Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.29.96 Minutes MINUTES SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION October 29, 1996 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 P.M. @ City Hall- 400 Grand Avenue MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Warren and Vice-Chairman Romero, Commissioners Barnett, Masuda, Padreddii, and DeZordo* Commissioner DeZordo * - arrived at 7: 35 PM MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Lucchesi ALSO PRESENT: E. & C. D. Director: Planning Division: Project Planner Act. Secretary II City Attorney: City Engineer: Marty Van Duyn CHAIRMAN COMMENTS Lida Budko Rosa Perez Steve Mattas Arthur Wong ORAL COMMUNICATIONS PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEMS Chairman Warren opened the public hearing. Project Planner Budko presented staff report. City's Em Consultant: Mr. Wagstaff summarized the process for the Final Supplemental EIR Mr. John Wagstaff (SEIR) and presented a hand out. The Draft Supplement EIR was released Wagstaff and Associates in January 1996 with a 75 day public review, comments were received. The comments pertaining to the Draft SEIR transportation chapter necessitated a revised analysis of certain traffic impacts. These revised traffic analyses findings constituted new significant information in the SEIR. The revised Transportation Section warranted recirculation for an additional 45 day public review and comment period. The Final SEIR was released on October 25, 1996 in the form of two additional documents: the Responses to Comments document and the revised Transportation Section with responses to comments, these together with the Draft SEIR constitute the Final SEIR for Terrabay. The responses are concentrated in three areas: 1) the adequacy of the mitigation program for the three shell mound sites; 2) traffic impacts and adequate mitigation of those impacts; and 3) project compliance with the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Program. Commissioner DeZordo asked if there was significant impact on vegetation and wild life, and commented if the habitat program had been working. Mr. Wagstaffnoted that at the time of the Draft SEIR there were documentation that the restoration efforts were failing and significant impact findings were made at that time; since then ongoing improvements with replanting, testing and monitoring have been made and agency (San Mateo County) covering these areas have been informed of improvements, and this was reflected in the Final SEIR. Project Planner Budko noted that there is continual annual monitoring of the HCP and a report provides responses to the efforts of the restoration plan. Mr. Bresenutti of Wagstaff and Associates, noted that the Draft SEIR includes a letter from Pacific Open Space with the evaluation of the restoration efforts. Commissioner Padreddii asked about the implementation date of the improvements in the Oyster Point Interchange Project. Mr. Bresenutti noted this needs to be in place by the year 2010; that is the screen year when the accumulative impact requires that improvement; there are fair share contributions, as each project comes on towards that improvement. The City Attorney noted the flyover proj ect, stating that the City has another development related to the Shearwater project that will probably create the need for that sooner than the Terrabay project. Director Marty Van Duyn noted Council is interested in moving the flyover project as soon as possible. Commissioner Barnett asked about Impact T -7, Hillside Blvd. and Chestnut Ave. intersection, and the mitigation measure recommended, was signalization of that intersection one of them? He wanted to know what was the thinking behind or why the developer feels that Chestnut Avenue is not going to become a heavy secondary route out of that area and why should it remain a two-lane road? He feels that Chestnut Avenue is a logical egress out of the Terrabay area, if traffic does not want to go to Hwy. 101 or if they want to go to BART station at Hickey. He noted the new developments off of Chestnut Avenue, the fact that Chestnut will become a choke point, as far as a East/West connector because there are two lanes coming out of Westborough hitting one lane in Chestnut. Chestnut Avenue is the only way to go to pharmacies and groceries stores for people in Terrabay. The signalization at that intersection will help mitigate, but feels this will become a problem and it is something that will have to be looked at, at some point. Mr. Wagstaff responded at that it was examined with and without the Hickey Blvd. Extension, with the Extension being the worse case analysis. It was carefully considered by lVlark Crane (traffic consultant), and based upon the traffic distribution to that route which was conservative, he determined that additional