Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.16.00 Minutes CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE November 16, 2000 TAFEl CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioner D'Angelo, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Romero, Commissioner Teglia, Vice Chairperson Meloni and Chairperson Sim MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Baldocchi STAFF PRESENT: Planning Division: Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner Mike Lappen, Senior Planner Marty Van Duyn, Director Adam Lindgren Kimberly Johnson Richard Harmon Rocque Yballa ECD: City Attorney: Engineering: Bldg./Fire Prevo AGENDA REVIEW Chief Planner Sparks noted that there were no changes to the agenda. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEMS 1. Genentech, Inc., owner/applicant 390 DNA Way UP-00-064 & MND-00-064 Use Permit to allow the construction of a 4-story, second phase of the Founders Research Center (FRC II project, Buildings 13, 14 and 15). The project is to provide expansion of research laboratory, lab support and office space in the Middle Campus complex. Senior Planner Lappen presented the staff repOlt and gave a power point presentation. Peter Yee, Genentech Project Manager, gave a brief presentation on the project. Public Hearing opened. Public Hearing closed. S:\Minutes\111600 RPC.doc Page 1 of 12 Commissioner Teglia noted that the Design Review Board's comment about the Bay Trail improvements should be addressed as part of the project. He mentioned that the connection between Fuller O'Brien and the project needs to be coordinated. He added that the length of the project and its connection to DNA way is not a reason to delay proper planning and implementation of the Bay Trail along that section. Senior Planner Lappen noted that the Design Review Board asked if Genentech was considering to provide a Bay Trail in the future and Genentech would like to provide a Bay Trail as a comprehensive approach to the entire campus. He noted that from staff's perspective it would take a bit of creative engineering or coordination to get the bay trail from point A to point B. Mr. Yee noted that part of the reason has to do with the technical challenge of the site itself. He added that he has been dealing with BCDC for a few years and he has shown them the site and gotten an idea of what BCDC is envisioning for the site. He mentioned that as they looked at the site in detail they encountered some challenges which were a 75 foot drop, a retaining wall with a 70 foot drop, and the ownership issues. He added that he has met with BCDC and with the new owners of the Fuller O'Brien site. He mentioned that timing is also an issue. Genentech has a proposal looking at developing options for the BCDC trail with MP A. He noted that the solution has to have input from 4 different bodies. He mentioned they need to analyze accessibility issues with regard to the company's security measures. Commissioner Teglia was pleased to hear that this was being worked on. He noted that this does not preclude the connection from the fishing pier to the project, which is owned entirely by Genentech. Mr. Yee noted that along the fishing pier the site starts to step up and the requirements from the BCDC trail include handicap access. He added that one of the BCDC planners suggested doing two dog legs on the bay side and meeting with the trail. He noted that the aesthetics would not be pleasing, and these are technical challenges that are being explored. He added that there is the possibility of doing the bay trail at the bay front, which involves bridges and going over marsh areas. He noted that this involves meeting the requirements of the Coast Guard, Corps of Engineers, and other agencies involved. Commissioner Teglia noted that corporate security and public access are important on this unique site. He noted that there are certain responsibilities with the site and is concerned about building it out without giving it some thought. He added that it seems that the trail will not be within the 100 foot setback and it will be closer to the building. He mentioned that the natural vista point will be the loading docks and the public will want to get there. He asked if any provisions have been incorporated for that. Mr. Yee noted that they have. He mentioned that the current trail, an emergency access trail, is a wide road and could be a public access road. He added that security is a concern that can be taken care of. Commissioner Teglia noted that the public does not know where the public parking lots are. He mentioned that it is important to have public access and it needs to be considered. He added that this may be incorporated behind the loading dock area. Mr. Yee noted that the vista point will be further away from the loading dock and have incorporated in previous studies public access where a point goes out to the bay. He added that parking is an issue and will try to explore possibilities for parking. He assured the Commission that the discussions with all the parties involved will continue and then there will be conceptual designs submitted for the Commission's review. Commissioner Teglia suggested that this be looked at carefully to make sure that there will not be any problems on the site that might preclude Genentech and the others involved from accomplishing