Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.19.98 Minutes CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE November 19, 1998 CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The meeting was called to order at 7:35p.m. ROLL CALL / CHAIRMAN COMMENTS MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Barnett, Vice Chairman Teglia, Commissioner Masuda, Commissioner Romero, Commissioner Baldocchi, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Sim MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Planning Di vision: Marty Van Duyn Jim Harnish Steve Carlson Adam Lindgren Cyrus Kianpour Richard Harmon S gt. Massoni City Attorney: Engineering: Police Dept.: AGENDA REVIEW APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Gateway Lots 1 and 9~ HMS Gateway Office~ L.P.~ Owner/ Applicant~ 601 B 951 Gateway Boulevard~ Case Nos. PM-98-082~ PUD-98-082~ Gateway Redevelopment EIR (previously certified) \\CH-PDC\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\111998 pc.doc Page 1 of 19 Parcel Map to resubdivide two existing lots totaling 39.14 acres into 6 new commercial lots with reciprocal access easements throughout; Planned Unit Development to allow creation of lots which do not abut a dedicated public street. (Staff recommends continuance to December 17, 1998). Motion-Teglia/Second-Honan to continue to December 17, 1998. Approved by unanimous voice vote. PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS 2. Oyster Point Kin2 V enture~ Owner: City of South San Francisco~ Oyster Point Boulevard & Marina Way~ Applicant: Kin2 Ventures~ Case Nos. MND 96-079~ GPA 96-079~ PM 96-079 and PP 96-079 General Plan Amendment to expand the land use designations on selected sites designated for public park uses, allowing a hotel in an area designated Open Space and related text amendments, Zoning Amendment allowing a hotel in an area designated Open Space and related text changes and changing the use diagram, Tentative Parcel Map to reconfigure property boundaries between several parcels, and a Precise Plan for phased development comprised of office, hotel and restaurant facilities, situated on a site bounded by Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina Way. (Staffrecommends continuance to December 17, 1998). Motion-Sim/Second-Teglia to continue to December 17, 1998. Approved by unanimous voice vote. 3. Opus Center Sierra Point Master Plan~ O~vner: Opus West Corporation~ Applicant: Randy~ Ackerman~ Southerly Terminus of Sierra Point Boulevard~ Case Nos. MND 98- 044~ PM 98-044 and PUD 98-044 Planned Unit Development to allow a Master Plan for a new commercial campus comprised of 440,000 square feet of office and research and development, and a 152 room hotel, with shared parking, private streets, phased development, 24 hour operations and generating in excess of 100 average daily vehicle trip ends, and a Tentative Parcel Map allowing a four lot subdivision and common improvements, situated on a vacant 26 acre site bounded on the west by U.S. Highway 101 and Caltrain, on the east and south by San Francisco Bay and on the north by Shoreline Court (APN 015-010-020), situated in a Planned Commercial Zoning District (P-C. (Continuedfrom November 5, 1998 Meeting). Senior Planner Carlson presented the staff report and read the following material into the record noting that the utility section of the Mitigation Negative Declaration, Page 96, third paragraph needs to be corrected to reflect that the draft agreement is being prepared. He noted that staff has prepared a memo that identifies certain issues, which he read into the \\CH-PDC\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\111998 pc.doc Page 2 of 19 record: 1. The cumulative traffic impacts identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and in the "Responses to Comments and Final Revisions to the Mitigated Negative Declaration 98-044", page 10, are not siznificant. 2. The mitigation measures for cumulative traffic impacts listed in "Responses to Comments and Final Revisions to the Mitigated Negative Declaration 98-044", page 10, are redrafted to add the following paragraph modifying the list of traffic improvements: The owner Shall pay a portion of the total cost of the following improvements which portion shall be proportional to the number of vehicle trips generated by the Opus Center Sierra Point situated in the City of South San Francisco divided by the total number of vehicle trips over the improvements. The owner in cooperation with the City of Brisbane and the City of South San Francisco shall develop a schedule for the construction of the traffic improvements. The construction schedule shall be closely tied to the projected vehicle traffic associated with each development phase. The schedule shall include a provision for traffic counts to be taken to determine, if the improvements are warranted on an accelerated schedule. The traffic construction schedule and program shall be subject to the approval of the City of South San Francisco's Chief Planner and Ci ty Engineer. a. A traffic signal, funded by the applicant, shall be installed at the Sierra Point Parkway/Shoreline Court-Marina Boulevard intersection. b. A traffic signal, funded by the applicant, shall be installed at Sierra Point Parkway/U.S. 101 Northbound. c. A traffic signal, funded by the applicant, shall be installed at Sierra Point Parkway/Lagoon Way. d. Add a second northbound through lane at the Sierra Point Parkway/Lagoon Way intersection. e. Re-stripe the westbound approach of the Sierra Point Parkway/U.S. 101 Ramps intersection to include a through lane and a shared through right- turn lane. f. Add a second northbound left-turn lane, a second southbound right-turn lane, and add a second eastbound left-turn lane at the Sierra Point \\CH-PDC\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\111998 pc.doc Page 3 of 19 Parkway/Shoreline Court-Marina Boulevard intersection. The northbound and southbound approaches would be controlled by split phasing with these improvements, and eastbound right-turn lane should be maintained as a "free" movement. 