Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-01-2005 Minutes ~'t\\ SAN p. ~Co~._~~~ ~~. , ~--- '\\ t; t: flU' ',"'''''' H'\--,-!- () c..>~.~o "'~J"--~ ~~ C>: ~- ~ 4lIFOR~\. MINUTES December 1, 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, Commissioner Sim, Vice Chairperson Zemke and Chairperson Teglia ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Planning Division: Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Allison Knapp, Consultant Planner Bertha Aguilar, Admin. Asst. II Peter Spoerl, Assistant City Attorney Dennis Chuck, Senior Civil Engineer Sergeant Alan Normandy, Planning Liaison Brian Niswonger, Assistant Fire Marshall City Attorney: Engineering Division: Police Department: Fire Prevention. CHAIR COMMENTS AGENDA REVIEW Chief Planner Sparks noted that Park Station Lofts was being continued because the information the Commission requested was not ready at the time of distributing the packets. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Club Marakas (formerly Welte's Bar) Pasco, Albert & Barbara/Owner Welte's Bar/Applicant 254 Grand Ave. P03-0006 UP03-0001 12 Month Review - Use Permit to allow live indoor entertainment at an existing cocktail lounge in the Downtown Commercial (D-C-L) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.26 and 20.81. 2. 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 (Continue to December 15, 2005) 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 BartlSamTrans from "Public" to mixed "High Density Residential and Commercial"; Rezoning request amend land use map(TV-01) and height zone map Planning Commission Meeting of December 1, 2005 (TV-02) 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 Motion Prouty I Second Sim to approve the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARING 3. Terrabay Phase III Terraces Myers Development - Applicant I Owner San Bruno Mountain P04-0117: DAA04-0001, EIR04-0002, GPA04-0001, PP04-0001, SPA04-0001, ZA04-0004 Project Description: Construction of a mixed-use development on 21 acres of land at the corner of Sister Cities Boulevard and Bayshore Boulevard in South San Francisco. The proposal includes 351 residential units in high-rise (180 units), townhome and loft configuration, a 295,000 sq. ft. office / or 300 room hotel I or an optional180 unit condominium and 357,500 sq. ft. retail. The 25.61 acre Preservation Parcel is north of the project site and was conveyed to San Mateo County on August 11, 2004. The Preservation Parcel is included in San Bruno Mountain County Park and is designated as permanent open space. The Preservation Parcel is not a part of the project. Public Hearing opened. Consultant Planner Knapp presented the staff report and clarified that 23 inclusionary housing units would be provided offsite. She also added that page 1-3, Figure 2 of the Specific Plan inadvertently identifies the Mandalay Pointe Project and the Peninsula Mandalay Project as part of Phase II but is part of Phase II. Chairperson Teglia questioned if the offsite low income housing is above the previously approved offsite housing Phase II units. Consultant Planner Knapp noted that it is not. She added that at the Council subcommittee meeting it was agreed that if the application complies with the inclusionary housing ordinance then excusing the obligation for 32 moderate income units could be considered. Recess called at 7:53 p.m. Recalled at 7:55 p.m. Jack Myers, Myers Development presented the project with Norm Garden from RTKL Associates. They went into detail on the types of lifestyle retail uses that would be in the project, as well as, the layout of the project. Nixon Lam, SFIA office of Planning, was present with Erick Ganong, Airport Noise Officer. They noted that the staff report was unclear if noise insulation materials were used for the homes built in Phase I and Phase II and if they were to use them in Phase III residential units. He noted that these appear to be addressed in the FEIR. They presented a schematic of the over flights through the project area. They noted that about 45 of the 95 that fly over the project area depart from San Francisco. Mr. Lam explained the handout. He added that the number of calls specifically from the Terrabay project area show that the residents of South San Francisco are annoyed by the noise despite the efforts taken by the City. Mr. Lam referenced a letter dated October 27, 2003 from City Attorney Steve Mattas that showed through a 1999 survey how unsatisfied SSF residents were with the aircraft noise. Mr. Lam requested that if SSF approves the inclusion of residential dwellings in Terrabay Phase III that the City should require the developer to provide the avigation easements for those homes. The easements would provide the extra disclosure making it clear to prospective homebuyers that the development is in close proximity to a major international airport. Mr. Lam also requested that the following language be incorporated into the Specific Plan: "Residential land_uses in the Terrabay Specific Plan area is subject to overflights including aircrafts from SFIA located within two miles of the Specific Plan Area. The Specific Plan area may be subject to impacts s:\MiVCL{tes\Fivc~Lizec\ MivcL{teS\2005\:12-0:1-05 RPC MivcL{tes,c\oc p~ge 2 of b Planning Commission Meeting of December 1, 2005 associated with airport operations and may be considered a nuisance to individuals who are sensitive to noise. Therefore development in the planning area may be subject to additional requirements related to noise and safety such as additional height restrictions and noise insulation measures affecting construction and avigation easements." Commissioner Romero questioned if the departure flights take off could take off further to the bay rather than over the residential areas. Mr. Ganong noted that the port departure is the runway going out towards Oakland. It is restricted to 1600 feet before they make the left turn. They do not go out further because it keeps the noise near the airport. The shoreline departure goes to west and then goes east bound and is used during adverse weather conditions. Commissioner Romero asked if the reconfiguration of the runways was still being planned. Mr. Ganong noted that it was shelved after the 9/11 and they wanted to make sure the air industry was going