Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/05/1998 (2) MINUTES CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING/COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE November 5, 1998 CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The meeting was called to order at 6:45 p.m. ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Barnett, Vice Chairman Teglia, Commissioner Masuda, Commissioner Romero, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Sim MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Baldocchi ALSO PRESENT: EC&D Planning Division City Attorney Engineering: Marty Van Duyn Jim Harnish, Chief Planner Adam Lindgren Cyrus Kianpour Richard Hal"mon 1. Terrabay Phase IT and ill Review and discuss new information presented by staff and applicant representatives and establish public hearing schedule for Terrabay Phases IT and ill. Chief Planner Harnish presented the staff report and summarized the material that was requested at the last study session. He noted that the Oyster Point hook ramp and flyover renderings were on display for them to review, and the applicant and his representative present a series of graphics and plans that they prepared in consultation with staff illustrating the different aspects of the project and alternative plans, primarily for the Point. Mr. Bob Kent from Sunstream Homes noted that following the last study session representatives for the developer and members of City staff reviewed the Commission's concerns and developed alternatives to reflect their understanding of those concerns. He summal"ized the presentation and \\CH-PDC\ISHADD\FILE CABlNE1\OLD PC\ WORKING\MlNUTES\1998\110598T'BA YSS.DOC Page 1 of 13 described the renderings which included: 1) An alternate plan that eliminated Q Street; 2) an alternate plan that eliminated Q Street with only duplexes; 3) an alternate plan which showed two rows of houses instead of three; 4) some alternate plans which show the point stopping as it makes the turn; and, computer generated renderings depicting the view of what the project would look like once it is completed from different angles of the City. He noted that with respect to the computer generated perspectives, the Oyster Point flyover would have to be considered since it would have a major impact on the visual effects. He noted that this visual is very important since one of the primary concerns the Commission expressed was with the height of the buildings. He added that this shows the bottom row, of duplexes, and as you go up the hill, triplexes, yet the triplexes are not seen, because the lower units block them. He noted that the original architect, Mark Day with Dahlin Group, who has been with the project since its conception, as well as Bob Mantegani who was on the Planning Commission when it first came before the Planning Commission, were available to respond to historical questions. Chairman Barnett arrived at 6:50 p.m. Mr. Mark Day noted that their office prepared the drawings, the Specific Plan and a full Precise Plan on Phase II. He provided historical information and noted that Tenabay Woods included plans for continuation of the Village, which consisted of fourplexes, upslope and downslope townhomes, except that the Village also required side step making building foundations very difficult. He added that the same product was intended for the Woods with very large townhome units going downhill and three-story uphill, flat side to side. He noted that the Precise Plans for the Commons included a very large intense, dense project similar to the triplex except bigger, with two-story units below and three-story units from the top which equated to a five-story unit, combined with five and six unit-wide townhomes. He described the plans for the Point which included a horseshoe shaped building along the contour of the mountain with the same concept coming from below and above all the way up the hill, probably ten or eleven stories tall and all connected, including U-shaped subterranean garages through the buildings. He indicated that when Mr. Breen approached them about re- designing, they recognized the need to design housing where the buildings would pick up the slope of the mountain, with smaller units particularly for the Point. He noted that some of the design philosophies of picking up the grade were incorporated into the triplexes. He described the three alternatives and explained the difficulties encountered when attempting to implement some of the Commission's concerns. He noted that the cunent design narrows the area to two distinct points with a starting point that prevents them from going further down the mountain, due to the roadway and lack of access points, and they are prevented from going further up the mountain due to the HCP fence line. He stated that the advantage of the current design is that all the slope is taken up in the foundation of the buildings and the tliplex picks up 30' of the mountain in the foundation and eliminates the need for retaining walls. He also noted that this would minimize the need to grade further into the mountain, and insures that slope does not wipe out a row of buildings or the need for bigger walls if the hinge point is steeper. \\CH-PDC\ISHADD\FILE CABlNE1\OLD PC\WORKING\MlNUTES\1998\110598T'BA YSS.DOC Page 2 of 13 In response to the Commission's concern for replacing the upper row of triplexes