Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.04.99 Minutes CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE February 4, 1999 CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Honan, Vice Chairman Sim, Commissioner Masuda, Commissioner Romero, Commissioner Baldocchi, Commissioner Teglia MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Planning Division: Jim Harnish, Chief Planner Steve Carlson Allison Knapp Adam Lindgren Cyrus Kianpour Richard Harmon Ray Honan City Attorney: Engineering: WQCP AGENDA REVIEW No change APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 7, 1999 and January 21, 1999 Motion Teglia / Second Sim. Approved by unanimous voice vote with changes to page 17 of 29 per Commissioner Teglia's request. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Howard Bressler, 290 Westview Drive, took his father to the dentist on Old Mission Road earlier and, thinks the impact that the BART construction is having on the community needs to be addressed. He related that being in a dentist chair while there is pile driving, and heavy machinery going by feels like there's an earthquake in the building. He wanted to bring up the impact that the Bart construction and the trains running through will bring upon the dental office and houses. He would like to address the Commission on the issue of the ramp, but he wishes to do that at a later time and questioned how he would go about the issue. Chief Planner Harnish answered Mr. Bressler's concern and told him there was an Environmental Impact Report prepared for the BART project before the approval of the project. The issues with noise and neighborhood impacts were analyzed and addressed before the approval of the project by BART and the City. On the issue of the ramp his discussion has to be confined to the permit that is in front of the Commission. If he has concerns about the group care home in a residential neighborhood this is not being discussed by the Commission tonight. Mr. Bressler was concerned that the interpretation of the State law was to push a commercial enterprise into an G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\020499.doc Page 1 of 22 R-I zone. He does not think this was the intent of the law and the last meeting disturbed him because they were sent to the wrong address. He thought the attorney for the applicant wanted this project to be approved and it was City staff who was recommending approval. The last comment he heard was that this was a community development project and if it does not work the City can take it over. Chief Planner Harnish stated that Mr. Bressler could address the issue in regards to the project. If he is concerned about the broader policy issues, it is something that he would have to bring out through communications to the City Councilor he can communicate in written form to ask that the issue be addressed on a broader basis. The Commission is prepared to address the issue, but if it is raised within the context they are certainly willing to look at it. This is not going to affect the decision tonight about looking at the broader issues and the interpretations of the State law Mr. Bressler wanted to reserve his right to show their disagreement with some things on the project. CONSENT CALENDAR None PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEMS 1. Hermie V. Yema, Owner/Applicant 266 Westview Drive MUP-98-101 and Categorical Exemption Class 3, Section 15303 Minor Use Permit to allow a handicap ramp to encroach 5 feet into the required 5 foot side yard setback in accordance with SSFMC Section 20.71.050 (Continuedfrom Planning Commission meeting of January 21, 1999). Staff Report given by Senior Planner Steve Carlson. The Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Roland Nalette, 213 Westview Drive, was notified by mail about the proposed ramp. He did not only receive one notice but two. He thought that there would be an elderly person living in the premises and there are no objections to that. His neighbors told him that a nursing home or residential care was to be put up on the premises. This commercial use is not for the neighborhood. There is a big parking problem in the area and this is not one of the reasons but amongst the reasons that he is against it. Mr. Rudy Brito, 289 Westview Drive, is concerned that if this home is allowed to become a nursing home business, they will be subject to see other homes start the same business. He does not want his neighborhood to become a commercial area. He wants to keep it a residential zone as it was meant to be. Ms. Molly Bressler, 290 Westview Drive, knows what it is to be a handicapped person and knows what care it takes because her husband has Parkinson's disease. She knows that the home is not adequately prepared to have six people in it, and the traffic congestion is enormous. She stated she was against the project. Mrs. Bessie M. Brito, 289 Westview Drive, stated that all the homeowners rent the back rooms, which causes congestion on the block. She was concerned about the monitoring of who would live in the house and the traffic issues. She also questioned the emergency vehicles, doctors, and nurses coming into the property and how the neighborhood how this would impact the nieghborhood. She stated that the area should not become a commercial zone, and does not think they have a choice on whether the Commission will approve the ramp or not. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\020499 .doc Page 2 of 22 Mr. Howard Bresler, 290 Westview Drive, gave a brief history of the homeowners and the time they have lived in the area. He stated that many of these neighbors are long-term residents of the City and are against the ramp and the facility that staff is encouraging. He remembers that when they first moved in there was a fence between the homes and the distance between each side of the homes was about 3-5 feet and they could not build anything. The only thing that was allowed was a concrete and brick porch for a single garage home. He explained that the City's fire safety and building codes were established and they prohibit the construction of anything in what is considered fire access lanes, and easements. In cases of emergency fire trucks or ambulances will need access to these areas. He then proceeded to point out the some concerns he had on the plans, such as distance between the back of the building, the ramp, and stairs to this easement. He thought this would create a second main entrance, and that the ramp was poorly conceived. He questioned if the Commission would allow him to speak on broader issues of a facility like this one in their neighborhood. He stated that the State laws that he has been hearing about have not been given to him. Mr. Larry Hirsch, resides at 258 Westview Drive, and his mother lives at 245 Westview Drive. He stated that he realizes that the state law allows residential homes to be built in a residential areas and he mentioned his father was in one on Westborough at some time. He thinks that this proposal exceeds what should be in a residential area, and is not opposed to the residential care home, but opposes to how much can be built. His neighbor, Emit Celeste, 257 W estview, was concerned about the ramp blocking access for firefighters to the back of the house, and questioned if the ramp would be built with non-flammable materials. The ramp ends on a deck that is made out of wood, and this would block access to the back of the house if there were to be a fire there. Mr. Celeste also noted that within the last few days a fire hydrant has been installed in front of the house. Mr. Hirsch explained that he was not concerned with landscaping in the front of the house, but with the landscaping in the back of the house. He proceeded to explain how a fire occurred some years ago because of the tall grass in someones backyard, and the City cited them for this. He wants the landscaping in the back of the house kept up and it will be dificult to get a lawn mower to the back with a ramp on the side. He mentioned some alternatives to the ramp on the side of the house, such as a wheelchair lift, and a ramp in the back that will still allow access tot he back of the yard. There have been some occasions when the utility workers go and trim trees to keep them away from the power lines. Ms. Jolene Malfatti, 270 Westview Drive, stated that she was asked to respond to the proposed ramp at 266 Westview Drive and continued by saying she is opposed to it and to the construction on the property. She expressed her anxiety of the big change in her neighborhood because of the elderly care center. She also stated that the business would have to routinely send patients out via ambulance. She is concerned about the safety of the ramp; the traffic by staff, patients, families, and medical deliveries; and the property values. She has requested for the new owner to call her and she has not returned any of Ms. Malfatti's calls. She wanted to know what the methods of protecting patients from wandering off were, the number of staff intended to hire, and where they will park. With a care facility in her neighborhood, she was concerned about what kinds of hazardous waste will be on the street on a weekly basis. Mr. William Walters, 1229 18th Street - Architect for Hermie Yema/applicant, explained that the hearing was for the ramp only and not for the care facility. He proceeded to explain the two side setbacks of the property, which answered some of the concerns expressed. He stated that the house sits in the middle of the lot, the ramp is on the south and on the north side there is free access to the back yard to the street. He explained that the ramp needed to meet the main floor at 4 feet and has 30 feet outside and the last 40 feet inside the house. He stated that there is only one main entry and the ramp is going to a side entrance. He explained how it was architecturally the simplest and best solution for the proposed addition on the side of the house. With regard to the parking issue it is met, and they are taking out an illegal room and a bathroom that was built, so there will be room for more cars. The patients do not drive cars and there will not be a need for patient parking. As for the staff, they will be live-in, in this case. He could not expand on the patients' status because this hearing is about the ramp. Mr. Paul Domeniconi, 294 Westview Drive, related that 8-9 years ago a care facility was started at 1165 Miller, G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\ working\minutes\ 1999\020499 .doc Page 3 of 22 which is next door to him. He then explained how he and his wife had problems for 21/2 years and every night there were windows broken, garbage thrown in the front yard and so forth. He stated that there is not five feet on the left because the existing fireplace stands. The applicant stated that there was space on that side for access and this is not true. He also agreed with his neighbors and does not want the ramp in there. He realizes they do not have any choice just like he did not have a choice with the care facility on Maple but he had to live with that one just like they will have to live with this new care facility. Mr. Dave Casagrande, 234 Westview