lanes were not warranted. Mark Crane will be available when this item goes to Council, but they 'can bring this question to him and provided additional information for the Commission to be included in the November 7th hearing. Chairman Warren noted that Chestnut Avenue is the only way for most people go to Hwy. 280 north or south, considering the number of homes in T errabay combined with all the other cumulative impacts people will go down Chestnut to Westborough to Hwy. 280, would be the shortest route, even with Hickey Blvd. Extension. The City Engineer noted that City has in its Capital Improvements Program a project for widening Chestnut Avenue to four lanes, in addition to Hickey Blvd. Extension project. He noted that Chestnut Avenue carries traffic across the valley from San Bruno Mountain to Pacifica. He feels that the Hickey Blvd. Extension will be more of an egress for Terrabay residents. Chairman Warren did want additional information presented to the Commission at the next meeting on the widening of Chestnut and signalization of Hillside Blvd. at Chestnut Avenue. Soeakin1! with Concern: Fred Mathews 843 Easton Avenue San Bruno Mr. Mathews was concerned about preservation of the shell mounds, and was of the opinion that a mitigation measure for sacred grounds was to just leave them alone. He asked that the Commission and Council request further studies. PC Minutes 10/29/96 Page 2 of5 Soeakinf! with Concern: Ken McIntire 235 Old Ranch Road Woodside, CA Mr. McIntire is an educator, uses the Mountain as an outdoor classroom, and is with San Bruno Mountain Watch. He presented a report prepared by SBMW about two years ago based on photographs taken by members for the past 12 years. He does not agree that the HCP on San Bruno Mountain has been successful and explained procedures. Most important the shell mounds are connections to the past. Commissioner Romero asked if it was better to not have an HCP? Mr. McIntire noted that HCP is good but it needs to work. Discussion continued on the importance to preserve and how to accomplish an HCP that works. Aoolicant: Mr. Dennis Breen SunChase Soeakinf! with Concern: Farlon Lawston 221 Sunnyside Dr. Corte Madera Mr. Breen explained that the habitat is much larger than the Terrabay Project. It was established in 1982, it is a plan that is in effect and funding is provided to the HCP from developers and other agencies. Homeowners in the Terrabay project will pay per year per house, and that condition is part of their CC&R's. Regarding the shell mounds, SunChase has retained an archeologist who is reviewing them, and the information will be provided when SunChase submits the Precise Plan for Phase III. Mr. Lawston commented on the documents in February and has not had a chance to review the documents released on October 25th, is there a longer period of time to submit comments? City Attorney noted that there would be other meetings of the Planning Commission on November 7th and the City Council will also have a hearing, although the comment period for the SEIR has closed but verbal comments will be taken directly by the Commission and Council at those meetings. Soeakinf! with Concern: Perry Matlock 300 - 2nd Ave. #5 SF, CA 94118 Mr. Matlock, a Volunteer for the International Indian Treaty Council in San Francisco, and speaking for Tony Gonzales a United Nations representative for Int'l. Indian Treaty Council. Mr. Matlock informed the Commission on the Muwekma Ohlone people and the shell mounds and the importance of preserving them. Would like developer to reconsider development of Phase III and donate lands for parks. He referred to Greg Parkmans, President of Society of California Archeology for additional information. Chairman Warren closed the public hearing. City Attorney recommend that the Commission give their concerns on the Specific Plan, Development Agreement and SEIR, so that staff may answer any questions, or include responses in the staff report for November 7th meeting. PC Minutes 10/29/96 Page 3 of5 Commissioner DeZordo had questions on the HCP area and the Specific Plan. He presented an exhibit with the differences in the former 1982 Specific Plan and the proposed 1996 Specific Plan, and noted the 1982 drawings illustrated details of the site, slope, grading plans, etc.; the 1996 Specific Plan does not have any plans such as architectural, site, landscape, grading plan, retaining wall, or stabilization. He asked where does Design Review Board come in, are we losing parks; he notes this is just a bubble diagram. He would prefer to have the original plan and come back with a revision on the original plan later. Vice-Chairman Romero noted that Specific Plan will be coming back to Planning Commission. City Attorney and Director Van Duyn agreed. Chairman Warren noted that in 1982 she believes they received a Precise