Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.16.97 Minutes MINUTES SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 16, 1997 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Romero, Vice Chairman Barnett, Commissioner Masuda, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia, Commissioner Baldocchi, Commissioner Honan MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Planning Division Marty Van Duyn Susy Kalkin Steve Carlson Katherine Wellman Sgt. Ron Petrocchi S gt. Mike Massoni Richard Harmon City Attorney Police Dept. Engineering Division Commissioner Romero stated that Item # 1 on the Consent Calendar was being continued to the November 6, 1997 meeting, and that the widening of the unincorporated streets by San Mateo County is not on the Planning Commission Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 2, 1997 Commissioner Motion - Sim/Second - Teglia. Approved by majority voice vote with changes requested by Commissioner Baldocchi ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Arvid Olson, of 420 Dorado Way spoke regarding the street conditions in the unincorporated area of Country Club. He is concerned about new developments using Dorado Way. He added that he will be back on November 6. Mr. John Garcia of 1978 The Alameda, San Jose representing Santa Clara Development for Heather Heights stated that he thought the administrative report relative to fixing the landscape and barricade was on tonight's agenda. He asked that the Commission award him the opportunity of rectifying a misunderstanding by hearing the item tonight, adding that they would support the choice made by the Commission. He expressed a concern that waiting until the November 6 meeting prolongs the work into the winter season, and this could contribute to the work not being completed. . Assistant City Attorney Wellman provided an explanation on options available to the Commission to comply with the Brown Act. She stated that under certain circumstances the Commission can decide to place an item on the agenda. However, the Commission would have to make a determination that there is a need to take immediate action, and that the need came to the attention after the agenda was posted. The Commission would then have to make a motion, it would have to be seconded, findings made, and would require 2/3 vote of the Commission. Mr. Romero stated that Mr. Hamish had advised him after the last meeting that it was Mr. Garcia's decision not to be scheduled for tonight's agenda because the people to discuss this item were not available. Mr. Garcia explained that it was a misunderstanding. He added that Mr. Harnish had advised him that he would be on tonight's agenda. Mr. Romero explained that the agenda tonight is lengthy, the Commission had not had the opportunity to review the material, and individuals who have shown an interest in this items are not present. He deferred to the rest of the Commission. Vice Chairman Barnett, Commissioner T eglia, and Commissioner Honan agreed with Mr. Romero. The Commission determined that the item would remain on the November 6 agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. 375 Dorado Wav~ SSFUSD/Avalon School~ Waterford Associates~ Owner and Aoolicant SA-97-060 & PUD-97-060: Mith!ated Ne2ative Declaration 97-060 Subdivision of a 5.2 acre site for 21 lots, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 19.48; and PUD 97-060 for a planned unit development to allow a residential subdivision with lots widths of less than 50 feet and a cul-de-sac over 100 feet in length, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 19.48 and Section 20.84. (St~{freconlnlends continuance to the nleeting o.fNol'enlber 6, 1997) 2. 1556 EI Camino Real~ Macv's Primary Real Estate~ Inc.~ Owner~ Jesse A. Couch~ Aoolicant PM-97-064: Cate20rical Exemotion Class 15~ Minor Land Divisions~ Section 15315 Tentative Parcel Map to adjust a lot boundary between two adjacent lots in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 19.48 Teglia-Motionl Masuda-Second to approve the Consent Calendar. Approved by majority voice vote PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEM 3. 753 Del Monte Avenue~ SSFUSD/EI Rancho School Site~ Standard Buildin2 Comoanv~ Owner and Aoolicant~ SA-97-037 & DR-97-056: Miti2ated Ne2ative Declaration 97-037 and 97-056 (Continued.fronl the Planning Conl1llission Meeting October 2.1997) PC Mtg. 10/16/97 Page 2 of 13 Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide a 10-acre site into 39 lots for single family residences, and a School District Facility, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 19.48; and Design Review of38 single family dwelling units, in accordance with SSFMC Title Chapter 20.85. Sr. Planner Carlson presented the report and added that the applicant was prepared to provide a detailed review of the material requested at the October 2 meeting. He added that the question regarding noticing had been researched. It appears that one block had not been noticed, so the entire area was re-noticed and the environmental review period has been extended to November 6. Mr. Ochsner from Sunstream Homes