with a row of upslope duplexes he described Alternative I, where "Q" Street acts like a buffer for any of the slough from the mountain adding that when the street is removed, the slough is brought into someone's back yard. He also noted that by changing that to duplexes, the 30' of grade for the triplexes is cut down to 10' which requires an additional 20' of cut into the mountain and either the slope continues into the back doors, or else 15' retaining wall is needed, as well as a 50' safety zone to prevent slough from coming off the mountain, and for maintenance purposes. He noted that this alternative would eliminate approximately 15 units. Mr. Day noted that this alternative did not show the addition on both sides of "0" and "P" Streets which would add 8' necessitating an additional 5' on the retaining wall. He explained that all changes made horizontally affect the project vertically. He described Option IT as one that takes into account eliminating the triplexes and going to all duplexes. He noted that this actually compounds the problem explained in Alternative I, since the middle row of houses only pick up 10' of grade. He noted that the current plan picks up 60'of grade, which, assuming that three rows of houses are retained, will be replaced by only 20', necessitating an additional 40' of cut into the mountain and at the minimum a 30' tall retaining wall depending on whether 5' or 8' if sidewalk is added. He noted that this alternative would eliminate 39 units. In Alternative ill, he noted that the plans to continue with triplexes which eliminates one row of units, and would lead to the loss of 53 homes. He described the renderings in their attempt to eliminate homes on the Point by not filling into the valley, and only building where the natural cut occurs. He noted that this would generate a loss of 38 homes. He described the request to eliminate all homes in the area that wraps around the Point, which he noted creates a more pronounced valley and a ridge in another area, and results in a loss of 66 units. The third alternative that was requested was to recreate the green belt between units or break up the long mass, and adding greenway. He noted that since there is a 2: 1 slope, you don't gain much in the way of a pathway, and pedestrian connections would result in very steep stairways and elimination of 8 units. He noted that it is very difficult to get more curvature on the street since it would involve further pushing into the hill. Chief Planner Harnish asked about the possibility of using different elevations or curvature to the street. Mr. Day responded that this would need to be done architecturally or through the elimination of units, since the grade needs to be uniformly cut in a row to accommodate the retaining walls within the buildings. Vice Chairman Teglia stated that the Commission had given some suggestions, and made basic conceptual comments that the new plan was a long mass, of very straight, triplexes that are too large, and suggested maybe going to duplexes. He noted that these alternatives have kept the same buildings manipulated differently, with a cookie cutter look of the bend around the hill. He indicated that he had hoped to see more changes in concept, and that the changes might require \\CH-PDC\ISHADD\FILE CABlNE1\OLD PC\WORKING\MlNUTES\1998\110598T'BA YSS.DOC Page 3 of 13 different type of home or layout in order to fit the mountain. He made reference to the color picture of the previous plans toward the west which he indicated illustrate that design concept in a way that compliments the curvature of the mountain with pockets allowing the natural ridges to remain. He stated that the way the condominiums on the point are designed they don't seem quite as imposing as the color photo with three lines of straight roofs all the way around. He also noted that part of the original plan included turf park areas, which is something the Commission had previously expressed concerns for people being cut off from those amenities and the plans should include open space or, small parks to fulfill that void in the Point section. He noted that the old plans for the Commons section, while being large,are more reduced and fit down into the valley. Mr. Day explained that the Commons are two different things; Commons West, which was a small pocket and has been eliminated. He noted that they would have laid in the valley, only to a lesser extent, and Commons East he explained is deceiving in that it looks like a pocket in the valley and does extend out into th~ Point; however the grade was always there, and what appears to be a green belt valley for Commons East, is in effect a road dividing Commons East and Point. Mr. Kent asked if the Commission wished to move forward with discussions on the flyover, commercial site, or had any further questions on these alternatives. Commissioner Masuda asked if Alternative III included sidewalk on both sides. Vice Chairman Teglia noted that he felt that the Commission is pretty comfortable with the commercial and the new pictures respond to many of the questions regarding the flyover. He stated that he was curious about how the rest of the Commission feels about his comments, adding that he felt that the important issue to resolve tonight is with regard to the appeal'ance of the Point. Commissioner Sim stated that he felt it was important to look at the big