3. Planning Division Condition #10 should be deleted since it is substantially the same as the redrafted mitigation measure above. He referenced two letters that were received from the City of Brisbane, which indicate that they are developing a sewer service agreement. He noted that since the last meeting, the City of Brisbane also conferred that the traffic improvements for this project included in the agreement between the two jurisdictions, is not generating all of the traffic improvements, but rather is a cumulative impact that is not significant. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren noted that the letter from the Public Works Director of the City of Brisbane refers incorrectly to a Development Agreement adding that he has spoken with Brisbane's City Attorney, which prompted the letter stating that they will be preparing an agreement. Mr. Carlson noted that there are a significant number of mitigation measures, and a number of other agencies that will be reviewing the project and noted that BCDC had some concerns about the view analysis, which have been adequately responded to by staff. He added that the applicant may wish to include additional language to the resolution. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren noted that Commissioner Baldocchi would be stepping down since she had not been present for the first portion of the hearing. Mr. Randy Ackerman noted that they had provided a pretty lengthy presentation the last time, and he did not have much to add. He noted that he has conversed with Mr. Carlson regarding the issues raised on the Negative Declaration, and he felt comfortable that he understood them. With reference to the "will serve" letter about the sanitary sewer service, he requested that one of the conditions of approval include language that approval from both City Councils is necessary before obtaining a building permit. Chairman Barnett asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak, being none, he closed the public hearing and invited comments from the Commission. Vice Chairman Teglia indicated that overall he thought this was a fine project, noting that he had one concern which he raised the last time, which was the concern expressed by the Design Review Board with reference to the encroachment into the 100' shoreline setback for parking. He noted that one of the recommendations made by the Design Review Board was a possible parking structure, which has been determined not to be feasible. He asked if it would be possible to make a slight adjustment to the point that bows out which reduces the band significantly. He added that this was \\CH-PDC\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\111998 pc.doc Page 4 of 19 only a suggestion and not a major concern. Chairman Barnett asked staff if the changes requested by the Vice Chair would impact the parking ratio. Commissioner Romero indicated he could not support the position recommended by the Vice Chair, although he is a strong advocate for protecting the setback. He noted that the unique design of the buildings add significantly to either side of the parking lot, which more than compensates for the encroachment into the setback. He added that if any of the Commissioners feel strong enough that they want to advocate the change, the entire Commission should be polled. He noted that he would not support the action, since he likes the project, which in his opinion is well designed, adding that they have done an excellent job of trying to preserve even more than is necessary. Vice Chairman Teglia indicated that he was not strongly advocating the change adding Commissioner Romero made a good point, with which he agreed. He stated that he also thought it was a good project. Commissioner Masuda noted that he agreed with Commissioner Romero noting that eliminating the area would cause a loss to public parking on both sides. Chairman Barnett noted that he had also considered raising the same request as the Vice Chair and was interested in hearing from the developer on the prospects of addressing the issue. Commissioner Sim stated that there might be a way to compromise, without taking away parking, such as a pedestrian friendly path as recommended by the Design Review Board. He pointed to a possibility of expanding it from the four-story building to the bay front. Mr. Ackerman responded that they have attempted to encroach into the BCDC band as little as possible, and have avoided parking garages for the reasons stated at their last session. He noted that based on the size of the buildings that they consider marketable, they came up with the footprints as presented. He stated that their focus has been to get people to the Bay, adding that there is a path from the back building that includes a shoreline connecting to the sidewalks on the site. He added that the landscaping within the rest of the site makes up for the pavement, and noted that they will continue to refine the site plan, looking at parking ratios since they would prefer having landscape rather than parking. Chairman Barnett noted that he felt it was a great project and he did not want to get stuck on a minor point. Vice Chairman Teglia noted that he appreciated the applicant's comments, and asked that at their discretion they consider adding more green in the area of the walkway, noting that he wanted to be clear that they don't take the encroachment lightly. \\CH-PDC\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\111998 pc.doc Page 5 of 19 Motion-Teglia/Second-Masuda. Senior Planner Carlson requested that the motion include the revised Mitigation Negative Declaration language as read into the record, as well as noting that Condition number 10 should be struck, and replaced by with a condition stating "The final building inspection for any of the four buildings comprising the project shall not occur until the Sewer Service Agreement between the City of South San Francisco and City of Brisbane has been adopted by both City Councils". Motion was amended to include staff's recommendations. Approved by majority voice vote. Commissioner Baldocchi did not Paliicipate. 