Hearing on Appeal by Mr. Ramirez on action taken by the Planning Commission meeting held On January 16, 2001, on the application for Variance and Grading Plan for three single family homes and additional construction requirements granted to Mr. Voskoboynikov concerning the Property located at 2594, 2596 and 2598 Coronet Blvd. APN No. 044-026-170,-210,-220.

Principal Planner DeMelo explained that the grading plan application and setback variance on this project had been approved on a vote of 4-2 by the Planning Commission. He explained that the setback variance would allow a 14 ft setback from the centerline of a private street rather than the required 45ft.

In response to C. Cook, Principal Planner DeMelo stated that if the Planning Commission had overturned the plans, the applicant would have had to redesign the project.

In response to C. Warden, Principal Planner DeMelo stated he was not familiar with the section of the General Plan that would not allow access to these homes from Ralston Avenue, but he stated he was aware that it was the scenic corridor and a curb cut would be counterintutive to the goals and policies of the General Plan.

Mr. Rameriz, 2607 Prindle Rd. read from the Planning Commissioner’s comments about the project from the meeting on January 16^th. He noted that these comments and the 4-2 vote was not overwhelming support for this project. He expressed his concern about the process used for the review the designs for each home. He said it appeared from the minutes that one action was taken for all three homes. Mr. Ramirez expressed concern about the large amount of fill that would need to be brought in to construct the private road and fill in the site for the three homes. He wondered what streets would be used for the staging. He noted that Prindle and Coronet were in poor condition and Coronet had had one landslide already. He said there was too much traffic on these streets and one unsafe condition was being traded for another. Mr. Rameriz explained that this private driveway would be five feet from a child’s bedroom and would have a very steep grade off of Coronet. He said this road would not allow for easy access for a fire, delivery or garbage truck and no parking would be allowed. Without this additional parking, most of the cars would be parked on Coronet which was already impacted by the neighbors.

Mayor Hahn opened the public hearing.

Mr. Schwartz, Attorney for Applicants, 900 North Pt. St. Suite 410, S.F.reviewed the history of this two year process. He said that early in the process it was discovered that some of the Ralston Avenue improvements were on his clients property and it took time to do some exchanges between the City and his clients. He said it was during this time, that it was discovered that the building permits that were issued were in error. He stated that after this very intense scrutiny, the owners have three legal lots with a beneficial purpose to build three homes which would be a credit to the neighborhood. He said this had been a very detailed process with all the elements analyzed.

Mr. Schwartz stated that Mr. Ramirez’ appeal was based on two grounds. 1). The Planning Commission abused its discretion ,and this project would affect the value of his property; and, 2). traffic concerns. Mr. Schwartz explained that these issues had been addressed early in the process, and there would not be a negative impact on Mr. Ramirez’ property. Mr. Schwartz stated that the City would not let the owners access these homes from Ralston, so they had devised another entrance to the property. He said that if the owners had to redo this project it would be devastating. Mr. Schwartz requested that the Council uphold the Planning Commission decision.

Mr. Voskoboynikov, 820 Palm Avenue, Redwood City, stated that they had cooperated with the City to build on these three legal lots. He stated that he and his partners were losing money while this project was being discussed. He urged the Council to bring this project to a close.

Mr. Gonsalves, 490 El Camino Real, stated that access had been transferred to Coronet which required design changes to the projects.

Ms. Guisasola, 2605 Prindle Rd. said this plan did not address the creek that ran through the property. She distributed photos that showed the recent rain fall collected in this area. She said there was no conclusive evidence to prove that the grading plan was safe and would not endanger the properties surrounding the project. She said she did not agree that the riparian habitat, as stated in finding 2, would not be impacted, because the creek bed would be filled, which could cause flooding. Ms. Guisasola stated that if the project was scaled back, less grading would be required and parking and traffic concerns would be minimized. She said access to Ralston for one home would have less impact on this site and the neighborhood. Ms. Guisasola said Finding 7 for a hauling permit would put a heavy burden on the neighborhood. She requested that all the heavy trucks enter from Ralston Avenue and stay off of Prindle. Ms. Guisasola express concerns about the parking variance for this project with this narrow steep access road. She said it appeared that the driveways were so short that their would only be parking for one car. She requested that the driveways be extended to 20ft long to accommodate the extra cars. Ms. Guisasola stated that she thought approval of the three houses was invalid because they were all lumped together when approved. She said that she thought an Environmental Impact Report and a biologist’s report should be done to assess the sensitive species in the area and the impact on the natural environment this project would have.

