Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-03-2005 Minutes ~'t\\ SAN ;, c~f::> .. - -h ~.:i9" b . ~1' h:'1' 0;:-. ~,-.o. -' _,WI ~ ~ .... ." ~"'-"" () ;;..,c- ~, 'c;; t:: ITfI~'"" d'" .-,;1:1.:.1 n u~.~Jo ~~v ~~ C4iI-;;;~\.~ MINUTES November 3, 2005 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL PRESENT: TAPE 1 7:30 D.m. Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Prouty, Commissioner Romero, Vice Chairperson Zemke and Chairperson Teglia ABSENT: Commissioner Sim STAFF PRESENT: Planning Division: Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner Steve Carlson, Senior Planner Mike Lappen, Senior Planner Bertha Aguilar, Admin. Asst. II Barry Mammini, Senior Building Inspector Peter Spoerl, Assistant City Attorney Dennis Chuck, Senior Civil Engineer Brian Niswonger, Assistant Fire Marshall Building Division: City Attorney: Engineering Division: Fire Prevention. CHAIR COMMENTS Chairperson Teglia noted that on November 4th the Seniors are having a holiday boutique all day and invited everyone to attend. AGENDA REVIEW No Changes Chairperson Teglia noted that item #7 should be moved before #5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR None 1. ADDroval of Regular Meeting Minutes of June 16, Julv 21, August 18, and SeDtember 15, 2005. 2. Use Permit/Multi Tenant KSW PROPERTIES/Owner Diana Barnard/Applicant 1333-1361 Lowrie Ave P05-0139 (Continue Off Calendar) Use Permit allowing re-establishment of warehouse and distribution uses generating in excess of 100 average daily vehicle trips, outdoor overnight truck storage with 24 hour operation. 3. Larkspur Landing-Hilton Garden Inn PM SSF Landing Hotel Co/Owner Larkspur Hospitality &. Mngmt./ Applicant 670-690 Gateway Blvd P05-0138: PM05-0004 Tentative Parcel Map to divide the existing lot into two lots in accordance with SSFMC Title 19. Planning Commission Meeting of November 3,2005 Motion Honan / Second Prouty to approve the Consent Calendar. Approved by unanimous voice vote. PUBLIC HEARING 4. Park Station Lofts SummerHill Homes/applicant Harmonious Holdings/owner 1410 EI Camino Real P03-0092: AHA03-0001, GPA03-0001, ND03-0001, PM03-0003, RZ03-0001, SA03-0001, UP03-0016 & ZA03-0003 Use Permit to construct a 99-unit condominium complex over a podium garage on a site located in the SSF BART Transit Village Zoning District in accordance with the SSFMC 20.27 and 20.81; General Plan amendment to change the designation of the lot owned by Bart/SamTrans from "Public" to mixed "High Density Residential and Commercial"; Rezoning request to reclassify a portion of the lot owned by BART/SamTrans and located in the Planned Commercial Zone from P-C-L to Transit Village Zone in accordance with the SSFMC 20.87; Tentative Parcel Map to merge two lots into a single parcel in accordance with SSFMC Title 19; Tentative Subdivision Map to create 99 condominium units in accordance with SSFMC Title 19; Affordable Housing Agreement in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.125 and Negative Declaration ND03-0001 Public Hearing opened. Senior Planner Lappen presented the staff report. Elaine Breeze, Summerhill Homes, gave a brief history of the development company and referenced some of the projects in the area. She added the future residents will use BART and can also take advantage of the Oyster Point shuttle. She also pointed out that they are not seeking the 25% density bonus and that the City will be receiving $300,000 from C/CAG through this transit oriented development. Check Tang, MVP, noted that the site is adjacent to the BART station as well as adjacent to the adjacent neighborhood. He added that the Hetch Hetchy channels have been under utilized and they hope to link the project with the future linear park. He explained how they revised the project to flow easier with more open space and responded to the neighborhoods concerns by having a shadow study done. They shadow study found that the impact was greater on the Park Station Lofts project from Camino Court than the other way around. Mr. Tang noted that the fire truck and moving truck access have been moved off of EI Camino Real to mitigate any conflict with traffic on the major thoroughfare. He noted that they responded to the DRB comment with regard to the trash pickup and have worked with the Scavenger Company to mitigate those concerns. Paul Lettieri, Landscape Architect, noted that they have included paving materials and fountain elements to the project. He pointed out that the Design Review Board suggested changing the trees along BART Drive from evergreen to a smaller species such as Japanese Maples. He pointed out that they have included a spiral Barbeque area, a Bocce Court near the Hetch Hetchy canal with lavender plants surrounding them, access to the future linear park, and bamboo has been added to screen the transformer. Doug Reynolds from SAMCEDA and William Nack from the Building and Construction Trades Council spoke in favor of the project. They commended South San Francisco for being proactive in building a transit oriented development along EI Camino Real and noted that this would create jobs for many union employees. Commissioner Romero questioned how Summerhill Homes purchased the BART/SamTrans property if it should have been offered to other government agencies before selling to a developer. Assistant City Attorney Spoerl noted that he will research this and have a response to the Commission at the next meeting. Commissioner Romero noted that this property