4. Gallo Office and R&D~ Owner: Gallo Glass Company~ Applicant: James Luce~ 420 Forbes Boulevard~ Case Nos. MND 98-079 and UP 98-079 Use Permit allowing a 47,722 square foot building for office, research and development uses, uses generating more than 100 average daily vehicle trips, 24 hour operation, and a small enclosed outside service yard, situated at 420 Forbes Boulevard, a vacant parcel (APN 015- 050-710), and allowing a portion of the site to be continued to be utilized as an aisleway for the beverage distribution facility situated on an abutting site at 440 Forbes Bouleval"d, in the Planned Industrial Zone District (P-I). Sr. Planner Carlson presented the staff report. Mr. Don Yancy the architect representing the applicant noted that they have read and agree with the conditions. He detailed the revisions made to the plans, which he indicated incorporate the recommendations made by the Design Review Board. Chairman Barnett asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to speak. There being none, he invited comments from the Commission. Commissioner Romero asked if he was correct in assuming that both the Montegrano and this were under the same ownership, and would become one site. Mr. Carlson responded that there would be a separation between the two. Commissioner Romero expressed a concern with inadequate parking on the Montegrano site and asked if a joint or shared parking agreement could be arranged for the two sites at this time to alleviate the problem, since they share ownership and this site appears to have excessive parking Chairman Barnett commented that he did not feel that a common owner with two distinct uses should be grounds for requesting that type of arrangement. \\CH-PDC\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\111998 pc.doc Page 6 of 19 Vice Chairman Teglia stated that he shares the same concerns that Commissioner Romero raised adding that this could be accomplished by merging the lots and he felt that it was appropriate to consider improving the current situation at this time. Mr. Yancy explained that the two do not share the same owner, noting that the Montegrano site is owned by United States Intermodal Service, and Gallo Glass Company is the owner of this parcel. Commissioner Masuda noted that he would not like to see the parking merged. Mr. Carlson noted that if parking with Montegrano is a concern, staff would prefer to bring that to the Commission separately since the Commission has the authority to review a use permit. Chairman Barnett stated that he agreed that the way to address the situation with Montegrano would be to follow what Mr. Carlson had suggested. Commissioner Romero noted that he felt this was a good opportunity to address the problem since there was a vested interest of ownership involved in this application. He commented that when the Montegrano application was approved, he had not envisioned the trucks parking alongside the property line. He suggested that parking be placed along both sides of the strip on the left-hand portion of the project to allow more automobile parking. Mr. Carlson noted that the application for Montegrano had provided a staging diagram which presented accurate information on how they would be parking the delivery trucks by staging them in the manner in which they are doing. He noted that the problems reported have been with passenger vehicles, which may caused by the number of employees being underestimated. Chariman Barnett noted that it was difficult to analyze the effects of the two sites, since the only information they have is for this site. He asked staff if they were aware of the parking problem at Montegrano's. Mr. Carlson noted that it has come up from time to time, and staff has worked with them to make sure measures were taken to alleviate the problems. Commissioner Romero noted that he was bringing this up as a suggestion and not trying to impose anything on this applicant, but rather make it part of the ownership responsibility to provide sufficient parking for the tenants. Chairman Barnett asked Commissioner Romero if he was still inclined to seek that the parking for the Montegrano site be considered at this time. Commissioner Romero requested that it be left to a consensus of the rest of the Commission. \\CH-PDC\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\l998\111998 pc.doc Page 7 of 19 Chairman Barnett stated that in his opinion there were two options: 1) Forget about the Montegrano issue and deal with on a separate venue, or 2) continue this until sufficient information is available for both parcels. Commissioner Masuda stated that Montegrano issue should not be coming up at this time, and he did not think it be delayed, noting that he did not see a problem with the project. Commissioner Romero agreed, adding that he preferred to have staff deal with it appropriately. Vice Chairman Teglia suggested the applicant consider a shared driveway which would extend the length of the landscaping on the frontage, where both sites could enter and exit on the Montegrano boundary. Commissioner Masuda cautioned that opening up the driveway would cause a problem with trucks parking. Mr. Yancy stated that the access from Forbes was addressed during the early schematic design of the project, adding that the site plan was designed to deal with the openings as they exist since they have to satisfy the tenant. He noted that he Fire Marshal has reviewed the site plan for fire fighting and has given his approval. He stated that they would not be interested in sharing a driveway. Vice Chairman Teglia asked staff if the intersection of GrandIForbes and Eccles, has been analyzed for safe maneuverability. Motion-Romero/Second-Teglia. Approved by unanimous voice vote. Chairman Barnett noted that he would be abstaining from item #5, Genentech and Vice Chairman Teglia would serve as Chairman Pro Tern. Chairman Barnett called a recess at 8:35 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:50 p.m. 5. Genentech~ Buildin2 26~ Applicant: Genentech~ Inc.