picture, which included the commercial. He noted that he was also interested in seeing the relationship of the flyover. Chairman Barnett stated that he felt that what they were trying to accomplish tonight was to come to some settlement on Phase II. He asked for discussions and direction on the alternatives from the Commission. Commissioner Romero stated that after looking at the alternatives and listening to the presentation, he was surprised that the applicant had provided their interpretation of the Commission's concerns, and indications that they can't do anything to comply with those concerns. He noted that it is obvious from the presentation that the alternatives are not ones that the applicant is willing to go forward with. He noted that the Commission wants to move forward with this, but they can not do that until such time as they are presented with something constructive, which he did not considered this to be. He added that he felt like the applicant has no intention of complying with the requests, and plans to move forward with the project as was originally proposed, adding that he has a real problem with this. \\CH-PDC\ISHADD\FILE CABlNE1\OLD PC\WORKING\MlNUTES\1998\110598T'BA YSS.DOC Page 4 of 13 Commissioner Honan stated that she appreciates that the applicant went out of their way to get what the Commission asked for. She asked the applicant if they are willing to provide any other al ternati ves. Mr. Breen responded that this is what they attempted to do by providing the four alternatives from which they hoped the Commission could select and recommend to the Council. Commissioner Honan responded that these were the Commission's ideas. She stated that she wanted to know if the applicant had any new ideas that they were they willing to present. Mr. Breen responded that they have studied this for a long time and don't have any other new ideas. Commissioner Honan asked if he was saying that this design is the best, and the only way to go. Mr. Breen responded that in their opinion this is the best design, adding that nothing is ever the only way. He continued in providing the alternatives they have only attempted to point out that making a change to one thing has a consequence to another. Commissioner Honan noted that she is looking at it from the point that she is not a designer, or an architect, or a builder, and she is looking to the applicant to provide better alternatives, since common sense affirms that a 30' concrete wall is not the best alternative. Mr. Breen responded that their understanding of 30' concrete walls, and other issues not being the best alternative is what led them to arrive at what they have presented. Commissioner Honan noted that she found it hard to accept the fact that this is the only way to build on that hill. Mr. Harnish noted that he has had several discussions with the applicant and his representatives, and listened to Mark's presentation tonight and his interpretation of what they are saying is that the proposal before you is based on a variety of things, from the technical development issues and dealing with the slope, to the building, to the marketing. He indicated that his perception of what the applicant is saying is that anyone of the alternatives could be built, however they would involve more disadvantages than the plan which they have put before the Commission such as 30' or 35' retaining wall or different grading techniques. He added, however, that at some point the applicant would have to make some judgement as to whether they are financially feasible, and asked the applicant if this was an accurate characterization. Mr. Kent agreed with Mr. Harnish noting that their last presentation provided details that explained that single family homes still climb the 2: 1 slope and look very massive. He added that it was possible to come in with a plan which once they determined the expense of developing would not be economically feasible, noting that it would lead to $700,000 single family homes hanging off the side of a mountain which is not a marketable item. \\CH-PDC\ISHADD\FILE CABlNE1\OLD PC\WORKING\MlNUTES\1998\110598T'BA YSS.DOC Page 5 of 13 Chairman Barn~tt asked if all of the alternatives were feasible. Mr. Breen responded that economically feasible would depend on whether the Council is willing to allow trade offs on other parts of the project, such as putting $6.5M into a hook ramp. Vice Chairman Teglia asked if the original plan took into account the $6M for the hook ramp or whether the density was increased to get the money for the hook ramps. Mr. Breen responded that the original plan had higher density. Vice Chairman Teglia noted that the original plan had a less of a massive band. He stated that he had been very clear at the last meeting that what the Commission was doing was offering suggestions of things that could happen, however experts would need to provide details on ways to accomplish that. He pointed out that the old plan was more sensitive to the way it fit on the mountain since it had some open space. He noted that he expects the applicant to come back with something that fits. Mr. Day explained that Commons East had three rows of buildings that were six units wide by five stories tall with a break for a road to get into the area, with a horseshoe shape point. Vice Chairman Teglia stated that he is very uncomfortable with the Point, which is very visible to the City on a daily basis. He asked for a concept that eliminates the mass of straight ridge roof like appearance, again noting that the original plan, while it has it's deficits, has appealing concepts in the way it fits. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren made a conection to earlier comments, noting that under the current plan and the Development Agreement, the developer is obligated to make the contribution to the hook ramps. Commissioner Masuda asked what the difference was in the number of units in the plan, which the Vice Chair was referring to as opposed to the proposed plans. He asked if the current proposal was less dense than the original plan. Mr. Day responded that he did not recall the exact number, however he noted that the Point building itself was 99 units, ten stories tall of continuous building up the mountain. He indicated that the bedroom count is higher, but there is a significant reduction in total units. He explained that they have combined the Commons East and Point in the total, so the 181 looks high when compared to 99, but that doesn't take into account the Commons East which has been eliminated. He noted that while the Point structures step up the hill and replicate the point, the buildings next to it was almost as long with straight runs of three rows of buildings, five stories tall. He noted that the pictures were misleading. Commissioner Masuda asked how many more bedrooms would be in the new building compared to the old one. He asked if Alternate I is feasible. Mr. Kent responded that it would have a strong possibility. \\CH-PDC\ISHADD\FILE CABlNE1\OLD PC\WORKING\MlNUTES\1998\110598T'BAYSS.DOC Page 6 of 13 Commissioner Masuda asked if Alternate I eliminates "Q" Street, and whether there would be a maintenance road. He indicated that he couldn't see a 35' retaining wall, with Alternate IT, and Alternate III eliminates a row of homes, which is not necessary. He also stated that this could provide sidewalks on both sides, which was a concern in the past. Commissioner Romero asked the applicant if one of the pictures, was what the developer wanted to build. Mr. Breen responded that it was a picture of the cunent design. Commissioner Romero stated that what he sees is a solid row of homes going across with a mountain behind it that has curves. He stated that this design does not take into consideration the curvature of the mountain. He added that in his opinion it is a development that is excessive with too many units in an area that cannot suppol1 that many units. Mr. Kent noted that the plan has 15' between units, and asked Commissioner Romero how many feet he would like to see. Chairman Barnett remarked this was not the point, adding that Vice Chairman Teglia touched on the fact that they are building on all possible grades along the front of the mountain. He noted that what he is hearing is that it would be a lot more visually appealing to build the houses along the contours eliminating the need to build in the heavy duty slopes Vice Chairman Teglia noted that part of the problem is that the original plan is being relied upon with attempts to chop it up. He stated that the Commission is looking for the developer to look at the concerns, and not necessarily chop up the old plan, but maybe come back with something with a totally different concept of buildings that would fit. He pointed to the appearance of the proposal which he noted resemble the old Colina Condos on Westborough, with units that go straight, cookie-cutter design with not much thought or sensitivity to the Point. Chairman Barnett stated that what the developer seems to be trying to do the same thing across all different slopes. He stated that the alternates reflect the most severe slope, adding that if they reflected building into the valleys between the ridges, the retaining wall would not be necessary, and the sidewalks could be accommodated. He added that he felt that building across the San Bruno mountain ridge lines takes away the appeal of the mountain, and from the pictures, it is pretty much going to be blotted out, yet if they were designed to have alternating ridges and homes, you would look up there and see pockets of residential areas sheltered by the mountain. He directed his comments to the Commission, and asked if these were the only alternatives, was it something they could live with. Vice Chairman Teglia responded in the negative, and the consensus appeared to be that it was not. Commissioner Sim noted that in all fairness to the applicant, he wanted to know what historically had caused them to make changes that have resulted in the current design of the Point. He noted that as an architect he felt there was a lot of strength to the original plan. He \\CH-PDC\ISHADD\FILE CABlNE1\OLD PC\WORKING\MlNUTES\1998\110598T'BA YSS.DOC Page 7 of 13 stated that he appreciated the time, effort and expense the developer has gone through, however he agreed with the other Commissioners that it appears to be a blanket facade wrapping the entire base. He noted that what he liked about the other scheme was the idea of creating buildings then a relief, which provides a contrast and feeling of depth and openness. Mr. Harnish interjected noting that he had taken part in the role of bringing this information back. He noted that the alternatives presented were at the Commission's specific direction, which