to get back on its feet again. Commissioner Prouty noted that the airport was granted easements and felt that the avigation easements being requested did not require the airport to provide insulation for the new homes. He also noted that the airplanes are supposed to make a right turn before they get to the freeway but understood that the turn is not being made fast enough. Mr. Ganong noted that this is the case and if the shoreline runway is used the turn should be at the airport or at US 101. He noted that the airport is asking that the developer build the new project with the best standards possible. Commissioner Prouty questioned if the airport was seeking an easement and the disclosure. Mr. Ganong noted that they would like both and the easements are a tool to make sure that the disclosure gets through. Kamala Silva-Wolfe noted that the project is much better than before. She was still concerned with the traffic and the impact it would have on existing neighborhoods. She felt that Sister Cities Boulevard was going to be a hallway for traffic on Lawndale Drive. She also questioned if there was a projection on how much traffic would be generated into the Sunshine Gardens area. She questioned if the project would be in operation 24 hours a day. Consultant Planner Knapp noted that the uses will close at 12 or 1 a.m. Ms. Silva-Wolfe asked if the traffic and noise impacts on the neighborhood have been studied. Consultant Planner Knapp noted that the SEIR addresses 15 different intersections. Commissioner Prouty steDDed down at 8:32 D.m. Russelino Paulibari, 941 Hemlock, was excited about the commercial aspect of the project because there would be an area to shop. Dorothy Robbins, Terrabay Village resident, spoke in opposition. She felt the current Mandalay tower was unpleasing to the eyes. She added that the new high-rises did not relate very well to the development and felt that the middle tower was the worst of the two. She added that the moving theatre with its bright lights would affect the residents of the neighboring homes. She also noted her appreciation for a grocery store in the area. Commissioner Honan asked what Ms. Robbins preferred instead of the high rise units. Ms. Robbins noted that lofts and lower rise towers would be more preferable. Public Hearing closed. Commissioner Romero questioned why the 32 below market rate (BMR) units were negotiated out of the contract. Chairperson Teglia noted that the Planning Subcommittee did not have part in those discussions. Chief Planner Sparks noted that this was done at the City Council Subcommittee. The 32 BMR units were tied to Phase III and the development of the towers. Commissioner Romero noted that the Commission expressed the desire to have these built concurrently with Phase II. Commissioner Romero asked that the Commission be provided with documentation that shows how the 32 BMR units were changed to be built with Phase III. He noted that this was a good project and was excited about it. He also pointed out that the DA needs to be specific in determining what types of lifestyle retail the City wants to s:\MivcL{tes\Fivc~Lluc\ MiVCL{tes\2005\:12-0:1-05 RPC MivcL{tes,c\oc p~ge 3 of b Planning Commission Meeting of December 1, 2005 see in the project. He noted that this needs to be controlled by some type of process. He felt that the office tower will leave a hole in the project when everyone goes home at night and may become a ghost town. He felt that the project should be a hotel or residential but not office. Commissioner Sim and Mr. Garden discussed the detail of the highrise. Mr. Garden noted that the lighting facing US 101 will be brighter than those that are near the residential areas. Commissioner Sim suggested that the retail could be broken a bit to make it flow. Commissioner Honan questioned if they explored lowering the height of the towers. Mr. Garden noted that they did remove several floors already and made up for that loss with the loft configuration. Commissioner Sim added that the architect can use the wind as a creative feature. Some of the East of 101 projects have incorporated some creativeness with windbreakers in creating inside and outside relationships. Chairperson Teglia noted that the Commission is concerned with the way the center tower sticks out and does not flow well with the project. He noted that the current approval was an articulated building that blended in with the mountain with a high and low rise component that stepped back into the canyon. He pointed out that the point buffers the residential site from this project. He asked if the applicant has looked at the possibility of making a smaller project. He asked if the point could be left and the street could be turned towards the valley to try to make the project fit with the topography of the mountain. He also suggested moving the towers closer to one another. Mr. Garden noted that there have been numerous alternatives and they have put forth great effort to try to balance the project. He added that they don't want to end up with dead spots but also have taken into consideration the turnaround conditions and other conditions from the City. Mr. Garden pointed out that they have placed the Piazza to take advantage of the valley and it could direct them into the trails. He stated that at the request of the Commission and Council subcommittees the setbacks have been pushed from 75 feet to 120 feet. He felt the center tower reinforces the balance of the streets. He noted that moving the center tower would disassociate it from parking. Mr. Garden stated that both towers were in the rear and have since been pulled forward. Chairperson Teglia felt that the center tower looks like the tallest point. He felt that the view corridors are very important. Mr. Myers noted that there is justifiable sensitivity to the highrises due to the negative comments and feedback to the Peninsula Mandalay building. He noted that they are working to mitigate the architectural issues that have come up with the building. He added that the Precise Plan will be a full and complete packet showing the details the Commission needs to have a successful project. Commissioner Romero felt that there was a superior design with the Phase II original approval. He noted that he was disappointed when the design was changed and would