~ Case Nos. UP-98-092~ Ne2ative Declaration ND-98-092 Use Permit and Negative Declaration to allow construction of a new four story office building comprising a total of 112,718 square feet, located at 1526 Grandview Drive (adjacent to existing buildings 24 and 25) in the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District. Consulting Planner Lappen presented the staff report. \\CH-PDC\ISHADD\FILE CABlNE1\OLD PC\WORKING\MlNUTES\1998\111998 PC.DOC Page 8 of 19 Chairman Pro Tem Teglia asked whether building 55 is a temporary facility. Mr. Peter Yee responded that building 55 was intended to be only a temporary facility for a maximum of five years. He noted that their plan is take the facility down when building 26 is ready to be occupied. He noted that the change to the current plans is in response to the comments from the Design Review Board. Chairman Pro Tem Teglia asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to speak. There being none he invited comments from the Commission. Commissioner Masuda asked if consideration had been given to placing an elevated walkway instead of a traffic signal. Mr. Yee noted that they had not looked at the prospect of a walkway, adding that they could look at it, however he felt that it would be an expensive proposition, and engineering would have some concerns about the height and truck clearances. Motion-Sim/Second-Honan. Chairman Pro Tern asked if the Commission wanted to address the issue of limiting the temporary site for building 55. Mr. Yee responded that the building is being leased for a period of 3 to 5 years, which if continued would become very expensive, and for that reason will continue only for a limited time. The application was approved by the following voice vote: AYES: Chairman Pro Tern Teglia, Commissioner Romero, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Baldocchi, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Masuda None Chairman Barnett None NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Chairman Barnett returned to the podium. 6. South San Francisco Scaven2er Company ~ Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station~ East Jamie Court~ Case Nos. GP-98-013~ UP-98-013~ ZA-98-013 and EIR-98- 013 Public hearing on the draft South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Consulting Planner Lappen presented the Staff Report End of Tape 1 Mr. Paul Miller, Project Director for Environmental Science Associates, provided a description of the proposed materials recovery facility and transfer station, which he noted would handle an \\CH-PDC\ISHADD\FILE CABlNE1\OLD PC\WORKING\MlNUTES\1998\111998 PC.DOC Page 9 of 19 average of 1,000 tons per day at the peak, and actual peak tonnage through the facility would be 1250 tons. He noted that the facility would involve a change in the land use and zoning designation and would be located in the area north of the Airport with the San Francisco Bay on both east and south of the facility. He added that the facility is approximately a 10 acre site which is currently vacant and has historically been used as handling area for fill materials. He explained that the facility would be receiving and processing waste materials for the South San Francisco Scavenger Company service area. He noted that several types of vehicles would be coming onto the site. He continued that facility would be used for separating curbside recyclable materials and recovery of recyclable materials from the commercial waste streams in preparation for marketing. He also noted that the facility would also be processing yard debris in preparation for sale or shipping for further composting, and the residual garbage would be shipped or otherwise processed to a landfill in long haul transfer trucks. He also stated that the facility includes an international cooker, which is a sterilizer for waste from international air flights, which is currently performed at the Blue Line Transfer site. He added that the facility would include a household hazardous waste collection facility which primarily involves latex paints, batteries, oils, and antifreeze and will be operated in cooperation with the San Mateo County. He noted that vehicle maintenance as well as fleet parking and administrative offices would also be housed at the facility. He noted that the project analyzed in the Draft EIR looked at the construction phase as well as the operational phases of the project, and the effects of the change in land and zoning use. He noted that the document assumes that the facility will be built and fully operational in 1999 and would replace the Blue Line Transfer Station as well as the South San Francisco Scavenger Company South Linden facility. He noted that the cumulative analysis for impacts of the project, which is required by CEQA, was set for 2003. He stated that there was an initial "Notice of Preparation" study prepared some months ago which focused on ten issues: planning, aesthetics, public service and utilities, public health and safety, traffic and transportation, air quality, noise, geology and seismicity, hydrology and water quality, and biological resources, which are fully discussed in the Draft EIR. He noted that the Draft EIR found that many of the impacts of the project can be mitigated to a less than significant level, however there were impacts that were identified as significant, unavoidable environmental effects of the project: . Land use and planning - the cumulative changes that would result from the change in land use designation would change the character as envisioned in the specific area or in the East of 101 Plan · Traffic and transportation safety - the EIR looked at two haul routes that would be primarily used for the facility which was narrowed down as the best of five routes which were initially looked at. . Air quality - he noted that the project by nature of a transfer facility like this where waste \\CH-PDC\ISHADD\FILE CABlNE1\OLD PC\WORKING\MlNUTES\1998\111998 PC.DOC Page 10 of 19 will be traveling fairly long distance, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District requires that those impacts be looked at, and almost by definition 1,000 ton facility will end up with significant unavoidable impacts in the areas of excess nitrogen oxide and reactive organic gases which are both precursors to ozone, and the Air Quality District does not