made the presentation addressing the Commission's issues. On the setback issue, he referred to the table that shows that the average setback for the homes that back along Romney Drive. Lots one through 16 have setbacks an average of about 30' from the property line to the back of the building which is beyond the minimum requirement. The same situation exists along Serra Highlands. Other homes backing up to existing residences on Romney have setbacks closer to 21' but still exceed the requirements. The next issue was regarding a shading study and how it would impact the existing neighborhoods. He presented exhibits of existing homes in the Parkway Estates, Rocca neighborhood, Buri, Buri approaching Junipero Serra, Sunshine Gardens, and this project on the Serra site, which have the same situation, and added that differences in elevation are not new or unique in South San Francisco. He provided an exhibit depicting the shading at various times and conditions during the day. He provided information on the alternative site plan, which he said does not work well because the internal layout becomes inefficient, and it is in violation of city standards. He added that the current plan improves drainage but a block wall would require different drainage alternatives. He cited additional problems with retaining walls, easements and the problems that would be encountered if they attempted to lower the site up to 8 feet. Ms. Denny Bruno of 148 Romney Avenue stated that Sunstream has done an alternative plan in South San Francisco off Hillside that had street dividing from the existing homes, so, street dividing from existing homes is possible. She added that deeper lots exist on Escanyo, Lamonte and San Felipe, so that should not be an issue. She commented that the higher elevation exhibits are all facing east/west, not north/south, and the solstice study was done on the new homes, not on the impacted homes. She again cited her concern for privacy, the impact on schools, multiple family homes using garage for storage or converting it into living area, and multiple vehicles. She added that if they lose access to EI Rancho, they want to be compensated. Michael Kaplan, licensee and operator of the Alta Lorna Preschool expressed a concern that one of the conditions of his operation requires that he have five parking spaces. He wanted to know if this project would have an impact on his parking spaces, and if so, what does that mean for him and his Use Permit. It appears that the new street entry would be where his parking is. Chairman Romero, asked that Mr. Carlson research this. Jackie Lagomarsino from 176 Romney Avenue spoke of her concern for privacy and the effects the project would have on the value of her property, and on schools. She stated that the city should be concerned about the current residents first and the developer after. She also raised a concern about losing light in that they already have a mildew problem. Carlos Martin from 712 Serra Drive, spoke in opposition of the project and stated that it will have an impact on his way of life. He is concerned that the homes are proposed to be single family, yet they are asking for PC Mtg. 10/16/97 Page 3 of 13 5 - 6 bedrooms, and questioned the need for that many bedrooms. He spoke of the impact to their homes due to loss of sunlight from the 31 foot heights on the homes. He spoke of a concern about the number of students added by this development and stated that it would have an impact on school class size. He stated that Alta Lorna has been used as a park which is needed by the neighborhood, and recommended that the project be denied. Linda Martin 712 Serra Drive wanted to know if the project was a "done deal", citing that at the first meeting a number people showed up but many have given up hope. Mr. Romero responded that he thought the sale of the property is contingent upon the approval of the project by the City Council. She stated that the park is important to neighbors. She pointed to the pictures presented by the developer on Serra Drive, adding that one of the pictures is her neighbor's house which by looking at the pictures, prove that the privacy of her neighbor will be affected. She added that Serra Highlands does not have open fields and while the project has beautiful houses, they don't belong in our City. She wants to look at a park, not another house. Mr. Al Ward of 754 Serra Drive had a question regarding the wording on the Notice which he received. He asked that the Commission make a motion to the effect that the property owners can legally raise issues later, should the need arise. Ms. Wellman explained the wording from the Notice of Hearing adding that issues or concerns about the project should be raised before this body or at the Council meeting and that this is not the final approving body. Mr Ward spoke of snakes that live on the site, which he thinks are endangered species. He added that if the project commences, he would prefer that the area be lowered, if not 8 feet, lowered 4 or 6 feet. He stated that he has lived on Serra for 35 years, and during construction for Serramonte, there was a tremendous amount of dust, and complaints were not addressed then, and this will probably happen again. He also asked that the residents' concerns of the height of these homes and lack of privacy be considered. Commissioner Sim stated that on the advice of the City Attorney he would not be participating in this item. Chairman Romero advised that he would be abstaining from a vote on this item. Commissioner Masuda asked staff to explain the responsibility for maintenance of the wall in the alternative proposed street. Mr. Carlson responded that the City would be responsible for the maintenance. Commissioner Honan expressed a concern regarding the schools. She asked if the school district could provide the city with information on whether they can accommodate these children. Mr. Carlson indicated the representative of the school district indicated that they did not perform a study on this specific project. The dwellings are identical to those being constructed at Chestnut Estqtes. Based on the Chestnut Estate dwelling school district study this would generate an increase of only 20 children. Commissioner Teglia expressed his concern that the school district is getting greedy. The sale of the remainder of the property would have allowed for a better product. He cited concerns regarding the rear access, and whether the second option is available "a la carte". Mr. Carlson deferred to the applicant, but added that theoretically it could be implemented in varying degrees. Commissioner Teglia was concerned about demographics, with multiple families in single family housing. He raised the issue which he suggested at the last meeting of single story versus two story houses, and stated that six bedrooms seemed excessive. Commissioner Baldocchi also questioned the motives for the school district in selling one parcel, and keeping the other. She added that the COlnmission's planning decisions are affected by the choices made by the PC Mtg. 10/16/97 Page 4 of 13 school district. She added that there should be an open line of communications on what the school district plans to do. Beyond that she added that she would like to see Parcel A become a park if they decide to sell it, and likes the mixing of homes, and would like to see the site grades lowered. Commissioner Barnett commended the two young citizens who spoke. He stated that the Commission's job is to develop it to the best advantage. He stated that there are problems with both plans, citing the retaining walls, and adding that he is not sure that cutting is the way to go. He added that he does not agree with the neighbors who want access to the rear, and that would not affect his decision. In response to issues raised, Ms. Wellman stated that the issue is this project, not what the school district's decision on what they do with the two lots. She added that the Commission has a three of alternatives: 1) Recommend that the City Council approve the project as is; 2) recommend approval but with modified conditions; or 3) recommend denial, but that would require making findings that are in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act. Commissioner Teglia asked if it was appropriate to consider the need of-the school property. Mr. Carlson answered that it was not. The land owner has decided to divide the property. They have gone through the process of identifying that it was surplus, offering it to the city, which the city declined, and the school district went ahead with a competitive process and selected a firm to propose a development. Contingent on approval by the city some level of development, the school district will conclude that contract. Commissioner Teglia asked if the Tentative Subdivision Map and homes would come back for approval later. Mr. Carlson stated that the homes have gone to the Design Review Board. Discussions ensued on the possibility of removing the 5 and 6 bedrooms. Mr. Carlson added that this would be reducing plan types to #2 and #3, and that would not preclude a future owner from adding a dwelling later on. The developer was asked to respond to the proposals. Mr. Bob Kent representing the developer spoke of the deception tactics some times used by not calling the rooms all bedrooms, they could be called media rooms etc. To the issue of ranch style homes, he said they have not built them since the 1980's because they are not marketable. He also pointed to the fact that the single stories could be converted to two story homes later, and added that they would not be in agreement for developing ranch style homes. Commissioner Honan stated she would like the option of raising the bedroom windows facing Romney for privacy issue to be taken into consideration, should the original plan go forward. Commissioner Teglia asked about the second plan, with the masonry wall, why is there a need retaining walls. Mr. Carlson responded that if you reduce the site by as much as 8 feet, lots 16 through 23 between those houses and Serra would still require some retaining walls. Director of Economic and Community Development, Van Duyn spoke to the Commission regarding the discussions of making changes to the floor plans. He suggested that eliminating the 6 bedrooms could be a possibility, but he was not sure that eliminating another floor plan altogether was such a good idea in that it would reduce the variety of housing plans, for the purpose of design features. He added that it was possible to move the project forward to City Council by recommending that the subdivision be approved subject to alternative A sketch plan being revised in accordance with City standard. PC Mtg. 10/16/97 Page 5 of 13 Commissioner Masuda made a motion to recommend what the Director suggested. Ms. Wellman added that the Commission has several options which could be considered: 1) Go with the original plan and make modifications such as eliminating the five and six bedrooms, changing windows, or other architectural details of concern. (other concerns regarding school district student projections; and not actually approving the mitigated neg dec, will be for the City Council) 2) make a recommendation to City Council that prior to approving the project, they get more detail documentation from school district to justify those numbers; 3) if the Commission is interested in the alternative plan and wants to take action tonight, it could make a recommendation to the City Council that they approve the Alternate plan subject to the applicant coming forward with a Tentative Map that meets city ordinance specifications. Commissioner Teglia recommend that the City Council consider Alternative A, with the intention of redesigning the tentative map trying to minimize the retaining masonry walls, if possible, and eliminating the six bedroom plan. Mr. Carlson asked for a clarification on reducing grade~ of the ballfield, adding that if this is done, it will necessitate some retaining walls. Commissioner Teglia stated that until that was decided, his recommendation is to go forward with the intent of minimizing the walls. Commissioner Honan amended the motion to request that City Council further research the school district numbers. In4~~~~~f~mAPi~i~~i. Motion -Masuda/Second - Teglia: To recommend that the City Council consider Alternate A, with the intention of redesigning the Tentative Map to minimize retaining walls, and eliminate the 6 bedroom plan Motion - Honan/Second - Baldocchi to seek further information on school district estimates. Approved by the following Roll Call Vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Barnett, Commissioner Masuda, Commissioner Teglia, Commissioner Baldocchi, Commissioner Honan NOES: None ABSTAINED: Chairman Romero, Commissioner Sim Recess 9:00 p.m. Meeting called to order 9:20 p.m. 4. 320 Shaw Road~ Todd V. & Rebecca G. Ma2aline~ Owner~ Joe R. Wvman~ Aonlicant UP-97-033: Miti2ated Ne2ative Declaration 96-064 Use Permit to allow a 65+ ft. Tall mono-pole for WCS and ground mounted equipment, In accordance with S SFMC Chapter 20.77 and 20.83. Sr. Planner Carlson presented the Staff Report and recommended approval of a 45 foot tall pole. Mr. Joe Wyman the applicant, presented slides, described the mono-pole, and gave a presentation on the possibility of presenting the pole as a candelabra with lights. He provided a view of what is in existence and PC Mtg. 10/16/97 Page 6 of 13 described the location of the pole and the view from the freeway from various angles. He asked the Commission to consider allowing the height of 65 feet, adding that poles need the height for optimum efficiency and could then allow for co-location. Commissioner Barnett asked about the possibility of mounting the pole on the roof of the warehouse. The applicant responded that the property owner would not allow another applicant. He added that Sprint only got 45 feet, and 65 is needed which cannot be accommodated when mounted on a roof. Commissioner Teglia asked if he had looked into co-locating with GTE. Mr. Wyman stated that it would require that he go higher than 65 feet, since they need to be properly spaced. Commissioner Masuda asked about co-locating with Cellular One. Mr. Wyman stated that spacing of 10 feet is needed so the bulk at the top decreases. Commissioner Masuda asked if 45 feet would was adequate. Mr. Carlson stated that it is up to the Commission or Council if they determine that they want to make a different recommendation from staff's, there is no prohibition, and it could go as high as the FAA permits. Commissioner Sim stated that the implication is that 45 feet may not be practical, where 65 feet could allow them to co-locate. Mr. Carlson added that there are other structures where they could locate. Commissioner Teglia asked about 65 foot pole being much cheaper than locating at airport. Mr. Wyman stated that this would allow them to complete the use in South San Francisco since they have two other locations here. Further discussions followed in the possible of location at other sites, such as Price Club, the treatment plant,the Elks Club, other tall buildings, andUnited Airlines. Chairman Romero also brought up the subject of a master plan, which Mr. Wyman stated that he had provided for the 'study session. Commissioner Honan asked if the 45 foot pole is approved would that allow for co-locating. Mr. Wyman added