Drive, questions the ramp and noted that it is the issue. The Building Division told him that anything within two feet of the property line has to be non-combustible materials. He has not seen on the plans that the ramp is made out of non-combustible materials. Senior Planner Carlson stated that staff understands that the ramp is to be made out of wood. The Building Division has reviewed the plans and they approved this ramp. Mr. Casagrande stated that this was not alright and it had to be non-combustible material. Senior Planner Carlson stated that the building permit will not be issued if it does not meet their requirements. They have reviewed the ramp and do not have any special requirements listed, and added that the Building Division could have proposed conditions of approval for the Commission to consider but they did not have any. Mr. Casagrande stated that this was his only concern and question. He thinks this is important. If it is part of the Code it should be considered, not so much for this home but for the homes next door on either side. It could be a fire hazard. He also agrees with the comments on the parking and other issues related by his neighbors. Violeta M. Rapues 273 Westview Drive, stated she was concerned with the parking and that she used to own a care facility in Santa Rosa. Before she could build an additional building the Planning Commission asked her if she had enough parking. She related that she did not have enough parking and was required to buy a house next to her business to provide the parking. Without the parking she would not be able to build an addition. Her main concern is parking, and questioned how much parking the facility is required to provide. Mr. Walters stated that an issue came up about fire and construction and the rating of the building materials. There was none specified because the ramp has not been approved, after the ramp is approved he can come in and tell the Commission what the material would be. However there is a statement that conforms to the construction of the house. The house is plaster cement, which applied correctly to this, is a non-combustible material. Ms. Betty Saint John, 250 Westview Drive, stated she was wondering about the ambulance issues. She feels this is very discriminatory because her neighbors are saying they don't want old people in their neighborhood because of an ambulance coming through. She has a 26-year-old Down Syndrome child and up to this point she never has had to call an ambulance. She has to go out and get her own prescriptions and no one delivers them to her. She feels that these people have the right to live there to. Ms. Malfatti responded to the previous comment by saying that she assumed that she had a private residence and this is more of a business, a big business and they are going to be paying $1,600.00 per patient. No one is against disabled people, but unless you have lived by one, you do not understand how many problems can arise. One of the biggest is traffic. They will send out for an ambulance, this is not a hospital, every time someone stubs their toe and cuts it, an ambulance will come pick these people up if they need to see a doctor. With regard to the parking the neighborhood is grateful that the City may put a public parking at the end of their street, and for BART coming into the neighborhood. There are three child care facilities on the street and parking is critical, they are asking for the City's help. Public Hearing was closed Chairperson Honan stated that the ramp is what is before the Commission and they are not voting on changing a G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\020499.doc Page 4 of 22 home to a business. Commissioner Romero questioned if this addition was going to the Design Review Board. Senior Planner Carlson stated that the addition is only required to be reivewed by City staff. Commissioner Romero asked what the rear yard setback was for this addition. Senior Planner Carlson stated that it is at least 20 feet and still meets the minimum. The structure does meet the City's requirements. The storage and bathroom in the garage made by the previous owner without City permit are require to be removed, and parking restored. They are limited in the number of bedrooms by the square footage. Commissioner Romero stated that the reason he is asking these questions is because they are focusing on the ramp, but if it were allowed to encroach into the required setback, they would be doing something that they don't allow for anyone. The City has setbacks established for the purpose of maintaining the distance between homes. By allowing this ramp they are enabling the applicant to build a bigger addition, because this ramp could be incorporated into the design of the addition and would be required to provide a sideyard setback. He questioned if they want to establish a policy that would allow sideyard setbacks to be encroached upon. If it is allowed once then it can be allowed over and over again. Eliminating them would defeat the purpose of the setback. He thinks it is an unreasonable burden to put upon a neighbor if this ramp needs to be serviced and it cannot be serviced from the property owner's side because it goes all the way to the setback. They would have to go through their neighbor's property to access the ramp. This is another reason why the City has setbacks to allow the owner to service their own home without encroaching upon your neighbor's property. He does not think this is being unreasonable, but he does not want to open a can of worms approving the ramp at its current proposed position. The ramp can incorporate into the design of the addition if the Architect can figure out a way to work around the home or inside the home. There are other alternatives other than encroaching into the sideyard setback. He recommended that this be denied. Commissioner Masuda stated that he has driven by the neighborhood and noticed that the parking is bad. He stated that he can't support allowing for something to be built in the setback. On new projects they have to have 5 feet in the setback area. He reiterated Commissioner Romero's comments in regard to approving this for one person and having to approve it for the rest. He has two ramps in his neighborhood and is not too happy about them. When he drove one of the other days the parking was bad. He regrets not having the applicant present to tell the Commission how many cars they have. He stated he also would deny the ramp. Chief Planner Harnish suggested to the Commission that they should think of the house as if it were for a typical single family house that had a family member who was disabled, and that is the perspective that needs to be maintained. There was a lot of what constituted a family in terms of who could live in a single-family neighborhood and a single family home in a residential area. The debate was not centered on group care homes, but on whether or not the people who were unmarried, college students living together constituted a single family for purposes of living in a single-family neighborhood. Many group or other living situations that started to confuse the question of whether or not you had to have a traditional family, with a mother, father and children. Out of that debate grew this definition, that six or fewer people constituted a family. The purpose of the definition was to zone it as a single-family residence. This is why the State law that was imposed on the City requires cities and counties to be somewhat blind in terms of who the family is that is going into the neighborhood. This used to be the basis for group care homes regardless what they are. They can be for elderly, disabled, drug rehab, and halfway houses. Some of those uses are distinguished from others, the drug and halfway houses are limited as to how close they can be, so that a neighborhood will not be inundated with them. As an example the Commission has struggled with the issue of 5-6 bedroom houses in the past being built in a neighborhood, feeling that it would allow extended families to live in one house. The size of the house is a common issue in some cases when they are looking at residential developments. When specific issues in a family G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\020499 .doc Page 5 of 22 home and modifications such as the wheelchair ramp, the Commission should be blind to who is going to use the house once the ramp is installed. Commissioner Romero explained the impacts of adding a ramp to the sideyard setback and how it could encourage more revisions because of weather conditions. Chief Planner Harnish stated that this is fully under the discretion of the Commission, and to be looking at the health, safety and setback issues. The reason why he made a statement was to make sure that there was an understanding between the issues raised from a physical development standpoint and the setback issues and the use of the house. Having said that this is a real issue and there are have been a number of concerns expressed to staff in the past from people who have 3 or 4 group care homes in one block in their neighborhood. He thinks it is an issue that needs to be addressed but this should be addressed as a wheelchair ramp that would be accessed for an individual who is part of a traditional family unit. Commissioner Masuda questioned if the Commission denied the item, and if it would go before Council and be brought up as a whole and not just a ramp. Chief Planner Harnish stated that this could not be done. The Council in a separate forum can raise the questions and debate the issues of concentrations of group care homes in certain neighborhoods. They can address this through a legislative process either through State legislators or the League of Cities. This is really a broader policy issue. Should this project come before Council, the basis of the decision should not be base on who is going to be in the house. Commissioner Masuda stated they are not questioning who is going to be in the house. They have a big back yard and they can put the ramp there. Parking creates another problem for the neighborhood. He is concerned about the setback. Senior Planner Carlson clarified on why the ramp was being proposed in its current location. The access issue is not getting it out of the house but getting it to the sidewalk as well. He reminded the Commission that the City adopted the ordinance to t allow ramps into front and sideyards, because that was the most logical place where the ramps would be placed. Commissioner Teglia stated he appreciated the help staff was giving them and he stated that the Commission has discussed sizes of homes in the past and explained that they cannot define the type of occupancy for a family. It is appropriate for them to discuss number of bedroom intensity within the zoning requirements. He thinks it is inappropriate to look at the application when there will be substantial construction as a separate item. It is not as if there is an existing house and there is no other way they can fit the ramp in there and that is why they are going into the side setback, and they have an addition being proposed. He thinks it is important to incorporate the ramp into the addition. The zoning ordinance that allows wheelchair access clearly stated the structures to be designed to minimize visual impact on the neighborhood. He first noticed that the ramp sticks out from the side of the house and it is not visually minimized. He was concerned about it extending to the property line. This has been looked at in a case by case basis. If someone has a house that there is no other way they make concessions on the house when it appropriate to accommodate the wheelchair access. It is important to know that because of this construction there are alternatives. This ramp could be started at the beginning of the rear construction, brought away from the side setback, go up to the rear of the house make a turn and they can have an entrance off the rear. One of the speakers noted that there are stairs off the back of the ramp and it seems to be that in a wheelchair accessible ramp they would need a ramp in the back instead of stairs. He stated he is also against encroaching into the side setbacks when they have other alternatives, he would like to see it incorporated into the addition. He does think it is important for it to be non-combustible materials and definitely in keeping with the design of the house. The Architect clarified what materials he would be using if the ramp is approved. He questioned if the Commission is at least able to control the intensity of the use by the number of bedrooms proposed in the unit. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\020499.doc Page 6 of 22 Assistant City Attorney Lindgren stated that the law allows for the Commission to consider this as if it were an application for a ramp for a single-family use. All the issues on intensity and number of bedrooms are valid issues for discussion. State law says that these applications should be treated as if they are for standard residential uses. If there are numerous situations where they have neighborhoods that are impacted by these facilities they should prompt some discussions on the nature of the residential zone should be, and if there needs to be some kind of square footage or bedroom limitations. A number of communities place those limitations to address some of the exact issues heard today. The law does say that this cannot be discriminatory as one of the members of the public says. The law tries to be sensitive for need of these types of facilities and for them to be integrated into these types of communities. Commissioner Teglia stated that considering the site, he recommends that this will go in and the applicant will have a ramp of some sort. He suggested that they preserve the site setback, and allow a walkway down the side and ask if they can incorporate the ramp into the new construction. Commissioner Baldocchi stated that she agrees with the Commissioners to look at other alternatives for the positioning of the ramp. She questioned if this is needed for ADA standards. Mr. Walters stated that there is no ADA requirement in a residence or a nursing home. The reason they need the ramp is because the main floor is four feet above the sidewalk and the front yard. This requires 40 feet of a ramp and if this is put inside the house there would be no room left. He has ten feet of the ramp inside the house and does not have any room left. He put the 30 feet where it was less obstructive. If the ramp should be placed in another place, it will take up 40 feet, and the Commission will not like that. Putting it in the back is another alternative but it is not easily seen and people trying to get in they do not know how to do it. The design idea is for clarity simple and straightforward. This is exactly what the ramp does. Commissioner Baldocchi stated she was disappointed that the applicant was not present. There are some deep concerns about the use of the property becoming commercial. She knows this is not the place to discuss them. It would be good for the applicants to have a neighborhood meeting and talk to these neighbors to address their serious concerns. Give them some education to what type of facility is going in there. She thinks their concerns need to be addressed. She asked why the State law was not produced for them if they had requested it. Senior Planner Carlson stated that the State law had not been requested until this evening, and that staff will provide a copy to anyone making such a request. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren stated he would be pleased to help with giving a copy of the State law to the people who had requested it. Commissioner Baldocchi stated that she would like to see some alternatives and this may be the only way they can go, but some alternatives would be helpful. She would like to see a neighborhood meeting and thinks the applicant needs to return the phone calls and answer the concerns. Vice Chairman Sim asked Assistant City Attorney Lindgren if the Commission rejects the permit if they are setting any precedence. The Commission has a public policy and they should have a special meeting where they can discuss zoning and larger picture issues. He had an experience in his neighborhood where an applicant was rejected from a Homeowners Association for a ramp. They have litigation now and he wants to make sure their City is protected in this regard. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren stated that the code does provide that the approval is discretionary. He recommends that the Commission entertain a motion not to approve the ramp and to continue this item. This will allow staff to prepare findings that will support the Commission's decision and this would be brought back for review and approval or modification. He expects that the applicant, if the Commission rejects the proposal, would come back to the City and work with the Planning Division to see if there is another design that would be G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\020499.doc Page 7 of 22 acceptable. He does not have indication that litigation would be an immediate concern that would result from a denial. Chairperson Honan thanked staff for their input and the direction that they have given them. She stated she has a problem with the ramp encroaching upon the setback. She believes they work very hard to maintain the setbacks in the City. Motion Masuda / Second Romero to deny MUP-98-10I, to have staff come back with Findings of Denial and to continue the item to February 18, 1999. Approved by unanimous voice vote. 2. EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project Plan Resolution superceding Resolution No. 2530 establishing the Boundaries for the Area Proposed to be added to the EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project Area and Adopting the Preliminary Plan for the Second Amendment to the EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project Plan. Consultant Planner Knapp gave the staff report. Commissioner Masuda questioned what the boundaries were on EI Camino Real Consultant Planner Knapp stated that the last page of the staff report is a map and the dark area is a residential area, which did not meet the test of blight. The areas that are still being recommended to be added are the Willow Gardens area, commercial properties along EI Camino Real, and an additional area along Chestnut A venue. Commissioner Teglia stated that basically the Commission is adding Susy Way, and not adding Second, A and C street. Consultant Planner Knapp stated that was correct and Susy way was also in last November's resolution. That is the Willow Gardens area. It makes it clear if you go to the first page of the staff report under the background heading states that the area to be added would be valued by San Francisco Hetch Hetchy right-of-way and Chestnut. This is the belief of Katz Hollis and Council that this would provide a good redevelopment opportunity. Commissioner Teglia questioned if the entire EI Camino Corridor area extended down to include where the Mclellan Acres of Orchids used to be. Chief Planner Harnish stated that this was correct. Commissioner Teglia stated that originally this was put in at a high density this was done because of BART. A lot of these dynamics have changed and questioned if the City has gone back and looked at the density issue and lowering the density. Consultant Planner Knapp stated that this is part of what the item is about. Public Hearing was closed. Motion Teglia / Second Sim. Approved by unanimous voice vote. 3. Beacon Service Station Tosco Corporation, Owner; Ung LLC, Applicant 3964 Callan Boulevard G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\020499 .doc Page 8 of 22 UP-98-111 and Categorical Exemption< Class 1, Section 15301 Use Permit allowing a gasoline service station with 3 service bays at 3964 Callan Boulevard in the retail Commercial (C-l) zone district, in accordance with SSFMC 20.22.040 (c). Senior Planner Carlson gave staff report. Mr. Kenneth Tergen, RYS Architecture, representing the owner stated that he will answer any questions the Commission has about the project. The existing site has been vacant for two years and is an eye sore. This would bring commerce back. They are proposing significant additions for the site. There is no parking on the site right now, and are allotting 15% percent landscaping when the existing is 10%. They are proposing many trees along the back area of the site to shield anything form the residential areas that are about 200 feet away. Dan Shattuc, 907 West Cardinal Drive, Sunnyvale, stated he is in favor of Beacon Stations because of their favorable prices. They resell the gas from Arco, Chevron and Union, so they are selling good gas at a lower price. He is concerned with the MTBE problem. The City of South Lake Tahoe has now contaminated over three wells and during the last summer the people were on rationing and they are transporting the water into the basin from quite a distance. There have been some real problems with this and there are Ordinances and legislation to correct it. He thinks there are very stringent laws and findings. He wants the Commission to understand that MTBE is an additive in fuel and is only about 12% or 14% of a gallon of fuel. This brings it up to 14 parts per billion. It is acceptable in drinking water. One gallon of gasoline can contaminate almost 8 million gallons of water making it unfit to drink. This would take less than a teaspoon of gasoline to contaminate up to 10 thousand gallons, or a swimming pool, to equal the level of 14 parts per billion. Public Hearing was closed Commissioner Teglia questioned the I5-gallon trees. Senior Planner Carlson stated that a minimum of 15% of the trees will be 24-inch box. Commissioner Teglia questioned if it would be a problem to require that all the trees be a minimum of 24 innch box, considering the windy location. Senior Planner Carlson stated that requiring of the trees to be 24 inch box not an issue for the City, but the applicant may wish to answer that question. Commissioner Teglia questioned that the gas station is a big cement pad and landscaping is minimal he thinks the trees go along way to softening it. The way things are going in the City with smaller size trees once they grow to maturity they are deformed. Unless they start with a substantial tree they would not have a chance. He recommends that the trees be 24-inch box trees. Mr. Tergen stated that there is no problem putting 24 inch box trees in the back of the site, it is not an issue. Along the frontage they have an issue of traffic, it blocks the access. People can't see them when they try to drive their cars in. This is why the I5-gallon trees that don't grow as large won't shield the site too much for access for cars. That should be an issue that is touched on because it becomes a problem and it becomes a wooded area if they propose 100% 24 inch box trees around the whole site. They are going above and beyond what is required for landscape by the City. Chairperson Honan stated that the hours of the gas station would be 6:30 a.m. to 10 p.m., and it will be minor auto repair. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\020499.doc Page 9 of 22 Mr. Tergen stated that this was correct and that the repair will be open from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. This is allowed by City ordinance, but the gas service station will be open from the proposed hours of 6:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Masuda asked if they will have new pumps. Mr. Tergen stated that they have the plan to remove the existing canopy and existing pumps. A study is being done to see how long ago the tanks were replaced. They are working with HAZMA T on the issue and will conform with any HAZMAT requirements. They did ground water pollution control tests recently and just finished with the environmental review, and everything is clear. The only thing remaining on the site will be the attendant building and the three bays. The existing canopy which is dilapidated and the all the pump islands that are existing are all being removed and are going to brought up to applicable codes and accessibility. Commissioner Masuda stated that there are some single tanks and that they are redoing the site he would like to see everything done. Mr. Tergen stated that he has done another service station in San Jose and the contractor they use does use double tanks. Commissioner Teglia strongly urged the 24-inch box trees. The difference between a 15 gallon and a 24 inch box tree is level of maturity. If there are concerns about the size of the tree and how much shade this goes to the variety of species that is chosen. Other gas stations like the one on EI Camino Real and Westborough Boulevard had very small trees and now they are all large. The tree is up high and the trunk does not cause any obstruction of vision. Several of them are canted over and somewhat deformed because a younger tree does not do as well. It is not in any way shape or form a safety hazard, but an aesthetic improvement, and would suggest it. Commissioner Sim questioned what the comments of the Design Review Board had been in regard to landscape selection and sizes. Senior Planner Carlson stated that the Design Review Board did not comment on species sizes. Motion Teglia /Second Baldocchi to approve UP-98-III based on the findings and conditions, with the added condition that the 24' box trees by 100% at the station. Approved by unanimous roll call vote. Recess called at 9:05 Recalled to order at 9: 20 4. Terrabay Phase II and III Certification of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for Terrabay Phase II and III Consultant Planner Knapp gave Staff Report. She also noted that there were Final Environmental Impact Reports for Phase II and Phase III, blue speaker cards, City staff phone numbers should they have questions, and also a calendar of the Terrabay activities in the back comer of the room. Chief Planner Harnish stated that staff has been going through the review of the project for about a year and a half, and is now beginning the formal review and approval process. It has been broken down into three parts, which are the EIR, Phase II and Phase III. Each one of those three parts will be dealt with at a separate G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\020499.doc Page 10 of 22 hearing with the Planning Commission, which makes recommendations to the City Council, and they will be making the final decision on each one of those items. The first part is started this evening, which is the certification of the EIR. The issue before the Planning Commission and the City Council is whether or not this environmental document is complete and adequate in terms of its analysis of potential impacts of the project. The Commission and the City Council will not reach any conclusions about what phase of the project to approve if any, or what alternative to approve or whether to deny the project. The discussions on Phase II on February 25, 1999 would be to look at the residential portion of the project and discuss those issues. Separate from Phase III, which most of the public is concerned about because of the archeological site. The public is encouraged to participate in each one of the hearings but to have their comments focused on the subject of the hearings. The subject before the Commission tonight is to determine if the EIR adequately addresses the issues. They are not discussing if the Phase III portion should be approved or if the archeological site should be preserved. The issue is whether the EIR adequately addresses the issues related to the archeological site and the residential development, to rare and endangered species, and whether or not the responses to comments that were prepared addresses all of the other comments many of the people submitted. He wanted to make that clear so the comments could be focused on the EIR only. The hearings have been organized this way, so the comments can be focused on each one of the subjects rather than deal with the broad range at each one of the hearings. There will be plenty of time at each hearing to discuss those issues, and the discussion is about the EIR. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren expanded on the comments and the comment period. There was a formal comment period and as required by CEQA. All of the written and oral comments that were received on the environmental document were addressed by the consultant and by staff in the written responses that they have before them. Staff worked with the consultant to respond specifically and in detail to the comments during that period. The primary action is the Commission's action and the formal comment period has been closed. The comments made this evening will not be the subject of formal written responses, but they will potentially benefit the Commission in their decision on the environmental document Chief Planner Harnish stated that Consultant Planner Knapp had mentioned that there were copies of the Draft and Final EIR in the back and he encouraged everyone to pick one up for their review. Chairperson Honan asked if the EIR consultant present and if they wanted to make a presentation. Consultant Planner Knapp stated that the consultants were at the meeting in the event that the Commission had questions or require additional clarification Commissioner Teglia stated he understands the certification of the EIR and is troubled by this because it was originally based on the first proposal, and there have been a lot of changes to this document. They may see a lot of changes in the future and depending upon the extent of those changes he wanted to know if they would need to do a supplemental EIR. He continued by saying that an EIR is based on a specific proposal and if they will not be doing a supplemental document have all the possible changes been taken into account. Chief Planner Harnish stated that the EIR addresses what would be a worst case analysis, which was originally proposed. There have been changes proposed, particularly for Phase III. There were some modifications to address the impacts that were identified in the EIR. Staff has been through some discussions in Phase II that will be brought forward in a formal basis. These modifications reduce density and address issues raised in the EIR and by the Commission in the study sessions. In either of these cases the changes reduce potential impacts from the project that was originally proposed. They would not have to prepare any supplemental information because higher levels of impacts were analyzed. If the Commission and the City Council determined that a different project, which fell outside the perimeters of the EIR, was one they chose to approve, they might have to come back with a supplemental report. This alternative has not been discussed yet and has not been put forth in the study sessions or the public debates. The EIR analyses the most drastic cases. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\020499.doc Page 11 of 22 Commissioner Teglia stated that to the opinion of Chief Planner Hamish the EIR addresses all the currently envisioned possibilities. Chairperson Honan asked if the applicant was present and if they wanted to make a presentation. The applicant stated that they were available for questions and were not making a presentation. Mr. Doug Butler, 133 Adrian Avenue, stated that he is surprised on the manner that staff has presented the item to the Commission after all the concerns expressed at meetings and correspondence. He stated he lives in West Winston Manor on near Clay Park and Daly City is considering a hotel on Hickey Boulevard, which would tower over Clay Park. It is difficult to get a hearing because they are in a different jurisdiction. It is frustrating in a one-zoned community, not that someone does not get a hearing and it seems that the deep concerns are only partially addressed and the basic plans go forward. He is not a radical environmentalist, he is an ordinance citizen who is concerned about the loss of open space and the deteriorating quality of life. He has talked to a large number of his neighbors in the past week, and everyone is concerned about the development proposal. Not one person favored it and said he used to walk his dog in the area. He thinks they have a responsibility to their children and their grand children to preserve more open space. Many problems have been cited in past meetings such as in traffic, pollution, habitat loss, wetland loss and destruction of shellmounds and burial sites. He quoted from the Final SEIR of January 1999 "a total 1.39 acres of waters of the U.S on the Terrabay site would be eliminated under the proposed mitigation plan", he sated that this was hardly a mitigation. The map opposite page six in the SEIR shows the wetlands under the parking structure and to office tower. The loss of archeological resources, which are the shell mounds and the burial sites. The SEIR on page 36 points out "that nearly all the approximately 425 large shellmound sites recorded around the Bay Area in the 20th century have been destroyed and greatly impacted by natural forces and modem cultural activity", the SEIR goes on the say that the Terrabay site is the oldest yet recorded on the San Francisco peninsula. It seems to him that this is important to preserve the shellmounds. The mitigation plan calls for a two-acre plot and a five-story level parking garage, and 10-12 foot office building on the north and the large office hotel restaurant on the south would surround