all the goals. Commissioner D'Angelo noted that there is a pier on the site and what Genentech foresees the use of that pier to be. Mr. Yee noted that there is a fishing pier that was renovated by the City and there is an old pier that was the intake for sea water for the old Merck site. He added that the older pier has been taken out with the proper permits from the Coast Guard because of fires that were started on the pier. Commissioner D'Angelo noted that there are other oppOltunities for recreation and activities on the site. He asked if there was any possibility for a public pier or walking bridge-way. He asked that this possibility be S:\Minutes\111600 RPC.doc Page 2 of 12 explored. Chief Planner Sparks noted that it will be looked at when Fuller O'Brien submits their application and the Bay trail issues are worked out with Genentech. Chairperson Sim noted that they are looking at a comprehensive plan that will address everything at once. He asked what motif or idea does Genentech have to differ it from the street or edge elevations. The Project Architect noted that most of it is oriented towards the Bay. He noted that the motif is trying to draw nature into the site. Commissioner Teglia suggested that there be a thorough report on the Bay Trail when Genentech returns to the Commission with their annual review. Motion Teglia / Second Meloni to approve ND-00-064 and UP-00-064. Approved by unanimous voice vote. 2. City of SSF -owner/applicant Citywide ZA-99-017 and Categorical Exemption Section 15061(b)(3) M-l Zoning Ordinance Amendment-Amendment to the M-1 Industrial District Use Regulations (SSFMC Chapter 20.30) to require a use permit: 1) for all uses which generate 100 or more average daily vehicle trips (ADT); and 2) for "TranspOltation Services" use types. Principal Planner Kalkin presented the staff report. Public Hearing opened. Teresa McIntosh, President of the 5th Edition Neighborhood Association in San Bruno, noted that her neighborhood is located adjacent to and south of the Lindenville planning area. She noted that the San Bruno residents on the south side of Tanforan A venue face the commercial industrial businesses across the street. She thanked staff for including San Bruno in the public hearing notice mailing and allowing them to give their opinion. She mentioned that they have been negatively impacted by the commercial activity in the M-1 area and are interested in the reduction of the truck traffic. She added that San Bruno has partially mitigated the traffic problem by making Huntington Avenue east a one way and prohibiting vehicles over 3 tons on Herman Street. She mentioned that the big rigs could be redirected via the extension of Victory Avenue east to Highway 101, mentioned in the General Plan, is a good idea for the future. She asked for clarification on the City's intentions regarding an extension from South Linden to the SB BART station as indicated in the General Plan, noting her neighborhood is very concerned with this issue. She noted that they are monitoring the traffic in their area and SB Engineering is exploring possible solutions for this problem. She asked that staff keep her informed about the plans for the future. George Corey, representing Expeditors, mentioned that Expeditors would be impacted by the new Zoning Amendment since they are working on a plan to redevelop an 8-acre area on Shaw Road. He noted that they meet the FAR and parking requirements, but there is trucking involved. He suggested that the ordinance allow for 300 average vehicle trips for a use permit application. He mentioned that they are proposing 60,000 sq ft of office space, which will clean up one of the most blighted areas in the City. Chairperson Sim asked when the ordinance would come into effect. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren noted that the ordinance would be introduced followed by a second reading and then it would be effective 30 days after the second reading. Public Hearing closed. S:\Minutes\111600 RPC.doc Page 3 of 12 Commissioner Teglia clarified that the ordinance does not impact the project, it allows the City a tool to control traffic impacts. He added that the amendment should not be in any way a hindrance to any project coming into the City. Vice Chairperson Meloni asked if the previous urgency ordinance had the same restrictions as the proposal before the Commission. Principal Planner Kalkin replied that this was correct and use permits can still be issued through the planning process. Commissioner Romero asked if there were any use permits required because of the urgency ordinance. Principal Planner Kalkin noted that there was one required for a project on Shaw Road. Chief Planner Sparks noted that there are many companies exploring the possibility of converting to office use in the South Linden Area. He added that the ordinance is consistent with other zones. Commissioner D'Angelo asked if the extension from Victory to 101 was still planned. Principal Planner Kalkin noted that those were conceptual alignments in the General Plan and would require further study. Commissioner D'Angelo noted that there was also going to be an extension from So. Maple to Noor. Principal Planner Kalkin noted that this was also identified in the General Plan in order to provide a direct connection with the Tanforan BART Station but the details of the precise alignment have not been determined. Motion Meloni / Second Romero to recommend approval of the ordinance to the City Council. Approved by unanimous voice vote. 3. Valero Energy-owner RHL Design Group Inc.