have permitting authority over emissions exceeding 80 pounds per day which are considered very sensitive and must be reported. . Air quality, cumulative submissions - also become significant with additional traffic growth. . Noise- which are impacts on users at the Bay Trail as identified by the East of 101 Plan which identified a level of 60 decibels as being a goal for recreation and open space areas, and there will be areas in this facility where it will exceed 60 decibels on the Bay trail. He presented slides for visual effects of some of the sensitive areas and how they fit in with the facility as well as others depicting the appearance of the facility. He noted that there were several impacts in the project such as odors that could be mitigated by careful management. He stated that the proposed mitigation measures for odors provide that the waste will be stored no more than 48 hours on site, as required by State regulations for these facilities. Additional measures include regular cleaning of the facility, and the use of misting systems with deodorizers, as well as a requirement that the operator to develop an odor management protocol for any future odor complaints which would become more progressive. He he noted that alternatives to the project are required by CEQA and provided a description of the alternatives: . No project alternative - assumes that the Scavengers will continue to operate the Blue Line Transfer Station at the South Linden facility and other means of achieving the 50% waste reduction would be required, and it assumes no change in the land use. . The offsite alternative - taken from another study, and reviewed by ESA which involved an innovative design for the southeast corner of Shaw Road/San Mateo site which places all the uses on a seven acre piece of property. He noted that this is one of the alternatives that was reviewed in the DSEIR, and identified as the environmentally preferable of the alternatives. . Design alternative for layout - considered elements of the East of 101 ideas which would handle the same amount of waste in an area with concepts of an industrial campus that groups some of the activities, and flip flops where the vehicle maintenance is on the west side of the facility and the household hazardous waste facility is placed in area that was considered safer for cueing and drop off. He noted that these are described in the Draft EIR and some of the concepts of the design alternatives identified have already been incorporated by the applicants. . Reduced project alternative - that would handle about % of the total tonnage envisioned by the project consisting of an industrial campus layout where things are combined or placed in different areas, with the wood waste having been moved out of the major processing building \\CH-PDC\ISHADD\FILE CABlNE1\OLD PC\WORKING\MlNUTES\1998\111998 PC.DOC Page 11 of 19 which reduces the size of the building; and the vehicle maintenance building has been moved to the east side of the property. The 100' buffer area has nlore closely been maintained as required by the BCDC. He outlined the environmental review process schedule: The Draft was released October 30, the written comments period will end December 14, Final EIR preparation will begin after the comment period ends, in December - January time period, and depending on how long it takes to complete the Final EIR, the certification of the EIR would occur in the winter of 1999. Commissioner Romero asked if the mitigated alternative was going to be brought forward as the preferred alternative. Mr. Miller responded that he did not think so, noting that the environmentally superior alternative within CEQA is not necessarily rated against the actual project. However, you are required to identify the superior alternative, and if that is the no project alternative, you have to select another alternative from the remaining alternatives. He noted that in most cases it is not the preferred project, particularly if it is the off site project. Mr. Harnish asked Commissioner Romero if he was referring to the staff's recommendation. He added that the EIR would stand alone as advice to staff, the Commission and the Council. He stated that a decision has not been made on whether staff will recoffilllend the project with modifications, or an alternative. He also made a correction to the schedule outlined by Mr. Miller, stating that a decision for certification would most likely be made before winter of 1999 and more likely in the spring of 1999. Vice Chairman Teglia stated that one of the concerns raised at the original study session was that the appropriateness of the project needs to be determined quickly in order to provide an opportunity to modify the existing plan or find an alternative site in time to make the year 2000. He noted that he had a number of questions and concerns that he would defer until after the public testimony. Chairman Barnett asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to speak. Being none he invited comments from the Commission. Vice Chairman Teglia noted that his concerns are with the approach to the alternatives. He identified Section B (2), which talks about the alternatives that were considered and rejected. He stated that the option of a site in Brisbane and Millbrae were rejected due to lack of possible sites, noting that there seems to be a lot of open space in Brisbane, and he felt that it should have been considered in the EIR as a viable alternative. He asked if it could be looked at, or if there is a reason why it was not. Mr. Harnish noted that in response to the Commission's comments made at the last study session, staff is researching other five-acre alternative sites for a project different from what was described in the EIR, which is a consolidated facility. He stated that research had been done on a ten-acre site that met part of the applicant's objectives for the project. He stated that the Redevelopment Agency had paid for a real estate broker to conduct a search for alternative sites, \\CH-PDC\ISHADD\FILE CABlNE1\OLD PC\WORKING\MlNUTES\1998\111998 PC.DOC Page 12 of 19 that included the entire service area