the plot. It is significant that the two-acre shellmound is not the only shellmound burial site on the property. The SEIR concedes this on page 36, "in the event that human remains are discovered elsewhere on the property the work can be halted and the remains removed". They are not talking about a 2-acre site in the middle of a development but they are talking about archeological and burial grounds throughout the property. If buildings, high rise hotels, and office buildings were proposed in Holy Cross-cemetery or Cypress Lawn everyone would be uphold at the suggestion. A 2-acre mitigation measure would hardly suffice there, and how can there be such a minimal and insufficient mitigation on the proposed property. He then proceeded to give a brief history of San Bruno Mountain, he remembered the audacious and horrendous plan put forward by the Rockefeller Associates to scrape of the top of San Bruno Mountain and cast it into the Bay. The plan came complete with a large conveyor belt to accomplish the desecration fortunately wiser heads prevailed and the plan died as it should have. The planned community on top of the mountain went forward. After many hearings and many debates a slim majority of San Mateo Supervisors voted to keep the top of the mountain for a State and County park. Then supervisor John Ward was the swing vote. He stated that they are indebted to that vote even though the compromise was not entirely satisfactory. This brings them to the current dilemma. Mr. Butler stated that he has concluded and he knows that the Commission is not voting on that portion of the project. When the time arises he hopes they will consider the open space alternative. Deborah Ruddock, Chapter Director of the Sierra/Loma Prieta Chapter, stated that after reviewing the Final EIR for the proposed Terrabay Phase II and II project, The Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club finds that the Final EIR is legally inadequate because it fail to sufficiently discuss cumulative impacts issues as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). East of Highway 101 projects not cited under Cumulative Impacts include the South San Francisco Scavenger Materials Recovery and Recycling Facility, the proposed AES Cogeneration Power Plan, and the it refers to the San Francisco runway expansion project as speculative and they know that this is not the case. A cumulative impact analysis must view the proposed project in G:\Fi1e Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\020499.doc Page 12 of 22 connection with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects whose impacts might compound or interrelate with those of the proposed project. The legal citation is EPIC vs. Johnson. These proposed East of Highway 101 projects would appear to affect area transportation networks, area air quality, odors, hazards, wetlands or San Francisco Bay-adjacent tidelands, hydrology, noise levels, visual impacts, and public services. Yet there is no discussion of these cumulative impacts. Clearly, these projects were foreseeable by staff. The Materials Recovery Facility received Planning Commission approvals, including a rezoning, in January. Staff, the press and the public have been aware of the Power Plant proposal since late 1998. A rezone to accommodate the plant has received initial consideration by Planning staff. Omission of these major projects from the cumulative impact analysis renders the EIR wholly inadequate as a disclosure document for the public and decision-makers. She thinks that Terrabay is a not a good name and does not due the beautiful area of San Bruno Mountain justice. Gene Dove, 383 Greenridge, asked City staff and the Commission to think with their hearts about the applicability of the EIR and project in general. He asks everyone to consider the essence truth and ramifications of the Terrabay project as it impact the residents of South San Francisco. The project as outlined by the corporate powers, that contributes seemingly, unconsciencely to the massive global ecological desiccation also impact the environmental destruction and the people represented here who love the mountains naturalness. The mountain habitat is struggling to support beauty and life for all of nature and remains one of the last remnants of the wilderness in the region. He speaks out for the ancient ones, and the spirits of the ancestors who are buried with strewn over various parts of the mountain. He asks everyone to consider these people and the sacred grounds in the fact that the Terrabay project is targeted to destroy the current homeostasis within one of the last existing areas of nature in our area, only to build a project of offices, homes, hotels, and retail shopping stores. Commissioner Romero stated that the comments he has heard have not been related to the Environmental Impact Report and would like the public to focus on the document. Commissioner Teglia asked staff to clarify that the document has alternatives. One being not to build any, and there are various levels of building. This project is not being approved tonight and the Commission is discussing the Environmental Impact Report. He stated that they are discussing whether there are any errors in the EIR to help them make the decision later. Chairperson Honan reiterated that everyone deserves and should have his or her time to speak without being interrupted. She asked to let everyone speak and also not speak over their comments. David Graves, 435 Naples Street, San Francisco, stated he was addressing the issue of wildlife habitat loss in the Environmental Impact Report, and he is a neighbor of San Bruno Mountain and lives in the Excelsior District. He has hiked and studies San Bruno Mountain. He stated that the gray fox is the keystone species to San Bruno. It is also at the top of the chain of creatures that eat rodents and eats plants. This particular species needs a wide range of habitat to thrive in. Two or three years ago there was almost a complete die off of the Gray Fox. One of the reasons was canine distemper spread through their population. Conservation biology teaches that there is a need of a wide-open range of space for these creatures to escape the kind of density in which that particular disease is passed on. He is at the meeting to convince to keep that preserve wide open with less development. He has kids in McLaren Park who formed a club called the Gray Fox Club and they have made the Gray Fox their hero. He wants the Commission to think back to their childhood and remember the wild creatures they fell in love with, that preserve is quickly disappearing and he feels that there is a need for open space for children. He appeals to the Commission to preserve the open space for these wild creatures. Patrick Orozco - 644 Pear Tree Drive, Watsonville - Chairman of the Ohlone Indian Council in Santa Cruz County, greeted the Planning Commission in the language of the Ohlone. He stated that he greeted them by saying people because the Ohlone couldn't distinguish race or color of their body. They say people because they are the creations of the creator. He stated everyone has addressed the importance of preserving the shellmound other than all the traffic that will be taking place. He says that the shellmound is there and that it consists of hundreds of graves. In the surrounding areas of the shellmound there is a possibility that there are going to be O:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\020499 .doc Page 13 of 22 isolated burials. He knows through past experiences because of his comments on several other projects and has been told that he has been right several times. He asks the Commission to vote no and to leave the area alone. Everyone before him has addressed the issue about the open space. He questioned where the importance of preserving all the nature, and native species. He stated that if the project is approved, the City is interfering in their religion as a tribal Indian people, and will be another slap in the face to them. They have lost their language, religion, their names, and this is all they have left and it is being destroyed. These places are being destroyed at a fast rate. He questioned if it would stop when they are all gone and stated that there are very few of them left that can actually say they are Ohlone. The first inhabitants of this land before any European arrived. He stated that when people came to these lands they were greeted with open hands, and food. Then the Ohlone were thrown in Missions and were slaved. Their language was taken away their language, their traditional ways and their way lives. They are hanging on to their religion, which are their burial sites. They were brought up to respect the animal life, the trees, grass, insects, butterflies and all living things. He stated that the condors, eagles and elks are all gone because of mans greed and selfishness. He questioned when it would all stop. He asked the Commission to preserve the area when the time comes because the entire mountain is sacred ground and said goodbye in the Ohlone language. Lois Robin - 607 Bums A venue - Aptos, stated she was addressing the portion of the EIR with references to the important archeological district. So far the district has been defined as the shellmound and questioned was what archeology is about. On one hand there may be other graves in the area beyond the shellmound. Archeology reconstructs the past and cultures from before. All the land surrounding it helps reconstructing it. The nature, quality, creatures living there, and the whole ambiance of the surrounding land helps to reconstruct an ancient culture, and if that land is totally obliterated by modem buildings there will never be a chance to appreciate and respect the culture. This is the opportunity to do that; this is an amazing piece of land. It should be protected. He just finished video taping Patrick Orozco's comments, because a Native American who has a web site to record his words asked her. Indians all over the U.S. are interested in what happens to their ancient burials and what happens to their lands. This will go out on the web all over the Country to Indians who are increasingly becoming motivated to protect the little they have left. Dan Shattuc,907 West Cardinal Drive, Sunnyvale, stated he agrees with much of what has already been said. He is concerned about Terrabay and the quality of life in the community, the value of open space and nature. He called the San Mateo County Health Department if there was findings of the Haunter, along with some other stuff on the mountain like, Bionic Plague, Limes disease. He was told that the ground on the mountain has not been disturbed for many years and it is hard to tell what is there. When the soil is stirred up and creates dust there is a significant impact to those that have health problems. Some people die of it and one citizen in the community did because of the grading that occurred before. One of his main issues is water and water quality. Construction activities will have a significant impact on the water quality and it eventually gets into the San Francisco Bay. These effects may include leakage of oil, gas and hydraulic fluids from heavy equipment used on the site or