should have been acquired to continue the linear park extension. Commissioner Romero was concerned with the tandem parking and how it could become problematic in the future. He questioned if there was a shared parking agreement with BART. Senior Planner Lappen noted that the City did s:\MlvclAtes\Flvc~Lluct MlvclAtes\2005\ii-03-o5 RPG MlvclAtes,ctot p~ge 2 ofT Planning Commission Meeting of November 3, 2005 not encourage the developer to pursue a shared parking agreement with BART and BART may not have entered into such an agreement. He added that the parking requirements are the same as the Camino Court development and it has worked for them for several years. Vice Chairperson Zemke was concerned with only 5 parking guest parking spaces for a 99-unit project. Commissioner Prouty echoed Vice Chairperson Zemke's concerns with regard to the guest parking. Commissioner Honan noted that parking may be an issue but noted that the project is a Transit Oriented Development and it is meant to allow residents to take publiC transportation to and from work. She questioned what the price range for the units would be. Ms. Breeze noted that the below market rate homes would be selling for $100-$300 thousand; 1 bedroom units $400-$500 thousand and the 2 bedroom units from $500-$600 thousand dollars. She added that these amounts include the parking stalls. She also pointed out that BARTjSamTrans went through a public hearing process and adopted resolutions to allow Summerhill to purchase the .74 acres. Commissioner Prouty questioned if the project would be constructed in phases or in one phase. Ms. Breeze noted that the project is scheduled to be constructed all at once without multiple phases. Chairperson Teglia stated that the out of the two parcels, one will remain open space because it cannot be built on and the other is going to be built on. He pointed that parking is unacceptable on EI Camino Real and suggested that the applicant look at the topography and consider moving the setback 3-5 feet back from EI Camino Real. Motion Prouty j Second Honan to continue the Public Hearing to November 17, 2005. Moved before item #5 under Agenda Review. 7. Appeal of Chief Planner Determination Gibbs, Adele L/Owner George Corey/ Applicant 344 Victory Ave POS-0142:APOS-000l (Continued from October 6, 2005) Appeal of the Chief Planner's Determination to require a use permit for 344 Victory Avenue in accordance with SSFMC 20.90.020. Public Hearing opened. Assistant City Attorney Spoerl noted that he has been actively working as an advocate between staff and the appellant and cannot act as the advisor to the Commission. He suggested that the Commission conduct the hearing and if the Commission has questions, they be stated for the record and handled by another Attorney. Chairperson Teglia noted that the Commission should have adequate legal counsel at the meeting and in the future arrangements should be made to have someone else present. Senior Planner Carlson presented the staff report. George Corey representing Mr. & Mrs. Gibbs of Taylor Made. He noted that the owners of Taylor Made have been in the City for many years. He noted that they have never sought to do anything less than the City requirements. He noted that the issues on the project have been with regards to the parking. He noted that although the City requires 27 spaces they are providing 29 and City staff felt that the dimensions of the parking stalls were not provided. He pointed out that the dimensions were within the City's code. He noted that City staff noted that the Planning Division's policy is that no-one can back onto the street; therefore stalls 21, 22, 6 and 7 are not valid parking spaces. Mr. Corey noted that this does exist as a policy. He noted that some of the properties around the area have spaces that make it impossible to make a turnaround on the property without backing out onto the s:\MlvclAtes\FlvcClLlul> MlvclAtes\2005\H -03-05 RPC MlvclAtes.l>oc PClge 3 ofT Planning Commission Meeting of November 3,2005 street and felt that there was discrimination on not allowing this on their property. He questioned why they could not get an approval like other businesses in the area. He felt that the plans were unfairly presented to the Commission. He noted that staff felt the landscaping was not met. Paul Polletti noted that his father used to own 108 South Linden. His father sold the property because he was told automotive would not be allowed at the site because it did not meet the parking, and a year later an automotive use was in that location. He noted that he has had to comply with a gauntlet of requirements to convert a warehouse to an automotive use even though his building is surrounded by automotive uses. Public Hearing closed. Senior Planner Carlson noted that a number of stall spaces meet standards and a number do not meet standards. He also noted that the applicant's representative noted that there is nothing in the code that prevents backing out onto the street. He added that the Commission has not had a commercial parking lot that involved cars backing out onto a heavily traveled street like Victory Avenue and staff has not made this recommendation to the Planning Commission before. He noted that they applicant needs to ask the Commission through a Use permit to reduce the parking requirements to the 18 spaces they can provide rather than the 27 spaces. He pointed out that the applicant has had the option of being before the Commission via the Use