though would 26 units give you what you need? John Hansen I think in my letter what I indicated if we were faced with doing this what we would need is to be able to build the units we have in a delivery market for the Inclusionary instead of delivering a 2,000 foot unit we would need to be able to deliver a 3 bedroom, 2 bath that looks the same from the outside that's a much smaller square footage because that helps us. The other is to make that price a moderate price on the high end of the moderate price because that helps us. The other thing is to waive the park in-lieu fees because that helps us. Now Density Bonus, yes it would help us. All of those things together would help us. We would still suffer a loss but it certainly would be mitigated. It would be much more preferable than what we are faced with now. From a realistic stand point we can't get it. Our staff planner is Steve Carlson, and somebody from the City met with him relate to this site about increasing the density and going over. Unless it is rezoned and there is a general plan change, you cannot change it. It won't be accommodated pursuant to the ordinances within the zone and that's going to be the case in most situations. When a person buys a piece of property in this market and they are allowed to put up a 100 homes or 100 condominiums. They are going to put up a 100 homes or 100 condominiums it there is only way they could make it work with height, parking and setbacks. Because the land is too expensive. If you were to tell them they could put up 122, most of the time isn't going to work. Commissioner Teglia If we were to relax that zoning to accormnodate the Density Bonus to try to accommodate this, we would be relaxing the parking requirements, the setback requirement, height requirements. John Hansen Within the zoning you go for variances. That's another issue, but you'd have to relax some of those issues. Sometimes you get down to Fire safety issues that's an issue that overrides everything. Commissioner Teglia So it would effect the quality of your product. John Hansen For that site to truly be able to deal with Inclusionary Housing and not that I would like to do this, what I'd like to do is do what we have and not be subject to the Inclusionary Housing or have some mitigations that will allow us to not suffer such a loss. If you are allowed to go to a higher density which is a R-3 you could go to a step condominium project and get a much higher density and better accommodate what the City is trying to achieve. Commissioner Teglia That type of density in the middle of a R-l ends up being out of character for that particular part. John Hansen In most situations it is. In our situation it's a R-2 but it is surrounded by a higher density type. A typical R -1 it's just not practical. Assistant City Attorney Johnson I would like to point out that there are very specific requirement that are mandated by State Law. If a project qualifies for the Density Bonus then the City must look at certain things like a reduction in the zoning requirements up to and including reduction in parking standards, minimum setbacks to accommodate the required minimum Density Bonus of25%. However, the majority of the projects under the Inclusionary Ordinance would not be subject to a mandated Density Bonus. They would be eligible for certain offsets provided in the affordable housing agreement negotiated between the City. Those offsets may include and Commission and City Council may consider it as part of the project approvals reduction in setbacks, parking standards, a waiver of percentages or all of fees for the project. The Ordinance itself provides for a waiver of administrative fees associated with the project. So there are other offsets available through the Ordinance to make these projects feasible for the project applicants. Commissioner Teglia This is doable but you end up relaxing a lot of quality requirements. I see it working better in certain areas. For example, parking requirelnents in Old Town. Applying the zoning appropriately to different parts of town. This City is different neighborhood to neighborhood. I have a probleln with the across the board application of the Inclusionary Program. I think we need to do something about affordable housing. It S :\Minutes\09200 1 RPC.doc Page 7 of 19 is advantageous to have police officers and firefighters living in the middle of our community. Especially in times of need, they are not commuting across our bridges which mayor may not be up. But there are a number of ways of applying this. Some of the other problems, above 4 units. Both Councilman Mullin and Penna brought up the issue that if you apply to four units or above where you have opportunities for 4 units people just come in and build 3 units and end up losing a possible unit. Thought that was going to be addressed. Has that been looked at. Norma Fragoso Actually staff continues to recommend the threshold of 4 units. It is our belief to exempt properties or developments of less than 10 units would not maximize the opportunity for production of affordable housing. We do have examples of successful projects that have been built with 3 or 4 units and an affordable unit. One that is under construction now is on Hillside (Ping Hsu). A owner came in with a3 unit project, being in a Redevelopment proj ect area, there was a requirement for less than 1 unit or the developer was given the option of providing an in-lieu fee comparable to the percentage of less than 1 unit. He determined that it would more cost effective for him to slightly redesign the project, shift it from 3 to 4 units and provide the 4th affordable unit at a below market rate where he could still recoup his cost for building the unit and not pay an out of pocket fee. Commissioner Teglia Are these rentals or for sale? Norma Fragoso Those are for sale. Commissioner Teglia Which category did that fall into, the low, low or the moderate Norma Fragoso That particular unit I don't recall ifit was 80 or 100 percent. The eligible would be household would be between 80 and 100 percent of median income so that would be moderate. Commissioner Teglia Another issue: most of the Inclusionary Ordinances are at 10 and 15 percent range we are going 25 percent. We have had 15 percent requirement in the Redevelopment area for years and it has been doable. We have a project before us that was originally a low density with 74 units but in order to get to 25 percent it went to 280 units. It is a high density condo product in an area where you have that type of housing. You couldn't accommodate that on a R-2 lot as Mr. Hansen was saying. That goes back to the applicability of properly applying this in certain parts of town. The other problem is the approach. I can see the rental market. I can see the for sale condo market. Actually I'm not quite sure I can. The proposal before us it seems they are not sure there is a market for the moderate income. Eventhough the units will be sold at a low price only qualified buyers would be allowed to buy at that price. Those are people with low incomes. They are still going to have a large mortgage, a large down payment,and taxes. It's highly doubtful that there you'll have much of a market. I think that is why you see these escape clauses in these development agreement. What I'm worried about there if we are going that way and we end up losing those affordable units because of the way it was approached. Weare not going to make our state