for the Scavengers, and no sites were identified. He stated that the large area in Brisbane was determined to be unavailable at this point. Vice Chairman Teglia noted that the "no building" alternative assumed that Blue Line would continue to be operated, which he says is an erroneous assumption since his understanding of the franchise agreement included the relocation of Linden, and under that scenario the alternative would mean that Blue Line would move to a different site, which would allow for a smaller site than the ten acres to accommodate a MRF, with the offices remaining on Linden. He referenced sections in the tables that spoke of meeting mandatory policies. He specifically identified Section 3(b) 19, where the discussion of the 100' BCDC setback quotes that "the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission has determined that a parking area can encroach within the 100' buffer area". He stated that he does not recall malting a policy decision on that, but have made exceptions in the past where a sizeable amount of open space has been gained to mitigate the encroachment, which is a different scenario from a large industrial complex encroaching into the buffer. He also referenced Page 3 (a) 12, which refers to "proposed above ground fuel tanks". He stated that the Planning Commission would make a policy decision in the future on that. However his understanding is that there have been plenty of precedents in the past where both Planning and Council have stated that above ground fuel tanks are highly discouraged. He commented on the traffic section, where assumptions are made that when a project is moving from one side of town to another, traffic is being simply relocated. He noted that the current location on Oyster Point is near the freeway and is a wide road, and while it is becoming congested, is not as congested as Grand which is further away from easy access to the freeway and the facility would require different needs in terms of ingress and egress for a brand new facility which is incorporating recycling and household hazardous waste disposal which will be incorporated with the County's program talting more of regional draw of traffic into that aliery. He noted that those were his only concerns that need to be addressed in the EIR. He added that while highly desirable to consolidate everything on one site, the goal is to get a MRF into operation to meet the year 2000 deadline, and consolidation of the facilities is not necessary, given to the conclusions that the preferred plan has significant impacts. He noted that they visited several locations where the MRF is entirely separate from the administrative and operation part of the scavenger companies' dumping site. He suggested that perhaps a split option where the offices remain on Linden, or relocate elsewhere on the bay front sepal'ate from the MRF would open up many sites within the city, which have now been overlooked because they can not accommodate the entire project. Commissioner Masuda noted that the preferred alternative for Shaw Road which would eliminate off-street parking on Shaw Road and Linden, noting that going under 380 to San Bruno is a very narrow street and the alternative of cutting it back from 1,000 to 750 is not practical, adding that if you're going to build a facility now it should be done to prevent a need for expansion ten years from now. \\CH-PDC\ISHADD\FILE CABlNE1\OLD PC\WORKING\MlNUTES\1998\111998 PC.DOC Page 13 of 19 Commissioner Sim asked staff if appropriate noticing had been done, and whether any comments had been received. Commissioner Honan asked if the notification was expanded as requested by the Commission. Commissioner Sim noted that this is going to be a very difficult decision for the Planning Commission to make, and one of the things he mentioned was that the 1000 foot noticing is beyond the norm; however the Commission had requested that the homeowners also be included. He stated that he wanted to make sure that the community is aware of this major decision, adding that he was not comfortable going through deliberations without any community input. Mr. Harnish noted that it was not unusual for projects in the East of 101 where there are no residents. He stated that larger display ads could be purchased, and advertising on a regional basis, as well as noticing to a wider range could be added, however it would be very expensive and is not a cost borne by the applicant. Chairman Barnett noted that in this.case because of the impacts of the project he thought that while excessive, a notice should go out to everybody in the City, adding that the onus gets put on the Commission to make the determination of what noticing is appropriate. He added that he has a problem and cannot comment since he missed the study session three weeks ago, and did not receive the minutes or a copy of the Draft EIR that was handed out at the study session. Mr. Harnish noted that he would be reluctant to notice everyone in the city, which would involve 18,000 notices. However, he noted that if the Commission feels that this is the extent to which they want to notice, he would look into options. Vice Chairman Teglia suggested that the next meeting could provide a section for additional oral comments on the EIR. Mr. Harnish noted that this item could be continued and additional courtesy notices could be mailed to all of the homeowners associations and expanded for the December 17th meeting for. Commissioner Honan noted that she would like to see the noticing expanded. Commissioner Baldocchi noted that it would be nice to have public testimony, however it is a representative democracy, and it is the responsibility of the Commission to represent the people of the city. She added that public notification could be done however if the public does not respond it is the Commission's responsibility to make a decision. Vice Chairman Teglia agreed adding that the public should trust the Commission's decision. He commented that one problem with the notification is that frequently the notification goes to property owners and not tenants, and it might be nice to do some sort of outreach to that