City Manager Kersnar reminded the Council that this appeal was filed for the variance and the grading plan. He explained that the design review was a separate action at the Planning Commission and was not appealed.

Ms. Wouster, 2590 Coronet, explained that she lived right next to the proposed road and homes. She expressed concerns about the filling in of the creek to construct these homes. She listed various federal permits which she thought should have been applied for before this project went forward. She said she would like to request an EIR be done for this project to address her concerns. Ms. Wouster also expressed concerns about the steep driveway, and felt that her property values would be negatively impacted by this project.

Mr. Fuller, 2601 Prindle Rd., distributed photos of Coronet and explained that during the construction of this project the street would be impacted by the traffic, and would be a danger to all the children who live and play on the street. He requested that the project not be approved until the traffic and congestion was adequately addressed.

Mr. Delgadillo, 2600 Coronet Blvd., express his concern about having the project on Coronet, because of the additional traffic and parking. He said he would like the staff to find a compromise and have less houses with access onto Ralston. He said he had agreed to work with the owners to find a workable solution to this project.

Mr. Glantz, 2621 Prindle Rd., expressed concern about the condition of Prindle Road and said it had not been fixed in many years. He urged the Council not to allow Prindle to be used for any of the heavy equipment, to preserve what little integrity of the road was left. Mr. Glantz suggested that a fee be charged for each piece of heavy equipment that used city streets. He said these funds could be used to reconstruct and repair the streets. He asked if there was assurances that covering Pulgas Creek would not cause flooding in the neighborhood.

Mr. Sammeta, 2502 Coronet Blvd., expressed concern about the traffic that would be generated by this new development and said he supported his neighbors.

Mr. Rameriz, 2607 Prindle Rd, stated he was concerned about his property values, the increased traffic and the parking situation in his neighborhood. He stated that his appeal did address building requirements and his concerns. He said this project was not right for this parcel because there were too many safety issues for the community. He submitted a draft Resolution that the neighbors would like the Council to consider and requested that the Council overturn the Planning Commission decision.

Mr. Voskoboynikov, 3007 24^th Street, S.F., stated that they had been cooperative with the City and did not want to use inverse condemnation. They had worked for two years to get these permits and had exhausted their funding. He said the reason they were hauling in so much fill was because the Planning Commission was requiring it. He said they had brought all their consultants to answer the questions Council may have on this project.

On motion by C. Warden, seconded by C. Wright and approved unanimously, to close the public hearing.

In response to C. Warden, City Attorney Savaree stated that the owners had taken the position that many years ago when Ralston Avenue was improved that there access was cut off and that they believe that they have a right to sue the City for taking that property without compensation. She said that if this was true, they may have a cause for action against the City.

C. Warden stated that he had heard a lot of discussion about a creek on this site and he wondered if the staff could verify this claim. He said that if this was true there should be additional requirements that needed to be met.

Principal Planner DeMelo stated that he would defer to the Public Works Director for that answer.

Mr. Waley, Soils Engineer for the applicant, stated that when Ralston was realigned, this area was filled to maintain a consistent grade. This fill created a swale on the back side of the property. He explained that the water that gathers in this area was from the storm drain that serviced Coronet. The intended route was to empty into the storm drain on Ralston, but the line was ruptured and it drained into this swale and then off the property on the west to the storm drain.

Community Development Director Ewing explained that this was not a natural creek, but as a result of the grading for Ralston. The swale was not located on the property, so the grading for this project would not effect this drainage. He stated that was the reason it was not featured in the staff report.

Mr. Chan, Landscape Architect for property owners, stated this was a drainage swale with intermittent waterflow.

In response to C. Warden, City Attorney Savaree explained there was no prohibition to take four or five actions during one motion.