mandated goals. I was given a memo out of San Jose. They were reviewing their Inclusionary policies. Their plan has been in affect since 1988. One of the things they found in their downtown area, which was a higher cost, there was no for sale product. In other areas of town, they were only generating 5 percent. I'm worried that at this level and these constraints that we might be stifling development. We might have the rules there but the developers are not going to come to the table and develop the housing at these rates. We know that lower rates are more paletable. The Chair brought up at the joint meetings the possibility of the East of 101 area. If we were to open a wider area of development and then do it at a lower percentage. We could still hit our targeted goals. I don't think we have done our homework in reading the staff report and remembering the Joint Session. Some of the examples I saw were from other communities-rural communities. The feasibility of the marketability of these units is important. How it will impact the neighborhoods. I think we are jumping too fast here. It is also important to note that while the State has set down these requirements, the teeth of enforcement SB910 failed this year. How many times in the past has the State mandated something and put requirements on the City, for instance, the garbage having 50 percent deferment. And then deadlines come and go and the State isn't there with the penalties. I would hate to jump ahead of the action I think the City would be better served at this point having a committee of residents, building officials, people from state, people with expertise that have seen this applied in other communities to discuss and apply properly to various areas within the City. I think this was the lazy approach. 25 percent max density across the board we are abdicating any good planning for the future. Commissioner Sim I appreciate the comments. I think one of the things about Inclusionary zoning is it is not a new thing. It has been tested in various communities and certainly has provided for needs in the communities that S :\Minutes\09200 1 RPC.doc Page 8 of 19 obviously we have also studied. Some of the cities were mentioned in the staff report. The thing about this 25 percent or what ever percentage number was put out there, I think it was clarified at that j oint meeting with City Council. Councilmember Mullin said that everyone of these projects are going to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council on a discretionary basis. We still don't lmow what percentage is going to work for our community. The philosophy of having affordable housing in our community is a real neat. Everyone is struggling with what is the correct way to proceed. Obviously we as a Commission express our concern about contemptualism and about the correct setting of each one of the particular neighborhoods that constitute our City. We will have discretion during each one of these reviews. I want to be open-minded about this. Set a certain level, playing field so to speak, give the development community, the building community and every other professional that constitute this industry that create this important housing element in our City that they have a consistent requirement that is formulated into their development fees and development proposals so that no one is inconsistently being treated or mishandled. So everyone has the same standard from the start. Weare concerned about the densities but that is one of our discretionary authorities as a Planning Commission to review and scrutinize each project for what they are. The thing that interested me was on each given project physically speaking there are constraints, fire code, all these other regulatory issues. We can pencil out and show a vision but it may not pencil out. Using the in-lieu ideas and being creative with planning you can come to a balance. The in-lieu idea is part of the formula, the overall equation of things. Mr. Hansen, for example, on his particular lot had a certain dwelling unit count to project into that lot, but because of various regulatory constraints, life safety, health issues and all the other requirements, he can only pencil out certain numbers. Added to that this affordable housing factor because of that we have this other opportunity, in-lieu and other possibilities of negotiating with the City. That formula has to be very precise and well crafted or else every developer that comes into our City will think that it is just a point of negotiation. So 25 percent or whatever percent that we come up with I would like to try it out. The East of 101 idea the staff report eluded to the year 2006 when it becomes available. I saw that the contract stops in the year 2001 but the year 2006 is when the City can start to rethink the General Plan for that area, correct City Attorney? Will you give us a little more definitive commentary on that please? Assistant City Attorney Johnson The MOU expired in August of this year, 2001. Under the MOU, if the City breaches any of the terms of the MOU in terms of prohibited land uses in that area. The City would have to pay all funds received for the Aircraft Noise insulation which is approximately 10 million dollars. Those reimbursement provisions will continue until August 2006. Commissioner Sim So after 2006 we do not have that obligation anymore. Assistant City Attorney Johnson We do not have that obligation at that point. Commissioner Sim Then the City Council and the City can look into that more carefully. Assistant City Attorney Johnson Right. At that point the City Council could direct staff to investigate possiblity. Commissioner Sim But on our side the ABAG requirement that 1300 unit plus or minus is 2006. Correct? Norma Fragoso That is correct. Chairperson Meloni: Commissioner Teglia has raised some interesting issues and Commissioner Sim has made some very good points also. I struggle with the 25 percent overall. Is there any way that there could be a sliding percentage depending on the area that we are talking about? Is that a possibility? Norma Fragoso Staff felt that the inconsistency could lead to many other problems. We tend to agree with Commissioner Sim and other developers would prefer to see a standard. In terms of a sliding scale, I believe there is flexibility in the Ordinance to be able to deal with situations that Mr. Hansen has eluded to where there are specific constraints. The Ordinance does provide the flexibility to look at a sliding scale. That would not be an option that would be ruled out. There are several ways that developments could be approached. One could be a reduction in square footage in size. There is nothing in the Ordinance that requires that an affordable unit be 3,000 square feet. In fact, we would be very happy with a 1,000 square foot affordable unit as long as the quality is there. Difference in size is not an issue not something that is prohibited by this Ordinance. Also, there are ways to look, as our City Attorney has mentioned, at variances. Particularly if there is the Density Bonus that is triggered reducing certain requirements. There are numerous ways to meet the obligation. Could be partial production of units, partial construct or partial fees. There are other amenities that can be provided should the S :\Minutes\09200 1 RPC.doc Page 9 of 19 Planning Commission or the City Council determine that there is a need for such amenities. Alternatively, the developer could