City of San Carlos

San Carlos Planning Commission

August 06, 2007 7:00 PM

San Carlos City Hall Council Chambers

Approved Minutes

I. Meeting Called to Order

Chair Royce called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.

II. Roll Call

All Commissioners present with the exception of Commissioner Thompson.

III. Approval of Minutes

M/S Royce/Divney to approve the minutes of the July 16, 2007 Planning Commission meeting.Motion passed 4-0.

IV. Public Comment

None.

V. Public Hearing

a) Consideration of the application of Ray Nezhad and John Rider for a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, GRADING APPROVAL/DIRT HAUL CERTIFICATE and RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW, pursuant to San Carlos Municipal Code Chapters 12.08, 15.36, 18.28 and 18.116 to construct a new single-family residence, with associated grading of 1,443 cubic yards of earth materials on a vacant lot in the R-1 (Single Family Residential) District at 167 Madera Avenue, San Carlos (Assessor's Parcel Number 049 341 440)

Stephanie Bertollo-Davis, Planner III presented the item. Ms. Bertollo-Davis noted the recent revisions to the right side of the elevation to address privacy issues raised by the right side yard neighbor. She also noted corrections within the Staff Report and in Condition #4 of the draft Conditional Use Permit.

Glush Dada, project architect, made a presentation of the proposed design changes which was in response to the concerns expressed by the neighbors.

John Rider, project engineer, indicated an effort was made to address the concerns of the public comment letters received and noted the applicant's right to build.

Kent Khorrami, project representative, addressed the outlined concerns of the neighbors and ensured the Commission that the project would be developed with respect to the neighbors.

Chair Royce asked Staff what the driveway slope would be and how much on-site parking was proposed.

Stephanie Bertollo-Davis, Planner III, indicated the driveway slope is 17.2% and the site could accommodate a 2 car garage and 2 cars in the driveway.

The Public Hearing was opened.

Randall Smith, 171 Madera, expressed his concerns with the project lighting, drainage and privacy, as outlined;

• Concerns relate to slope differential and the amount of outdoor recreation area.
• The house is large and not compatible with the neighborhood.
• Concerns for the construction impacts on Madera Avenue and suggested limiting construction hours to Monday through Friday, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
• Concern with the road blockage due to construction vehicles, the determined haul route and the backing up of trucks off of Manor Drive.
• He had concern that the drainage would impact his property directly and suggested redirecting the drainage.

Pat Potter, 135 Manor Drive, voiced concerns for the neighborhood needing protection from large homes, of homes being compatible with the neighborhood and impact from the street. She also stated that the projects at 71 and 77 Madera had used story poles as visual aids.

Max Meadow, 15 Coleman Court, recommended the use of story poles for this project and inquired on the amount of trees that are proposed for removal, stating the trees should be preserved. He expressed concern with the grading that will be done, indicating that the street is narrow in width and the amount of grading proposed for this project could be a problem. He also suggested that the grading should be limited to the hours of 9a.m. – 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Jack Young, 139 Madera Ave, expressed concerns with the height impacts and compatibility of the project with the neighborhood. He felt that the sunlight would be reduced and that there will potentially be run-off to the surrounding properties. He also was concerned that the number of trucks used for the grading operations will potentially exceed what has been detailed.

Ken Benson, 48 Coronado Ave, stated his opposition to the different aspects of the project. He believes the grading and dirt haul will cause traffic congestion and will be potentially dangerous for the small children in the neighborhood. He also expressed concern with the number of trees that will be removed effecting the privacy and drainage of the neighboring properties.

Jayne Smith, 171 Madera Ave, suggested the plans should be reduced for greater neighborhood compatibility. She stated concerns with the environmental issues and interested in seeing an Environmental Impact Report prepared due to the geologic and site conditions. She believes the public outreach prepared by the applicant was inadequate.

David Cross, 145 Madera Ave, expressed his opposition stating that the lot is too small for such a large scale project. He also expressed concern with the construction impacts and the tree removal. He supported the statements previously made by other speakers.

Horst Jung, 52 Coronado Ave, stated his agreement with prior speakers, indicating the lot is too small for the project and believed that 3000 square feet was the maximum permitted. He stated his appreciation for the design of the house, however feels it is not compatible with the neighborhood. He stated the neighboring homes at 71 and 77 Madera Avenue have not sold to date.

Tim Roake, 140 Madera Ave, stated he believes the lot is too small for the project, that the house is too large for and incompatible with the neighborhood. He stated concerns with the drainage, inadequacy of parking and sunlight impacts.

Martin Miller, 168 Madera Ave, expressed his concerns with the project related to drainage and site stability. He stated a traffic control plan should be implemented.

Stephanie Bertollo-Davis, Planner III responded to all concerns expressed during the public comment period as outlined.