area. Commissioner Masuda suggested that an announcement could be made at the next Council \\CH-PDC\ISHADD\FILE CABlNE1\OLD PC\WORKING\MlNUTES\1998\111998 PC.DOC Page 14 of 19 Meeting. Mr. Harnish noted that he would talk with the City Manager to see if that could be accommodated. Chairman Barnett asked how many tons a day is currently generated by South San Francisco Scavengers and raised other questions regarding the criteria for the recommended amount that would be generated. A South San Francisco Scavenger's representative (not identified) directed the Commission to Appendix B in the EIR, and provided details on the estimates and amounts generated for the various jurisdictions. Vice Chairman Teglia asked if the Scavengers would be permitted to include new jurisdictions to the service area. He noted that under any scenario, strictly speaking for South San Francisco and the Airport the reduced option is adequate to handle those needs. The South San Francisco Scavenger representative (not identified) agreed; however he added that the Scavengers have franchise agreements with both Brisbane and Millbrae. Commissioner Sim asked if there was a way to look at the needs in terms of acreage for each of the components to help the Commission in analyzing why the ten-acre site is so important. Mr. Stickler consultant for ESA responded that there is no formula to determine that. He added that the more space you have, the more you can do, and the Scavenger Company wants the flexibility to be able to handle a lot of different waste streams and process them as much as they can in order to recover as much as possible, which is limited with a small space. He noted that the amount of material going to Blue Line is considered remarkable by many people given the size of the facility. However, while a lot of material is going through there and they are currently recovering a lot, the amount could be increased with additional space Commissioner Sim responded that the trade offs need to be considered for what the maximum yields are, which will give the Commission a better indication of the flexibility for other alternative considerations and evaluation of the importance of a ten-acre site. Vice Chairman Teglia stated that while he agrees with Commissioner Sim's point, he noted that this is the EIR hearing and that idea should be explored after the EIR is settled. Commissioner Romero noted that if this project is approved it would require the rezoning of the coastal commercial designation, and will designate a site that will indirectly provide a benefit to other cities, Brisbane, Millbrae, and possibly other agencies. He noted that it would be generate impacts to this City through an increase in traffic, in what is a means for those other cities attaining their goals in reducing their 50% mandate. He noted that he felt it was important that other cities contribute to this type of facility, similar to what the Sunnyvale facility has (a joint operation) between three cities. He added that he found it hard to believe that Brisbane does not have any space available to provide the Scavengers with a site for this purpose, and for this \\CH-PDC\ISHADD\FILE CABlNE1\OLD PC\WORKING\MlNUTES\1998\111998 PC.DOC Page 15 of 19 reason it becomes South San Francisco's responsibility to provide space. He stated that he felt that the other cities should be held accountable for their fair share and asked if there was some way to mitigate the impacts that will be created by servicing other cities to help reduce those impacts for South San Francisco. Commissioner Masuda stated that he thought those cities were already being charged to haul the garbage, the same way as San Bruno sewage. Discussions followed that there was some concern among some of the Commission that the other cities were not being held accountable for the impact to South San Francisco's infrastructure. Commissioner Baldocchi asked if the other cities are aware that this facility is being considered for South San Francisco. Commissioner Honan commented that if these cities are informing us that they do not have sites, how could they not know. Mr. Harnish stated that staff has not researched the other cities. In response to comments raised by Vice Chairman Teglia with regard to the narrow scope of the search, he explained that when an applicant comes before staff for CEQA purposes, they are requested to provide the project objectives in order to form a basis for evaluating the project, and looldng at alternatives. He stated that to some extent staff is required to analyze the project based on the applicant's stated objectives. He noted that in this situation something different could be approved that does not meet all the objectives. However he noted that staff does not take it upon themselves to evaluate whether the application will be recommended on a different set of objectives from what the applicant has requested. He noted that staff initially worked with the applicant to try to find alternative sites, recognizing that this is a controversial site which would require significant policy change. He indicated that in recommending the project to Council the Commission has the flexibility to express the reluctance to accept this project, and recommend another project on another site. Vice Chairman Teglia noted that he understood the analogy, but noted that it was not the same. He noted that this is a different project, which could not be approached in the normal manner, since part of the agreement with the Scavengers is that the City is going to assist them in finding a site. He noted that this involves a legislative deadline, which is in the interest of both the City and the Scavengers to meet, and due to the time constraints this issue requires a proactive approach in order to insure that the time constraints are met. He noted that he had pointed out some errors in the assumptions earlier, which he felt should be addressed in the EIR. He noted that aside from the EIR, the Commission is having a difficult time giving up such a prime location, which impacts the City in such a significant way. He added that other methods for getting the MRF in should be