-applicant 2296 Westborough Blvd. UP-S5-722/MOD 2 and Categorical Exemption Class 1 Section 15301 Existing Facilities. Use Permit Modification allowing larger signs and allowing 24 hour operation. Chief Planner Sparks presented the staff report. Steve Gutierrez, applicant, noted that they agree with all of staff's conditions of approval. Public Hearing opened Public Hearing closed. Commissioner D'Angelo noted that the applicant at the previous hearing mentioned that he was trying to comply with State laws regarding signage. He asked if this was resolved. Chief Planner Sparks noted that it has been resolved. He added that staff will implement the City's requirements and if State law requires otherwise the City will yield to those requirements. Commissioner Honan asked how it was resolved. Mr. Gutierrez noted that staff felt the sign was visible from all sides of the street and therefore the secondary sign was not needed. Vice Chairperson Meloni noted that the secondary sign should then 'be removed from the plans because it is still shown on the plans. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the secondary sign is not going to be allowed if it is not required under State law. Commissioner Teglia noted that the main sign will be kept within the boundaries and the plan is being approved with the deletion of A-I the secondary price sign. Chief Planner Sparks noted that this was correct. Motion D'Angelo / Second Teglia to approve UP-85-722/MOD2 with the deletion of A-I, the secondary price sign. Approved by unanimous voice vote. Recess called at 8:55 p.m. Recalled to order at 9:00 p.m. S:\Minutes\111600 RPC.doc Page 4 of 12 4. Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment San Bruno Mtn./Terrabay The Terrabay Specific Plan and the City of South San Francisco General Plan are proposed to be amended (see attached map) to provide for the creation of: 1. A 25.73 acre "Preservation Parcel" which is located in the mid- to north-area of the commercial lands. The Preservation Parcel would provide preservation of the shell mound, wetlands and viola. The Preservation Parcel would remain in permanent open space and may eventually be conveyed to San Mateo County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County Park. The existing General Plan land use designation is Business Commercial and the proposed designation is Open Space. 2. A 2.69 acre "Buffer Parcel" located adjacent to and south of the Preservation Parcel. The Buffer Parcel would provide a "buffer area" between the Preservation Parcel and the Office Parcel. Very limited development of the Buffer Parcel is proposed and would consist of surface parking and landscaping. The existing and proposed General Plan land use designation is Business Commercial. 3. An 18.08 acre "Office Parcel" consisting of the remaining portion of the commercial area south of the Preservation and Buffer Parcels and a portion of what was the Point Area. The proposal is an office tower consisting of 665,000 square feet of commercial office space including 7,500 square feet of ground floor support retail and 1, 785 parking spaces. The office Parcel would also include a 150- seat performing arts theatre and a 100 child day care center. The existing and proposed General Plan land use designation is Business Commercial. 4. A 14.96 acre "Residential Parcel" which would consist of the remaining areas of the Phase II Residential area near the Point. The proposal is a for 70 units of single family attached units in three, four and five unit clusters with 298 parking spaces and a 17-story 96 unit condominium building plus 102 parking spaces. The existing General Plan land use designation is Low Density Residential and the proposed designation is Medium Density Residential. 5. An 8.22 acre "Recreational Parcel The proposal is a recreation center. It is currently proposed that the recreation center would be owned and operated by YMCA. A portion of this parcel that contains viola may be dedicated to the County of San Mateo for inclusion in San Bruno County Mountain Park. Should the YMCA, or similar organization not be able to develop a recreation facility on a portion of the site then the entire site would be dedicated to the County of San Mateo for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County Park. The existing General Plan land use designation is Low Density Residential and the proposed designation is Open Space. 6. Provision of 32 Moderate Income Housing Units Off-Site The proposed Specific plan also includes provisions to construct 32-units of housing affordable to moderate income families off the Terrabay site and within the City of South San Francisco. 7. Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM Program) The Specific Plan also includes an aggressive TDM Program that addresses both the commercial and residential components of the project. Shuttle, van pool, parking and shift management, worker support services and housing as well as annual monitoring, updates, and penalties are included in the program. 