from transportation of cars. The MTBE problem is a significant problem. If a teaspoon of gasoline with MTBE in it , this creates a significant contamination. This is not discussed in the EIR. Sedimentation is discussed and creates another problem when it gets into the bay. Sediment and sultation is another problem. It is like a magnet if no chemistry one chemical matches with another chemical. Sediment goes wherever the tide takes is and doesn't necessarily go away and affects the crabs, oyster, and fish that are trying to come back. On page 10 of the Environmental Impact Report, the volume of am peak hour trips is registered at 380 trips. The parking garage is going to accommodate 1360 cars and he presumes that most these people are attempting to get to work, and if the 13 % that is going to be taken out, there will be 1400 or 1500 trips. The one employee per two hundred square feet equates this. Divide the 340,000 SF of office building by 200 and it is 1700 and is greater than the capacity of the parking garage. The flyover ramp is not discussed in this EIR and is discussed in another EIR. This is discussed in another EIR but does have an impact on this project and should be included in there. There is going to be loss of over 1400 linear feet of streambed wetlands. They don't register a lot in the number of acres on the acreage chart by they are very important of and ecosystem. Fred Mathews, 44 Duval, stated that in view of the fact that the remains being spread out in a larger area than the 2-acre site is not appropriate. Especially with office towers on either side there is not mitigation possible for G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\020499.doc Page 14 of 22 this site. He has talked to 11 people in South San Francisco just to see what the residents of South San Francisco felt. He stated that out of 11 people, one being hostile, 10 said that they were in favor of the position saying that they don't want building. He stated that 10 out of 11 is a good result and indicates that the people of South San Francisco do not want this project to go forward. This is something that has not been included in the EIR. He stated that his 13 year old daughter told him that she didn't think anyone would want to stay in a hotel that was built next an Indian burial ground. Perry Matlock, 300 2nd Avenue #5, San Francisco stated he volunteers with the International Indian Trading Council. He had an opportunity to look at the new SEIR, he thinks some things are missing. One being that a lot of cultures do not agree with having restaurants next to cemeteries. The shellmound should not be referred to as an archeological site or an archeological designation. It should be referred to the way the Ohlone refer to it. A lot of cultures don't like to have food establishments next to cemeteries, that is a big problem that was not brought up in the SEIR. He stated that racism is the bottom line, the Ohlone tribes in the Bay Area experienced a holocaust in which 80% of their population within probably 20 years in the late I700s and I800s. The SEIR does not a address how a development like this would affect future generations of the Ohlone people. He thinks that there is still an unofficial war against the Indian people in the Bay Area. Mr. Dove and Mr. Orozco's comments are things that should be given a lot of thought. The open space alternative with not development on Phase III is the only way to go. No one is getting paid to fight this battle. In regard to the EIR the Commission should consider the open space alternative. The issue should be addressed about restaurants next to cemeteries, and the concept of the effect this development will have on the Ohlone. Philip Batchelder, 29I5A Wheeler Street, Berkeley stated that he understands the set parameters for this discussion and hopes that the Commission would listen to the comments given by the public. The public is earnestly trying to process a poor disclosure document. California has lost more than 90% of the original wetlands and the Army Corps of Engineers say clearly that Federal Regulations don't mandate to whether or not they issue a permit to mandate these small wetlands. He also mentioned that the EIR does not indicate any mitigation for the destruction for the wetlands are. The Commission needs to listen to the public. He has put in request to get the Army Corps of Engineers archeology to comment on those. He finds constantly that there has a been a record established in the documents from the EP A and various departments, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Fish and Wildlife Service, City documents, developers documents, and the consultants documents. There is a record that the regards the archeological site that only considers the 2.2-acre shellmound sites. All the discussions in these meetings have been limited to the 2.2-acres. Pages 34 and 35 in the SEIR state that "the Phase III site Mitigation Plan alternative would eliminate all project activity on and within 30 feet of the boundaries of the shellmound resulting in preservation of the site including burials in its present condition". He questioned what the site was, and that the site is much more than the shellmound, although it is the area of densest remains. He finds it a poor disclosure document because there is an example how the draft will the amended, there is rarely a page number to refer to back in the draft. He questioned how the public was going to go through the document and do all the complicated cross referencing it. He mentioned that those that get paid to do these things have the time to do it. There is an unclear cross-referencing and an inadequate discussion of the site. These are massive impacts and are relative. He then read a short statement from Mr. Edward Wilson -- "The Bay Area is incalculably fortunate to have a unique oasis of biodiversity at San Bruno Mountain. However, as is the case with so many other global treasures, this great fortune is not being handled with adequate care. In my book, The Diversity of Life, I highlighted San Bruno Mountain as one of eighteen global biodiversity "hotspots" in need of immediate protection, along with the U sambara mountain forests of Tanzania, the Colombian Choco, Madagascar, and others. San Bruno Mountain's ecosystems are severely jeopardized by development and its associated problems, principally the invasion of non-native species. More development, as is currently proposed, will further fragment what is home to hundreds of plant and animal species, including several that live nowhere else. Current Habitat Conservation Plan provisions are insufficient to preserve this rich biodiversity. It is imperative that all the open space that remains on San Bruno Mountain be saved. We can leave our descendants a sorely degraded environment and an example of abuse and exploitations, or we can leave a rich legacy of respectful stewardship-it is our choice. I urge all Californians to take a stand in favor of conserving San Bruno Mountain. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\020499 .doc Page 15 of 22 Del Schembari, 321 Del Alta Mesa Drive, questioned what measures are going to insure if the constructors run into something they are going to stop. He wanted to know what happened to the Fiscal Impact Review, there was a person ready to discuss it and the machinery wasn't working. It never came back to the public. What will happen if the economy slows down.. What will happen to South San Francisco is this did happen. One of the main concerns of the residents of Paradise Valley was dust dibris, it is a significant impact. Many people said that it was very troublesome. Another issue is an environmental justice issue, many of the areas in the City are of low income means. He stated that one last thing about the schools this will add children to the schools and it is significant to the teacher that gets the children added to their classroom. The process is difficult for the public to understand things and he asked the Commission to keep that in mind. Jacklyn Jehl, 434 Hemlock Street, stated, she had the luxury of choosing which watch to work, so now she can enjoy Paradise Valley. Since the grading on San Bruno Mountain the beauty of the waves of grass lands, when the winds come through is gone. There are homes there. There were hawks during the day. There are one or two raccoons, skunks, and possums. Part of her property was lent to the City to form a block park that is not being kept up, because the gardeners have to keep up a part of South San Francisco. The gardeners taking care of all the new property has impacted them. There is also crime in the Block Park. She can't say that there won't be crime going off of 101, she has worked in the area of Candlestick Park and it will attract the same type of clientele. They constantly have to change hands to keep up their business. The hotel and restaurants by Candlestick, which should have a good business, is seasonal. The same thing is going to happen with the hotels and the motels on the mountain. They will have seasonal clients. There is nothing in the EIR about the crime impact on the area. Whether it just is small crimes, littering and dumping of garbage or big crimes. This will be a cheap hotel. There are just three new hotels on Airport Boulevard and she does not see many people going in and out of there. She does not think the City will get the hotel tax. She thinks that a beautiful are is being ruined. The whether there is comparable to Redwood City. It hits 90, when everyone else is 70 or 80 degrees. She stated that she saw one Gray Fox in all the years she has lived in the City. She also stated that Peggy Ward had died who lived on Randolph. She told her how at 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. there would be bulldozing. Fred Andres, 2413 Carlson Blvd., Richmond, pointed out his comment on page 95, and remembers characterizing the process as over hasty. This comment is not in the response to his comments. He feels that the whole process is being rushed. He also commented on letter 18-1, which is a response to Patrick Orozco's comment. It states that there is no archeological evidence to disapprove or approve the commentator's statement about the presence of off burial sites. He has noticed that there are great deals of people that are concerned with off burial sites. There is a very strong probability that there are off-site burials and there could be very many of them. The presence of the second shellmound gives a strong probability that there are many off-site burial sites. He is shaken at the possibility that there would be development on top of bodies. These bodies have been there for thousands of years and should be left undisturbed. There is no addressing of the Ohlone's right to practice their land base religion, which Patrick described to an extent in his statement and earlier statements. He finds the plans disturbing and very close to an act of vandalism. He thinks that these valley, graves and bodies should be left alone and preserved and added to the park permanently. Kathy Manus, 824 Templeton Avenue, Daly City, representing Friends of San Bruno Mountain would she questioned the impacts on biology. Questioned if a ten-story