have flowed better with the current proposed project. He reaffirmed that it was important to the Commission and the Council that the project reflect some of the quality that was in the original Phase II project. Commissioner Honan asked what the status on the hotel was. Mr. Myers noted that the economics for a hotel is very difficult. He added that the hotel is a concept and part of the entitlement that they are seeking. City management feels that there is too much residential and are still working on the hotel. Commissioner Honan stated that she is not supportive of the office building. Mr. Myers noted that although he is a residential developer and prefers residential rather than office, some businesses in the East of 101 have shown interest in the office tower on this site. Commissioner Honan noted that if office an office tower is built with this proposal the City will lose the uniqueness of having all the office building in the east of 101 corridors. Mr. Myers added that office employees will make the commercial area lively during the day and the residents will make it lively during the night. Commissioner Honan felt that the center tower did not blend in with the project. Commissioner Sim asked if Myers Development had identified what types of vendors would be in the lifestyle retail center. He questioned if they would be a high end retail or lower retail vendors. Mr. Myers noted that they are looking at 60-70 shops and are not looking at power centers but a variety of smaller stores. Vice Chairperson Zemke noted there is a lot of office space in east of 101. He added that residential is a benefit s:\MivcL{teS\Fivc~Lizec\ MivcL{tes\2005\:12-0:1-05 RPC MivcL{tes,c\oc p~ge 4 of b Planning Commission Meeting of December 1, 2005 for the site rather than an office building. Vice Chairperson Zemke asked that Traffic Consultant Mark Crane explain where the traffic congestion is due to this project. Mr. Crane noted that the congestion would be on the Oyster Point Boulevard overpass and the Dubuque and BayshorejSister Cities intersections. There will be extended delay at these intersections. He added that in front of the site things will improve considerably and further west on Sister Cities Boulevard traffic will flow along there. He added that within the interchange during the evening commute hour there will be extended congestion. Vice Chairperson Zemke asked if there was a difference in the congestion if there is an office or a residential building at the site. Mr. Crane noted that the development produces less traffic during the morning commute than the office building does and this is because with the office building there is flow in and out in the morning and at the end of the workday. He added that in the morning the commercial and the movie theatre are not causing traffic. He pointed out that the evening commute will cause traffic but not to and from the freeway but the biggest traffic generator in the evening will be the commercial facilities to and from the Sister Cities Boulevard and Brisbane. Vice Chairperson Zemke asked if the SEIR took into consideration the Home Depot and Lowes proposed projects. Mr. Crane stated that the SEIR assumed full development of both stores. Chairperson Teglia noted that the corner parcel was commercial and not residential but the preferred use was hotel. He was concerned with the different possible alternatives. He pointed out that this is a perfect location from the airport. He questioned how long the Development Agreement should last and if the Commission should wait until the best use for the site comes around. He felt that the Point should continue to be a buffer and was concerned with the promises that have not been fulfilled. He pointed out that the 32 BMR units should be kept and the first highrise was approved to eliminate building homes on the Point. He questioned if there was an alternative for the center tower and for the largeness of the project. He added that the low income housing should be 100% on site unless an offsite location is already built. Chairperson Teglia noted his appreciation for the airports concern with the project and also felt that they should be understanding in terms of the City's needs for housing. He felt that the City has done a fine job with noticing the project and felt that the City would continue to do so in demanding that the project be correctly sound proofed according the building codes. He pointed out that the City may not want to grant the avigation easements being requested by the airport and he would not support these. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the Commission will be continuing the Public Hearing to December 15, 2005. He added that the City has been through the process with ALUC and have been careful about noise and under state law all residences have been insulated to provide a 45 DBA interior level. He added the background noise is substantially more than the airport. Consultant Planner Knapp added that the Notice of Preparation was sent out and the Airport and CjCAG responded and stated that the acoustical FAA requirements be met and the CjCAG stated that the project did not have to comply with FAA requirements because the project was not in the 65DBA CNEL. She stated that the FSEIR still noted that the proposed project would be adding real estate disclosure through the DCC&Rs and through the selling projects of any residential units. Motion Romero I Second Zemke to continue the Public Hearing to December 15, 2005. Approved by unanimous voice vote. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS ITEMS FROM STAFF None Chief Planner Sparks reported a second Associate Planner has been hired. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION Commissioner Romero asked when the Commission could get a report on the Fairfield project deficiencies. Chief Planner Sparks noted that staff is working on this report. s:\MlVCL{tes\Fivc~Lizec\ MivcL{teS\2005\:12-0:1-05 RPC MivcL{tes,c\oc p~ge 5 of b Planning Commission Meeting of December 1, 2005 ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC None ADJOURNMENT 9:49 P.M. ~~If,t Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco ~t:# Planning Commission City of South San Francisco TCSjbla s:\MivcL{tes\Fivc~Liuc\ MivcL{teS\2oo5\:12-0:1-05 RPC MivcL{tes,c\oc p~ge b of b