8. Open Space and Habitat Restoration The Specific Plan includes restoration and habitat enhancement for the Preservation Parcel, Recreation Parcel and remainder lands. S:\Minutes\111600 RPC.doc Page 5 of 12 9. To consider an Amendment and Restatement of the Terrabay Development Agreement applicable to the remaining parcels of the Terrabay lands and an amendment to the Terrabay Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 20.63 Terrabay Specific Plan District) in order to incorporate the development standards contained in the Final Terrabay Specific Plan. Consideration of addendum to certified Final SEIR-State Clearinghouse -#97-82077 by City Council Resolution #19-99, February 17,1999. Chief Planner Sparks presented the staff repOlt. Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that the Development agreement picks up where the Woods agreement, approved in 1999, leaves off. She mentioned that the Woods agreement covers the east and west portions of the property and the project applicant did not receive approvals for the remaining parcels. She noted that the Terrabay Final specific plan covers the remaining parcels and the development agreement takes the obligations that are contained in the Final Terrabay specific plan and memorializes them for a clarification for the City and the project applicant. She added that the development agreement calls for 102 residential units (70 single family attached and 32 below market rate units) to be phased and constructed at the same time as the commercial component. She mentioned that this was important to staff because it addresses the jobs / housing balance and it is a mitigation for the traffic impacts from the commercial project. She added that the project applicant will be allowed to grade all three sites at the same time to facilitate the phased construction. She added that the Development agreement sets out framework for a marketing plan for the residential units that ties them to the commercial tenant employees. She mentioned that the marketing plan is designed to market the units to employees of the commercial tenant, East of 101 business, and employees of businesses and governmental entities, including school district and City employees within the SSF. She mentioned that the offer is to be kept open for a definite period of time to consider and evaluate the purchase of the units. She noted that the specifics of the marketing plan have been deferred until the Precise Plan review when staff has a better idea of how many residential units will be brought online at the same time. TAPE 2 She mentioned that the Development agreement also addresses is the payment and final resolution of the traffic improvements obligation that was in the 1982, 1996, 1998 and 1999 SEIRs to construct the Bayshore Boulevard / Oyster Point flyover hookramps project. She mentioned that in this agreement the project applicant will pay 5.0 million for these traffic improvements in the form of a set aside letter which has to be received prior to receiving any grading permit for the project. She added that the Commission had concerns regarding the construction of the 96 unit condominium tower. She mentioned that the development agreement addresses this by requiring construction at or near the time the Certificate of Occupancy is given for the commercial building. She added if the applicant is unable to do that then there would be a payment and will be returned if the construction is commenced 12 months over the agreement. She noted that the agreement addresses the theatre, recreation building and the 100 child day care center. Vice Chairperson Meloni asked if the statement to commence construction refers to the foundation or grading the site with regard to the 96 units. Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that the applicant is being allowed to begin grading at the same time, this would not be considered commencing construction. She mentioned that this would be pulling the building permit for the project. Vice Chairperson Meloni noted that pulling the permit does not guarantee that the 96 unit tower will be constructed. He mentioned that commence construction, to him, means that the foundation is in and the building is going to be built. He added that the building permit can be pulled but it can expire and there will not be any construction started. Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that there is a specified duration in the agreement. She mentioned that the entitlements under the development S :\Minutes\111600 RPC.doc Page 6 of 12 agreement last through the duration of the development agreement. Vice Chairperson Meloni asked if commence construction mean constructing the foundation. He noted that if it only includes pulling the building permit it is not enough because it does not guarantee that the units will be built. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren noted that this is a valid concern. He added that if Mr. Myers' representative did not have any problem with including a few words to further define commencement of construction, staff would add the words, "pouring foundations. Staff will make that correction. Commissioner Romero noted that section B of the Development Agreement indicates that the first phase of construction is proposed to be the commercial and residential components, including restoration of the property. He added that the project applicant is required to have a site for the construction of the below market rate (BMR) units prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy for the office building. He mentioned that this indicated to him that the BMR units will not be constructed until after the office building receives its Certificate of Occupancy. He added that there should be a priority for the BMR units, otherwise they will never be constructed. Director of ECD Van Duyn noted that this is why that particular issue was elaborated with the development and the BMR units were negotiated for the application. He added that there is no way of suggesting that the applicant be in the position of delivering projects on a certain date. He noted that a reasonable time period can be given to acquire sites. He pointed out that two potential sites have been identified for the BMR units and these need to go through the planning process also. He added that the construction of the office building may be as much as 30 months and the City is looking at 2 years until the BMR units can be constructed. Commissioner Romero noted that 30 months is a long time to wait to commence construction on 32 units and would like these to be given higher priority. He added that the second phase of the 96 unit condominium component is being placed after the commercial portion and it also seems that the BMR units are also being treated the same. Director of ECD Van Duyn noted that this can be moved up. He mentioned that staff has negotiated a schedule that allows the applicant to find available sites and deliver the project. He added that the applicant needs to secure a site for the BMR units but are willing to begin negotiating properties immediately. It is the City's expectation that the units be constructed sooner and there are clauses within the agreement that reflect that. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren suggested that if there were other issues that the Commission wanted clarified, they discuss them, have the public comment on the Development Agreement and then take a recess to allow staff and the applicant to discuss the issues. Commissioner Honan understood that the applicant has to look for offsite housing. She was confused with the condominium tower having the same requirement as the BMR units with regard to the Certificate of Occupancy and the developer owns that property. She asked that the Assistant City Attorney give the legal meaning of endeavor to the Commission after the recess is taken. Vice Chairperson Meloni noted that if the developer is sincere about developing the residential there should be a statement that states that the Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued for the commercial component until the residential portion is completed. Commissioner Teglia understood that there was a difficulty with securing the sites for the 32 BMR units. He was concerned with the specific reference to the number of units on the condominium tower. He added that the Commission makes a final review when the Precise Plan is submitted for approval. He noted that he can see the number of housing units going higher or lower and asked if the development agreement restricts that flexibility. Director of ECD Van Duyn noted that it is limited under the development agreement. He added that if the applicant proposes anything in excess of the 96 units, then there would be a problem complying with consistency of the development agreement and the specific plan. He added that the Commission can entertain the possibility of modifying the language in the Development Agreement to allow some flexibility. Commissioner Teglia asked that staff include some type of language to allow the Commission some flexibility on the height of the building. Director of ECD Van Duyn noted that the request is limited and the number of units cannot be S:\Minutes\111600 RPC.doc Page 7 of 12 increased but may be decreased to stay within the Specific plan requirements. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren noted that this will be looked at during the break. He added that usually there would not be a public agency concern with making sure that every single unit is built. He mentioned that the development agreement will usually get certain types of consideration and give the developer the right to build up to a certain number of units that are needed to see some revenue out of the project. He pointed out that there is an agency concern in making the developer build that number of units. Chairperson Sim asked if the performing arts facility of the project was fixed seat. Director of ECD Van Duyn noted that the details have not been worked out but have suggested that the facility be an unfixed seating that could be a multi -purpose room. Commissioner D'Angelo asked if the Commission is locked into any architectural concept with the condominium or office components. Director of ECD Van Duyn noted that the Commission is not committed to the architectural concept but is committed to the height and bulk. He mentioned that the Commission has indicated in the Specific Plan that the height is acceptable. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren noted that Commissioner Teglia's question with regard to the units being lower than 96 units is not a possibility. He pointed out that page 2-3 of the Specific Plan states, "and another 96 units will be constructed in a 17 story apartment tower". He also noted that page 2 of 66 has the similar language and it indicates that it is a mandatory number. Commissioner Teglia noted that this could be changed at the precise plan stage. He added that the Commission should have certain flexibility, depending on the reality of the small site. He noted that the Commission tentatively approved 96 units, the applicant can return with a larger number or smaller number of units depending on the size of the units. He asked if the Commission will have that flexibility. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren noted that subject to everyone's approval it can be done. He noted that everyone includes the City and the developer, because everyone has to live up to their contractual obligation. Commissioner Teglia asked if the developer would return with a modification to the development agreement, could it be changed if the City agreed to the changes. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren stated that it could be done at that time as an amendment. Commissioner Honan mentioned that the specific plan, page 11-3 Section 3, specifies that the office component and the 70 unit attached single family homes or the 96 unit apartment building shall commence simultaneously. She asked if the office unit will go up first and then the housing units will be constructed. Director of ECD Van Duyn noted that the office buildings and the 70 units will begin construction at the same time. Vice Chairperson Meloni noted that it is controversial because the fust sentence states that the residential will not begin until after the commercial project is commenced and the last sentence says that they will commence simultaneously. Public Hearing opened. Del Schembari, 321 Altamesa Drive, pointed out that if there is to be development on the mountain it should be as clustered as close as possible. He added that the high-rises are going to affect everyone and believes that most of the terrain on the mountain can be preserved by building this way. He pointed out that San Bruno Mountain Watch has concerns about what will happen with the hookramps when they are built. Stephanie Manning believes that the destruction of native burial grounds constitutes a hate crime. She congratulated the parties involved in allowing there to be a buffer and preservation parcels, and the commitment for the future possible discovery of a connection between the two shellmounds. She was concerned about mound remnants that could be uncovered during construction of the project outside of the preservation and buffer parcels. She added that the construction be conducted in the presence of qualified archaeologists and native monitors. She encouraged the developers to explore the possibility of further archaeological studies and preservation. Public Hearing closed. S:\Minutes\111600 RPC.doc Page 8 of 12 Recess taken at 9:50 p.m. Recalled to order at 10:05 p.m. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren briefly went over the Commission's issues and explained what the applicant and staff had agreed upon. 1) The issue on the phrase "commence construction" - Staff and the applicant recommend adding after the phrase: including issuance of building permits and/or foundation permits, and pouring of the foundation. 2) The language with regard to phasing as drafted on page 2-10 of the Specific Plan was going to be explained by Kim Johnson. He added that exhibit D of the development is the most detailed and up-to-date explanation of the parties agreement. Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that they language in the development agreement has been reviewed with the developer and their counsel. She mentioned that Commissioner Honan is conect in that there is an inconsistency within the paragraph. She added that the fIrst portion calls for the residential construction to begin after the commercial project and the second pOltion of the paragraph says the opposite. She pointed out that the parties came to the understanding that the construction will begin simultaneously and recommend that the language be amended by striking the first sentence of said paragraph. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren continued: 3) Legal definition of the word endeavor in exhibit H, page 2 - the legal understanding and interpretation of the word is to make best commercial and professional efforts. He added that the endeavor would have some documentation of actual efforts and activities that would demonstrate that the developer has taken steps and attempted to do things to begin construction. He pointed out that step number 2 in that section would be triggered if the developer does not endeavor. 