provide down payment assistance for particular numbers of units. That would be slightly different than handing over a unit. The financing would be very different. There are numerous options that can provide the type of sliding scale flexibility that you have referred to. Chairperson Meloni My biggest concern is the quality of design and the quality of the product. Weare charged with that determination. It's how we feel about the project and what we think is good design. What you are saying is that when a developer comes to us with a project and he asks for a reduction in the 25 percent. We feel that in order to gain the quality that we are looking for we have the authority to then reduce that 25 percent. Norma Fragoso We are saying there is that flexibiltiy in the Ordinance. There is a give and take. Quality is not one of the factors that is negotiable. The flexibility of the Ordinance whether be the in-lieu fee or the size ofa unit or perhaps development variances would not affect the quality and standards that we expect of every unit and every development. And still every single development would come before the Design Review Board and Planning Commission and City Council. Their needing an Inclusionary requirement does not exempt them from those reviews if they were required in the first place. Chairperson Meloni Mr. Sparks, tonight we have heard a number of comments from the commissioners in regards to different aspects of this ordinance. I lmow we need to make a decision to forward to the City Council because we are just a recommending body. Is there any way that the City Council can be made aware of the concerns that we have, so that when they make there final decision they are aware that we have certain concerns about this Ordinance. Chief Planner Sparks Certainly, that's your role. If you want to recommend changes to the Ordinance then by all means do that. Commissioner Teglia There are two components to this-one is the 25 percent goal for the affordable housing. That's really not what I'm objecting to. The other part of this is that all development across the board is now required to be at max density. All developments we're requiring max density plus if they can achieve 25 percent you then throw in that Density Bonus. I don't think you can apply that properly across the board in town. There are zones in our City better able to accommodate those densities. There are others where it would be completely inappropriate. While we have some discretion, they are coming in with the mindset that they will start at max density and go for a bonus above that. Chairperson Meloni I understand that, but when the projects come before us to scrutinize them very closely as to the density and the design. Ifwe feel the density is too high we have the right to deny the project and ask them to go back and redesign the proj ect. I tend to agree with you with across the board but is 4 the number is 10 the number. If it's 10 would they build 8 and 9 units? We can play the semantics game forever. The City Council needs to be aware of concerns and where we are coming from. They will make the final decision. Commissioner Ochsenhirt Again this is the second time we have heard the Inclusionary Housing element. The last time was with the Joint meeting with the City Council. We are following lead from City Council and their wish. But we have a lot of questions My concern is not just for is this across the board citywide with zoning. I think we can work with that. But what are really asking the developer? Are we asking the developer to make good for us as a City the requirements that we are being asked by a State and Regional body to provide affordable housing. We need to look at that and understand that it needs to be a shared. It needs to be with the City, with the developer, with the landowner-all these people. In the end, especially our citizens. This all needs to work together. I hear that the City can work with the developer on a case by case basis, but does that really give the developer guidance when they come before the bodies here in our City of what we are going to expect or are they going to come with a hodge-podge and then we'll work it out with them. That's scary. That goes against planning and that's what we are all about here. Another issue is land cost and how that is going to be shared throughout the project. I truly believe that what happens when the developer or the builder looks at how we are going to spread this cost across the market rate housing units are going to take a big, huge bite in recovering those costs for the developer. That is the person who is going to be paying more that they would if this Inclusionary Housing element wasn't in that development. I think we need to look at the phase in of an Inclusionary program. Another thing is the product itself. Getting back to cost recovery for the developer. Are we going to start looking at their labor? Are we going to be asked to allow sub-labor into this development. I don't think so, but we may be asked to. We have to late the developer S:\Minutes\09200 1 RPC.doc Page 10 of 19 know that we want the best product for our City that is out there. I do agree with the regulation on the number of units. We don't have many parcels that are going to accommodate large projects. We are going to be doing landfill where we are going to have 4 units maybe 6 units 8 units. Think that's fine in allowing in-lieu options for 4 to 9 units. Once these units are built who is going to be selling them? Sounds like they are going to be turned over to the City to market. Do we really want to get into that business? Am I on track with that? Norma Fragoso Thank you for the opportunity to comment on that and another item. First, with regards to how these units are sold. The City's obligation in the most recent Development Affordable Housing Agreement that has been reached with our first test case of the 25 percent inclusionary requirement stipulates that the City shall provide to the developer a list of qualified income eligible buyers. So the City's obligation is to develop a waiting list and do some marketing and recruit those income eligible buyers who qualify for a conventional loan and they proceed to make their purchase the way that anyone else would make a purchase from that developer for those given units. If I may clarify with regard to the sharing of this obligation with the development community, that is something that staffhas taken very seriously and you may recall. The proposal is that the City shall take responsibility for the very, very low income units required by ABAG. The total number of those units is 277 and then the low and moderate income requirement of approximately 400 units was what is being asked of the development community. Staff feels this is an equitable contribution because we understand that with the high cost of development, it would be very difficult for developers to provide very, very low income eligible housing units. We are talking below 50 percent of median which is $15,000.00 to $20,000.00 a year income. Finally, there was testimony at the joint City Council and Planning Commission study session, that there are several ways that the costs are distributed in a development. There are several factors that influence cost-- the cost of the land, another the cost of the development. The third factor is the profit from that development for the investors. Finally the costs of those units. It is not just the land costs but