Plan and a Specific Plan. City Attorney stated that in 1982 the developer submitted a very detailed Specific Plan, almost to the level of a Precise Plan. The only Precise Plan the Council and Commission have seen and approved are for Phase I, which has been approved and is now under construction. The approach that is proposed, as described by Commissioner DeZordo, is a "bubble". It was done to provide parameters for the development, but with the full expectation that the Precise Plans will come before the Commission and Council for a full detailed review. There are no absolute land use entitlements offered in these plans, and the developer has to submit Precise Plans for full discretionary review for both Phase II and III. Staff and applicant agree that it is appropriate to bring this back to the Commission and Council along those lines, primarily because there are many unanswered questions about Phase III - "the shell mounds" and other things. The City is not sure that having the exact same plans that were submitted back in 1982 would be representative of what either the applicant might propose to build or what the City might desire there. What has been done is created a process whereby they created bubbles, with maximum development potentials, all of which require subsequent approval. The plans do not specify the particular land uses and locations, these will be identified as part of the Precise Plan development. City Attorney responded that the only thing that could be built under this version of the Specific Plan and Development Agreement is Phase I, which the City has already approved; and it is a matter of extending the time lines for development of those phases. That is why it was done. What Commissioner DeZordo presented is one way you could do this -- by keeping existing plans, and revising is possible. Staff felt it could be confusing or misleading, it might be suggestive of the fact that that is exactly what is being developed. It also makes it problematic, in terms of the shell mounds; Phase III has considerable development and that may not be what the Commission and Council desire to have happen. They may which to try to preserve portions or all of the shell mounds, the SEIR gives you the opportunities to do that, but that will come forward with the Phase III development plan, by that time the additional reports that the applicant is talking about will be included. It was a conscious decision, it is up to the Commission of whether or not they choose to agree with that. Commissioner DeZordo stated it was a very unusual approach and they have never signed off a development plan that they didn't know what they were getting. They have something to work with now, and they could adjust or delete as they wish at this point. Commissioner Barnett asked if all the permit process need to go through approvals by Commission and Council and is construction being phased? He would like to see a projected time line. City Attorney stated that City Council approved at a construction grading schedule with a time line and will have it available at the next meeting. PC Minutes 10/29/96 Page 4 of5 Chairman Warren spoke with concern that information presented to the Commission be the most current. The City Attorney explained that information in the SEIR was analyzed with the maximum development effects for Phase II and III. When the Commission receives the Phase II and III Precise Plans they will also have separate SEIRs that specifically focus on those issues. Although the details have been deleted from the Specific Plan, much of the text direction is still in the Specific Plan with the design guidelines; and staff could prepare some analysis of what you had previously vs. what you have now. He noted that the design guidelines that continue to exist in the Specific Plan could be clarified and available to the Commission at the next meeting. Director Van Duyn suggested that the Commission identify the elements of the 1982 specific plan that they favored to the Council and the applicant. He explained that the Commission could specify the quality of development, open space density, park lands, and treatment of the slopes, which the Commission will be looking for when Precise Plans for Phase II and III are submitted for City review and approval. Motion-DeZordo/Second-Barnett: Motion to continue item to the November 7th 1996, Planning Commission meeting. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Items from Staff: None Items from Commission: None Items from the Public: None Adjournment: Motion-Barnett/Second-Romero: To adjourn meeting at 8:55 PM to November 7, 1996 Planning Commission Meeting. arty Van Duyn, Sec tary Planning Commission City of South San Francisco m Margaret Warren, Chairman Planning Commission City of South San Francisco MVD:rp PC Minutes 10/29/96 Page 5 of5