Community Development Director Ewing clarified that there were separate actions taken for each of the design review actions involving these homes.

In response to C. Warden, Principal Planner DeMelo explained that the private road would need to be red curbed so no parking would be allowed. There was potential for four cars to be parked at two of the houses, but only two cars off-street for one of the homes.

In response to C. Cook, Planner DeMelo stated that this project was exempt from Environmental review.

Principal Planner DeMelo explained that the Commission had made a requirement that a flagman be present until the private road was constructed. He said the total grading would be 1475 cubic yards.

C. Rianda stated her concerns with the grading plan and the width of the private road which did not appear to provide safe access to and from the homes.

Principal Planner DeMelo stated that the roadway would have a hammerhead at the end of the lot for a turn around. He said the street would be constructed to City standards except for the width, and would be maintained by a homeowners association. The roadway would be stripped with a white zone with no parking allowed.

C. Rianda stated she was not comfortable that this project was planned without an EIR and no on-street parking. She said she was concerned about the egress and ingress from this private road, and would like to see less intensification of the land use. C. Rianda suggested a holding pad for cars to enter onto Ralston; ingress on Coronet, egress on Ralston. She said she thought if the grading plan was changed, this traffic mitigation could be accomplished.

In response to C. Hahn, Principal Planner DeMelo stated that the Commission looked at the design issues and made four separate motions to approve these plans.

C. Cook stated that she was concerned about this project, and the fact that so many neighbors were here indicated that something was not right about it.

C. Warden said he had concerns about the private road which always was the stumbling block with this project, but he said he did not want to see any curb cuts on Ralston Avenue.

C. Wright stated that this was a difficult situation, but would not want to undo the Planning Commissions work. He said he had not been given any new information and felt that the applicant had a right to develop his property. He said he would vote against the appeal.

In response to C. Warden, Principal Planner DeMelo stated that specific conditions regarding the grading permit could be conditioned so there would not be any road closures on Pullman, Prindle and

Coronet once the private road had been constructed.

Community Development Director Ewing requested that the staff flexibility not be reduced when devising this traffic plan. He said it would create a heavy burden to monitor these individual requests.

In response to C. Rianda, Public Works Director Curtis stated that a bond was not required for a hauling permit.

C. Rianda stated that if Council voted for this project, she would like to have a Performance Bond included, as well as, a hold harmless agreement for construction of this road. This document would be disclosed upon sale of the homes.

City Attorney Savaree stated that the City was protected by the Government Code and was not liable for damages that may occur after granting permits for construction

City Attorney Savaree suggested that based on the concerns that had been expressed by the neighbors, reasons needed to be found not to act on the Findings. She said technical staff was not here to answer some of these questions. City Attorney Savaree suggested that this item be continued to allow staff time to get the technical staff here to respond to the concerns raised.

City Manager Kersnar stated that there were two choices: 1). Adopt the Resolution upholding the Planning Commission; or, if Council was interested in granting the appeal, 2). staff would ask Council to make a motion to continue this matter, so staff could draft some findings and allow Council to ask more technical questions, to add to those findings.

Action: on motion by C. Wright, seconded by C. Hahn, to uphold the Planning Commission decision. This motion was defeated by show of hands, 2-3 (Cook, Warden, Rianda, no).

Action: on motion by C. Warden, seconded by C. Rianda, and approved unanimously by show of hands to continue this item for additional information for a Resolution to overturn the Planning Commission decision.

Council stated that with all the events happening at this time, they would prefer to have a list of interview dates in March. City Clerk Kern stated she would put a list of dates together and send this to Council for review, and once she had Council concurrence, she would put it back on the agenda as a reminder.

Public Works Director Curtis explained that the owner of the restaurant had requested one hour parking which would conform with the parking along the street.

C. Rianda stated that it did not matter how much time was allotted, the spaces needed to be monitored or it would not be effective.

C. Cook stated that she agreed, it did no good to put in these traffic regulations, if they were not enforced.

C. Wright stated that he thought that one hour parking in this location made sense.

Action: on motion by C. Cook, seconded by C. Wright, and approved by show of hands, 3-2 (Rianda, Hahn no) to adopt: