Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09.16.99 Minutes CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE September 16, 1999 TAPE 1 CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The n1eeting was called to order at 7:30 p.In. ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS MEMBERS PRESENT: COlnmissioner Baldocchi, COlnmissioner D'Angelo, Commissioner ROlnero, COlTIll1issioner Meloni, Vice Chairperson Sim and Chairperson Honan MEMBERS ABSENT: Cormnissioner Teglia STAFF PRESENT: Planning Division: Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Susy Kalkin Mike Lappen Adam Lindgren Richard Hannon S gt. Mike Massoni City AttOlney: Engineering: Police Dept.: AGENDA REVIEW Assistant City Attorney Lindgren infonned the Cormnission that the City Attorney has requested that the Commission continue the Subcomlnittee bylaws because he wishes to review and consider theIn. Chairperson Honan asked if the City Atton1ey had an idea of when they would be back to the COlnmission. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren stated that a Inonth should be enough and considering that the COlnmission has a full agenda for the next Inonth they would prefer to continue them without a date certain. Commissioner Teglia anived at 7:40 p.m. After further discussion on whether the Cormnission would continue the item per the City Attorneys' request or discuss the bylaws, they decided to continue the item to October 21, 1999. The Conunission asked for a report on the City Attorney's findings to be given first to the Subcommittee and then to the Commission. Chief Planner Sparks went over the Caseload Status with the Commission. The Comlnission discussed touring the Genentech site for their annual update and decided that it would be an evening tour. They directed staff to come back with dates to the COlnInission. Commissioner Meloni and Commissioner Teglia stated that they would not be attending the October 7, 1999 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEMS G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\ 1999\091699 .doc Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 40 1. General Plan Update City of South San Francisco Citywide GP-99-061 and EIR-99-061 Recommendation to certify the Draft E1R, Review of the General Plan docunlents, and Planning COlllillission Recoml11endations to City Council. (Continued from September 2, 1999) (AS TRANSCRIBED BY THE BUSINESS OFFICE) (Inaudibles corrected to the best of staff's ability) Chairperson Honan: I will therefore open up the public hearing. The first public hearing itel11 please. Clerk Hernandez: General Plan Update GP-99-061 and E1R-99-061. Recommendation to certify the Draft E1R, Review the General Plan documents and Planning Commission Recorm11endations to the City Council continued from September 2, 1999. Chairperson Honan Thank you. Staff report, please. Chief Planner Sparks Thank you. The City Council held a workshop last night and we'll be reporting on that. I had hoped at the last meeting to el11phasize the workshop at the end of the meeting, but as previously noted, that meeting fell to other important issues. So, last night at the City Council where Conl111ission Chair was present, and I assume that she will correct me if she has significant differences with what we've assenlbled to report to you. Staff went through a history of the process that showed them the slides of all the meetings, all the reports, all the workshops, and went through the advertising and what have you that occurred in the last two and a half years. We went through the status of the Commission's deliberations and tried to raise all of the significant issues and pointed out that at the last meeting, the Commissioners achieved consensus on all of the itel11s except a couple of policies related to schools which we think will not be an issue for you. We just Sil11ply didn't have time to get to thel11. And the EI Camino corridor, particularly, as it relates to transit oriented development, which will be our pril11ary topic tonight. We made it clear that we will be seeking your directives on those final issues and we hope that we will be able to draft up a general plan before the Commission and that you can l11ake your recoml11endation. The City Council tentatively have a formal hearing on the General Plan and E1R scheduled for the 22ud, next week They will not be able to take a final action at that meeting, but it has been advertised at this point. There were two public commentors at the workshop: Mr. Fitzhugh, representing owners on Sign Hill, raised issues that you have heard. Precisely the sar11e one relating to a letter that you have in your files by Tim Cremin of Baker and Mackenzie and discussing the one dwelling per 10-acre limitation and how that plays. Fred Etzel, representing Simas, proposed a transit village concept in the area, particularly around South San Francisco BART station and suggested that Costco uses gas sales as a loss and puts other gas stations out of business. Council members went through several rounds of comments. I have gathered them in a group for each individual Council member rather than try to go through all of them so I will try and summarize for you from the notes Staff took what was the primary concern of each Councilnlel11ber. Councilmember Fernekes asked for a clarification on the Sign Hill issues with regard to the density and slopes and asked that the questions posed by Mr. Cremin be answered, and asked if it was possible that we might acquire that G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\091699.doc Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 40 property on Sign Hill, that's if there were government flmds available. He also addressed the issue of the underlying zoning for school sites and we explained what the Commission had done. Councilmember Mullin suggested that in spite of all the public Ineetings and what have you, we need a better advertising strategy. He thought that he would have been happy with Inore public input. I think all of us feel that way, but... Commissioner Baldocchi. You guys did a good job. Chief Planner Sparks Around the San Bruno BART station, he suggested it is perfectly reasonable to put residential inside the 65 CNEL contour if dwellings are appropriately insulated. He understands that down in that area are there land use conflicts with the existing industrial uses and he thinks that's an issue, but the noise issue, as he put it, a red herring in the San Bruno BART station. He suggested that trying to reduce the size of dwellings in R-l areas may be a problem economically. And he had some questions about how Inany businesses we actually have in South City in the east of 101 area. It's not really a General Plan issue, but Councilmember Mullin is a stickler for detail. He addressed our figures that show that 8% of land use that is designated comlnercial generates 29% of revenue in the City. He noted that a fair arnount of that sales tax revenue is actually business to business and may not fall within that 8%. He expressed a concern about establishing too many overlay districts and suggested that we might wind up with spot zoning issues. He enthusiastically supported childcare. He suggested that perhaps we have mandates for it and explore exactions, but he was rather explicit about not exploring developer fees. Mayor Pro Tern Matsumoto chimed in at that point and was also enthusiastically supportive of child care. And fmally Councihnember Mullin expressed some concern about school zoning in terms of perhaps setting up the GP, the general plan, to require amendments. Commissioner Baldocchi I don't understand that, sorry. Chief Planner Sparks: Well, the school issue that we have addressed has to do with the Con1mission's expressed desire to assure that if a school closes and it's declared surplus that the underlying zoning not permit by right a specific use such as a single family subdivision. And so we have promised that we will COlne up with a zone reflective of what shows on the General Plan map, where the schools are in a schools or in a public use category and the zone will allow a school. And if there is SOlne other use to be established there then it will have to go through hearings. It won't be a matter of some uses established by right by the underlying zoning. Commissioner Baldocchi So it will be a general plan amendment. Chief Planner Sparks It would be. Commissioner Baldocchi Okay. Thank you. Chief Planner Sparks Councilmelnber Penna suggested that a loft overlay zone would be a good idea in commercial and industrial zones in a fair amount of the City west of 101, and Lindenville and downtown. And he also suggested in regard to the discussion about better access to 101 and the Lindenville area that that would benefit a much larger area than just Lindenville. And by ilnplication, that we need to be very careful about whatever mechanism we might establish to try to fund those improvements. He also supports housing within the 65 CNEL contour in areas west of 101. He asked if Country Club is annexed, could the animal uses stay and he would like clarification on what we might do to allow that and what issues would arise. He also raised the question of the City somehow acquiring the Sign Hill property. Mayor Pro Tern Matsumoto supports mixed use downtown and in the Linden Avenue area as well as transit oriented development near BART. She says she supports quality of life issues and is concerned about traffic and air quality and she suggested an art and entertainment overlay district to fund art in public places and perhaps that we try to find a way to establish in lieu fees or some other funding n1echanism. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\091699.doc Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 40 And Mayor Datzman asked that we disaggegate job nmnbers. We showed him some regional nun1bers and he wanted to know specifically how many are projected for South San Francisco. He found the revenue chart we put up instructive. You have seen our pie chart and he suggested it is important to prevent tax dollar leakage. He liked the level playing field concept that we addressed so the public and private street density calculations come out the sarne. He supports the higher densities along North Linden Avenue and he observed that we need code enforcelnent in Lindenville. He used some fairly strong words about the appearance of some of the establishments in Lindenville. He agreed strongly that we need to deal with Lindenville truck access and traffic issues to get trucks out of downtown and make things easier in Lindenville. He observed that the General Plan issues in the EI Camino corridors seem to be about Costco, not about the General Plan and he asked parenthetically if it's possible to do Costco without the gas station. He inquired if there is really evidence that Costco gas stations really drive other gas stations out of business. That's my list. I ask you, Madam Chair, if that cOlnports pretty much with what you heard? Chairperson Honan Actually you have really cut down my list. I really can't give anything back to that. Thank you, you really did a good job. I appreciate that very much. Chief Planner Sparks Thank you. Chairperson Honan Now we can sit through the next meeting. Chief Planner Sparks Well tonight what we have, with any luck, perhaps our final hearing on the General Plan and the EIR. At the last meeting, a couple of you were unable to be here, but the five Commissioners who were here achieved consensus on the policies that have been shown to you and color-coded in the Staff report. What we did not finish was two school policies that I think will- will not prove to be an issue when we get there. But we also didn't achieve consensus on transit-oriented development in the EI Camino corridor and we did feel that we got a clear direction to restore the transit-oriented policies that were in the original draft of the General Plan. We have done that. There aren't too many of them and rather than go through the somewhat confusing video presentation we did last time which would be more confusing because we would have to have additional colors and say, well, this was in the original, but we did this and now we backed off. We thought we would just walk you through it. It should be in front of you and I think each of you has a color-coded list of those policies that we had changed and, with your indulgence, we will just start at the beginning and I will list them as we go. It won't take terribly long. Is that a reasonable approach? Okay. On the first white page, titled Chapter 2, Land Use. The first one right behind the couple of yellow pages under your Staff Report, the third bullet. This was a policy that has been restored. Integration of Land Use with planned BART Extensions such as by providing transit oriented villages around the South San Francisco BART station and new clusters of high- intensity offices and other similar uses to take advantage of regional access that will result from extension of BART to the City. This is the key principle to any land use chapter. It was one of the key principles in the original draft that was published. And Staff had proposed a change to that per your direction and we've restored this. Do you want to address these individually or go through the list and come back? Chairperson Honan How big is the list? Chief Planner Sparks There are fewer than a dozen. Chairperson Honan Let's go through them now. Chief Planner Sparks: Okay. Three pages later -- Well, two pages later. It says page 3 at the top. Guiding Policies, parenthetically page 2-32, policy 2-G-7. This policy has been restored and now reads, "Encourage mixed use residential retail and office developlnent in centers where they would support transit, in locations where they provide increased access to neighborhoods that currently lack such facilities and in corridors where such development can help to foster an entity and vitality." And then the next one is -- Unfortunately, these things are G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\ 1999\091699 .doc Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 40 not individually numbered. It's in Chapter 3. I call to your attention, if you can find Chapter 3, the Planning sub- areas element. I apologize for that there are two of those. It is the second one. It is 3.4 EI Camino Real, parenthetically page 3-24. I can read the policy to you. I don't know that it's absolutely critical. Commissioner Romero: What page is that? Chief Planner Sparks The pages are not numbered. It's under Chapter 3, Planning Sub-areas Element, 3.4 EI Camino Real. And the policy that we are talking about is the planning policy for EI Camino Real on page 3-28 of the General Plan. That's policy 3.4-G-3. "Develop the South San Francisco BART station as a vital pedestrian- oriented center with intensity of mix of uses that complelnent the areas new role as a regional center. The page immediately after that refers to the BART station area. This is page 3-29 in the General Plan and I think this may be the heart of the issue of the policies in this area. Policy 3.4-1-3: In partnership with property owners, area residents and BART and other agencies develop the approximately 8-acre Hickey boulevard extension area north of the BART station between EI Camino Real and Mission Boulevard, as a pedestrian-oriented spine fronted by active uses. " And following that, we have a variety of policies. 3.4-1-4, "Pernlit big box for other regional commercial activities north of the pedestrian-oriented center but not in the center. Policy 3 .4-1-5. 'Establish transit-supported development requirements for the approximately 8-acre station area that include [- and these would be the requirements --] designation of the area as a transit overlay zone with a specific development requirements established in the zoning ordinance, transit-oriented design and development standards that address pedestrian scale comfort and safety including maximum setbacks or blue-crew lines and building transparency requirements and inclusion of child care facilities.'" I don't believe that one was ever an issue. "Prohibition on auto oriented and drive-thru establishments and minimum density and development intensity requirements." And then, at the bottom of that page, policy 3.4-1-8. It would require any new development or redevelopment within a half-mile of the BART station at a density of no less than 30 units per net acre for residential uses or a floor area ratio of 1.5 for non-residential uses or an appropriate conlbination of the two, maintain higher intensity where otherwise specified in the General Plan. Policy 3.4-1-9 insures that the development program for the approximately 2.5 acre northwest part of the block that includes the BART station includes a mix of uses with retail and other concessions of the ground floor and the required minimum of 100 units at the upper floors and active retail uses and concessions along the northeast and south faces of the property. Policy 3.4-1-10 insures that the development program for the former Macy's warehouse site includes active retail concessions along the Hickey Blvd. extension fronting the northern part of the street, intensive residential and/or office uses at upper floors within 400 feet of Hickey Boulevard and a variety of commercial uses in a portion of the site that extends beyond 400 feet of Hickey Boulevard. And finally in that section, Policy 3.4-1-11: "Work with BART for the potential for j oint development of the property east of the former Macy's warehouse site, and north of the Hickey Blvd. extension and the BART right-of- way adjacent with transit-oriented uses, explore the feasibility for joint development of the areas." That is the group of policies that we've have changed. Before you start your deliberations, I'd like to ask that you view a brief presentation by our general plan consultant about what would be consistent with these principles would entail and, if you don't mind, I'd like to interject those two school policies just to get them out of the way... Commissioner Baldocchi Okay. Great. Chief Planner Sparks Their in the planning sub-areas element 3.12-1-2, work with the South San Francisco Unified School District on reuse of the proposed service to schools and 3.12-1-3, undertake a study to examine the feasibility and appropriateness of acquiring all or a portion of the closed Serra Vista site for park land if the South San Francisco Unified School District declares the site as surplus property. We believe that those two policies G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\091699.doc Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 40 reflect the Commission's direction and that they -- We won't have a problem with your consensus on those. I don't know if you want to address those at the present time or wait until we're done. I just wanted to get them out. Chairperson Honan Why don't we continue on. Chief Planner Sparks Okay. Could we have the presentation. It is part of the staff report as we put it together. Chairperson Honan Okay. Rajeev Bhatia It should take about 10 Ininutes. We, at various points, with the notion of what was transit-oriented has been raised, we've talked about it in the General Plan and different people have COlne before you and talked about what transit-oriented development means. So I thought I'd sort of just examine briefly some ideas that indeed have found their way into the general plan as you have it as well as sonle other ones that we should look at what other cities are doing. Simply put, what is transit-oriented development or TOD as we call it just simply means that you we want to encourage transit, encourage development that encourages transit ridership and reduces auto dependency. It is not, per say, mixed use although Inixed may be a component if but this is essentially the essence of it. TODs may be utilized or realized through other community goals such as infill development, econOlnic development and revitalization, neighborhood enhancement, creation of activity centers and so on. But those are all secondary uses of TOD. Primarily we want to encourage transit-oriented development. To put it simply at a very conceptual level here is, lets say a rail here is a station. What one tries to do with TOD is arrange high-intensity uses that Inay otherwise be all over the place, in a format where they are close enough within walking distance to a station. Next slide. Typical TOD characteristics include higher intensities and there are more than use dimensions attached to it and those include pedestrian and bike regulations, pedestrian friendly urban design, linlitations on other oriented uses, parking management. TOD is not the same thing as mixed use and I'm going to get into that very shortly as we proceed. Though we may want to do a mixed use development from other urban design considerations which, you know, means a different parking peaks, maybe and utilize at different times, the streets would be vital during longer periods of the day. Those are all good urban design considerations which may call, for which you may want to do mixed use development, but they don't necessarily mean that you'll need to increase transit ridership just because you have mixed used develoPlnent. I have some nUlnbers to show you following this. This is the diagram. It's a very standard diagram that shows how far people are willing to walk for a trip. On this line here, shown are miles, so about 50% of the people are willing to walk one-eighth of a mile to get to, let's say, from the BART station or a light rail station to a work destination. Only 28% of the people are willing to walk a quarter of a mile. And only about 10% of the people are willing to walk up to one and a half miles. Chairperson Honan Can I ask you a question? Rajeev Bhatia: Sure. Chairperson Honan How do you get those figures? Rajeev Bhatia: This is a very standard -- different transportation planners that actually sat around studying how far people walk and don't walk and this is a very standard - it is taken from Timesaver standards. Chairperson Honan So this is standard that you pulled out of... Rajeev Bhatia: A standard book, which is Tilnesaver Standards' latest edition in case anyone wants to look at it... Chairperson Honan So no one actually -- No one actually surveyed anyone in South San Francisco. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\09l699.doc Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meetinl! Page 6 of 40 Rajeev Bhatia: No, no, no. This is not South San Francisco. This is just generalized how far people are willing to walk. Chairperson Honan Standard. Thank you. Rajeev Bhatia: And certainly when compared for this case, for exarnple Downtown San Francisco, more people are going to be willing to walk farther than the numbers than the nmnbers in here, and if you go to Pleasonton fewer people are going to be willing to walk but this is how they average out to be, these numbers. Just to give you a sense of what that quarter-lnile and half a mile is in terms of a scale, this is City Hall right here. That's a quarter- mile radius. I just picked up City Hall because that's an area that everybody is farniliar with, downtown. As you can see, a quarter-mile area includes virtually the entire downtown. This is the downtown core this is the heart. So when we talk about the quarter-mile area, we are talking about actually a lot of land. This is a half-mile radius in here it goes virtually from to the base of sign hill a half-lnile radius centered around downtown. It goes almost a third of the way into Lindenville. This is a 5-1ninute walking distance, typically. This would be a 10-1ninute walking distance, if you're walking a straight line. If your at this end and your going to do this and that, it's going to be much longer than 10 minutes to get to the end of the circle. So typically, this is a slide, for exarnple, frOln the San Jose Light Rail system in Sunnyvale -- By the way, our firm completed a national case study of transit oriented development on 12 North American cities just a about three months ago, so we are very familiar with what goes on with transit oriented development. This shows, for example, the San Jose Light Rail systeln, extension through Sunnyvale. And as you would notice, typically what they do is they plop these stations down every half-mile, in light rail stations, because people walk a quarter-mile. So essentially you get full coverage, full walking distance coverage. So that's what they do. They take these stations, put them down about half a mile. Certainly the BART, we cannot do that because BART is heavy rail, it takes longer to accelerate and decelerate. But that notion of walkability- Next Slide- how far people are willing to walk or not walle. This is a slide frOln the Orange County light rail system that's being planned right now. This is R-l and that's another quarter mile. That is in effect, one of the standards that's used to focus transit-oriented developlnent, how far it goes. It's the quarter- mile, 5-minute walking distance that essentially is- go on next slide here. This is an example from Seattle, the kinds of things that people talk when they talk about TODs. It is high intensity. It is not single story development. In the case of Seattle they are looking at, at least 7 to 8 story development along the new light rail station, active uses at the lower levels. Next slide. Similarly there are design programs underway in different places. This is what's happening in the BART station and they are looking at putting adjacent high- density housing next to the BART station. This is an example from San Jose where they put in high density housing, immediately adjacent to a light rail station, which is out here, this is 4 to 5 story housing right next to it. Go on, next slide. In the case of the Seattle area, this is a plan that I was the project manager for a couple of years ago. We indeed did not look -- We didn't even sort of look to a quarter-mile. We were indeed trying to focus development within an eighth of a mile of a radius, which would be a two and a half-minute walking distance. Next slide. That shows some fairly high intensity development that goes up to 20 stories, even 25 story towers for offices. Very high density housing which is over 100 units per acre immediately right next to the train stations. And this is stuff that is actually going to be built at the end of this year. So it is not far out to be talking about those densities. Commissioner Baldocchi I'm sorry. This is... Rajeev Bhatia: Sacranlento. This is the State Capital building in here. Commissioner Baldocchi: Sacramento. Oh, okay. G: \File Cabinet\O Id PC\ working\minutes\ 1999\091699. doc Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 40 Rajeev Bhatia Next slide Now, this was a learning exercise for me and I had somebody in our office who has done forecasting for BART to broaden, pull some numbers -- I want to get a sense of - if you have a ten acre site right next to a BART station, and we have different kinds of land uses. What kinds of transit ridership can we expect from these sites. I pulled out 10 acre numbers because that's fairly close to the kind of an area we are looking at, for example. The one that would be proposed in here, and its just to get a sense of a comparison. So we looked at different land uses of low density residential at 8 units per acre, high density residential, 40 units per acre, office at 2.0 FAR, which is actually somewhat higher than the intensities you currently have in South San Francisco but it is the intensity you are proposing in these BART station areas. Hotels are 2.0 FAR and retail at a 0.5 FAR and this just shows you what you get when you multiply this by 10 acres, you lmow the square feet of space housing units. And then, it just shows you the standardized weekday, average trip rates that are at applied so you lmow from this 10-acres, applied to each one of these units gives you the total number of trips one gets from these 10 acres. So you get up to 760 trips from the residential, low-density residential, 2,600 from the high-density residential, 8,200 from the office and similarly. So you can see that retail actually generates somewhat higher trips with the same 10 acres. And those are only coming from employees because we do not actually believe that there is much other transit or activity, at least as far as transit goes that generated from retail. Next slide. So now this column is translated. It's just flung right in here. This column here shows what kind ofthese-- How many of these trips are actually devoted to BART. These numbers 27% and 17% are based on a survey that was carried out a couple of years ago for sites adjacent to BART stations by a transportation firm. They expect, on average, within a quarter mile of a BART station a 27% of the trips from the residential areas can be taken by BART and 17% from the non-residential uses. So residential, you lmow, trips do generate a somewhat higher diversion to BART and to stated the number of trips that we have in there we multiplied those by these and these are the net results of trips that one could expect to have for part from each on of these 10 acre sites. So fron1 the low density residential we can expect, in the case that if we have our 10 acres right next to the BART station and we said its all 8 units per acre, we can expect about 200 more trips per day from BART these are not peak hour trips these per day trips that typical p.m. peak hour may be about 10% of that residential uses. So, you can expect 20 more trips per day on the p.m. peak hour on BART. Seven hundred per day from high density residential 1,400 from offices, 790 from hotels and 200 frOlTI medimTI these are, again, employees only. We are not counting any buyers making these trips. As you can see, low density residential and retail from a purely transit perspective of exactly the same -- We have the same transit orientation. They are not any different. Now I am not here suggesting you don't want versus the other. Go on to the next slide. Now uses are just one very-.