that it would warrant looking for an additional location. Commissioner Sim asked if height was the only issue. Mr. Wyman stated that height would allow them to co-locate. Commissioner Barnett requested that they wait to see the final Ordinance before making a decision. Mr. Carlson stated that this would cause the time limits to be exhausted, and the Commission would either have to approve or deny the application. Commissioner Teglia stated that it was not fair to the applicant to continue, and felt that they had enough information tonight to make a decision. Commissioner Masuda made a recommendation to allow 65 feet. Commissioner Baldocchi added that this is in the industrial area and this might limit others from coming in with requests. Motion - Teglia/Second- Barnett to approve 45 foot pole.. Motion - Masuda to amend to 65 feet. Motion failed for lack of second. Back to original Motion; Approved by the following Roll Call Vote: AYES: Chairman Romero, Vice Chairman Barnett, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia, Commissioner Baldocchi, Commissioner Honan NOES: Commissioner Masuda 5. 119 South Linden Avenue~ Jon Mead~ Owner and Aoolicant UP-97-069: Certified Ne2ative Declaration 97-012 PC Mtg. 10/16/97 Page 7 of 13 Use Permit to allow a charter bus parking lot and vehicle washing facility with landscaping, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter/Section 20.30.030 (c). Sr. Planner Carlson presented staff report. He added that all fines, according to finance, have been paid. The original application expired, and this is a new application. Staff feels that they have complied with all the requirements. He distributed revised conditions from the Engineering Division. The applicant stated that he agrees with the conditions. He expressed a concern with the condition of not being able to park his vehicles during the interim, and requested that he be allowed to use the property for parking only since this is creating a hardship for his company's operations. He added that he would not be contributing anything to the drainage system, and would be strictly use4 for parking his vehicles only. He introduced Mr. lyre, the project manager. Commissioner Romero asked the applicant ifhe had made an agreement with the City Council that he would not be using the property for any other reason. Mr. Carlson responded that this is a new Use Permit, in that the previous Use Permit expired. Commissioner Masuda asked staff if the previous conditions were addressed. Mr. Carlson stated that they worked toward that, but their use permit had expired, and it was necessary to apply for a new permit. Commissioner Honan was concerned that if they permit him to park his vehicles, they would wash them. Mr. Carlson added that they could prohibit water on the site, or impose requirements for a period of time. Commissioner Teglia spoke of Council' s hesitation to approve originally. He asked if the rest of the property had been paved. The applicant responded that it has. Chairman stated that he is not comfortable allowing onsite parking during construction and felt that the work should be complete before allowing occupancy. Commissioner Barnett asked how long did the applicant anticipate for work to be done. The applicant stated that it could take as long as two months to order the steel and receive delivery of material., and actual work could be completed in three weeks, however, his understanding is that it could take as long as four months. Commissioner Sim asked the applicant where he is parking now. The applicant stated that he is leasing from a facility in San Francisco. Commissioner Teglia stated that he is comfortable with staff's recommendation. Commissioner Masuda agreed. Sgt. Massoni stated that the Police Department would still like condition that gate be in place before allowing vehicles to be parked at facility to remain. Barnett - Motion/Teglia - Second to approve as amended by hand out. 6. 938 Linden Avenue~ Necati Er2ur~ O"Tner~ Raloh Flemin2~ Aoolicant UP-97-065: Cate20rical Exemotion Class 1~ Section 15301 Existin2 Facilities Use Permit to allow an office which includes the storage of a limited quantity of chemical within 200 feet of a residential district in accordance with SSFMC 20.22.030. Sr. Planner Carlson presented the report. PC Mtg. 10/16/97 Page 8 of 13 The branch manager for Terminix provided a brief description of the operations they have in San Francisco which has been there for 51 years in a location with similar composition of residential and commercial mix, and added that they have not had any problems with the neighbors. Mr. Larry Plecha provided the operations which he described as an integrated pest management operations, with the philosophy of using less pesticides to achieve the same results. He further described the shipment of materials, procedures used for storage, and methods used for distribution and disposal of the chemicals. He responded to a concern raised by Chairman Romero in reference to the possibility of the products' flammable potential and toxic fumes emission, by stating that all the materials are pesticides, and none of them in