a number of factors involved. Commissioner Ochsenhirt Thank you for clarifying the part about the sharing. I was not in any way indicating that we weren't willing to do our part as a City. But the part about our City becoming real estate agency and us ourselves producing a waiting list or as we have in the past when we have done affordability on housing that we turn it over to another assignee such as Mid-Peninsula. Will we be asking for their services or will it come right out of our City offices with the development of a waiting list. Norma Fragoso At this time, staff does not believe that we have the in-house staff and resources. In the past it has been our intention and we have in prior year worked with San Mateo County who administers a countywide program. They provide the services of the eligibility screening and counseling as you are well aware. Households at 80 percent of median income need hand holding, counseling and some education in order to make this work. It is not the City's intent to develop a real estate component or office. Staff is currently looking at policies and procedures for a first time hOlne buyers program. Those will be coming before City Council at a study session in the near future, the next couple of months. Your very timely question is one of the issues that will be addressed. But we still need to take situation seriously. Need to comply with regulations that are given to us-whether enforced or not. We need to do our best to comply with the regulations set forth. Vice Chairperson Romero The Residential Density Chapter Why are you putting a time element as an expiration for this? Seems to me that the buyer or the buyer's heirs would benefit significantly from having this expire after a period of time. I thought the goal was to retain affordable housing. Norma Fragoso That is correct. What happens is as one household acquires that unit there is that 30 year term. When they sell it they are required to sell it at a limited equity, a reduced resale price to maintain the affordability of that unit to another income eligible household. Assistant City Attorney Johnson The 30 year resale restriction is a roll over condition. First sale of the unit has a 30 year resale restriction and when that unit is sold it has an additional 30 year resale restriction. It is recorded against the property so that each income eligible purchaser is subject to the 30 year resale restriction. We wanted to make sure people could sell their property at market in the event that there were not income eligible purchaser available. We drafted the Ordinance so that if there are no income eligible purchasers available or they wanted to sell at market rate the price would be fixed and the excess equity would roll over into the affordable housing fund to find an additional affordable unit in the City. Vice Chairperson Romero So it doesn't expire, it's perpetual? S :\Minutes\09200 1 RPC.doc Page 11 of19 Assistant City Attorney Johnson Yes, it's perpetual. It keeps rolling over upon the resale of the unit. Vice Chairperson Romero Been thinking a lot about this. My first inclination was not to support it at all. The study session enlightened me. It was well presented. It gave me a lot of information to consider. When I came out of the study session my inclination was to go forward with the Inclusionary Housing 25 percent but not to support the Density Bonus, but maybe the Density Bonus is an appropriate offset. Primary goal is to create a level affordable housing so that people can afford to live and work in the City. We haven't created anything like that for many years. I see that this Inclusionary Housing Ordinance can create a level of control so that we will be assured that there will some affordable housing created in the City. Commissioner Teglia Only thing he would say is that this is a good start but there are a lot of different ways of applying this and there are other options out there. Norma referred to the first time buyer program coming up. My only problem is the blanket approach. If you end up putting the max density plus the density bonus say right in the middle of Baden Avenue where we already have a parking problem, it isn't going to fit. It wouldn't fit in the middle of Sunshine Gardens. Yet it does fit next to BART and CalTrain. You've looked at the Lindenville area for redevelopment. We talk about east of 101. We currently have an agreement with the Airport whether they like it or not come 2006 we have options out there. But we have a relationship with Airport, I would tend to think if somebody took some leadership and explained to them our housing needs. Keeping in mind that their Airport also needs a great deal from us and that might be a negotiable item. I think there is a better way of applying this to actually achieve our goals. I would hate to see us lose some opportunities here and keeping good planning in mind I would hate to see this applied inappropriately in the wrong neighborhoods. Just as we took time with the General Plan, this can be refined and implemented in a better way with less of an impact on our City and still achieving the affordability that we are looking for. I think it needs to be studied a little bit more. Don't think we are there yet with this particular ordinance. Chairperson Meloni Is there a way to craft a recommendation to the City Council that the basic concept we don't disagree on, but it is how it is enacted? The City Council needs to aware of what we have talked about tonight and the concerns that we do have. The basic concept is fine, but perhaps they need to look at the numbers, they need to look at the areas, they need to look at how it is enacted, they need to ask questions about what Commissioner Ochsenhirt has talked about and perhaps the thought of maybe holding back on this and having a study group or a committee to look at this a little further. Norma Fragoso The intent is to provide all the Commissioners comments to the City Council. We are taking notes feverishly so that we can present those in there entirety. Chief Planner Sparks One way or another we will get those comments to the City Council, but in your motion you if there are several items that you explicitly want to call and make those part of the record. We'll transmit them as part of the motion. The major consensus issues I think I heard the concern about the blanket approach, the need to maintain quality, consider phasing in the program, make sure there is some flexibility in the number and concern about how the sales program would work and the City's responsibility. Chairperson Meloni That pretty well covers it. Assistant City Attorney Johnson In terms of the actual motion to be made I believe that Chairperson Meloni was trying to find a way to both recommend adoption of the Ordinance and yet request that the City Council consider this further. Commissioner Teglia Perhaps here is an option, but the question is whether we can do it or if the Commission is interested. Could we simply say that we've got a good start here but the motion is to table the issue with a recommendation that the City Council consider forming a task force, a committee, with recommendations with commission members, residents, developers, union presentation all interested parties who might have a creative way of achieving this. SB910 is not here yet. Chairperson Meloni SB910 is not going away and there is another bill #260 that is like SB910. Commissioner Sim I support your idea of a sliding scale there is a formula to do that. Obviously with the 25 percent we are going to have the discretion to review these projects on a case by case basis. Chairperson Meloni When I spoke about the sliding scale, I think you can go through this town and pick out certain areas and divide the town into certain areas. Put the scale on whatever percentage you would want to be in that area. Certain areas like Sunshine Gardens and Brentwood area have restrictions and you're not going to build S:\Minutes\09200 1 RPC.doc Page 12 of 19 a 5-story unit out there. The way the ordinance is crafted now somebody could do that and we'd be pretty hard pressed to say we didn't want it there. Commissioner D'Angelo I hear more creativity tonight and I heard from the Commission at the last study session, but my fear is that this creativity is limited to this Commission. Commissioner Ochsenhirt I would like to concur with Commissioner D'Angelo. I was surprised at the way our meeting did end with City Council. It was pretty much black and white at that point. But I hoping after they hear us tonight that they will open up and be more creative in a solution to come up with an Inclusionary Housing Element. Commissioner D'Angelo I just want to thank the other Commissioners because I came in totally partisan. I'm against it. I don't like it. I can support creativity. I don't understand why it is not being brought to us in a creative way. My feelings at this point is not supportive. I'd prefer some other alternatives. Any of the alternatives suggested by the Commission seem to improve it. Commissioner Honan Once again the Planning Commission is a recommendation body to the City Council. However City Council decides to vote is up to City Council. I will not put words in their mouths and I don't think we should, but once again we do have authority to recommend to them. I do believe they will read it and make up their minds to best of their ability. Was I in full support of this-not really? I have to agree with the other Commissioners. I believe we need to start. I believe the developers need to lmow what the City is looking for and the way we wish to build our developments before they even approach our City. This is a benefit to the developer. We have the right to in what we recommend to City Council to bring up our creativity. That is where we should stand right now. Assistant City Attorney Johnson While the Commission's remarks have been enlightening, they are not really instructive in how to guide the City Council thus far. Chairperson Meloni How about if we recommend to the City Council that they consider our conditions, concerns and perhaps table their decision until they have time to put together a body that will look at it or have time to really think about what we brought up tonight and perhaps discuss it with us at another study session before they make a final decision. Assistant City Attorney Johnson That is an acceptable recommendation. What I think you are saying is that you have no objection to and Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as a concept but that you would recommend that the City Council conduct additional study sessions and form a j oint task force with business leaders, citizens and other members of the community in order to further study the issue before taking any action. At this point, I want to advise the Commission that we do have a moritorium in place that will expire right around Thanksgiving so the time period for this will be very compressed and there will be considerable changes. Chairperson Meloni I think you really need to take into consideration we may be compressed for time, but we can also extend the moritorium. Vice Chairperson Romero What about a Subcommittee to meet with members of the City Council? Chairperson Meloni Excellent suggestion, but the City Council needs to make that decision. I'd rather see us airing it tonight and being more cautious and being sure of what we are going to do so we don't have a backlash from it later on. Because if it doesn't work, we are going to take the heat from it. Norma, I think you have done an excellent job and this is no reflection on you, but we want to make sure of what we are recommending before we do it. Norma Fragoso It has been a group effort. Assistant City Attorney Johnson The City Council is going to need to know whether or not the Commission wants them to adopt the Ordinance and consider making an additional task force prior to adoption or whether or not the Commission at this point recommends that the City Council not adopt the Ordinance until these other actions take place. It would be helpful Motion Chairperson Meloni How about a recommendation that the Planning Commission acknowledges need for Inclusionary Ordinance however at this time we would encourage the City Council to not vote for approval of the Inclusionary Ordinance until such time as some type of study group is put together to further study this and in that bring up the comments that we brought up. S :\Minutes\09200 1 RPC.doc Page 13009 Second Commissioner Teglia Assistant City Attorney Johnson The recommendation of the Planning Commission is that while they recognize the need for inclusionary housing they are recommending that the City Council not adopt the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance until further studies are done in conjunction with residents etc in the community. Commissioner Teglia One more example is that I think our last study session was probably the most productive and informative that I have been a part of. We had a number of interests there. I would start there with those people they seem to be experts in this field. 7. Marbella Duc Housing Partners, Inc., applicant Thomas Callan, owner Gellert Blvd., westside between Westborough Blvd. & Rowntree Way GP-00-053, RZ-00-053, SA-00-053, PUD-OO-053 and EIR-00-053 Continued to 10/04/01 General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Subdivision Map, Planned Unit Development, Development Agreement and EIR to allow development of 280 residential units on the west side of Gellert Boulevard, between Westborough and Rowntree Way. Chief Planner Sparks gave the staff report. Chairperson Meloni asked Chief Planner Sparks if the plans received in their packets show the recommendations of the Design Review Board. Chief Planner Sparks Yes I do believe they do. Chairperson Meloni They also show recreation space. Chief Planner Sparks I will leave that to the applicant. Assistant City Attorney Johnson There has been one change to the Development Agreement since you have received. This was brought to my attention by Ms. Davidoff, the applicant's attorney. On page 18 of the final draft of the Development Agreement subsection B omitted from subsection B was after low income it should say with an average fixed sales price for those units of$219,180.00. Carol Ann Painter, Duc Housing Partners, applicant for the Marbella Projects, gave a presentation. We were before you on May 5th in a study session on this project. Hopefully that provided you with fundamental information as to what the project was all about. We have brought this forward to the Design Review Board and to my knowledge the plans currently implement all of the recommendations of the Design Review Board. There is a tot lot that they wanted and we are more than willing to put that in if it is not currently shown on the plans. There are two lawn areas in which we could provide that and defer to the staff