4) Ms. Manning's comment with regard to remains out of the buffer zone and the shellmound - the Mitigation Monitoring program has specific protocols for what has to happen if that were to occur. He added that State law requires Native American monitors at the site and this will be done. He noted that the Chairman's comments on the BMR units will be addressed by Director of ECD Van Duyn and the developer. Director of ECD Van Duyn noted that when the City Council reviewed the project that a work force housing component could be added. He added that the designs had changed and the end result was a result housing alternative. Staff felt that the Commission would have a favorable look at the changes by having a BMR component to which the applicant agreed to. There was discussion on how the number of units could be put together and delivered. He pointed out that several sites were discussed for the BMR units, which were not City controlled. He noted that the applicant has to go out and seek sites for these units. He added that the City owns two sites on Linden, where ArtRise was to be built, but was too expensive. This brought on the negotiations to do a performing arts facility on the Terrabay Phase III site. He added that when this was discussed the City believed that the BMR units could be delivered on the Linden sites and it needs to be negotiated at the Council level. He pointed out the Mr. Myers has to look for sites that are available for multiple density housing. He added that a combination of properties could deliver the 32 units that are needed. He mentioned that there is another option is to purchase some units, e.g. Willow Gardens, and rehabilitating them. He added that another good property is an 8-unit building that burned down last year and could also serve as a BMR project. He pointed out that the ultimate objective to get 32 BMR units is still there. He stated that locking the number of units to the project was important to staff and the applicant's intent is to deliver the 32 units. Vice Chairperson Meloni asked if any thought has been given to relocating ArtRise on a temporary basis. Director of ECD Van Duyn noted that ArtRise could be relocated and staff would like the units to be started as soon as possible. Jack Myers, Myers Development Group, noted that Director ofECD Van Duyn's description was very thorough. He pointed out there needs to be enough time to accomplish a project. He added that community based S:\Minutes\111600 RPC.doc Page 9 of 12 development allows the developer to get community input on the project. He pointed out that when a developer is dealing with a complex issue it is time consuming and cannot be lushed. He noted that they have met with Norma Fragoso and have an outlined proposal for a certain site. He added that the housing is looked as a requisite component of the commercial office portion. He noted that they need to allow themselves enough time to fit into the community. He stated that the idea to build the BMR units on the ArtRise site goes along way, because the proposed recreational facility makes the ArtRise site available. He added that they are looking forward to immediately beginning the process of negotiating and identifying the terms and conditions of acquiring the site for a residential project. Commissioner Romero noted that there are other options Mr. Myers should take into consideration. He added that the developer has land that could be utilized for BMR housing. He suggested designating a portion of the proposed building as BMR and beginning construction on that project sooner. Mr. Myers responded that they were driven away from the 250 unit condominium was project feasibility. He added that 10% of moderate income housing helped drive down the feasibility of the project. He pointed out that he has worked very hard to be sensitive to all of the City's objectives. He added that they now have a commercially viable project and intend to complete the project in total, including the 32 units. He added that their objective is to disturb the mountain as little as possible and are also deliver the required units within the specified time. Commissioner Romero noted that the current entitlements of 348 residential units has been decreased and the commercial portion of the project has been increased. He noted that this justifies including the BMR units into the project, and also agrees to having the units offsite but there should be some residential portion of the project that has BMR units in it. Mr. Myers noted that this point has not been a part of any discussion he has had with the Planning Division. He mentioned that the project feasibility was the driving factor in decreasing the residential units. Commissioner Teglia noted that this is a good project with a buffer zone which will not be built on. 'He added that the 32 off-site units will give the City some flexibility and is a good compromise if it is off-site or on-site. He added that considering the constraints on the project and those that staff has pointed out the agreement has the developer tied to building 32 BMR units. Commissioner Honan noted that the first bids for the condos and the homes are to go to the City employees. Director of ECD Van Duyn noted that three groups are being targeted: first, those working in the office building; second, those working in the East of 101 area; and third, the government and / or City employees. Commissioner Honan noted that the Woods homes are selling for $700,000 and not very many people working in the East of 101 area can afford these. She noted that the 32 low income housing will be sold much faster than the single family residential and the condos. Director of ECD Van Duyn noted that the marketing plan states that the competitive marketing of the units will help achieve the goals of the marketing plan and this would target those working in the specified areas. He added that if these homes are resold they have to be sold at a BMR price. He mentioned that staff felt