Permit process and have chosen another option. Senior Planner Carlson continued that they need to comply with City standards. He noted that the examples given of other sites may have not required more parking spaces or the prior use was the same use as the one going into the building at the time the business license was filed and some may have slipped through which is not what the Commission wants to follow. Chief Planner Sparks pointed out that the Poletti family is very active in the community and although Mr. Polletti has a lawsuit involving the wet weather program and Planning is not involved in this. He noted that Planning staff strives diligently to treat all applicants equally and there is no retaliation against anyone. Commissioner Giusti asked if the newly purchased property has to meet code requirements. Senior Planner Carlson noted that there is no requirement that the proposed new owner has to bring the building up to code. When occupancy is changed or a Tenant Improvement is done there are requirements that the building has to meet in terms of Building Codes and Fire Codes. He pointed out that this use is generating more than 100 average daily vehicle trips and this triggers the Use Permit process and parking exceptions. Chairperson Teglia noted that the issue with the application is if it triggers the Use Permit or not. Senior Planner Carlson noted that the applicant has not made this case. The code is clear, which is not in dispute, but they think the parking requirement should be less. He further noted that if the parking would be met and not generating more than 100 daily vehicle trips, they would not need a Use Permit. Mr. Corey replied noted that they have complied with the code and that staff's objection is not in the code, but a policy. He noted that staff should admit that they have not followed the code and should admit it to the Commission. He noted that they met all the standards and asked that requirements not be imposed on them that the City does not impose on others. Commissioner Prouty empathized with the applicant. He noted that the Police Department looks at what the potential for accidents are and are advised to reduce parking because of these issues. He asked why the applicant was not willing to file a Use Permit. He noted that the Commission does not want to set precedence and allowing reduced parking without the benefit of a Use Permit. Mr. Corey noted that they complied and reiterated that staff has stated their own views. Chairperson Teglia noticed if there was sufficient space on the property that the applicant could add more spaces inside and change the direction of spaces 7, 8. 21 & 22. Senior Planner Carlson noted that 7 and 8 would not work because there is inadequate back up and they would have to put more spaces inside units. He pointed out that the most recent plan filed with the appeal shows more tandem spaces inside the unit, but would not encourage that spaces back out onto Victory or South Maple. He noted that there are few issues that are left to s:\MlvclAtes\Flvc~Lluct MlvclAtes\2oo5\ii -03-05 RPC MlvclAtes,ctot Nge 4 ofT Planning Commission Meeting of November 3, 2005 the discretion of staff. Chairperson Teglia questioned the landscaping issues at hand. Senior Planner Carlson noted that it is an issue when if they apply for the Use Permit because they will be required to bring the landscaping up to code. The Cultural Arts Fund was put in place for those that could not comply would be able to offset the requirement by contributing to this fund. He added that the applicant had counted the landscaping in the public right-of-way but cannot be credited towards their obligation because it is only what is on their property. Senior Planner Carlson noted that the Commission may grant a Variance to reduce the setbacks and alleviate the landscaping in order to allow them to provide additional parking parallel to stalls 22, 4 and 6. Chairperson Teglia asked Mr. Corey what he was asking of the Commission. Mr. Corey asked that the Commission grant the right to get their Business License. They will apply for Sign Permit and include landscaping to the Design Review Board. He also asked that the Commission can reduce the parking by 3-4 spaces. Chairperson Teglia asked if the Commission does not have the legal mechanism to decrease the parking. Senior Planner Carlson noted that the Commission does not have that mechanism at this time, but can do it under the Use Permit or Variance process. He added that the excess of 100 daily vehicle trips is also triggering the Use Permit and the applicant is not disputing that. Mr. Corey noted that provided information of all the companies and their trips. Staff has not required this of anyone else. This standard has not been applied to any business. Senior Planner Carlson noted that traffic studies show that businesses are triggering the excess of 100 ADT and that is why Use Permits go before the Commission for review. Commissioner Romero noted that based on the testimony he felt that the Commission cannot overturn the Chief Planners determination. Chairperson Teglia encouraged the applicant to work with staff and return with the Use Permit application. Motion Romero / Second Zemke to deny the appeal and uphold the Chief Planners determination. They directed the applicant to apply for the Use Permit to reduce the parking. 