as to exactly where they would like those facilities. As the developer we are committing to a tot lot and a recreation area inside the buildings, open space above the buildings, stepped retaining walls and have changed the plans to show the articulated roof lines as recommended by the Design Review Board and we stand ready to implement all their recommendation. We had a community meeting in July. The project has been reviewed by the City departments and have complied with all the requirements of all those departments to my knowledge. It is a different landuse from some of the surrounding landuses because of the site and the location of the site we can make this work. Site being preserved as passive open space but visual from up above and from the units themselves. There will be significant landscaping along the streets and within both the active and passive open space. Weare also proposing a public art display that will be visible from Gellert through the project entry. It will be on the project site and maintained by the homeowners. We are proposing a TDM program which is very rare for a residential project. But we believe with 280 units and 6 buildings we can come up with a preferred parking plan with a TDM coordinator on site. Ken Rhodie, KTGY Group, architect on the project. He gave a powerpoint presentation. Chairperson Meloni asked about the stepped retaining walls being terraced throughout the back of the properties and is the elevation terraced retaining. Ken Rhodie, KTGY Group, yes they are now terraced and each level is 10 feet. S :\Minutes\09200 1 RPC.doc Page 14 of19 Shirley Tang, 2406 Unwin Court. resident since 1976. That site has been proposed many times. Back in the 1980's they proposed to open the Courts up but that didn't pass. My concern is this massive project. Commission should take time to consider such a massive project. I understand with the City's concern with the housing, but I do want to point out a few things. One is parking. In our area parking has become very congested. This is going to add to that. Second, is with the schools. Westborough Jr. High already is using portables because of problems with enrollment height. Concerned with the congestion of schools. Third is the retaining walls because we are near a very big earthquake fault area. Although our hills have been relatively stable, I have noticed that on Junipero Serra Boulevard there are 3 areas from Hickey to Westborough that the City is building retaining wall. Feel this will be a problem down the road. On the top of the hill on all the housing there are no individual walls. There are common walls so if one comes down they all come down. The retaining walls should be a big concern not only to the City but also to the builders. Dale Morioka, 2408 Westchester Court, after seeing the presentation most of my questions were answered, but I do have a concern as to the impact to water, parking and utilities. We not too long ago had a problem with a drought, water rationing and so forth. Now we are adding more people into the City. Although the Westborough Water District may be gearing up to accommodate that what happens when we do have a drought. I lmow this is on a selfish basis. How will that affect us by having more population into the Westborough area. About parking, the streets in Westborough, especially in the court's area, were not designed to have a lot of parking. I agree that more and more people are driving so there are more cars. I commend the designers and the builders on the transportation issue, but that is focused on a lot of people working in the City where BART transportation goes. The train is the only basic transportation to go down south and many people work in the south. I don't know if that is going to help the impact of the traffic situation. Victor Chau, 2400 Westchester Court, at the edge of Westchester Court. Concern with the 2.25 parking ratio- that's ajoke. Guarantee that it is going to be more. Moved from San Francisco because of density and these 280 units remind me of San Francisco. Parking in San Francisco is next to impossible and in our neighborhood now people are parking in our court and going off in one car. I don't believe these cars belong to the residents in our neighborhood let alone on our street. One of the residents mentioned that one of his neighbors has 6 vehicles so I don't think it is realistic to expect that each of the units is only going to have 2 cars. The commute crunch is not going northbound. It is going the opposite direction. Take exception to having the view blocked of the box store. One rooftop versus another rooftop for a view is not a trade off. Has anybody addressed the issue of density, construction noise, dust -how long is this going to happen, over the years, to put up with dumpster trucks. Just got used to the airplanes flying over. What is going to happen to our streets? The pavement of those streets is deteriorating as it is. Is our quality of life going to go downhill over the next 10 years or forever? I haven't heard answered to. I have concerns with erosion. What about foot traffic? Is it a going to increase? Gabriel Arias, 2412 Williams Court, Concerns with the plan to build those 6 buildings. The first concern is the overflow of the schools and portable classrooms at Westborough because of the overflow of students. What is going to happen with the construction of another 280 units and the amount of people moving in? By experience, for the houses on Williams Court there is a problem with parking. Concerned with cutting into the hillside, that the retaining wall will not do its job. Problem with traffic in the area. Paul Braten, 2424 Williamsburg Court, Main concern is the erosion in the area. I have lived there since 1976 and there is water under the homes in crawl spaces. Looking on the hill from Gellert, I could see the water coming out of the side of the hill which causes erosion. Concerned with parking in the area. Where are all these kids going to go to school in the area when they are overcrowded now and some schools have closed. Merideth Turner, 2425 Williamsburg Court, concerned with the overcrowding of schools. There is already a problem where are all these other children going to go from these 280 units. The street is really going to look congested. Concerned with the erosion and the houses coming off the hill. The view will be taken away with these buildings. Chairperson Meloni Asked Ms. Turner if she went to the community meeting. Merideth Turner, 2425 Williamsburg Court, No I did not receive notice of the community meeting. Commissioner D'Angelo asked Ms. Turner what she would prefer to leave it vacant or lower density. Merideth Turner, 2425 Williamsburg Court, I could see a couple of houses. Just single houses wouldn't be bad. S :\Minutes\09200 1 RPC.doc Page 15 of 19 William Nack, 1153 Chess Drive, Foster City, speaking on behalf of the Building and Trades Construction Trades Council of San Mateo County. The Building Trades Council is in support of the Duc Housing project on Gellert Blvd. The developer made a commitment to the Building Trades Council that our highly skilled, decently paid construction workers receiving quality healthcare pension benefits would be employed to build this project. We are pleased that Duc Housing recognized the value that our construction workers bring to this project. The project represents hundreds of jobs for our members who live in the community of South San Francisco and the