building might shade and damage to Callippe silverspot habitat during the wrong winter season of long shadow. The effects on Historic Site, in previous meetings San Mateo Parks has indicated its interest in taking responsibility for the shellmound. The SEIR stated that Sunchase, as owner, has the final control over permission for listing a Historic Place under the National Historic Preservation Act. She questions if the owner will be guaranteed to grant the permission to the proper agency. She does not see any indication that they will in the SEIR. On page 35 of the Final SEIR it is noted that Will-of Two-Bears is satisfied with the mitigation plan development alternative as preserving the shellmounds. She would like to point out that Will-of-Two-Bears is not of Ohlone descent, he is a Native American from North Dakota. Ken McIntire, 235 Old Ranch Road, Redwood City, the document has written their concerns and the Final goes ahead and answers those concerns. It never gets to the heart of it and it is very frustrating. There is a piece of G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\020499 .doc Page 16 of 22 land that has a lot of significance. Filing certain mitigation measures can't do it away. People have talked about the wetlands. You cannot destroy some wetlands and recreate them somewhere else. That is not mitigation as it is called in the EIR. The 2.2-acre circle where they have studied to see what is there, and think that this is the only thing they have to say. The document does not deal with the real issues at hand. Caleb Kleppner, 1202 Waternew Drive, Mill Valley, spoke to taking comments on the SEIR at 9:30, many member of the public can't be here at 9:30. The public has not been given an adequate opportunity to comment on the report. He received notice of the availability of the report on Saturday and got a copied of it on Tuesday, and could not spend 48 consider this report. He thinks they should consider delaying approval or rejection of the document until the Commission can hold a second hearing on the EIR to allow the public to make comments at 7 p.m. The EIR is not written in plain english, it is very difficult to make any input on the report. He stated he could not tell the Commission that the EIR is adequate. There was a significant impact left out on the report. The congestion means that there is a high probability will lead to traffic back up the hook ramp to 101. Anyone could foresee that this is going to lead into accidents. Susan Vigil, 209 Chattanooga Street, San Francisco, read a letter by a resident of South San Francisco who wrote it on February 3, 1999. In the recent past history of the U.S. they have fortunate to have had far sided people, who have successfully promoted the preservation of beautiful natural sites. These places have become a natural heritage for future generations and us. The present American culture does not go back as the natural geological history. The present culture is anywhere from 2-4 centuries old. There were groups of people living on this continent for IOOs of centuries before it was discovered and explored. The Indians had a history and culture going back farther than the modem day. The Indian culture is not ours, and they were here before we cam e to live here. If there is a little physical evidence saved, we are enriching our culture and respecting theirs. This is letting everyone know that there is a value on what was here before us. Saving and making the Indian shellmounds a special place is saying g we acknowledge the way a life of people who lived with and adapted to their natural environment far long before their way of life was disturbed and changed. Lets save what little physical evidence there is left, so they can look back at a history and heritage that includes theirs and makes the U.S. richer than the centuries we have been here. Respectfully submitted by Willie Germano at 525 Magnolia A venue. Cliff Lentz, 500 Sierra Point Road, Brisbane, he related that he is attending his 3rd meeting in regard to Terrabay project. He wanted a clarification who put together the report, if it was an independent neutral organization or if it was put together by the developer. Chief Planner Harnish replied that it was put together by a Consultant team that was hired by the City, paid for by the developer. The City staff supervised the work of the consultants. It was intended to be an independent and objective analysis. Mr. Lentz questioned if the developer had any influence in the putting together of the report. Chief Planner Harnish related, the developers were relied on for basic information about the project and to make sure that the analysis was based on their proposal. Mr. Lentz questioned if they were involved in seeking out information on certain species or there environment. Chief Planner Harnish stated this was independent. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren stated that the purpose of the document is that it reflects the City's independent judgement about these impacts. The City conducted its work consistent with that basic mandate. Wherever information was obtained from the developer regarding the project or any other source of information the City had its own consultants who were reviewing and gathering its own information. Except for the description of the project. The developer gives the City what they want to do, and the City is charged with supervising and performing the analysis of the information. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\020499.doc Page 17 of 22 Mr. Lentz stated that just from the comments it seems the document is slanted more toward the developer, rather than to those that want to preserve that open space. The Commissioner stated this evening that the subject tonight is the report and any shortcomings of it, so that it will help aid their decision in what to do with the land. He hopes the report is independent and if it is not is should not be used as an instrument for the Commission. Mishwa Lee, 3 Ardath Court, San Francisco, agreed with the other comments about the time and being up at 11 p.m. She is trying to clear the process in her mind and she feels that she has to comment on the document that the public has not had time to study. This document represents a very significant decision for the community. In the notification that she received it stated that if there were any issues related to litigation it would have to be brought at this meeting. She questioned whom the Planning Division represent. Chief Planner Harnish related that the Planning Division formally works for the City Council. The EIR was issued July 1, 1998 and there was a comment period that ran through August. What the Commission has before them is a second document with responses to comments made to the Draft EIR. The focus of the Final SEIR of it is if the comments have been addressed. Ms. Lee questioned if planning staff worked for the City of South San Francisco Chief Planner Harnish answered that the City Council works for the people of South San Francisco and the Planning Division works for the City Council. Ms. Lee questioned how much time the division spent with the developers and going over things with them. The developer has come to the City and spends a lot of time with them. She questioned if the division met with the Ohlone people for the same amount of time that they met weigh the developer. Chief Planner Harnish replied that they meet with every applicant that comes to the City. Staff spends time with them to understand the nature of the project. Staff has also met with anyone that has requested to meet with City staff as often as they would like to meet. The Ohlone Indians may not have requested as many meetings with staff as the applicant did but the doors are open to anyone and anytime. Ms. Lee stated that she was not trying to be argumentative and just needed to have some things clarified. Commissioner Teglia stated that there also was an outside consultant is the independent preparer of the document. Ms. Lee related that the Commission's job it so to determine based on the EIR, and to recommend this to the City Council. Commissioner Masuda related that the book answers all the questions brought up by people at the meeting and by letters. He asked the speaker to focus on the Final SEIR. Mr. Lee stated that the most significant aspect of this is the importance of San Bruno Mountain for future generations. As a teacher she knows that students do not have access to places like this. It is very significant site, 5000 years old plus, continuously inhabited for most of that time. This is a treasure and goes beyond that. Wetlands is not what ends up in the bay or a creek, it is a whole watershed. This can't be separated it is all connected. The whole are needs to be protected. The development would certainly destroy the potential to protect the area as the great heritage as it is. David Schooley, San Bruno Mountain Watch, related that they were going door to door for seven days. Every one says they want to keep their mountain, it is very clear. There have been three people that have been in favor of the project, but everyone else has been opposed. The public doesn't know, they have been going day to day person to person and house to house and now they understand what is happening. He thought it would be better G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\ working\minutes\ 1999\020499 .doc Page 18 of 22 of the City would send out more detailed information to the people. They do not want to lose their mountain and land. Questions then come up about the traffic and the situations that they are facing. The EIR does not mention that the City of Brisbane is going to increase in the acres and the flat land. This will all be industrial and shopping areas. This is not on the EIR, this has not been looked for the whole flow of the area. All the work that has been done is centered in a certain quiet area and is not opened out, thinking about the future at 2050. This is not just the worry about rare and endangered species, or the Indian village sites it is the City and the people who live here. The best his group can do and they are going to make a careful study and hiring another group to see what the traffic is going to be from this area along Old Bayshore; from Brisbane and South San Francisco. What has been put forth so far. In regard to the silverspot butterfly it has not been studied yet, and mitigation does not make sense. The whole area has not been studied. Wetlands in his studies, can't be rebuilt an ancient wetland area, especially where it goes through the shellmound. There is an earthquake collapse in one of the canyons and he hopes that they can all look closer than they already have. Public Hearing closed. Commissioner Masuda thanked everyone for their comments and he also checked who it was that had spoken, and to see if their letter was in the SEIR. The speakers did not stay on the subject and wandered off. Chief Planner Harnish stated that it is unfortunate that they chose to do a study this late in the process. Should it have been done earlier it would have been better to submit their information as part of the review process. Commissioner Masuda stated that Mr. Schooley has until the 10th and whatever study has been done, should be on the SEIR. He stated he was recommending that the Commission forward the item to the City Council. Commissioner Teglia stated that the SEIR is a tool that will be used to make a decision at later meetings to help them approve or reject the problem. They are commenting on the tool and its adequacy. Some specific points he heard a question about the cumulative impacts with the power plants, airport, Gray Fox, and the possibility of archeological sites in between the two mounds. He questioned if they had been adequately looked at, and if they were reasons that they should deny the certification of the EIR. Chief Planner Harnish stated that the question of the cumulative impacts was raised in the comments on the Draft EIR. Those comments were evaluated and those impacts were adequately addressed. The cumulative impacts are summarized. It is a requirement of the CEQA process to not look at this project as an isolated matter, but to look at it in a context of all of the known projects that have some relationship to this project in terms of either, traffic impacts, impacts on wetlands and a lot of other related issues. In staff's opinion the cumulative impact analysis in the EIR was adequate and did address the cumulative impacts as they relate to this project. Commissioner Teglia questioned if the fiscal impact had to do with the SEIR or if it is separate. Chief Planner Harnish replied that the fiscal impact is separate. Motion Masuda/Second Romero. Approved by unanimous voice vote. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 5. Items from Staff Chief Planner Harnish stated that he had 3 items to discuss. . Chief Planner Harnish then handed out some information on the Planning Commissioner's Institute that they had discussed. He suggested that the Commission look at the handouts and stated that on the meeting of February 18, 1999 they can make a conclusion about whether to attend. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\020499.doc Page 19 of 22 Commissioner Baldocchi stated that she had been to a seminar like this two years ago, when she started on the Commission. One of the seminars was on the role of the Planning Commission and the instructor who taught the one in Davis was the same one who taught the one in Long Beach. The Commissioners all agreed that they were going to attend the seminar. . Chief Planner Harnish mentioned that the City Council canceled their interviews of Planning Commission applicants for February 3, 1999. Councilman Mullin had a conflict and they felt it wouldn't be appropriate to conduct interviews without him. It has not been rescheduled yet, but he spoke to the Human Resources Director, and she thought it could be rescheduled a week after next. Commissioner Teglia asked that Chief Planner Harnish let the Commission now when the interviews are scheduled. Commissioner Masuda questioned that the City Council would be interviewing for the new Commissioner. Chief Planner Harnish stated that they would be interviewing for the new Commissioner as well as for the reappointment requests. . Chief Planner Harnish reported back on two issues raised at the last meeting, one being the light at the steak house. He talked to Code Enforcement and they are going to get together with the Police Department and determine whether or not it presents a hazard. He has not heard back from them, but the fall back decision is that the owner be contacted and they be required to put some bushes in front of it. Secondly, he has driven by at the Ong-Pin Noodle House. He spoke to Mike Upston and he is going to prepare a letter reminding them that they cannot use the expanded space for seating. Commissioner Masuda stated that he asked someone who eats there and they have noticed that the help goes in the room. Chief Planner Harnish noticed a table and chairs stacked and stored in there, but the lights were out. It was not being used. It may be a temporary thing while they still are under construction. . Chief Planner Harnish also mentioned that he attended the Daly City Planning Commission meeting, and Commissioner Romero was also present. The Extended Stay project on Hickey that overlooks Winston Manor went before the Daly City Planning Commission. The City Council has directed staff to follow that issue. There is a file in the office if the Commission is interested in looking at it. There is an old EIR, Staff Report, Negative Declaration and some background information. Commissioner Baldocchi questioned which planner in Daly City Planner had the project. Chief Planner Harnish stated that it was Carlos DemilIo. They have been very cooperative with staff. Staff is preparing extensive comments on the environmental document. He suggested that if the Commission was interested they could get a copy of that response. Commissioner Romero and two more Councilmen were in attendance. . Assistant City Attorney Lindgren was following up on a memo regarding the proposed energy power plant. He would like to delay the report while he continues to gather up some information. If the Commission is still interested he will give them an update on the legal process of the plant, if and when it comes to the City as an application. . Chief Planner Harnish stated that the two Public Hearings scheduled for the next meeting were dropped from the calendar because they weren't ready. The next meeting will be study sessions only likely on the PUD exceptions, and the parliamentary procedures. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\020499.doc Page 20 of 22 6. Items from Commission . Commissioner Baldocchi brought up an issue on planning for elderly care facilities in South San Francisco. She remembers bringing it up in the fall because the issue came up again. They talked about policy tonight and if it could be incorporated into the General Plan. Chief Planner Harnish stated that this would be addressed in terms of formal care facilities like the Magnolia Senior Center and other types. He was not anticipating in the addressing this issue in the General Plan and it seems that it has to be addressed someway. The City is somewhat constrained in what they can do about it. It is a growing issue and a growing concern. Commissioner Teglia stated that they couldn't talk about uses and only density. The way the zoning is they can come in and do a 5 or 6-bedroom house. If they restrict that it is not an automatic. Then it can be done in a case by case basis and have a little more control on the size of the building. This might be a tool to give the City a way to deal with this. Commissioner Baldocchi understands in the way the City is restricted because of the State laws. The City can look at what can be done as far as planning for the community. Commissioner Masuda asked how that gets started and if the Commission makes a recommendation to the Council. It can't be put into the General Plan until it has come up. Chief Planner Harnish stated that the general plan could be used as a vehicle for addressing these types of policy issues, which go to the City Council. This may be the direction that the issue takes, and it may be something that other communities are dealing with. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren offered to explore the full limitations or scope of their authorities with regard to conditions. The concerns expressed about the legal constraints are valid and clear. He will look at this and the overall issue is compatibility and changes within the community. Commissioner Masuda stated that three care home facilities are aggressive. Commissioner Teglia stated that it is size impact that the City can look at. Vice Chairman Sim questioned that in his neighborhood, there has been some concern about those that have never been notified about these things going in. Elevations are no where like the other houses on the block. As long as the process gets going the neighborhood feels like they have a chance to voice their concerns. Some HOA's have a way in which they make some decisions in regards to some of these matters, and he is concerned about that. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren stated that the issue of C.C.&Rs and HOA's and their abilities to place limitations on development that City, Commission and City Council may not really like is important. He thinks this is why his office needs to be involved and aggressive in reviewing the C.C.& Rs. It is a second layer of regulation and the homeowners do it. Commissioner Teglia stated that he recently had some talks with the Fire Department and had some Code Enforcement changes they are considering in the City. One of the things he thought about before is that the Commission can playa part in helping Code Enforcement, whenever violations are coming up with someone that has a Use Permit. Instead of going through the whole process when someone is in violation, the Commission can agendise revocation hearings. The permit does not have to be revoked but just to have an applicant stand and having to explain to the Commission why they are violating an ordinance might go along way to encourage compliance. A couple meetings back Commissioner Romero commented about the grocery stores on Grand G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\020499.doc Page 21 of 22 Avenue who received Use Permits for the outside storage. He walked Grand Avenue three different days and noticed that those permit holders are violating the requirements that were clearly set out to them. Newberry's store has card tables sitting outside with boxes on them. The jelly bean place has gm"bage sitting out front, a grocery store mid-block that has things strewn all over the place. It would be a good idea to agendize the two Use Permits that were approved for revocation hearings. To bring them in and allow them to explain why they can't comply with the requirements. This may send a message to the rest of Grand A venue to clean up a little. Commissioner Masuda stated that the grocery store on Hillside they have a stand where they sell things. There was a consensus to agendise Use Permit revocation hearings. Commissioner Romero asked about coming up with standards first. Chief Planner Harnish stated that there are some standards in their Use Permit conditions and have some standards that they have to comply with now and are out of line periodically. Commissioner Romero he would like to see what they are going to have to comply with. Commissioner Teglia stated there are specific requirements that the applicants now know. The study session can be agendised for a broader criteria. Chief Planner Harnish stated that the criteria will be drafted for review at staff level and should be coming back soon. Maybe by the next month or so. Motion Teglia / Second Baldocchi. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous voice vote. 8. Adjourn The melting was adjourned at 11:30 ~ f; ~~;~ Jim Ha isr I Secretar : to\'!le Planning Commission City of utV San Francisco p.m. udy Honan, Chairperson Planning Commission City of South San Francisco JH/bh NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting February 18,1999, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\020499 .doc Page 22 of 22