5. Alexandria Real Estate Equities/applicant Alexandria Real Estate Equities/owner East Jamie Court P02-0042: DA05-0001 (Continued from October 20,2005) Development Agreement for East Jamie Court. Principal Planner Kalkin presented the staff report. Rob Kain, Alexandria Real Estate, noted Alesandria they operates 5 R & D facilities in South San Francisco. He pointed out that they are committed to high quality development in the City. Commissioner Prouty questioned why the development agreement was done for 10 years. Principal Planner Kalkin noted that the developer intends to develop the site as soon as they find a tenant. She pointed out that development agreements are for a minimum of 10 years. Vice Chairperson Zemke noted that typically he would not like to wait 10 years for completion of the bay trail improvements. Chairperson Teglia questioned if the Commission can add a requirement that they construct the Bay Trail improvements by a specific date. Principal Planner Kalkin noted, yes they can do this. Mr. Kain asked if they can work with staff to put together a schedule. Principal Planner Kalkin noted that this language will be taken to the Council as a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Chairperson Teglia recommended that the Commission adopt resolution with the additional recommendation that s:\MlvclAtes\Flvc~Llzel> MlvclAtes\2005\ii-03-o5 RPC MlvclAtes.l>ot p~ge 5 ofT Planning Commission Meeting of November 3,2005 the public improvements for the Bay Trail be required on a specific schedule prior to building permits. Assistant City Attorney Spoerl noted that the Commission can also recommend that the City Council approve the development agreement as it is drafted with the caveat that the developer returns within one year with an amendment that will include a schedule for the Bay Trail completion. Motion Prouty / Second Giusti adopting resolution 2464-2005 recommending the City Council amend the Development Agreement as proposed, with the stipulation that the applicant return within the coming year to amend the Development Agreement to address fast tracking the Bay Trail improvements. 6. James H. Richardson/applicant Alexandria Real Estate Equities/owner 249 East Grand Ave. P05-0019: DR05-0043, EIR05-0001, PM05-0002, PUD05-0001, TDM05-0001, UP05-0005 &. DA05- 0004 Study Session to introduce a proposed phased development consisting of four officejR&D buildings totaling approximately 534,500 SF, 5,500 SF of ancillary commercial space, a 4 level parking garage and related landscaping improvements on a 15.75 acre site. Entitlements include: Use Permit (UP05-0005), Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM05-0001), Development Agreement (DA05-0004), Tentative Parcel Map (PM05-0002) and Planned Unit Development permit (PUD05-0001) Public Hearing to accept oral comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR05-0001) assessing the potential impacts of the proposed project. Public Hearing opened. Principal Planner Kalkin presented the staff report. Bob Kain, Alexandria, presented the design team. Nial Malcolmson, Dowler Gruman and Rich Sharp, Suzman & Cole Architects, presented the project to the Commission. Mr. Malcolmson pointed out that the project could be phased and they have made several improvements to the project. He added that they tried to orient all the buildings towards the central landscape spine. Mr. Sharp pointed out that the project would have a common drop off area and the plaza space allows for employees to enjoy the open areas of the project. Access for the site would be from East Grand Avenue, Littlefield Avenue and the Cabot Road cul-de-sac. He further pointed out that the Design Review Board asked for increased planting along the parking garage as well as clustering the landscaping along the street. Public hearing continued. 7. Appeal of Chief Planner Determination Gibbs, Adele L/Owner George Corey/Applicant 344 Victory Ave P05-0142:AP05-0001 (Continued from October 6, 2005) Appeal of the Chief Planner's Determination to require a use permit for 344 Victory Avenue in accordance with SSFMC 20.90.020. Moved before item #5 under Agenda Review ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS s:\MlvclAtes\Flvc~Llzel> MlvclAtes\::e005\ii-03-o5 RPC MlvclAtes.l>ot p~ge b ofT Planning Commission Meeting of November 3, 2005 ITEMS FROM STAFF Chief Planner Sparks asked the commission if they wanted to keep the January 5, 2006 meeting on schedule or cancel it. The Commission concurred in holding the meeting on January 5,2006. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION Commissioner Honan reminded everyone to vote on Tuesday, November 8. She also announced that she is a proud grandmother. Commissioner Prouty noted he would be absent on the 17th of November. Chairperson Teglia complimented staff on keeping the applicant for the Fairfield project actively involved in honoring their original agreements. Chief Planner Sparks noted that staff has continued to work with the developer to make it acceptable to the Commission and Council. Commissioner Prouty and Commissioner Romero noted that the subcommittee's meeting with Myers is progressing and the developer has made some changes per the subcommittees discussions. ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC None ADJOURNMENT 10:20 P.M. Motion Sim / Second Romero to adjourn the meeting. Approved by unanimous voice vote. ~c~~ Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco ~-Chr:=~ Planning Commission City of South San Francisco TCS/bla s:\MlvclAteS\Flvc~Lluct MlvclAtes\2oo5\ii-03-o5 RPC MlvclAtes,ctot p~ge TofT