rest of San Mateo County. Request your support of the project so that Duc Housing can proceed without delay to the City Council. We look forward to working with the general contractor to make this project of the highest quality so that the City of South San Francisco can look upon this with pride. Brian Li, 2465 Liberty Court, Concerned with the ratio of firefighters and police for neighborhood. The traffic is my second concern. Regarding the pictures shown by the developer they are misleading. Would like that the Commission goes and takes a look at the site. Chairperson Meloni asked Ms. Painter how many people were at the community meeting. Carol Ann Painter, DUC Housing Partners, Approximately 21 people attended the community meeting out of 500 notices sent out. Worked with the City to develop the mailing list using the assessor parcel roles from the County. The flyers were sent along with color renderings and information on the project. There was also a subsequent meeting at Consuelo's home where about 27 additional people attended who were not able to attend the community meeting to discuss the project. Made our best effort to notify every surrounding property owner as well as all of the people who attended the last hearing were on the mailing list. In addition, on the photography the pictures taken were done by an independent objective, the EIR consultant as employed by the City of South San Francisco. We had no opportunity to doctor the pictures and make them look better than they would look We just used them as the powerpoint. Commissioner Honan At your community meeting, was a geologist or anyone who could help the community know about the erosion problem there? Carol Ann Painter, DUC Housing Partners, No not at the community meeting, but he, Frank Burloger from Burloger Geotechnical, is here this evening. My Civil Engineer who is also knowledgeable about the site was present at the community meeting. They are both here this evening to answer any questions. Commissioner Teglia Will you be able to control the parking because obviously the single bedroom units will have less parking than the 3 bedroom units. Carol Ann Painter, DUC Housing Partners The way the parking is currently set up is that there is sufficient parking spaces within the buildings and there is an opportunity to include a gate system for that group parking at the two levels which would be accessible to residents only. There is also 132 surface parking spaces. None of which are on Gellert or Westborough. They are contained within site on the private street system which would be available for guests. In addition there is neither pedestrian nor vehicular access from any of the adjacent neighborhoods on the site. We believe that the hill itself provides enough of a physical barrier that you would not be able to park on top and access your unit below. Commissioner Teglia Your parking will be assigned so you will be able to regulate that. Will your shuttles be able to accommodate CalTrain connection? Carol Ann Painter, DUC Housing Partners, Absolutely. The vision for the shuttle is we are making a commitment to the City to provide that shuttle and we will have a Transportation Demand Management Coordinator on the site helping to set up the program itself and the shuttle will go where the people need it~()g()~ m~RiEJ:D Commissioner Teglia asked the staff if they lmew from what height the view pictures were taken, 5-feet, 6- feet, 10- feet. Chief Planner Sparks No, we have no specific documentation of that. Commissioner Teglia Our independent consultant verified that those are accurate renditions? Chief Planner Sparks They have no axe to grind on this project so they have no interest in making it look better or worse than the best representation that they can make it. Commissioner Teglia How about the retaining walls? This is a windy area. Obviously during the construction they will have a great deal of wetting down to keep the dust from moving around. Will these retaining walls improve the stability of that slope? How's the landscaping irrigation going to be maintained? S:\Minutes\09200 1 RPC.doc Page 16 of 19 Chief Planner Sparks I can't speak to the integrity of the hill or wall. I will have to defer to the appropriate engineers for that. The hill proper is not to be irrigated. The landscaping for the retaining walls must be otherwise it is not likely that they will be worth anything. That is something that we will make sure of because the landscaping plan has to be to our approval. Commissioner Teglia Asked that the geotechnical consultant come up and answer some questions. Frank Burlager, Geotechnical Consultant, The retaining walls have not yet been designed but the step retaining walls would be designed as a reinforcing element to the hillside to provide support. It would be an improvement to the hillside. Commissioner Teglia What about the impact to the hillside and streets while the walls are being built? Frank Burlager, Geotechnical Consultant, The aspect of vibration depends on the actual type of retaining wall utilized. It will likely be a type of soil-enameled wall excavated in 4-5 vertical elements reinforcing anchors go back into the hillside and then another vertical set made and then shotcreted. The advantage to the soil-enameled wall is that it doesn't require a temporary back cut. The only cut that is made is a permanent cut so the bedrock is very soft. I wouldn't expect much vibration from the excavation process. The only drilling process is for the anchors. There will be some vibration with that but I don't expect that to be much of an issue for the residents up above. Chairperson Meloni Has the geotechnical report that has been submitted to us taken into count the redesign of this project from the original one that was done for the 74 units? FrankBurlager, Geotechnical Consultant, The geotechnical report is a preliminary report and once the project is approved by the City then we will proceed with a design level investigation. It would address the retaining walls, the watering of the hillsides and the foundations for the structures. Chairperson Meloni Called on Ron Calhoun from Wilsey Ham. The construction of the retaining walls would be shotcrete walls is that correct? Ron Calhoun from Wilsey Ham, Yes. Chairperson Meloni The walls would be how high, 10 foot intervals? Ron Calhoun from Wilsey Ham, Maximum 10 foot intervals and the highest wall in the back is 35 feet. The biggest rise would be no more than 10 feet with a 4 foot landscape area. Frank Burlager, Geotechnical Consultant, The vertical drainage wells are expected to be 3 feet in diameter located in the soil enameled anchors to be scued to avoid the watering wells. Chairperson Meloni Will the watering wells be at the top of the slope or are they going to be intermediately through the steps in the wall? Frank Burlager, Geotechnical Consultant, They wouldn't be at the top of the slope. The access to the drill rig would be on one of the existing benches and would expect that would be the middle bench. Vertical shafts would be drilled and filled the rock and the horizontal wells would drain. Chairperson Meloni You are going to put in one row of wells? Sounded like a series of wells intermediately spaced and a distance between them. It sounded like they were going to be along that whole hillside. Is that in conjunction with a single wall or was that thought of with the multiple walls. Frank Burlager, Geotechnical Consultant, The watering