was provided by polling the Commission. He noted that he worked with the applicant to put this material together, specifically to be responsive to the Commission's questions about eliminating "Q" Street and eliminating triplexes, in order to give the Commission what they wanted. He added that the applicant may not be fully supportive of all of the options, however they were provided for the Commission's evaluation. He stated that his concern is that now that all options are available, the response is that this is not what the Commission was looking for, and they want some new idea. He stated that while he could appreciate their concerns, some of which staff also shares, he was concerned that at some point staff and the Commission will have to come to a conclusion about the back and forth reiteration and move on to the next level. Commissioner Sim noted that he might have seen this information before the process started, yet it was nice to see this now which showed the difference, and the reason for his asking what had led to the current plan. Vice Chairman Teglia noted that he took exception to the comments made by Mr. Harnish, noting that the Commission clearly expressed their concerns at the last meeting, and noted that that they were not the designers and called upon the developer to come back and show how the changes would work. He added that they have said pretty much the same thing tonight, that the massive straight band around the hill is still there. He stated that the Commission has pretty clearly explained their concerns, noting that they can't design it, and it's the developer's responsibility to take the Commission's concerns, interpret them, and put them into reality. He asked if everyone was clear on what he was saying. Commissioner Masuda asked the Vice Chair if he was asking the developer to go back and follow the scheme of just putting homes in the little valleys without doing any scraping. Vice Chairman Teglia explained that what he was trying to say is that from the first picture that simply shows three straight lines of cookie cutter homes, cut straight into the hill with no concern for the topography. While understanding that there are reasons for not building the old plan, the concept of that plan takes the hill into account, and has unique characteristics that are clearly less massive. Something that while there is separation between buildings, to the eye down on the street it looks like one long massive thing. He noted that what he is referring to in the plan is some of the concepts. He added that how they take that and translate it into something that is sensitive and appealing to the Point, is not something he can answer adding that it would require experts. Commissioner Masuda asked if the Vice Chair was asking that the developer take the old plan and use the Woods, the Commons and the Point and re-draw it without placing homes in a straight line in the valley. \\CH-PDC\ISHADD\FILE CABlNE1\OLD PC\WORKING\MlNUTES\1998\110598T'BA YSS.DOC Page 8 of 13 Vice Chairman Teglia responded that he felt there were options, and he was not necessarily saying that is what they should be. Commissioner Masuda asked the Vice Chair to be more specific in what he was asking the developer to do, noting that without clear direction, noting that without that the developer will may come back with something only to be told, that this is not what the Commission wants. Vice Chairman Teglia stated this would be going back to the Commission designing the project for them, adding that the developer would be offended by that and he does not have the expeliise to do that. Commissioner Masuda noted that the developer is asking for directions on what the Commission wants. He expressed a concern that this is going back and forth, due to lack of clear direction for the developer. Vice Chairman Teglia stated that he thought he has been pretty clear, noting that he did not want to be that specific, but rather provide them with a concept since what's currently planned seems unacceptable. Mr. Day asked for clarification. He noted that he kept hearing hills and valleys and hills and valleys, adding that this plan is exactly that concept. He asked if the comments were relegated to the area between the Point and Commons East. He stated that what the Commission is describing on the picture goes back to Village and Park which are already built, Woods East and West which fills are exactly the same valley and don't go into any other ridges, and Commons West which is gone, but shows up on the picture and will be all greenery. He noted that the only place where the concern should be relegated is between the Point and Commons since the only difference is that there is an access road. Vice Chairman Teglia stated that the example has different buildings, with a totally different design in one section compared to another, which breaks the massiveness. Mr. Day agreed that the different building types makes a difference, however he pointed out that what is not being considered is that the building that looks nice in the picture, was ten stories interrupted. Commissioner Romero noted that there is another meeting after this, and showed a concern at the late hour since the Regular meeting was still ahead. Commissioner Sim asked that before closing he would like to see accountability that if there were certain decisions or recommendations rendered