• She highlighted draft mitigations and approval conditions related to traffic and circulation, including but not limited to the requirement of a construction and staging Plan and the presence of two flagmen will be required assisting the traffic issues
• She indicated that nineteen heritage trees are proposed for removal.She further stated the City Arborist report determined the majority of these trees to be in ill-condition.
• She noted that the smaller truck size to be utilized during grading and dirt haul operation was due to the narrowness and physical constraints of the street.
• She stated that a draft approval condition requires notification to surrounding property owners prior to the grading and dirt haul operations.
• She stated that the backing up of trucks from Manor Drive was determined the safest course as concluded by the City Engineer.
• She noted that no drainage plans are allowed to discharge onto other private properties.
• She stated that the 3,000 square foot floor area threshold was not a maximum but criteria in determining the appropriate review process. She stated that the Municipal Code does not have a floor area maximum requirement.
• She stated that review of the plans by the City Geologist determined that the conceptual drainage plan and engineering principles addressing site stability were feasible.
• She summarized the requests made by the speakers and noted that the Commission may wish to discuss the following, potential additional items:
• Further limiting the construction hours of operation
• Installation of story poles to serve as an enhanced visual aid
• Revisions to plans to address potential project scope and compatibility issues

Bob Lanzone, City Attorney, indicated that the prepared Negative Declaration appeared sufficient and adequate for the project scope.He gave an example of the Oakview properties, in which construction was shut down due to project conditions not being met.He concluded that there are no laws that specifically protect light and/or air access.

Elizabeth Cullinan, Planner, stated the 3,000 square foot threshold was reviewed during the Ordinance update of 2004 and it was found that over a 10 year period, the average size of approved homes processed through the Residential Design Review Committee (previously the Exception Design Control Committee) was 3000 square feet or greater.

M/S Phillips/Divney to close Public Comment period.

Vice Chair Phillips commended the design however voiced concerns with neighborhood compatibility due to the narrow lot size and that it is one of the last lots to be developed in the neighborhood.

Commissioner Divney indicated his concern with open space and trees; however, he noted the need to balance the right to develop within existing regulations. He stated his concerns for size and neighborhood compatibility and stated that story poles could be helpful.

Commissioner Iwasa expressed her concern with neighborhood compatibility in terms of the building scale and design, not through the resulting project numbers. She stated due to the narrowness and steepness of the lot, the design could step the building back from the front.

Commissioner Divney asked staff if the use of story poles had been discussed with the applicant.

Stephanie Bertollo-Davis, Planner III, stated no, it had not.

Commissioner Iwasa requested the City Arborist be present to provide further explanation on the conditions of the trees to be removed and to remain.

Chair Royce stated compatibility can be assessed by neighborhood testimony.He stated he had difficulty seeing the lot in relation to the proposed development plan upon a site inspection. He noted that the house was slightly massive and overbearing.

Commissioner Iwasa recommended the use of story poles, an explanation from the City Arborist and having the project returning to the Commission with revisions as discussed.

Bob Lanzone, City Attorney, recommended a continuation of the item and a direction to staff to work with the applicants to revise the plans, incorporating the comments received tonight.

Ray Nezhad, applicant, believes they have met the City guidelines and that the floor plans and design were created given the nature of the lot. He also stated they would be willing to look at reducing the square footage.

Vice Chair Phillips asked the fellow Commissioners whether the addition of story poles for the current design could be beneficial.

Elizabeth Cullinan, Planner, concluded that it seemed that the key issue of concern expressed by the Commission was the scale of the project with perspective to the lot configuration and neighborhood compatibility.

M/S Divney/Iwasa to continue the item to date uncertain to allow for revisions as directed by the Planning Commission and the installation of story poles following the project revisions.Motion passed 4:0.

VI. Reports, Correspondence and General Information

a) Report on recent City Council actions

Stephanie Bertollo Davis, Planner III presented the Commission with City Council actions from the July 23, 2007 City Council meeting.

b) Planning Commission comments or reports

i. Review and discussion of the issues and future potential actions related to:The Interim Zoning Ordinances requiring Conditional Use Permits for all new retail uses occupying tenant spaces greater than 2,500 square feet within the 600, 700 and 800 blocks of Laurel Street and the 1100 and 1200 blocks of San Carlos Avenue.

Elizabeth Cullinan, Planner presented the item to the Commission for discussion.The Commission provided comments on the item.

Elizabeth Cullinan, Planner asked of the Commission:

• What areas should this Ordinance cover?
• Should the staff consider an Economic Impact finding?
• Shall there be exemptions for preferred uses?
• To provide any additional input such as studies, etc. to assist in the next phase of the process?

Commissioner Divney questioned staff of how a grocery store is defined.

Stephanie Bertollo Davis, Planner III responded that there is no definition of a grocery store within the Municipal Code.

Al Savay, Community Development Director, stated that an option may be to include a Conditional Use Permit requirement for tenant spaces 2,500 square feet or greater with a change in use, in the West Side Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinance.He stated another option may be to create definitions for various marketplace type uses.

Commissioner Divney supported general definition language as marketplace uses are constantly evolving.

Al Savay, Community Development Director, stated another option could be basing the Conditional Use Permit requirement on tenant space square footage.

Vice Chair Phillips stated the report focused on 25 specific tenant spaces which would meet the size criteria discussed and that he believed it would be reasonable to extend a moratorium.

Bob Lanzone, City Attorney suggested that staff recommend a timeframe in the report to allow for compliance.

The Commissioners voted unanimously that their preference is not to have exemptions based on use but square footage.

c) Correspondence

Stephanie Bertollo Davis, Planner III presented two items of correspondence received for the Commission; one letter of opposition to the PAMF project and information on representatives from the Youth Advisory Council who will be attending future Commission meetings.

d) Planning Staff comments, reports and updates of current projects

Stephanie Bertollo Davis, Planner III informed the Commission that the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of August 20, 2007 is canceled. She noted that the next tentatively scheduled Planning Commission meeting would be September 4 and/or 5, 2007 for consideration of the PAMF project.

VII. Adjournment

Chair Royce adjourned the meeting at 9:13 p.m.