done in parallel with the original proposal. Commissioner Honan again asked if the notices for the businesses had been extended, or was it only for what is legally required. \\CH-PDC\ISHADD\FILE CABlNE1\OLD PC\WORKING\MlNUTES\1998\111998 PC.DOC Page 16 of 19 Commissioner Sim reiterated that he wanted staff to know that the Commission is not recommending that all homeowners be notified. However they are requesting that each homeowner's associations and the Chamber of Commerce be notified. Commissioner Baldocchi expressed a concern that the city councils and administrations of other cities served by the Scavengers may not be aware that this is happening, while it is something that they are mandated to do. She stated that she did not understand why they were not required to come to the table to negotiate assistance with supporting the impacts to South San Francisco's infrastructure, leaving it to this Commission to deal with. Commissioner Honan asked who had hired the realtor to research the locations. Mr. Harnish indicated that it was through the Redevelopment Agency since it is in the redevelopment project area. Commissioner Masuda noted that considering the discussions, this should be opened for public hearing. Chairman Barnett agreed, and asked that any recommendations on the EIR be put forth, otherwise he recommended moving on to the next item. Vice Chairman Teglia agreed, adding that what has been discussed is calling for more alternatives in the EIR, which should be addressed in the EIR. He moved to continue oral comments to the December 3rd meeting. Motion-Masuda/Second-Sim. Approved by majority voice vote. Vice Chairman Teglia requested that staff provide a simple comparison of existing MRF's in the area, size, capacity, and method for sorting to assist them in evaluating the project. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Items from Staff 7 a. Discussions on Terrabay Public Hearing Schedule Mr. Harnish noted that the Final EIR is being prepared for direction to be given to the consultant, and that will probably not be ready until the week after next. He noted that he was not prepared to provide a schedule until he had a better idea of when the EIR will be published. He noted that the next dates he would be given, he would hope to be firm. He also mentioned that staff continues to meet with the applicant's team talking about revisions to the Point, and they came back with some ideas, that will continue at a meeting next Monday. He recommended scheduling a study session for 6:30 p.m. prior to the Regular Meeting on December 3rd. Chairman Barnett requested that staff come back on the 3rd with concrete information. \\CH-PDC\ISHADD\FILE CABlNE1\OLD PC\WORKING\MlNUTES\1998\111998 PC.DOC Page 17 of 19 Vice Chairman Teglia requested that the material for the meetings be available with the Friday packet before the meeting, which would then give the Commission a better idea if the material warrants a study session. Mr. Harnish noted that they are struggling to get it done by the 10th of December, so this would mean that a study session would have to be in January. Chairman Barnett and Vice Chairman Teglia noted that considering the schedule, it may not be a bad idea. Chairman Barnett suggested further discussions on the 3rd. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren noted that if the Commission has any particular questions on what staff is doing and what is taking so long, he would be happy to provide that information on an individual basis. b. Other None Items from Commission Commissioner Masuda asked if there were restrictions for gardeners blowing the grass out on the street after the sweeper goes by. Mr. Harmon noted that the storm drain code includes regulations. Commissioner Romero noted that effective Monday he would be at a new location in San Leandro, and provided his new telephone number. Commissioner Baldocchi asked if there was an ordinance requiring that dog owners clean up after their dogs. Sgt. Massoni responded that there is a leash law, that requires owners to keep their dogs on a leash, as well as a pooper-scooper law that requires that they clean up after their pets. He noted that it does not fully address private property. Vice Chairman Teglia noted that something that is very important to him is the nomenclature where the city refers to different neighborhoods by names that have been defined and understood over the years. He noted that the General Plan Consultant decided to name the South Linden area Lindenville, which was never adopted by the City Council. Discussions followed that historic records indicate that the area was originally referred to as Lindenville. Chairman Barnett announced that due to his heavy schedule, he has submitted a letter to \\CH-PDC\ISHADD\FILE CABlNE1\OLD PC\WORKING\MlNUTES\1998\111998 PC.DOC Page 18 of 19 Council and Planning staff announcing that he will not be considering a second term, and his intent is to attend his last meeting on January 7th to entertain motions for reorganization of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Romero noted that he has not yet applied for reappointment, but has been told that he can apply for another term. Commissioner Masuda raised a question of possible consequences of a new Commission and how it could affect the ongoing projects, such as Terrabay. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren noted that he has considered the issue, and he would ask that new Commissioners carefully review all of the meeting minutes, tapes, and individualized packet of relevant materials submitted for the record, which city staff would make available to them. He noted that with those considerations he would feel comfortable allowing them participating in future votes. Items from the Public None Adjourn Motion-Sim/Second-Romero. Meeting adjourned at 10:42 p.m. I . ff "-'~ a ristopher Barnett, ./Planning Commissibn City of South San Francisco '- JH:is NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting December 3, 1998, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA. \\CH-PDC\ISHADD\FILE CABlNE1\OLD PC\WORKING\MlNUTES\1998\111998 PC.DOC Page 19 of 19