by Councilor Design Review to make the applicant change direction from the historical information, he would like to see that made part of the record, so he could be assured that in all fairness the applicant had attempted to do this and studies told them this was not the direction to go. Mr. Kent responded that going back to the earlier comment made by the Vice Chair comparing \\CH-PDC\ISHADD\FILE CABlNE1\OLD PC\WORKING\MlNUTES\1998\110598T'BA YSS.DOC Page 9 of 13 the design of the buildings with those on Westborough Boulevard were similar to comments made by the past Planning Commission when it was originally presented to them, except that these plans have three rows of buildings ten or eleven stories high., which would be an eyesore. Chairman Barnett noted that the problem is in the area of the Point adding that he did not think it was too much to ask that the developer not build there and instead nestle the buildings down into the valleys with the natural ridges of the mountain shading them, so they won't be visible from everywhere. He explained that they have had six months to evaluate something that will be there for generations to come, and he feels very strongly that changing their minds is necessal'y since it is one of the biggest projects in South San Francisco, and he was not ready to let it go until it is right. Commissioner Romero stated that this is the first time they have received the materials in advance of the meeting. He noted that most of the time they get the presentation and material at the meeting, which makes it very difficult to give direction. He noted that if they haven't been as clear as they would have liked, this was pal1 of the problem. Mr. Harnish asked that in pursuit of that maybe the Commission could provide clear direction so staff understands what to expect so when the next Staff Report is prepared and further discussions are scheduled, it will be closer to the target. He noted that what he hears the Commission saying collectively, is that the project so far as the Point goes needs to be significantly re-designed to break up the lines, to eliminate linear planes that show on the plans, to have more open spaces dispersed without, and less density. Chairman Barnett agreed with the points made my Mr. Harnish. Vice Chairman Teglia again noted that the Point is a very sensitive area and perhaps something could be done that is sensitive and at the same time break it up. Mr. Kent asked if the Commission would be happy if they were to come back with plans that go to the contour lines with eleven-story development as a resolution to the density issue. Vice Chairman Teglia stated that this was only an example of something that is broken up and not meant to say that the same buildings should be built. He continued that he felt it was pretty clear that 50' tall triplexes are massive, yet there should be ways to work them in, adding that it may require subterranean parking or something like that, to avoid building on the Point. Commissioner Honan again asked the applicant if after going back to the drawing board, would they have some new ideas to answer some of the Commission's questions. Mr. Kent responded that with the limits being set by the Commission, what would be left to build on would not be economically feasible to build. He added that to get from one ridge to the next would still require the same amount of infrastructure. Commissioner Romero noted that they are aware that a certain amount of grading and changes to the site will be necessary, however he added that he felt that they needed to do a better job of \\CH-PDC\ISHADD\FILE CABlNE1\OLD PC\WORKING\MlNUTES\1998\110598T'BA YSS.DOC Page 10 of 13 presenting the project, and asked that they work with staff to achieve those goals. Commissioner Honan asked if the developer was saying that the only feasible way to build up there was to use the cookie cutter, straight line homes as presented. Mr. Kent stated that he thought they could lose a reasonable number of units and it would still be feasible to build. However to do what some of the Commissioners are requesting, such as small little enclaves, staying within the ridge lines or the contour of the existing mountain was not feasible. Commissioner Honan asked what he considered losing a few units to be. Mr. Kent responded that something like Alternative I which is 15 units. Commissioner Sim requested that the applicant continue to provide material in three dimension. Commissioner Honan requested that the examples cited by Mr. Kent be brought back in three dimension. Mr. Kent stated that they could however he would need more specific information in order to determine exactly what they want to see. Further discussions followed on what might be brought back which would satisfy the Commission's concerns. Commissioner Romero asked that they come up with four plans that the developer likes, and can build and let the Commission which one they like best. Ms. Jan O'Flaherty provided an overview of Phase III. She gave details on construction material for the buildings and landscape material. Commissioner Masuda and Vice Chairman Teglia asked questions about the height of the retaining wall and whether some type of plant material could be used to cover the retaining wall. Commissioner Sim asked for information on the approximate location of the flyover. Commissioner Romero requested that future meetings be split between Phase II and Phase III, noting that he had asked for this before and if the attorney could provide guidance on whether they could require that the two be held at separate meetings. Mr. Harnish responded that the reason the two were brought to the Commission together tonight, is that staff expected that this would be the last study session before going to a public hearing. Commissioner Romero asked if Phase III could move forward without Phase II having been \\CH-PDC\ISHADD\FILE CABlNE1\OLD PC\WORKING\MlNUTES\1998\110598T'BA YSS.DOC Page 11 of 13 approved. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren responded that the project is for both Phases. However, he stated that he could research whether this can be done. Commissioner Romero noted that if possible this should be done since the Commission is comfortable with going forth to public hearing for the Commercial (Phase ill). Mr. Harnish stated that it rnight possible to deal with the EIR and some other factions in this manner. He asked the Commission if they were interested in starting the Public Healings for Phase ill if it was determined that this could be done. Commissioner Sim noted that he shared the prospect for accommodating the application, however he wanted to be sure that it was not interpreted as rushing the entire process. Mr. Perry Matlock spoke of his concern that so many issues were raised with Phase II, while at . the same time they note that they are comfortable with Phase ill since this is an Ohlone cemetery which is over 5,000 years old, where remains have been found. He noted that he thought it was unethical to allow developers to go into that valley and put up any kind of buildings or disturb the soil in any fashion because it's one of the few shell mounds remaining. He asked that the Planning Commission be sensitive to having a restaurant go into an area of the Ohlone Indians since many cultures are opposed to having restaurants next to cemeteries. He noted that the Indians are asking that the valley be saved from development. Mr. Del Scheulnberi asked about the status of the stream which was cited to be preserved which was to be by the high rise on Phase ill. He also asked if the Commission has already made up their minds. Mr. Philip Batcholder stated that they took the Keyser-Marston fiscal analysis to someone who has a masters in planning. He noted that the individual who reviewed the repo11 had noted that it was not an objective report, and that the report fails to look at alternatives except under good market conditions. He read other comments made by the individual who reviewed the report. He made another point regarding the mitigation plan, which sets aside the shell mound area. He noted that this only refers to 2.2 acres, while the site is almost 20 times that size, adding that many things took place there, which weren't isolated to those 2.2 acres. He noted that they want the entire area preserved because they have found no evidence that the site is confined to that small area. Chairman Barnett interrupted noting that the document which Mr. Batcholder was addressing had not been reviewed by the Commission. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren added that perhaps a better alternative would be for Mr. Batcholder to provide the Commission with a copy of the letter that he was reading and he could testify and that could be more effective after they have had the oppo11unity to read the letter. Mr. Batcholder noted that he understood that someone was here from Keyser-Marston to speak \\CH-PDC\ISHADD\FILE CABlNE1\OLD PC\WORKING\MlNUTES\1998\110598T'BA YSS.DOC Page 12 of 13 to the item, which is why he was pursuing this. He was informed that this presentation was planned for this evening, however it will be heard at a future meeting. Ms. Jan Pont asked if there is a final date on the EIR and asked what was holding it up. The Assistant City Attorney responded to Ms. Pont's questions. She asked that she be provided with a copy of all the responses. She noted that open space is very important and she stated that the' Commission is doing a good job of evaluating the various concerns.! She asked for access to copies of the schematics that were distributed at the meeting. She was informed that those schematics were available at the Planning Division front counter. Mr. Schooley of San Bruno Mountain Watch stated that their position stands unchanged. He noted that their concern is always on HPC open space. He spoke of their concerns for the Phase ill where two shell mounds and perhaps a third which is probably gone where the Old Bayshore exists. He noted that the Bay Area has lost a a basic histOlic or prehistolic native habitats and life with the bay. He noted that he hoped to give that intensity of growing and understanding those places to future children. A recess was called at 8:45 p.m. Meeting reconvened 8:55 p.m. The presentation scheduled for the fiscal analysis by Debbie Kern of Keyser-Marston was continued to another meeting due to malfunction of equipment. 2. Adjourn to Regular Meeting Meeting was adjourned to the Regular Meeting at 9:02 p.m. I../'":'~~/l The IDe~ting W _jadjourned to the Regular Meeting ~// -1'/ II ~/ ~. , l, ~"'~ Jim H "Christoph / Barnett, Planning Commission City of South San Francisco \\CH-PDC\ISHADD\FILE CABlNE1\OLD PC\WORKING\MlNUTES\1998\110598T'BA YSS.DOC Page 13 of 13