wells will be independent of the retaining walls. The intent is to draw down the water level within the hillside and the retaining walls are more of a surface feature. Chairperson Meloni Both of you gentlemen feel very comfortable that these walls will hold up that hillside. Frank Burlager, Geotechnical Consultant, Absolutely. Chairperson Meloni I take it that DUC Housing will accept responsibility for any damaged that is incurred because you are going to have to do a lot of grading to set up these walls. The neighbors have a concern about the stability of the hillside. Frank Burlager, Geotechnical Consultant, The soil-enameled walls are well proven and commonly used in excavation of parking structures and have used them on a number of sites and have never had a problem. Commissioner Sim On the soils report was there an evaluation of the current slope? Frank Burlager, Geotechnical Consultant, It is 1 ~ to 1 slope. Commissioner Sim There is an industry standard that says a certain percentage slope allows you for less erosion. Can you tell us more of that information? S :\Minutes\09200 1 RPC.doc Page 17 ofl9 Frank Burlager, Geotechnical Consultant, Erosion relates to the slope ratio, slope height between benches and the type of soil and planting to prevent erosion. Commissioner Sim What mitigation measures do you have here? I was looking for the cross section or any information to get a visual and topographic changes of where the property line really is. Frank Burlager, Geotechnical Consultant There were 2 cross sections in our report that went from the top of the hill down across the site. The retaining walls that are now proposed were not shown on that because the concept of the 4 increment retaining wall with 10 foot maximum wasn't developed at the time of our report. Commissioner Sim That will stabilize an ace component of the entire profile. I'm still looking for the entire mitigation, entire design of how you are going to keep the natural erosion and other things that might happen. Frank Burlager, Geotechnical Consultant The biggest erosion that we see up there relates to the ice plants. The soils are sandy and the plants are too heavy and pull away. Lack of maintenance and the ice plants are the main problem right now. The appropriate planting will be erosion resistant. Ron Calhoun, Wilsey Ham, A soils engineer will make his recommendations, a landscape architect coming up with the proper planting, a civil engineer which is our role making sure that the water is taken care of in the appropriate fashion. There will be a complete redo of the whole drainage system that exists up there now as well as the benches and the cleaning up of the slopes. Weare going to use modern standards and knowledge to prevent erosion. I don't anticipate any problems. Chairperson Meloni The front retaining walls look like you are going to break those down into 4 foot high walls. Ron Calhoun, Wilsey Ham, They're a maximum of 11 feet total. We were asked to terrace those front walls also and they will be a maximum of 5 feet high. Chairperson Meloni What is the finish on these walls? Ron Calhoun, Wilsey Ham, It's going to be a keystone type of wall. I don't believe that the color has been determined yet. Chairperson Meloni What is the finish on the back walls? Ron Calhoun, Wilsey Ham, It's going to be shotcreted and some type of panel put on them and a sculpted pattern of some sort. Chairperson Meloni Behind the retaining walls on the hillside are you going to use a mirror drain system? Frank Burlager, Geotechnical Consultant, Yes. Chairperson Meloni None of the drawings we have shown any of that. Would have been nice to have elevations to show what the walls and the front of the place were going to look like. The side views don't do justice to the aesthetic value. What we had for material doesn't depict any of that to us. Vice Chairperson Romero's concerns were: Why the traffic signal being put in Gellert and King is in the EIR when the signal will be located in Daly City. He questioned it the equipment would go on the roof, since the drawings did not reflect those plans. Chief Planner Sparks Daly City has not responded to the comment on the traffic signal. Mrs. Painter clarified that there will not be any equipment on the roof. The heating and air conditioning equipment will be within the building. Commissioner Sim and project architect discussed the design and color palette of the project. Commissioner Sim was concerned with the LOS chart reflecting no change being that Marbella is a large project. He requested that the traffic consultant confirm that these intersections will not change. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the LOS is a percentage and it does remain the same on some intersections. There is an increase in the level of delay on most of the intersections, which causes significant backup. The Commission expressed concerns with the project because of the engineering report, and the traffic analysis. Development Review Coordinator Harmon recommended that the project be continued for the following reasons: · The geotechnical report is inaccurate. · The tentative subdivision map layout of the lots could create a problem because the slope is not included as part of the lots. He recommended that the tentative map be redesigned to run the lots to the top of the S:\Minutes\09200 1 RPC.doc Page 18 of19 hill in order to secure the maintenance of the slope and access to Westborough Boulevard has to be shown on the map. . There needs to be a statement frOln the Westborough Water District to supply water for the project. . There is no statement from the City of Daly City agreeing to accommodate the sewage for such a large proj ect. . The City Engineer does not support the installation of a traffic signal at Westborough and Olympic Drive. There is a concern about installing a traffic signal at King and Gellert Boulevard because it is not within City limits. There is no way of making Daly City construct a signal there and making them maintain it. . Designs of buildings D and E and the drive access may result in a conflict with the vehicles turning in and out. . The Engineering conditions do not adequately support the project. Motion Te2:lia / Second Honan: to continue the item to October 4, 2001. Unanimously approved. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 8. Items from Staff . Reminded the Commission to let Patti Cabano know who would attend the appreciation conference. . Staff is considering a study session on the Housing Element for October 18th for the Commission. Does the Commission want it to be at the regular meeting or have a special meeting noticed earlier? The Commission decided to have it at 6:30 p.m. 9. Items from Commission . Commissioner Ochsenhirt notified the public that El Camino at Westborough and Chestnut is being restriped. He invited everyone to Day in the Park . Commissioner D' Angelo mentioned that the community meeting on the McLellan extension with a proposed two-lane road. · Chairperson Meloni noted that he would not be present for the next two meetings. 10. Items from the Public None ADJOURNMENT 11:41 D.m. Motion Sim / Second Honan to adjourn. ~(:~~ h mas C. Sparks Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco Michael Planning Commission City of South San Francisco NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting October 4,2001, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA. S:\Minutes\09200 1 RPC.doc Page 19 of 19