that the BMR units could be delivered off-site and this is why there are 32 as oppose to 25 that were originally required. Commissioner Romero noted that there is a General Plan amendment that will allow the project to dictate what the General Plan should be instead of the General Plan dictating what the project should be. He mentioned that it was clear what the expectation for that area was and this is changing the designation. Commissioner Teglia noted that the general plan amendment was being done to increase the density from low to medium density on the project. Chairperson Sim noted that the General Plan is a guiding principal and the Commission can amend the plan. Chief Planner Sparks noted that any plan has to have a mechanism to allow change. He added that the primary reason for the general plan amendment is to recognize open space for the preservation parcel. Chairperson Sim asked if the EIR mentioned anything about the size of the building. Assistant City Attorney Johnson replied that the EIR was based on the office building being about 400 feet. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren noted that the critical issue in the EIR are the impacts of what is being built within the scope of S:\Minutes\111600 RPC.doc Page 10 of 12 impacts. He noted that the answer to Commissioner Honan's question is yes but the impacts are less important or even irrelevant for CEQA purposes even if they are from the commercial or the residential component. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the impacts that were identified in the earlier EIR have not been exceeded and the specifics of the higher building do not need to be reanalyzed. Commissioner Romero noted that the commercial project is exceeding the current entitlements. He recommended a continuance to renegotiate with the developer to have a better plan. Commissioner Honan asked if the revised Development agreement language on starting construction simultaneously meant that all portions would be started at the same time. Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that the intent of the City is that the developer commence construction of the residential and office component simultaneously. She added that tit is reflected in the agreement and to the extent that the Final Terrabay Specific Plan is inconsistent in that paragraph, it would be amended to strike the first sentence where it has the commencement of construction t different times. Director of ECD Van Duyn noted that the agreement presently contains the requirement that 70 units be completed at the time that the certificate of occupancy is given for the office. TABE3 Vice Chairperson Meloni noted that the revised language with regard to the commencement of construction has and / or in it and he was not comfortable with those two words. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren noted that where he said and / or it refers to a building permit and / or foundation permit, and pouring of foundation. He pointed out that the applicant indicated that they may wish to pull the foundation permit. Vice Chairperson Meloni wanted to make it clear that the foundation inspection and pouring of the concrete must be completed before that provision was triggered. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren noted that the applicant was fine with that change in language and will be made to reflect the following: they will have a building permit and / or a foundation permit and that they will have completed the pouring of their foundation. Commissioner D'Angelo noted that he is satisfied with the changes. He stated that he does not embrace the height of the building but does embrace the project as the best elements that the City will get. Motion Romero to continue the item to allow staff to negotiate a better plan with the developer. The motion failed for lack of a second. Motion Meloni / Second Teglia recommending the item with additional items as discussed by the Commission. Roll call vote: Ayes: Commissioner D'Angelo, Commissioner Teglia, Vice Chairperson Meloni and Chairperson Sim Noes: Commissioner Honan and Commissioner Romero Abstain: None Absent: Commissioner Baldocchi Approved by majority roll call vote. ADMINISTRA TIVE BUSINESS 5. Items from Staff Chief Planner Sparks noted that Commissioner Baldocchi called to let him know that she would not be at the meeting due to an illness. He added that four of the Commissioners are up for reappointment and if they are interested in a reappointment should submit their applications. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren noted that this was his last meeting and Kim Johnson will pick up after him. S:\Minutes\111600 RPC.doc Page 11 of 12 Chairperson Sim welcomed new Assistant City Attorney Johnson and thanked Assistant City Attorney Lindgren for his service to the City and the Commission. 6. Items from Commission - None 7. Items from the Public - None 8. Adjournment Motion Honan / Second D'Angelo to adjourn the meeting. Approved by unanimous voice vote. The meeting was adjourned at 11 :00 p.m. Eugene Sim, Chairperson Planning Commission City of South San Francisco NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting December 7, 2000, Municipal Services Building, 33 Anoyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA. TCS/bh S:\Minutes\111600 RPC.doc Page 12 of 12