- they are integral, but they are just one of the components that leads to increased or decreased transit ridership. One has to examine the uses and the context of what is done in the station as a whole. And sometimes a better open environment may lead to higher transit ridership than just the uses might. So we have to be very, very careful that talk -- not just about the uses, but what kind of environment are we creating in there. Do we have right pedestrian and bicycle connections, do we have feeder buses and shuttle systems, is it safer for people to walk in there. If they don't feel safe they will get their car down there and they will drive from there. So -- and there are some implementation strategies that are related to demonstration projects and things of that nature. So ultimately when we talk about transit-oriented development, we are talking uses plus everything else that goes with it. If the City has money, I would recommend consider a feeder shuttle systelTI. That is why we do a whole lot more to how n1uch transit ridership you can expect than what you might get from any kinds of land uses. Unless it is putting 30 story towers right next to the BART station. Next slide. So we talked about all of these things. Keep going Mike. And I just want to share with you some of the ideas that we had and what we had suggested as part of the draft General Plan. This is the South San Francisco BART station, and this is a quarter-mile radius. This is a half-mile radius. This is the same quarter-lTIile radius that we had discussed earlier. As you can see, these are mixed use bands that we have shown around. And up to within a quarter mile, this is what the proposal was, to have higher intensity uses within a quarter mile band and as one G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\ 1 999\091 699.doc Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 40 moves out, there are other uses. This is the Treasure Island trailer park in here, retail uses and other uses, but the idea of the notion was to focus that transit oriented development within a quarter mile span. Next slide-This is a slide, I don't lmow if I should be showing it or not but here it is. I think if you zoom in, Is it possible? No. Its all right. This is the BART station. This is aerial photograph that is somewhat dated, it is dated enough to show you the footprint of the Macy's warehouse building, which is right in here. This is the building footprint as it stood. This lavender color in here are-- is the area for the mixed use, high-intensity development within a quarter n1ile that we have shown in here. So what we've essentially done is we have actually taken out the only retail area. The older retail area used to extend down in this area. We have chopped it on halfway through, and we have taken 2/5ths of the area, 40% of that area, and turned that into a mixed use, high-intensity designation plus we have added things around it. That are originally not a part of that area. So in effect, what you are looking at here with the General Plan proposal is - I see somewhat of a net reduction in the area that we have, for retail uses. It is a compromise in the sense that it is what we felt was the best balance between achieving both high intensity transit oriented developn1ent as well as leaving the possibilities for having more fiscally beneficial uses. That could indeed support the kinds of things such as a feeder shuttle system or landscape improvements and things like that we have proposed Mike can we have the next slide? Chairperson Honan: Oh, hold on. Rajeev Bhatia: Sure, can we go back. Chairperson Honan Oh, go back. Rajeev Bhatia: Sure. The BART Station Chairperson Honan Right, but the purple area, which is -- And it is also, I see, purple below. Rajeev Bhatia: That is the lower area in here. This are in here is the lower area. Chairperson Honan That is to be -- That is -- What did you propose for that? Rajeev Bhatia: That is the same mixed use as we have in all sites. Chairperson Honan So that's mixed use, the purple. Rajeev Bhatia: Its largely but not, they are on the - There is only one long narrow site that more in line with designation in terms of what may happen in the future, but it is largely built out. Weare not expecting much development to happen in this area. Is that right, Susy? Senior Planner Kalkin: There is that lumber yard. Rajeev Bhatia: There is a lumber yard but there is a new hotel out there. there are new condos and so on in there. Weare not expecting those to come out. This is the area you are looking for new entry. This is the new 10 acre are that we keep talking about next to the BART station. Next slide. This is the Hickey Blvd. extension and this is the drawing that is actually there in the General Plan, it is not in color its in color in here. Well we have looked at having a retail designation in this area along Hickey Blvd. and on the BART station but we have concessions - of what Tom was talking about earlier - in having mixed use development in this area. There are minimum residential intensity. Considering it is fronted by retail uses and offices and residential uses above. Showing what the proposal was. This concludes my presentation. I just wanted to share with you some nmnbers and point out to you that if you are looking for transit-oriented development, please, you lmow. I mean look at at least higher intensities and not 8 units G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\091699.doc Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meetin!! Page 9 of 40 per acre. That generates less transit trips than retail development does. So, I am not here suggesting what the use are and where they ought to go. I am sort of presenting some numbers here. Thank you. Chairperson Honan Thank you Commissioner Baldocchi: That was good. Chief Planner Sparks I think we are about done. What we ask of you tonight is that you go through these policies and let us know how you want to deal with them. We got pretty clear direction that you're interested in transit- oriented development and we need to know what you mean by that and we need to lmow what you want the policies to say and we need to lmow what you want for map designations. This is a continued hearing. Technically we closed it the last meeting. So it is entirely at your discretion whether you want to take public testimony. I would suspect that you probably will entertain that and it is not absolutely required. And that concludes the Staff report. Chairperson Honan Thank you. I do believe that we would like to take public testimony. However, once again we are up against the clock. Can you hold your comments up to five minutes. We would appreciate that. And with that, can you read the first card please? Clerk Hernandez Fred Etzel? Fred Etzel Good evening Commissioners, nice to see you again. Fred Etzel, representing the Silnas family and the Shell station. I've got to say finally, at long last, at long last, the Staff and the consultants are starting to get serious about transit- oriented development in the vicinity of that BART station. We've been the lone voice, crying in the wilderness, for many months now, trying to get Staff interested to the degree that they're showing tonight. It's unfortunate that this is the night that they choose to come forward. I just am really flabbergasted by that. You're getting a lot of new information tonight in a very brief and compressed period of time, in a very compressed presentation. You're not going to be giving any opportunity tonight to really absorb, reflect and interact with that. If you do as staff clearly wants you to do, which is to ram this thing through and get it to the City Council, you are going to be making decision in this General Plan that are going to be in the concrete for a least the next 20 years, probably beyond. What you do in the vicinity of that South San Francisco BART station generations yet unborn are going to have to live with in this City. And given that, and the fact that the General Plan is a long range document, you really owe it to yourselves and Staff owes it to you, as their COilllllissioners, they really do, to give you the time to absorb this infonnation and reflect on it. I told you the first time I came down here that Rajeev was a former student of mine he is and a bright one. But every once in a while, the old professor has got to get out the red pencil and I have to do it tonight. That wasn't a very balanced presentation on transit-oriented develoPlnent. You are being given the scare tactics of - - TOD means high density residential, high density office, 8-story office towers, high-rise residential aparhnents. That's not TOD at all. That can't be TOD, but that's just but one end of the spectrum. And I ask, if your going to be presented with Staff on TOD, it has to be balanced presentations and you didn't get one tonight. And I really am a little bit disappointed. TOD does not mean high density. Also, there's nothing sacrosanct. There's nothing sacred about this quarter-mile distance from the BART station. A quarter mile, half mile, whatever. I mean, it's -- Within the distance that an average person can be expected to wallc, and they'll walk if they have a destination. If you're living half a mile from the BART station in a residential G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\ 1999\091699.doc Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting: Page 10 of 40 development that is transit-oriented, and I'm going to suggest to you later and give you a hand out that shows that 15 dwelling units per acre will work and I suggest that Rajeev take a look at his own study that they just completed and see if they did anything on Mountain View and other jurisdictions that show that residential transit-oriented development can be about 15. It probably can go as low as 10. It doesn't need to go up to 20. It doesn't need to go up to 30. But as long as people are willing to walk the distance to get to the BART station, quarter Inile, half mile or whatever. And I see that now the half-mile was the original station area around that BART station which included the Costco Site has been dropped down to a quarter Inile that just touched the edge of it and I just really mn offended by that. I mean, let's not get hung up on these quarter-lnile, half-mile. Let's look at that BART station and really see what could work there. And I would hope that this Planning Conunission would not take action tonight, final action on the EI Camino policies. I hope you would get that presentation in front of you again and really work it through. And as matter of due process and fairness, that's the first time I saw that presentation with you. I'd like to have the opportunity, a reasonable opportunity to review and comment on that presentation. Public record entitles me to get a copy of that presentation that was given tonight in hard copy and I'm willing to reimburse the consultant for it. I'd like to get that tomorrow and I'd like to come back in front of you at your earliest opportunity and give you a response to that. And I'd like to get some other TOD experts here to talk to you about what transit-oriented development means and really give you the best expert advice you can get about what could happen in that transit station. I also have to note that as you go through the color hand out here, that Mr. Sparks walked you through, I think Staff got it the last time on what your direction was. I mean, they say it in the second page of the Staff report. They say you want transit-oriented develoPlnent in the vicinity of the BART station. But you told theln two weeks ago that you don't want big box retail. You don't want intense office development and you don't want intense high-density residential uses. And what they did was is that they went back through it and basically restored the stuff that Blaney Dyett had put in without any attempt to tailor it to what you were telling them on the 2nd of September. Start right on the page, first page there. They restored the Blaney Dyett policy and it includes new clusters of high intensity offices. You told them on the 2nd that you didn't want that. They should have taken it out, but they left it in there. I don't lmow why they did that. Getting into the EI Camino Real policies, this is on page 2, and you lmow, this Staff report was put together and it's very difficult to follow. As Cormnissioners, your Staff owes it to you to present you with a document that clearly shows what it is your going to develop - approve and recommend to the City Council. You need this document annotated, page by page, line by line, that shows the changes that you have made to this consultant recormnendation and sending it on to the Planning Commission. This laundry list approach with colors and tones and unless you get it printed in color, which I carne down this morning to get it -- You can't understand it, really doesn't work. I don't think you have a docun1ent that your really ready to take action on. I respectfully suggested that. Chairperson Honan Can I just ask you to summarize your presentation. Fred Etzel (con't) There are two other areas where they ignored you. They put back in the 30 dwelling units per acre, high density, residential. You told them you didn't want that. They also stuck back in this big box retail. This is the most blatant thing. Now they put in a policy, permit big box or other retail commercial activities. You told them last week you didn't want big box due to the vicinity of the BART station and whether you call it a quarter- Inile or a half-lnile, big box is big box. That's an automobile dependent land use that's compromised if you're suggesting tonight that you can have your cake and eat it, too. You can have TOD around the BART station, but you can still have the big box, the Costco. That's just fallacious. I find that professionally very offensive. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\ 1999\091699 .doc Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 40 Automobile dependent land uses like Costco and that's what it is. Make no mistake about it. Have no business being within a transit village and they're trying to give it to you and I disagree with that violently. I'ln going to hand out one example and then I'm going to sit down. Madam Chairman, I appreciate it. I would like the opportunity to explain this to you, but I won't have it. This is a residential project in Mountain View. It's right across the street from the Cal Train station, a transit node. It's in downtown Mountain View. The dwelling unit, well I'm going to playa little game. Look at the pictures and then see if you can guess the density. And on the last page, I wrote that out in hand and I think you'll be surprised. But this is another example to the 7 to 8 story or the 30 units per acre that Staff is suggesting. Transit-oriented residential development doesn't need to mean that at all. And I'm going to go and start these down at the other end. I appreciate your attention. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. I hope you don't take final action tonight on the EI Cmnino area. I really do think you need to deliberate. I'd like the opportunity to review that presentation and comn1ent on it. Thank you. Chairperson Honan Thank you. Clerk Hernandez Mr. Kenneth Fitzhugh? Fred Etzel Pass, please and there are some extra ones for Staff. Thank you. Kenneth Fitzhugh, Creiger Associates, 526 Third Avenue, San Rafael: Madam Chairman, member of the Commission. My narne is Kenneth Fitzhugh. I am with the architectural design firm of Creiger Associates. I'm here representing the partnership, Aetna Realty, Charles Sime, Robert Casey, and partner James Tucker. The partnership is the owner of 25 acres on the back Sign Hill. I spoke to you a couple of months ago about this. Others have spoken to you. I would like to briefly summarize the points that we have with regard to the proposed use and the General Plan. The proposed use is one unit per 10 acres of land. At the present time, the zoning provides for one unit per acre with a special use permit. We oppose one unit per 10 acres for three reasons. The first is the partnership has owned this property for 10 years anticipating one to one development potential and one unit per 10 acres makes development impossible. It strips the land of its economic value. It's not just and it's not fair. Second, the conect way to protect portions of land with sensitive habitat is through the EIR process. When we come to you with a project, with housing clustered in one area to protect open space where there is sensitivity this is the proper way to control the development of this land, not with a blanket downzoning. Third, the proposed General Plan with open space, one unit per 10 acres, is illegal. It's taking of property without just compensation. And the EIR is inadequate. With regards to the illegality, you have all received a letter frOln -- written by the respected law firn1, Baker & McKenzie in San Francisco. You Commissioners should all have a letter. The City AttoTI1ey has a letter. I believe Planning staff. There are five reasons why the General Plan is illegal with regard to this property. First, the open space designation does not permit any economically viable use of the property. Second, the open space designation and its allowance of only one housing unit per 10 acres is not consistent with open space zoning designations in other jurisdictions that have been upheld by the courts. Third, the designation is inappropriate because the entire property is not environmentally constrained and the draft General Plan EIR does not require a blanket proposition of development to address environmental constraints. Fourth, the open space designation constitutes illegal spot zoning, since the property has been improperly singled out for this designation. And fifth, the open space designation is an illegal attempt to expand the boundaries of Sign Hill Park by keeping the property in an undeveloped, open space condition. If the City desires the property for park land, it Inust pay for it. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\091699.doc Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 40 In summary, I respectfully request that the Council see fit to forward this General Plan to the City Council and the Commission see fit to forward this to the general City Council with use remaining at one unit per acre. Thank you very much. Chairperson Honan Thank you. Clerk Hernandez Carol Sin1as? Carol Simas 110 Hickey Blvd., SSF, CA 94080: Good evening. My narne is Carol Simas, Xtra Oil Company. I've spoken to you before and I'm back again tonight. As a Planning Commission- as Planning Commissioners, I'm sure you were constantly reminded and must continually ask yourselves, where do I want my cOlnmunity to go in the future, what values do I wish to preserve and strengthen, and particularly at this time and place, what is relevant to the land use near the BART station? You have to keep being creative with your spirit and encourage responsible planning. Responsible planning is essential. Not just for the moment, but for the long planning, for the long range planning and economic viability in the future. If the community is to develop and benefit from thoughtful planning, it must result in long term benefits. The marketplace should not be dissolved nor should the consumer's capacity for choices be displaced for want of a quick fix. The quick fix is allowing a big box to enter the marketplace. Common sense is like the steering wheel that guides us through all parts of our lives in making decisions. And the decision now is for your community. Weare delighted that your common sense approach has elnbraced the idea of the transit-oriented village in the section surrounding the BART station. Staffhas suggested that Costco and transit- oriented would work in this area. We disagree and hope that you do as well. Last night I attended the Council meeting on the General Plan. My feeling is that Staff did not represent your wishes that you had given them and the promises that they gave you on the 2nd of September. You had given the Staff at that time direct-direction as to the changes you wanted made. However, I don't think they followed through. And I believe that it's essential that if you put your trust in the hands of Staff that you can relnain confident that they will follow through. That, in my opinion, was not the case. From what was presented last night, Council, I don't think, really lmows what you do want. The Mayor at one point asked why does Costco keep coming up in the General Plan discussion. Costco is specifically mentioned in the General Plan. I guess that's the reason. The Commission is now being asked to give Staff direction and I believe you have, and you've given them your vision of a transit-oriented village. I was going to say it's up to Staff, but I think Staff really now in their professional guidance and opinion is very one-sided. So I believe there is a lot of work to be done on what everybody thinks a transit village should be. I thank you for your perseverance. From what I've observed, this has been very long, steady progress toward a definite goal. You have demonstrated through your perseverance that you will not accept substitutions. Please let your conscious be your guide and dictate your final decision on this ever-ilnportant matter. Thank you from the business community. Clerk Hernandez: Keith Simas? Keith Simas, 110 Hickey Blvd., SSF, CA 94080: Hello, Commissioners. Again Iny name is Keith Simas. I want to pass this out to go down the line there and I'll refer to it a little bit. Just kind of hang on to it. As my mom stated, I'd just like to cOlnmend you all on the sense that were all getting that you are considering a transit-oriented village in this EI Camino area. Again, we can't thank you enough for seeing that there is a real long G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\ 1999\091699 .doc Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 of 40 term advantage in avoiding the fiscalization of land use in the City. That's to say, avoiding the tendency to attract big box outlets at the expense of good planning. Your own General Plan, with exception of the big box clause that appears, supports this notion as well as what we are seeing happening at the State level. Your General Plan, as well as most general plans, probably in most jurisdictions stress the preserving of downtown areas. The existing Costco has really crippled your downtown and adding another one will kill it. Don't allow another Costco or big box and preserve your downtown. Page 6.3 of your General Plan shows the transit occupancy tax, as you've heard about before regarding hotels. That would give you 4 times the revenues of any big box retail outlet. The Costcos, Walmarts, Big Boxes of the world have such a large -- and specifically Costco, have such a large arTIount of floor area devoted to non-taxable merchandise that they don't generate enough to pay their own fair share of the cost to local governments for services and resources that depend on the sales tax revenue. Hotels, on the other hand, fit in very well with the transit village scheme. Costco, with acres and acres of surface level parking, just don't mix. It's like oil and water. And there is no evidence that suggests that if the City does turn away a Costco to the site that they will loose any sales tax revenue. You mayor may not be aware of some new State legislation -- legislation, excuse me, that's awaiting the Governor's signature that confirms your decision to make this area transit village while avoiding the Big Box temptation would be the right decision. September 9th of this year, just recently, AB 84 passed both Houses and the Senate, State Senate and Assembly, and is in Governor Davis' hands. I made big mistake, I gave you my copy that I wanted to refer to. Can I steal one, I gave you the whole package. (Cross talk). Now if I can refer to the front of the page, I just want to read the summary of that bill. It prohibits public agency from approving a retail store project of more than 100,000 square feet ifnlore than 15,000 square feet will be devoted to the sale of non-taxable merchandise. And, you lmow, Costco fits right in there of course. They are far greater than 100,000 square feet and a big percentage is non-taxable merchandise. People are just tired of looking at these acres of parking lots and that's what's driving this legislation. And huge buildings at the expense of the local business community and downtown. Real briefly on the second page. I wanted to read you a little bit on this page 2 here. It talks about proponents argue that this bill insures that Big Box retailers do not have an undue competitive advantage over traditional neighborhood grocery stores. If a large chain puts the smaller markets out of business, consumers will then have fewer choices. The bill seeks - In the very bottom here -- to protect the existing business districts. Like I said, it's protecting the districts while saying no to these Big Box outlets. And it also in fact -- I should have put it - It's in the back. The City of Santa Ana states -- Sorry. I should have put it right behind there, but I didn't. Find it here. I apologize. Here we go. The City of Santa Ana. This bill represents sound economic and land use policy which will ensure that California remains a business friendly state. The trend of the future is clear, as you can see. Big Box retail, they just aren't desirable elements for cities especially near major metropolitan transportation centers like a BART station. A transit village would give you everything you need for the future in much needed residential development, offices, patrons and nlixed retail for those to enjoy during the traveling to and from the transit station. Many communities and the State legislature confirm the same conclusion. And again, as Mr. Etzel said, I just would encourage you -- You owe it to yourself after two years plus to see it all in black and white before you vote on it. Thank you. Clerk Hernandez: Elaine Bill? G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\ 1999\091699.doc Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meetin!! Page 14 of 40 Elaine Bill, 299 Alta Vista Drive, SSF, CA 94080: Good evening. I'm Elaine Bill. Phil and I own 20 acres of Sign Hill and we're definitely oppose this again downzoning the property to nothing. I believe you are all in receipt of our letter of August 19, 1999, which you have already read. When we purchased the property it was zoned R -1. You downzoned it. I never had intentions of developing it, at that time I believe it was higher than 8-units per acre, so we accepted that. This is totally unacceptable your rendering the land useless. You're also allowing development all over the City and in areas right adjacent to us that may have or have had the same specific problems of environlnental issues. And it's going on right now. You've heard this from Phil and I, you've heard it from the other people who own land adjacent to us. But one of the key questions you have to really be concerned with is what do you think is going to happen to this land? Phil and I have protected it for 20- something years. The people around have enjoyed and we've Inaintained it. We paid the taxes on it. What's going to happen? Something is going to happen if you just downzone it to this ridiculous thing. What is going to happen to the property? That you must address. Thank you very much. Chairperson Honan: Thank you. Clerk Hernandez: That was the last speaker. Jackie Williams: I have a question. Clerk Hernandez: Jackie Williams Jackie Williams, 242 Longford Dr., SSF, CA 94080: Hi. I'm Jackie Williams, 242 Longford Drive. I live in West Winston Manor. I'm concerned about Serra Vista School. I'm especially concerned tonight when I heard what - what was said at the table, when they were saying like the zoning is all taken care of or something, like its going -- Everything is going to go back to the way it was. Have there been some meetings that I've been unaware of since the meeting here last week, as far as what's -- you lmow, I lmow that the school Board -- some people frOln the school board sending a representative to sOlnebody of the City to explain that they were using out of date material to come up with their figures, but I don't know what the school board said. And I'm wondering how we got from it not being that important -- I got the feeling to discuss the school zone. Where this kind of came from since I was here two weeks ago. So seeing how I can't comment later, I'd like to lmow -- I didn't lmow there was a Council meeting where you were going to discuss the General Plan. I don't know if any of the public knew that or where we get the information that was going to get discussed. It was mentioned last meeting. It was my understanding we were going to wait until the General Plan was finished and then we were going to the Council. So I'm kind of confused that yesterday there was a Ineeting and Inaybe Serra Vista was discussed then...I'mjust -- Commissioner Baldocchi: I think it was just a study... Chairperson Honan: Last night was a study session. There was no decision making that went on, and that it was brought up at our last meeting. But I think it was brought up during the chaos that happened at the very end and possibly you did not hear it, but it was brought up. Jackie Williams: ...That there was going to be a councillneeting? Chairperson Honan: No, a study session. Jackie Williams: Okay, then Ijust missed that one. Chairperson Honan: That's okay. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\091699.doc Approved at the April 20. 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Page 15 of 40 Jackie Williams: Okay. Chairperson Honan: I can understand... Jackie Williams: I mean I've been coming here and cOIning here and it sounds like it just went back to the way it was and I'm going what's happened in the last two weeks that I'm unaware of...and I do lmow that the School Board did meet with somebody. Commissioner Baldocchi: (cross-talk) I think it was also discussed at the beginning of the meeting. Jackie Williams:...that they sent a representative so I mean where do I get infonnation on what happened at that meeting, or where does the Planning Comlnission get information, or shouldn't the City Councilor whoever was at that meeting take some type of report now. Instead of just coming out with ideas on what's going to happen. Chairperson Honan: Actually I think if you stay for the rest of tonight's meeting, I think you will receive a lot of your answers. Jackie Williams: Okay. Great. I just wanted to Inake sure, seeing that I'ln not allowed to speak anyn10re that you were aware of my concerns.. .seeing that I keep coming here. Commissioner Baldocchi: We're aware. Jackie Williams: ...this whole meeting, I'm going, what happened. Okay. Thanks. I just wanted you to lmow I was here. Chairperson Honan: Would anyone care to address the Cormnission who has not spoken already? Having said that, I will close the public hearing and I'd like to take a five-minute recess before we go into it. Recess taken at 8:55 p.m. Meeting recalled to order 9:10 p.m. Chairperson Honan: I'd like to call the meeting back to order please. Chief Planner Sparks: May I respond to some of the comments? Chairperson Honan: Yes please. Chief Planner Sparks: Let me start with Ms. Williams. In Iny summary of what the City Council addressed, I talked about underlying land use and zoning for schools that are no longer in use and Inay be declared surplus. The General Plan maps behind you show the categories indicating a public use. And we have cormnitted that we will create a zone entitled school or something equally descriptive that permits only schools. That can't be done in the General Plan process. It has to be done in one of those subsequent in1plementing exercises, which we assmne will be the zoning consistency and what that will create is a circumstance where any proposed use that is not a school in the instance of a school closing and declared surplus would have to go through a hearing process. I don't lmow how much more clearly I can express that. And then there are the two policies that I think will directly address that in the General Plan that were designed to clarify what we felt were issues that had been brought up. Commissioner D'Angelo: Can I ask you a question? The gentleman that -- That's a proposed wording. There are other alternatives that are available. Am I correct? Chief Planner Sparks: They are at your discretion. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\091699 .doc Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Page 16 of 40 Commissioner D'Angelo: Because I would like later to make some suggestions. Chairperson Honan: He was just responding... Commissioner D'Angelo: I understand. Yeah. And I just want to clarify it. Thank you. Chief Planner Sparks: Mr. Fitzhugh and Ms. Bill addressed Sign Hill and you indicated a consensus on that issue at the last meeting. I don't know that there's anything to be achieved by fOffi1ally reopening that. The Council is aware of those issues and has asked for some suggestions. I would suggest that you stay with your previous action and let the Council discuss the issue of how to resolve it. It's clear that there is community sentiment for maintaining open space to the extent possible. I don't lmow that we have recommendations for you. I don't lmow how to achieve that terribly effectively. There are significant policy issues. And finally, Mr. Etzel, Ms. Simas and Mr. Simas, as the Mayor said, all here addressing Costco and they came before you during the Costco hearing. The Costco site is certainly near the South San Francisco BART station so it plays into that. But the issues that are being raised are prin1arily for the purpose of opposition to Costco. And Mr. Etzel made some comments that I do have to disagree with. He suggested that this is new information that you have in our presentation tonight. I don't believe it is. The policies that we restored are the ones that were before you in the original draft of the General Plan, and the presentation that was made for you tonight reflects the TODs typical of those policies. At the last meeting, we indicated we were unclear on what it was that the Commission wanted in terms of the TOD and we brought these before you tonight with the express request that you define what transit-oriented development would be, how you want those policies to read and what you want on the map. This is a General Plan policy exercise. This is not a design of a transit oriented development around the BART station. What we are looking for from you is general guidance about the nature of the uses, the intensities of those uses and how they might be distributed in the area. But we are not looking for a design exercise. This is not the place to do that. And I suggest that we are not going to get a lot more information by studying it further. If you have an idea of what it is that you want in general tenns about a TOD, let's get them defined. That's what we've asked for and that's the primary issue before you tonight. Thank you. Chairperson Honan: Thank you. Having said that, I'll open it up to questions frOln the Commission. Commissioner Romero: I have one. Chairperson Honan. Commissioner Romero? Commissioner Romero: Yeah, I'd like to go further on as to what you are asking us to define. The presentation by the consultant was very enlightening. I appreciate what you showed the COlnmission. What I'm concerned about is the example that you showed us in the Sacramento area was really an urban design, not a suburban design. We are a suburb. We're a very small city. I think that the tradition in this City and I don't lmow if this was intentional or unintentional, is that you would try to keep all of our Big Box-type developments in the east of 101 area and preserve the west of 101 area for residential uses. And I think the residents of this community have benefited from that exceptional planning brought by our predecessors and by the Planning Staffs of the past by creating a really nice livable environlnent for the residents to enjoy and to benefit from. This transit-oriented development that you're asking us to fully define is not easy because that is the concept and what you're asking for are some specific type uses within that concept. My interpretation of that would be as a secondary use, obviously, would be retail uses, not Big Box retail. Small to InediUln-sized businesses, entrepreneur- type businesses, mom and pops. The Big Box type environment which has multiple type uses within it, I would prefer to see as small independent businesses within this transit-oriented use as retail. I'd also encourage low G:\Fi1e Cabinet\01d PC\working\minutes\ 1999\091699 .doc Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Page 17 of 40 intensity residential development or medium density, low intensity office. Residential lofts would be a reasonable use. I heard that mentioned earlier. I would like to see a pedestrian-friendly environment where the residents of this community could go down and enjoy it and benefit from it, go to a restaurant, go to a retail shop, dry cleaners, bakeries. Those types of uses, to me, would be a benefit to the entire community. We have a very unique opportunity, I think. Every other city along EI Camino Real have already developed their downtown along EI Camino. And we haven't done that yet. To me, this is an opportunity to create a downtown for -- or maybe in a new part of the City, but for the other part of the City. I think the Macy's warehouse was a big mistake when it was approved as a use, and I think were having a unique opportunity here to try to correct that mistake. I'd like to see us take advantage of that opportunity. That would be my recommendation. I don't lmow how everyone else feels. Commissioner Teglia: To the Chair, I pretty Inuch echo that. The problem though is we're policy Inakers. We look at something, we say we don't like that. It doesn't feel right. We then ask our experts to tell us how to get to where we're trying to get. And we're not the experts that come up with the specific ways of doing that and I think it's obvious that that hasn't happened. I appreciate the presentation tonight. In the past though one of my pet peeves has been presentations that show the doom and gloOln. You lmow, one-sided.... TAPE 2 ... and not giving you all the different avenues. One problem I noticed with the presentation right off the bat is it was more urban, as you said. It had to do with light rail. BART has always been more of a residential pull. In fact, BART in itself is a major impact because of all the parking. Everybody drives from their homes to BART to go elsewhere regionally. It's not like light rail which is more of a local type transportation and then you can have offices. And keeping back to the character of our suburban area, the presentation should have included some of what this presentation or some of what you're talking about. I think we've said this is the direction we're looking for. How to accomplish that, though. I think we need our experts to give a good faith effort in accomplishing. You may not like policy where we're trying to go. We need you to give us a full, complete, good faith effort on what all the possibilities are. I think that's the problem I'm seeing in this area right now. Those are my comments on that issue. Chairperson Honan: Any more comments? Cormnissioner D'Angelo. Commissioner D'Angelo: Okay. A couple of areas. Going back to the presentation by Staff concerning the BART area, require any new development or redevelopment within a half-mile of BART at a density of no less than 30 units per acre for residential use. Now when I look up in the original General Plan, and I look under high density, residential development with densities ranging frOln 18 to 30 units per net acre. And I'm seeing no less than 30 units per net acre is what we're supposedly supporting. I never heard that, ever. And at the last meeting, I thought I heard assurances that the Staff was going to carry the voice and the direction of the Planning COlnmission, and yet speakers tonight seeIn to indicate that's not what the City Council heard. So there's a discrepancy in what I'm reading and what we're saying and what the Council's hearing. And that's very disappointing. I propose tonight that we change no less than 30 to something else that we do agree on. At least that's the direction I feel. If we have to make it explicit for Staff, then we should because they do not understand where perhaps I sensed we were going. The second thing I'd like to bring up if I can talk on another -- We were talking about the schools and we were talking about the wording. While we were on the break, I had a chance to speak with the lady, the resident that G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\091699.doc Annroved at the Anril 20. 2000 Rel!ular Planninl! Commission Meetinl! Page 18 of 40 comes here and talks to us. She's never even seen the proposal that was presented to us tonight. That tells me that there's no one else that's probably seen it either. Is it being distributed anywhere, these changes that we're seeing? Chief Planner Sparks: It's been part of the Staff report and actually we explicitly delivered it to Ms. Williams and we talked about it. Jackie Williams: When? Commissioner D'Angelo: Well, let me -- Please, if you don't mind, let 111e conduct it. When was that done, please because.. . Chief Planner Sparks: At one of the previous meetings when this Staff report came out. Commissioner D'Angelo: No. 1'111 talking about the changes that were read tonight in purple. Were those distributed, to anybody? Chief Planner Sparks: These were part of September 2nd Staff report and these were discussed at the last... Commissioner D'Angelo: Yes, but was the written document available for the public before tonight? Chief Planner Sparks: Yes. Commissioner D'Angelo: Okay. Because I got the impression that it wasn't and if I'm wrong then I apologize, but I think we need to make it more explicit perhaps that the school properties that become surplus should first be considered by the City for acquisition as park land. Now that doesn't take a zoning ordinance or anything else, I don't believe, just a declaration. Those are my concerns, at least at this point. Commissioner Baldocchi: My concerns with making it automatic park land is what if you want to use it for another use like another type of educational facility... Commissioner D'Angelo: Sure. I have no objection to that whatsoever. And all I'm saying is first being considered.. . Commissioner Baldocchi: ...making it in public. Commissioner D'Angelo: Exactly. For public, park land, educational use or something else by the City and they would have to reject it. At least they'd have to 111ake some action and we state it explicitly in the General Plan. Commissioner Teglia: One COl11ll1ent on that issue. Part of it really irks 111e about the schools are those are our municipal assets also. It's a different district. It's not the City. It's already a park that's being enjoyed in that particular neighborhood. It's been paid for by the residents and I think they owe it to the residents in those areas to maintain those open areas. The only thing that bothers me is the fact that they could almost cash in and always expect the City to pay for something. I -- Part of where I was going with this is I think we ought to designate the school buildings as educational use. It doesn't have to be school district. They could sell it. It could be a Heald College. It could be a trade school. It could be all sorts of different uses. And then the park area, the open field be designated open space. It doesn't necessarily mean that it would always be open public park. You take San Bruno, for instance, where they had -- I believe it was a high school. It's now the San Bruno Golf Practice Center. But it's still an open area. It's an available amenity. I hate to see the City always being stuck trying to save it. I'd rather see the City's money go to acquiring additional park lands instead of just maintaining what should already stay there. And that's part of where I've been kind of G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\l999\091699.doc Approved at the April 20. 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Page 19 of 40 pushing double-edged zoning, open space on the open part, educational use on the other side. I've heard the argument that that should be done under zoning which has nothing to do with the General Plan. That's the next step. I guess what I'm wondering though is, because we had it come up a few times, are there some general plan options that we might want to consider to accomplish those goals. And then, of course, that's a question of the experts we need to know. Would you at this point change the General Plan designation from some sort of public agency to something a little bit different or, because we have the Sign Hill people here, talking about their open space being changed in the General Plan. Wouldn't it be appropriate as part of this General Plan to accomplish that on these school district properties? Chief Planner Sparks: I think we probably don't want to look at schools in an open space category. Those school sites aren't big enough to meet the typical minimuIns you have as part of an open space designation, but a policy explanation of what you're trying to achieve is easy enough to draft. Commissioner Teglia: Considering we've been mentioning that for a while, it would be nice to get that in a tin1ely basis. Thank you. Commissioner Romero: Question. You're kind of indicating that you want to subdivide the schools into buildings and the open space. And that, to n1e, would be very difficult to do especially considering that these significant number of portable classrooms which are not designed to be there over an extended period. I was more inclined to go with your recommendation that was made at the prior Ineeting to designate all the schools as schools. And if it requires rezoning, that would have to come as a recommendation to Council for approval. That would be, to me, the easiest way to go about implementing the change that would still require it COlne back to us. Chief Planner Sparks: It's a far more straightforward approach than trying to divide up the schools. Commissioner Teglia: So I guess the big question right now is considering the concept we're laying forth, we've already put everything we need to in the General Plan to accomplish what we want to do. The next step under the zoning will finish the job. Chief Planner Sparks: I believe what you have laid out will be accomplished by what we've committed to. ComIuissioner D'Angelo: May I ask you a question? Are we saying therefore to leave the wording as it is or Staff to come back with a wording that will indicate that in the General Plan because my interest would be to Inake it very explicit. And I don't know how to do it but perhaps they can come back and tell us how better to improve the wording because I don't feel it satisfies that right now. Commissioner Teglia: As an implementing policy. Commissioner D'Angelo: Yes. Commissioner Teglia: Could we get an implementing policy or something? Chief Planner Sparks: Yes-- actually-- the City Attorney has something to add. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren: ...What might be of use to the Council hear as a matter of why I believe that schools are required before they sell off their land to Inake it available to public agencies that would want to purchase it as part of their -- really the first major step in their surplus sing effort. And I understand that Commissioner that your interested in saving the City's money that might be spent in acquiring those surplus lands. Commissioner Teglia: No. Let me explain the problem to you. EI Rancho could be a very simple example. The City obviously had the opportunity to buy the property first. Because the properties are rezoned for residential, that G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\ 1999\091699 .doc Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Plaill1ing Commission Meeting Page 20 of 40 puts an incredible value on that property. There's no way the City could afford that and we lost an amenity that went straight to, you lmow, high density housing. And I think that is wrong. That's poor planning. It shouldn't already have an underlying zoning of housing which then puts an incredible value on the property and precludes the City from any flexibility. By changing the zoning and trying to maintain what was originally planned, these educational facilities in these neighborhoods, you change that almost automatic hammer they hold over the City and that is the current problem. Chief Planner Sparks: Might I suggest that we simply add new policy to create this as an iInplementing policy, create and apply a. simple purpose school zone to all school sites. Would that cover it? Chairperson Honan: I think that would then have to COlne back to us. Chief Planner Sparks: Pardon? Chairperson Honan: Well, it's -- I'm thinking... Assistant City Attorney Lindgren: Someone would need to come back and rezone the property. Chairperson Honan: Exactly. That's what I...there has to be an easier solution... Chief Planner Sparks: Well, it's explicit. I mean, it's what we've committed to but I don't have any trouble including it as an implelnenting policy in the General Plan. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren: It's one of the many times have we thought of the exact same thing at the exact same time ... Commissioner Teglia: Hey, I like that. Commissioner D'Angelo: Then what becomes of the current language? Chief Planner Sparks: It's not in conflict. Chairperson Honan: I think that they are saying it is the same thing. Commissioner Teglia: Which part? Commissioner D'Angelo: Yeah. See, I'm looking at least at 3.1 or 3.12-1-3. If it's not in conflict, why can't we just eliminate that and substitute your suggestion? Chairperson Honan: It can be done. It is your discretion. Commissioner D'Angelo: That would be my proposal. Commissioner Teglia: 3.12-1.2? Commissioner D'Angelo: 3.12-1 or 1-3. Just delete that, substitute it with the proposal. Chief Planner Sparks: It would accomplish the same thing. Commissioner D'Angelo: Why leave it in? Chief Planner Sparks: That's fine. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\091699.doc Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Page 21 of40 Commissioner Teglia: I agree. Commissioner D'Angelo: through the Chair... Chairperson Honan: Hold on. Commissioner D'Angelo: Sure. Chairperson Honan: I'm speaking. State your proposal. State what your... Chief Planner Sparks: The proposal, I believe, is to substitute Policy 3.12-1-3 which now reads, "Undertake a study to examine the feasibility and appropriateness of acquiring all or a portion of the closed Serra Vista school site to park land if the South San Francisco Unified School District declares the site as surplus property." The substitution to the new policy would be, "Create and apply a single purpose school zone to all school sites." And it would have the same effect. I think it applies to all of the schools, not just Serra Vista school site. Rajeev Bhatia:: Tom, I agree with the policy, but do you find it better off putting it in the school section so that it applies to all of the schools and not just to in that neighborhood. That would go on page 5-20. Chief Planner Sparks: Thank you. Chairperson Honan: It would be page 5-20, you said? Rajeev Bhatia: Yeah, it is in the school section. Chief Planner Sparks: We'll nmnber it appropriately. That doesn't -- If you wish to renlove 3.12-1-3, that's fine as well. Just eliminate that. Commissioner D'Angelo: In one follow on, the preceding paragraph on the reuse of the closed Serra Vista school, why not just on the reuse of any closed school land? Why designate one school only, make it all of them there also. Yeah, it looks rather directive rather than a general plan for all schools. Chief Planner Sparks: ...this was in response to.... Commissioner D'Angelo: Sure. Chief Planner Sparks: ...to comments received during the process. We haven't got a problem with that at all. Commissioner D'Angelo: Okay. Chief Planner Sparks: Of just closed school sites? Commissioner D'Angelo: On reuse of whatever, any or all closed... Commissioner Teglia: Well, existing sites. They're all still existing school property. Whether they be closed or not. Commissioner D'Angelo: Yeah. Chief Planner Sparks: On reuse of existing school sites. Commissioner Teglia: That's pretty much what we're already accomplishing with the other language, right? G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\091699.doc Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Page 22 of 40 Chief Planner Sparks: I think so. Commissioner Teglia: Because our problem is it's when they hit, when they declare it surplus. Whether it's open or closed is irrelevant. It's still school property. Chairperson Honan: Do we even need it at all? Commissioner Teglia: Just delete 3.12-I-3? Is that the question? Chairperson Honan: 1-3 and 1-2. Commissioner Romero: Could we -- We want to encourage the City to work with the school district to utilize the schools that are closed or that will be closed in the future. Chairperson Honan: but not pin point any particular site. Commissioner Romero: Not any school but just to have a policy that encourages the district and this City to work together. Commissioner Teglia: But is that a General Plan thing? Rajeev Bhatia: It already is a policy on page 5-20. Chairperson Honan: Where are you? 5-20? Rajeev Bhatia: 5-20 on page -- 5.2-1 We could delete it from there and that's fine. Commissioner Romero: It's already covered in that section. Commissioner Teglia: Right. And then we'll add in this blurb about the single use. Chief Planner Sparks: So there is consensus on the part of the Commission to elilninate policies 3.12-1-2 and -3. Commissioner Teglia: I would say so. Commissioner Baldocchi: Yes Commissioner D'Angelo: Fine with me. Commissioner Romero: Yes Commissioner Meloni: Yes Chairperson Honan: I agree Chief Planner Sparks: We've just accomplished something. Chairperson Honan: I need to speak in regards to our EI Camino Corridor. Reference was made last night using the word Costco in our General Plan and I firmly believe that the word Costco is only in use, is only being used out of lack of another word for what we're all trying to say. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\ 1999\091699 .doc Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Page 23 of 40 The way I see it, the EI Camino corridor is an entrance into our City. And it's not only an entrance into our City, the automobile is now going to be an entrance into our city, via pedestrian, via BART for people who like to get off the train and look around and see what South City is all about. And I believe that as this, we need a vision. We definitely need a vision for our EI Camino corridor and it's not there right now in this place. I do not believe that. I know for myself, speaking for myself and Iny vision of the EI Camino corridor is not big box retail. I would like to see a mixture of uses. Now I might have wrong terminology here, but I want the people of South San Francisco, the people visiting South San Francisco to be able to see a lot of things, not just walking to one building, being whatever name that building is. And I won't use names now. But let them have a choice if they want to shop at this store, that store, this store or stay here in this hotel. Or what the heck? Maybe even go to this supermarket. Or the other supermarket over here that might be a little bit slnaller or Inaybe a delicatessen, but let them make that choice, not force theIn to go into this Big Box retail. And I believe that this is what our General Plan is forcing people to do and it makes me very unhappy. Chief Planner Sparks: Might I suggest that we use the tools that we have available. Commissioner Teglia suggested perhaps an overlay zone. I would suggest what we have designated in the original draft of Inixed use. I don't think that we are going to be in a position at this hearing or any other to layout a specific transit-oriented development. Those kinds of studies are very rarely done in a General Plan. I'm not aware of any where they're not stand alone. But I think we can apply Inixed use or some other kind of overlay zone to that area anywhere you want including what's designated now, including the red area which roughly shows the Costco site and go through the policies one by one. There aren't very many. And figure out the kinds of parameters that you find acceptable to go into those mixed use zone, but we're not going to be able to lay them out and do design work and specify individual... Commissioner Romero: No Commissioner Meloni: No. Chairperson Honan: I know I'm not trying to do that. You asked us for direction... Commissioner Teglia: Right. Chairperson Honan: .. . and I'm trying to give it to the best of my ability. The thing that -- In our meeting two weeks ago, on page 10. It was 2.4-G-3 and it said here, develop the South San Francisco BART station area as a visual, and then he was adding commercial and that's what was added, pedestrian-oriented center with intensity and mix of uses that compliment the area's new role as a regional area. I thought at our last meeting that we had a pretty heavy discussion about this commercial and, in this statement. Chief Planner Sparks: I suggest that rather than flail, which is what we're doing now, we go through these policies that identify the original mixed use approaches and n10dify those where you find them unacceptable, there is specific reference to Big Box. Commissioner D' Angelo noted that he doesn't like the "not less than 30 acres." We have relatively a few of them. Let's see if we can make sense of this rather than just say we need more -- That way we will have a clear picture and you may too by the tiIne we're through. It's not going to take very long. We don't have a lot of policies here. Chairperson Honan: Fine. Let's do it. Commissioner Meloni: To the Chair, can I say one thing? You lmow, I was reading through the Ininutes, through the Staff report and on page 2 of the Staff report, under the Planning Cormnission direction, it stated there that their discussion the Commissioners indicated a transit-oriented development should not include high density residential uses. They also indicated a various time that Big Box retail uses were unsuitable and intense office development is not desirable and yet I read in the policy, 3.4-i-4. Permit Big Boxes or other regional cOlnmercial activities north of G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\ 1999\09l699.doc Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Page 24 of 40 the pedestrian-oriented center. And I'm wondering, my looking at this if the Commissioners told you that didn't want Big Box and yet I read where you put in Big Box. Chief Planner Sparks: We didn't put that in it. That was simply a matter of eliminating earlier work that we'd done. And frankly, we have not had time to go back and create new policies. I mean we had the workshops. So, what were asking you to do is tell us exactly what you want these policies to say at this point. (cross talk) Commissioner Meloni: Well, then let's tell him tonight, again. Commissioner D'Angelo: Well if we could start reading our last minutes. Commissioner Meloni: Let's tell him again. Chairperson Honan: We're willing to work through all of them. Chief Planner Sparks: I think we can do it fairly rapidly. We just don't have that many. And we can go back to where we started, Chapter 2 Land Use. Land use framework of the General Plan is guided by several key principles. Now as I read it, new clusters of high intensity offices is probably a language in that guiding principle that may not meet with your favor. You could remove high intensity to, say, clusters of offices. Chairperson Honan: I don't see where you are at. Chief Planner Sparks: It's the first white page after the yellow pages in your staff report. Chairperson Honan: Okay. Commissioner Romero: Just take out high density. Commissioner D'Angelo: Uh-huh. Leave clusters of offices. Commissioner Romero: Do we need to include like residential and retail and restaurant and all the rest... Commissioner D'Angelo: pedestrian. Chief Planner Sparks: You can if you wish. You can list the uses and say... Commissioner Romero: Is that how specific do you want us to be? Do we want to rewrite the whole... Chairperson Honan: No. Chief Planner Sparks: We have time to do it tonight, I think. We're not going to be doing the bylaws and we still have better than an hour and we don't have very many policies here. I don't lmow that you necessarily want to list which restaurants, but we certainly can say cormnercial uses such as the locally oriented eating establisrnnents... Chairperson Honan: Let me say something real fast here. The only thing I'm trying to do... Commissioner Baldocchi: We need more information. Chairperson Honan: ...is get the word Big Box out of the EI Camino corridor and I don't know why we're going all through this just to achieve that. Chief Planner Sparks: Well this says high intensity offices and I thought we fairly clearly that you didn't want that so we want to go through each one. Get a clear definition of what these uses are going to ... G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\ 1 999\091 699.doc Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Page 25 of 40 Commissioner Teglia: Keep in mind the overall definition is we are a suburb and not a big city and so fitting all this -- You know, keep it in mind. EI Camino Real has a definite flavor to it whether you start it, you know, Millbrae up. I think keeping all that in mind somehow we get to SOlTIe specific policies. Perhaps... Commissioner Baldocchi: I think we need to work... Commissioner Teglia: Not to be a pain or anything but perhaps Professor Etzel could answer a couple of quick questions here. You know, he mentioned -- He showed us some pictures here of 15 units to the acre which pretty much -- That's about as dense as I would want to get. I mean, that looks pretty dense to lTIe and yet it looks nice. Chief Planner Sparks: If you want to limit it to 15, let's just do that. Commissioner Baldocchi: Madam Chair? Madam Chair? If I may? Chairperson Honan: Sure. Commissioner Baldocchi: I took the Cal Train down to San Jose a couple of weeks ago for business reasons and I saw some of those units and they look actually really nice. But I guess my question is, is -- has there been any study around these type -- How many people who live in actual these units take the train? I noticed that a lot of people were getting on with bikes and particularly in that area because I guess it is the Silicon Valley corridor. But I was wondering if there was any specific study... Rajeev Bhatia: Right and actually that was point was made that I was talking with light rail nmTIbers, those numbers, 27%, were around BART stations, the survey that was done. 27% of people within a quarter n1ile of the BART station, the trips from residential developments that is the number on the average that they discovered that would ride it. Commissioner Baldocchi: Okay. Yeah, and I'lTI sorry. I guess what I mean was specifically... Rajeev Bhatia: In this development. Commissioner Baldocchi: ...in this development. Is there -- Was there any feedback as far as with people purchasing these homes in this area because it was close to a transit... Rajeev Bhatia: Oh, I'm sure. I'm absolutely sure that happens... Commissioner Baldocchi: Okay. Rajeev Bhatia: ...that people. Yeah, you know, if it's right next to the station and some people that need transit, go around looking for housing and I'm sure some of that happens. Commissioner Baldocchi: It was very -- I thought it was very tastefully done. I was pretty ilTIpressed when we were at that stop. Rajeev Bhatia: Is it right next to the BART station? I mean the light rail station... Commissioner Baldocchi: It's Cal Train. Mr. Etzel: Cal Train is right across the street from it. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\ 1999\091699 .doc Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Page 26 of 40 Commissioner Baldocchi: I don't know if it's -- But this looks familiar. They were tall, kind of thin houses if a house can be thin. Mr. Etzel: I don't mean to disrupt.... Commissioner Teglia: You have to come to the mic. Mr. Etzel: But there is a site plan there that shows where the CalTrain station is. Its called LRT, Light Rail Transit. Commissioner Baldocchi: Okay. Chief Planner Sparks: Marty has suggested, just an overall policy to address the various issues and I think the broad guidance is a good idea, create transit-oriented develoPlnent within a half-lnile of BART station and as an implementing policy, develop an overlay zone creating mixed use of low density uses, local-serving retail and support offices. I'm sorry, what... Chairperson Honan: Low density residential? Chief Planner Sparks: Yeah, residential uses. And that coupled with designation of where you want that on the map. Commissioner Romero: ...half-mile radius. Commissioner Teglia: I wouldn't necessarily -- Keep in mind it doesn't have to be radiuses. You have Sunshine Gardens. You know, it's more the rectangle area. Senior Planner Kalkin: You could simply designate an area mixed use residential and then reference that Inixed use residential around BART station as transit oriented. Commissioner Teglia: Like half-mile north and south EI Camino. Director of ECD Van Duyn: In your map is your consistency record we're not going to suggest that you change residential areas, existing areas to accommodate. Basically making that consistent with the radiuses described in the map area that includes the vacant areas that you're talking about. That's all in the purpose to have vacant use. It's not suggested that we turn the other neighborhoods upside down just because of that half-mile. Chief Planner Sparks: In fact, we could remove the radius and just designate the mixed uses on the map where you want them. Well, this is an implementing policy. Director ofECD Van Duyn: It doesn't make any difference. I think you leave it at half-mile and on the map it will be the designated area that you need. Chief Planner Sparks: And then we get rid of a lot of the very specific ones that are causing us so much grief as we go. Chairperson Honan: Do we have a consensus? Commissioner Teglia: I think we do. Chairperson Honan: Do we have a consensus? Commissioner Baldocchi: Ayes. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\ 1999\091699 .doc Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Page 27 of 40 Chairperson Honan: Commissioner Meloni do we have a consensus? Commissioner Meloni: Yes. Commission: Agreeing. Chairperson Honan: Does anyone else have any other comments? Commissioner Baldocchi: Actually this is off all this other stuff but I had brought this up a while ago and I went back through my notes and it's still in there. I am still really concerned about this whole improving accessibility and visibility of the Sign Hill Park. There's only one access point and the General Plan does aclmowledge that. They acknowledge that they want to create other access points. Do they also want to -- It sounds like really promote, provide trailhead facilities, signage, map boards, waste receptacles. My concern is that as you get -- There's a lot of people that go up there now. It doesn't not have a parking area. That parking goes right into the neighborhood. Also, this had been several situations where people go up there -- Fires have been started although it had not been started lately. Kids with BB guns. Because it's a hill, people can hide. Is anyone listening to me? Okay. Everyone: Yes. Commissioner Baldocchi: People can hide so I guess my concern is before we go forward and start promoting getting even more people that go up there already now is safety and the integrity of that neighborhood since there is no parking. I mean, the people who go up there have to park on the street. So, I don't lmow how the City is going to... Commissioner Teglia: Do many people go up there? Commissioner Baldocchi: Uh-huh, yeah. Director of ECD Van Duyn: I'm not so sure where this is necessarily a General Plan issue I think that you might suggest that the City entertain some sort of a study that they verify the activity and what safety and precautionary measures might be suitable for an appropriate use of that area. Commissioner Baldocchi: That's fair enough. It's just in the General Plan. Director of ECD Van Duyn: The Commission could do that without using the General Plan as a policy direction and they could still suggest that. Ask staff to work with Park & Rec. and the Police Department and get some sort of response back on the rest of this issue. Commissioner Baldocchi: Okay because it's in the General Plan. Director of ECD Van Duyn: Right. Commissioner Baldocchi: And that's what I'm trying to... Director of ECD Van Duyn: Okay than I would suggest that you. . .. Commissioner Baldocchi: ...you know, because if you're going to protect open space... Director ofECD Van Duyn: ...that you recommend as a motion that the Commission should consider a policy that directs the Staff to get together with the appropriate departments and examine the safety and access issues related thereto. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\091699.doc Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Page 28 of 40 Commissioner Baldocchi: ...and parking. May I request that support frOln the Commission. I don't know. I don't know. Madam Chair, did you want to ask for a consensus? Chairperson Honan: Yes Commissioner Teglia: That sounds fine. But the General Plan part of it is to -- I guess you would just incorporate that into the implementing policy? Chief Planner Sparks: Yes. Commissioner Teglia: Sounds great. Commissioner Baldocchi: Thank you very Inuch. Commissioner Teglia: Since we're on parks. We have lower than 10% open space in town. A good chunk of it is Sign Hill and good chunk of it is Country Club Golf Course. When you get done, you see that what's really available to the residents is paltry. We have requirements for parks. We have park in lieu fees. Maybe we should consider something more proactive, more restrictive, especially when some of these larger develoPlnents come in, requiring them to have some small corner parks. You know, perhaps the in-lieu fee goes to, you lmow, creating a larger park. They can send some of it to Orange Park, but still actually require some kind of physical park Commissioner Baldocchi: On the neighborhood? Commissioner Teglia: And obviously we wouldn't do that anywhere -- We would, say, somehow put a policy in here that -- One of our priorities needs to be to expand usable park land for the residents. Do you like that? How are we going to do that? You guys like that? Commission: (Agreeing) Commissioner Teglia: We have another consensus. Commissioner Baldocchi: Then we don't have to develop sign hill. Commissioner Teglia: Professor Etzel, did you have something to add? Fred Etzel: Madam Chair, I think Big Box is still in the EI Cmnino Corridor. Commissioner D'Angelo: Well we still have issues to discuss, don't we, Madarn Chair? Director of ECD Van Duyn: We took all the policies out. , . Fred Etzel: All the other policies were out except the medium policy. Thank you. Chief Planner Sparks: Let me suggest for the record. I just went through and checked them out. Marty suggested policy to replace the very specific ones starting with 3.4-1-3... Commissioner D'Angelo: Is that one out? Chief Planner Sparks: ...and that one through 3.4-1-5. And 3.4-1-8 through 3.4-1-11 are all-- Those are all specific things, including the Big Box and a lot of very specific development standards. I would note for your information that one of those also removes inclusion of child care facilities but there are other policies that encourage them. I don't think we lose child care facilities. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\ 1999\091699 .doc Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Page 29 of 40 Commissioner D'Angelo: Through the Chair maybe we're throwing the baby out with the bath water, you lmow. Just throwing everything out. I don't lmow if everyone's had a chance to look at the suggestion, but we're all-- I'm just wondering if there are other things in there that might have made sense. Chief Planner Sparks: Well, what did come out was "permit Big Box or other regional cormnercial activities..." Commissioner Teglia: We could just kill a sentence though. We don't have to necessarily kill anything. Commissioner D'Angelo: I'm only inquiring. That we're killing the baby with the bath water... Director ofECD Van Duyn: Now you're getting back into what kind of details you want as a group. Commissioner Teglia: Well I think that was... Director ofECD Van Duyn: ...walk back into it and all we're suggesting is that the COlnmission expressed SOlne frustration with step by step approach to the policies so we basically eliminated all implementing policies and came back with one broad-based policy that addresses the direction and the consensus the Commission wants to go. Is that a suitable direction? Chief Planner Sparks: ...creation of a zone comes back to you. Chairperson Honan: For the benefit... Director of ECD Van Duyn: And an overlay district has to come back to you with all the details of what that would include. Chairperson Honan: F or the benefit of myself, as well as I believe the other Commissioners, as well as I believe the audience, can I please call upon your patience to read what we're talking out and how it's going to be replaced? Chief Planner Sparks: Yes. Commissioner D'Angelo: Thank you, Madarn Chair. Chairperson Honan: Thank you. Chief Planner Sparks: The general policy that is proposed to replace all of the ones that I will read shortly that are coming out is: "Create a transit-oriented development within a half-mile of BART stations." The implementing policy for that is: "Develop an overlay zone creating a mix of low density residential uses, local-serving retail and support offices." Now what gets deleted is specific to the BART station area and there are several oftheln and please baer with me. "In partnership with property owners, area residents and BART and other agencies, develop the approxilnately 8- acre Hickey Boulevard extension area north of the BART station, between EI Can1ino Real and Mission Boulevard as a pedestrian-oriented spine fronted by active uses." That comes out. "Permit Big Box or other regional commercial activities north of the pedestrian-oriented center, but not in the center." That comes out. "Establish transit-supported development requireInents for the approximately 8-acre station area that include designation of the area as a transit overlay zone with specific develoPlnent requirement established in the zoning ordinance, transit-oriented design and development standards that address pedestrian scale comfort and safety, including maximum setbacks or build-to lines and building transparency requirements, inclusion of child care G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\091699.doc Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Page 30 of 40 facilities, prohibition on auto-oriented and drive-through establishments and minimum density and development intensity requirements." That all comes out. "Require any new development or redevelopment within a half-mile of the BART station at a density of no less than 30 units per net acre for residential uses or a floor area ratio of 1.5 for non-residential uses or an appropriate combination of the two. Maintain higher intensities where specified otherwise in the General Plan." That COlnes out. "Ensure that the development program or the approximately 2 and a half acre northwest part of the block that includes the BART station includes mix of uses with retail and other concessions at the ground floor and a required minimum of 100 housing units at upper floors and active retail uses and concessions along the northeast and south faces of the property." That comes out. "Ensure that the development program for the former Macys warehouse site includes active retail concession uses along Hickey Boulevard extension fronting the northern part of the street, intensive retail and/or office uses and- [I'm sorry.] Residential and/or office uses at upper floors within 400 feet of Hickey Boulevard and a variety of commercial uses in the portion of the site that extends beyond 400 feet of Hickey Boulevard." That comes out. And finally, work with BART on a potential for joint development of the property east of the fonner Macys warehouse site and north of the Hickey Boulevard extension and BART right of way adjacent with transit-oriented uses. Explore the feasibility for joint development of other areas. I don't think there are any significant babies in that bath water. That is pretty well covered by the more general policy and the creation of the overlay zone that will come back has to come to you and we can develop more specific policies at that time. We get far more specific than these policies. That's not specific criteria. Chairperson Honan: I just think it is amazing that at one meeting we could come up with one line that eliminated all that. Chief Planner Sparks: That's why Marty gets the moderate bucks. Chairperson Honan: I think that's amazing. I tell you. I don't know how to the rest of you guys... Commissioner Romero: Some of the things that are in here I like. Trying to delete theIn all .... Commissioner Baldocchi: Wow. Trying to delete them all. Commissioner Romero: See, this is very general policy that you're replacing it with. We definitely lmow that policy 3.4-1-4. It has to come out. Commissioner Baldocchi: I'm sorry. What was that? Commissioner D'Angelo: Yeah, you're right. Commissioner Romero: Some of these things I'd like to see stay in even though it's maybe redundant. Commissioner Baldocchi: Like what? Commissioner Romero: I mean, I like 3-4-1-3 Commissioner D'Angelo: -5 Commissioner Baldocchi: Wait. 3-4-... G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\091699.doc Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Page 31 of 40 Commissioner Romero: That has a lot of things in there. Commissioner Teglia: 3,4 and 5 says in a transit overlay zone. Senior Planner Kalkin: You can take out policy 4-A. Commissioner Baldocchi: -3-4 Chairperson Honan: -1-3. Commissioner Teglia: Actually 3.4-1-5, you'd remove the 8-acre station section. Commissioner D'Angelo: As I understand COlnmissioner Romero, then, he's suggesting we delete 1-4 and anlend 1-5. Is that correct? And also leave 1- --Delete 1-3. Delete 1-4. Amend 1-5, to establish transit suppOliive development requirements that include and then leave all the inclusions in there. Is that essentially... Commissioner Romero: Yeah, 1'd like to be able to include that. Chief Planner Sparks: That doesn't do violence to the policy that Marty suggested. ComIuissioner D'Angelo: I certainly support Commissioner Romero. Commission: (Cross talk) Commissioner Teglia: I do, too. Chairperson Honan: So far we have a consensus Commissioner Romero: We gotta go down through 3-4-1-8. ComIuissioner D'Angelo: Correct. Commissioner Romero: That should probably COlne out. Commissioner Teglia: Correct. Commissioner D'Angelo: I concur. Commissioner Meloni: Because the development would dictate the type of density of the development . . . Commissioner Romero: So does 3.4-1-8 come out? Commissioner D'Angelo: I would concur. Chairperson Honan: Consensus. Commissioner Teglia: However, in pulling out i-8, did we want to -- I guess wait later for the zoning? Okay. Commissioner Meloni: The development would dictate it too, Mark. The type of develoPlnent and the design of the development would have -- would dictate heavily on what you would approve and not approve. Chairperson Honan: So we approve that. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\091699.doc Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Page 32 of 40 Commission: (Agreeing) Commissioner D'Angelo: Correct. Can IInake a suggestion on 1-9 Leave the -- Leave paragraph as is and the first bullet delete minimum of 100 so it says mix of uses with retail and other concessions that maybe even at the ground floor, and other concessions and housing units at upper floors. Or sOlnething similar to that. Commissioner Teglia: Allowing mixed use but not mandating high intensity. Chairperson Honan: That is a good idea. Commissioner Teglia: Excellent. Commissioner D'Angelo: Okay. Chairperson Honan: Did you hear what ... Commission: (Agreeing) Chairperson Honan: That's a consensus. Commissioner Romero: What about 3.4-i-10, bullet 2. Can we take that out? Commissioner Teglia: Constructing residential? Yeah. Commissioner D'Angelo: I would agree. Commissioner Teglia: I would agree also. Commissioner Baldocchi: So we're going to keep this one in. Chairperson Honan: Consensus? Commission: (Agreeing). Commissioner Romero: The rest of it I don't see a problem. Commissioner Teglia: Yes. Chairperson Honan: Dot we have consensus on that? Commission: (Agreeing) Chief Planner Sparks: Those are all the policy issues. Chairperson Honan: As far as the policy issue for Sign Hill. I would definitely like to express my concern with having the City explore purchasing that land. Last night's Ineeting when I heard that, I thought that was an excellent idea. I don't lmow how the rest of you feel? Commissioner D'Angelo: Are you suggesting that we make it sOlnehow explicit in the General Plan or SOlne other way. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\091699.doc Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Page 33 of 40 Chairperson Honan: Prom being at the meeting last night -- Actually the Council came up with the idea. I would like the Council to lmow that the ... Commissioner Baldocchi: I agree. Chairperson Honan: ...the Commission backs them. Commissioner Romero: ... Leave the current zoning? Chairperson Honan: I don't lmow. That would be my suggestion. Commissioner Romero: It would be fair if we do that. Director ofECD Van Duyn: Leave it the density of the existing general plan? Commissioner Romero: I do not encourage or support developlTIent on that hill and I don't think it's appropriate for us to devastate their investment. Commissioner Meloni: their ability to ... Commissioner Baldocchi: I always understood that that hill was open space, but you lmow... Director of ECD Van Duyn: The consensus is that we just drop all amendments to the Sign Hill designation and carry over the existing General Plan designation. Commissioner Teglia: No. I think -- Are you talking about changing the General Plan? To what the current recommendation is, thus invoking the fact that we should buy the property because they can't build on it. Are we talking about leaving the old designations? Director of ECD Van Duyn: That's what I thought. Commissioner D'Angelo: Perhaps both. Commissioner Baldocchi: Both, then. Commissioner D'Angelo: Why not leave the old designation and encourage future or at least study the possibility. Commissioner Romero: There's no approved project for that site. Commissioner Teglia: And it has some lTIajor hurdles both environlTIental and geological, etc. I n1ean, a lot of it's not buildable. One thing I would say, though, that because funds are scarce and my point is usable park land. I don't think Sign Hill is really usable park land. I would hate to see us waste too lTIuch n10ney up there. Maybe it's better off leaving the current zoning, not changing it and... Commissioner D'Angelo: Well let me ask the Commissioner then. Do you have any problem with just studying the feasibility. It's no commitment. Commissioner Teglia: No. I have no problem with that. Commissioner D'Angelo: And addition to leaving the old wording there. Commissioner Teglia: Yeah. I have no strong feelings either way on that. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\091699.doc Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Page 34 of 40 Chairperson Honan: My point is that I definitely like to encourage, looking into ... Commissioner Baldocchi: Sure if that's how the Council ... Director of ECD Van Duyn: .. .But as we understand it, is that a consensus. That you want to change the exisiting General Plan policy for Sign Hill and as an additional policy recOlnmend the City explore the feasibility of acquiring additional land on Sign Hill. Chairperson Honan: The existing policy is one site per every 10 acres... Commissioner Meloni: One one. No, one one. Commissioner Teglia: One and one. Chairperson Honan: One unit per acre. Director ofECD Van Duyn: One to the acre subject to discretionary use pennit review so we don't have to allow one to the acre it has to come before you for Use Permit approval and with the environmental sensitive, the considerations, that density could be had under your present policy. So in other words, you have the ability to go in and determine 50% of that as environmentally-sensitive for use based on a specific application before you. There is no application before you so that specific policy doesn't change anything. That could still have to occur no matter what. Commissioner Meloni: Has anybody ever done a study as to what is actually buildable up there? Director ofECD Van Duyn: One of the applicants has and frOln tilne to time looked at proposals. We've seen primary concept proposals that they claimed, you lmow, are sensitive to son1e environmental analysis but beyond just the cursory examination I don't think there has been soil, you lmow deep soil and geotechnical analysis or.. . Commissioner Meloni: Well, no. That would limit it severely. I lmow for a fact that that would limit it severely up there. But I'm just saying as far as the zoning ordinance, slope density and things like that, that should eliIninate quite a bit of the acreage up there, just the slope density. Director of ECD Van Duyn: That's correct. And that is where the environmental sensitivity policy is already in the existing plan would play, as far as you review of the project. Commissioner Teglia: It's pretty much not property that's conducive to major development. It's more like somebody wants to put one dream home in one section might be able to shoehorn it in. That's kind of the way it kind of sits now, I would think. I hate to see the City just go up there and buy it all, you lmow. Vice Chairperson Sim: Through the Chair, I thinl<: a lot comments here to tonight are consistent throughout the Commission. I want to point to the Westborough area, the skyline, just like EI Camino is a very important conidor so is the Westborough corridor. I'd just like to capture that gateway there. It doesn't n1ean a cormnercial gateway. It means more maybe a landscape feature so that when son1eone enters that area they lmow that that's also part of South San Francisco, perhaps. I lmow there is a little signage there, but this is a way to, I guess, create a unified feel in the --- If there is a way to give us some kind of language there that provides for a gateway feature for further developments along that Westborough from skyline. Some consistency and design guidelines. Chief Planner Sparks: We did include... Vice Chairperson Sim: Please tell us where you put that, there is so much in here. Chief Planner Sparks: ...we even mentioned it to the Council last night specifically. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\ 1999\091699 .doc Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Plmming Commission Meeting Page 35 of 40 Chairperson Honan: They talked to Council about it. Vice Chairperson Sim: ...looking for any guidance under that subcategory. And I didn't see that there, so. If there is some language and then we will let you go home, please. Commissioner Baldocchi: Do they have a homeowners association that it deals with all the property over there? Director of ECD Van Duyn: I would like to clarify some of the comments that were Inade a little earlier about last night's meeting. Mr. D' Angelo indicated that he felt that the Staff did not represent the Planning Commission's action adequately ... Commissioner Baldocchi: A lot of people feel that way. What's up? Director ofECD Van Duyn: ...and there was some testimony this evening in fact that that was the case. I want to refute that at this present time. And more specifically what the Staff represented to the Council last night and if I need to be corrected, Chairperson Honan can do so because she was at the meeting last night as well. We indicated to the Council last night that the Planning Commission did not want developn1ent within the area that you have designated transit-oriented development any large Big Box retail, we specifically said that. We specifically told the Council you do want high density residential on that property. We specifically told the Council you did not want high intensified office use on that property. We represented to Council that you wanted transit-oriented development, period. Now we did not mention anything about 30 units to the acre. How that got into this discussion, I have no idea. And it was a slide before the City Council representing just what I indicated on the record that the Commission did not want high density residential, high intensity office or Big Box retail. So, the comments to the otherwise are unfounded and untrue. Commissioner Baldocchi: I'm sorry. Who said that to the Council last night... Director of ECD Van Duyn: Yes I said it to the Council last night. ComIuissioner Baldocchi: No. Who said that to the Council... Director of ECD Van Duyn: I said it to the Council last night. Commissioner D'Angelo: Let me ask a question... ComIuissioner Baldocchi: No. You started you comment by refuting... Director ofECD Van Duyn: I was responding to Mr. D'Angelo's comments because he was chastising staff for our representation before the Council ... Commissioner Baldocchi: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Director of ECD Van Duyn: .. . and I wanted to make a correction. Commissioner Baldocchi: Marty, thank you for clarifying that. I was unclear on what you were responding to. Commissioner D'Angelo: Well let me ask you, that being the case, how did it get into the proposal that we have in front of us tonight. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\091699.doc Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Page 36 of 40 Director of ECD Van Duyn: All that you have in front of you tonight and I don't want to go back and start re- sifting through all of the documentation. This is the original proposal the consultant made. So what was represented to you tonight was the proposal that's been in front of this Planning Commission since the tiIne the draft document was submitted. And all we were asking you to do, which was part of the public record draft, is to take all those comments out. That's why they were there. That's why we went through this exercise tonight. Take -- If you didn't want the 100 units per acre over the ground floor retail, if you didn't want 30 units to the acre, then strike it out. And that's what you've done. I'm not suggesting that we go back and cover that ground again, but that's what we were after this evening. The intent of that was to say, here's what it says. Here's what was sent out to the public. Here's what was sent out to the public. Here is what was sent out demonstrated in a draft document. If you don't want that, take it out. You hadn't done that yet. You indicated in a consensus vote, not a vote to the Commission, but a consensus, you lmow, head count, unofficial action at your last meeting that you had wanted, you lmow, elimination of the Big Box retail and elimination of the high intensity residential and elimination of any consideration of high intensity office and that's how it was represented to the Council. So this evening, we asked you to go in and make the official determination that that's exactly what you want and to strike it. Now I don't know where the confusion is... Commissioner Meloni: So what you're saying... Director ofECD Van Duyn: ...misrepresentation claims. Commissioner Teglia: So what you're saying, Marty, is that the Council didn't see these documents. Director ofECD Van Duyn: No. The Council has the same draft docmnents that you have. That's why... Commissioner Meloni: I think that's where... Commissioner D'Angelo: That's the confusion. Commissioner Teglia: That's probably where the confusion is... Commissioner D'Angelo: Sure. Commissioner Teglia: ...because we're saying -- We're saying... Director of ECD Van Duyn: Well, what do expect for us to give the Council/ Commissioner Baldocchi: Hey Marty, you lmow. I think the tone -- The tone. Director of ECD Van Duyn: They were given the document in draft document for public review. That's what they got. The confusion here is the representations made tonight, not what's in the document and that's what I was clarifying, and how it was represented last night. And that was Inade very clear to this Council last night that the Commission's comments were based on their review and your last meeting's actions. Not your last meeting's action, but your last meeting's intent. Chief Planner Sparks: And I believe we were very clear as well with the Council, but we were COIning back to you tonight to do exactly what we have done, to go through the policies and discuss these issues and get theIn clarified prior to your final action. Chairperson Honan: And you are bringing back all recommendations on September 22nd to the Council. G: \File Cabinet\O ld PC\ working\minutes\ 1999\091699 .doc Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Page 37 of 40 Chief Planner Sparks: Reflecting the actions you took tonight. Chairperson Honan: Thank you. Do you have any more? Commissioner Teglia: I just have one last, quick question. The southern BART station, this area right here? Did we make changes incorporating the fact that we're to see not just office, but possible mixed use residential, etc. That's all in here? Great. Chairperson Honan: Okay. Chief Planner Sparks: The appropriate action before you is the Resolution that's contained in your Staff report. Read it for the record. Commissioner Romero: Will this go to Council in final draft fonn reflecting all of the changes that the Commission has made tonight and in previous meetings or will it go in it's original form with those changes highlighted and color coded? Can I ask -- Will we be able to see -- Ifwe were to vote on this tonight and Inove forward to Council. Will we be able to see the document that will be presented to Council that will reflect what the Commission has worked on? Chief Planner Sparks: Are you asking if we're going to reprint the document containing specifically these changes? Commissioner Romero: Yes. Chief Planner Sparks: Probably not. As a practical matter, there's an issue of timing and each copy is a pretty expensive undertaking. I intend to get reprints of the Council's final action that reflects the adopted general plan. But we're looking at cost on the order of $30 a copy. And I don't want to put our rapidly-diminishing general plan budget to a bunch of interim copies as well. But we will go to great lengths to be very clear about the changes that have been made and the actions you've taken. Commissioner D'Angelo: What about on the Internet? Would it be there? Chairperson Honan: Would Council see our suggestions at any point? Chief Planner Sparks: Oh yes, in the staff report. They have to have that report to take action. Commissioner D'Angelo: Would it be on the Internet, then, the changes? I only ask. Not likely? Chief Planner Sparks: We'll try. Consultant Planner Lappen: We'll try. Commissioner D'Angelo: That's fair. Commissioner Teglia: But they'll get the original and then they'll get this type of thing. Consultant Planner Lappen: They already have the original. Commissioner Teglia: And then they'll get something like this. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\ 1999\091699 .doc Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Page 38 of 40 Vice Chairperson Sim: I'd like to make the motion -- I'd like to make the motion that the Planning COlTIlTIission recommend that the City Council find the Environn1ental Impact Report adequate and complete and adopt this 1999 South San Francisco General Plan Update. Chairperson Honan: And I have a second. Director of ECD Van Duyn: Based on the changes... Vice Chairperson Sim: Oh, yeah. You're quite right. With the additional changes ITIade at the Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Romero: I'll second it. Chairperson Honan: I'd like to do this one as a roll call vote. Clerk Hernandez: Commissioner Baldocchi? Commissioner Baldocchi: Aye. Clerk Hernandez: Commissioner D' Angelo? Commissioner D'Angelo: Aye. Clerk Hernandez: Commissioner Meloni? Commissioner Meloni: Aye. Clerk Hernandez: Commissioner Romero? Commissioner Romero: Aye. Clerk Hernandez: Commissioner Teglia? Commissioner Teglia: Aye. Clerk Hernandez: Vice Chairman Sim? Vice Chairman Sim: Aye. Clerk Hernandez: Chairperson Honan? Chairperson Honan: Aye. The General Plan passes. Chairperson Honan: Thank you all velY much. And now we'll move on to administrative business. ~ END OF TRANSCRIPTION I ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 2. Items from Commission G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\091699.doc Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Page 39 of 40 a. Subcommittee Report Discussion of Planning COlnmission Bylaws, Rules & Procedures. Continued to October 21, 1999, under Agenda Review . Commissioner Romero asked staff to look into Tony's service station on EI Camino and Spruce in regard to a billboard sign on that site, and if the propane tank has a pennit. Commissioner Teglia echoed Commissioner Romero's concerns and added that the decorative rock needs to be removed, the landscaping needs to be improved. Commissioner Baldocchi noted that she spoke to Rocque Yballa in regard to the sign and that it should be removed. Chairperson Honan stated that it had closed down for some tilne because they were replacing the tanks and at that time she thought that those problems would be fixed. . Commissioner D'Angelo asked who is responsible for the upkeep of a park along EI Camino and Calvert. He wanted to let someone know that it needs attention. COlnmissioner Meloni stated that it is between Arlington and cuts all the way across and it is the water company's duty. . Assistant City Attorney Lindgren informed the COlnmission that he would be on paternity leave and City Attorney Steve Mattas would be at the Planning Commission meetings. . Chief Planner Sparks thanked the Cormnission for all their tilne on the General Plan Update and informed them that there are a lot of large projects coming before theIn. 3. Items from the Public Jackie Williams, 242 Longford Drive, thanked the Commission for all their hard work and acconlplishing so many things in regard to the General Plan. 4. Adjourn Motion Romero / Second D' An~elo to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Judith onan ChairPerson Planning COlnmission City of South San Francisco ~L~/t Thomas C. Sparks t:f' Secretary to the Planning COlnmission City of South San Francisco NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting October 7,1999, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA. TCS/bh G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\ 1999\091699 .doc Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Page 40 of 40