combination would produce toxic fumes. He added that their products are primarily organic phosphates and become inert after a 30 day period as required by law. Mr. Bill Pierce the regional technical specialist provided additional details about their disposal and cleaning procedures and storage. He pointed to the note from the Fire Department, who are in agreement with their request to store the materials outside, which is against what the Planning Division is requiring, but indicated that they would place it wherever the Commission desired. Commissioner Sim had some questions regarding construction and design of the storage facility and landscaping. Mr. Carlson responded to the landscaping issue stating that this went through the design review before, and the issue here is the storage of chemicals, not the office since it is an existing facility. He cautioned, that if the structure goes outside, there is a requirement of 20 parking spaces. Arvin lyre addressed the parking loss issue and added that the solution they have come up with is acceptable to the Engineering Division. He asked that the Commission make a decision tonight and added that they are in agreement with placing the storage facility in the building. Mr. John Massio of 912 Linden requested that the chemicals be left in the building to keep the neighborhood happy. He added that he lives four doors from the project and is most comfortable with it being in the building. Mr. Pedro Gonzales asked that the Commission delay their decision until he has had the opportunity to present it to the Old Town Homeowners and Renters Association. Commissioner Romero asked if the Association had been noticed. Mr. Carlson was not able to determine that they had been from the records. However, he added that notifying association while not a legal requirement, is normally done as a courtesy. Discussions followed regarding the length of time required for noticing Old Town Homeowners Association, the discrepancy between Planning and Fire Department staff recommendation on the placement of the storage facility. Commissioner Romero asked the Commission on their feelings of continuing the item. Commissioner Teglia stated that the appropriate legal notice was given and it would be unfair to the applicant to continue the item. He suggested that staff should make an attempt to include homeowner associations on anything in the downtown area in the future. Motion - Teglia/Second - Masuda to approve including indoor storage, and based on findings of approval. Approved by majority voice vote. PC Mtg. 10/16/97 Page 9 of 13 7. North side of Oyster Point Boulevard~ east of the Bayshore (101) Freeway (APN 015-010-160 and 015-010-340)~ Bay West Cove Develooment Proiect (formerly Shearwater) Draft Environmental Imoact Reoort 97-027 Public hearing to take testimony and provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for a proposed mixed-used retail project on approximately 55 acres of land. Commissioner Barnett asked if the Commissioners had the option of making motions during the testimony. Ms. Wellman explained that at this point, motions were not appropriate, only accepting comments, this is not an action item. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pijg.~~~Qt~Wgp:@~~.1 Sr. Planner Kalkin presented report and introduced Mr. Richard Morehouse of Morehouse and Associates, who prepared EIR. She added that the discussions tonight are on the Environmental document and not on the overall project that will be coming back together along with the final EIR at a future date. Mr. Richard Morehouse spoke on the EIR and high lighted some aspects of the document. He provided information on Chapter 3, the project description that includes hotel rooms, auto sales and retail spread over four planning areas. This chapter also includes a list of approvals that will be required by the city, which include the specific plan, and amendments to the East of 101 Area Plan. The amendments incorporate changes in policy to: 1) allow auto sales; 2) parking in building withi 100 foot setback from waterfront, policy related to landscape improvements to Oyster Point Boulevard, and free standing signs. Project description does not include the current hazardous materials clean-up taking place on the site, which is not part of the project from a regulatory perspective, since clean up orders issued by a regulatory agency are not subject to CEQA. There are about 20 significant impacts discussed in chapter 2. The key impacts have to do with traffic; Mr. Morehouse commented thatGeorge Nicholson, the traffic consultant, would go into that discussion following his presentation. The impact analysis defines construction dust and hazardous materials dust as significant. Mitigation measures include procedures outlined by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and a health and safety plan required by the Water Quality Control Board, and air monitoring at the Genentech day care center on Gateway Boulevard. Regional air degradation from auto emissions is an impact that cannot be fully mitigated by the project, and would require statement of overriding considerations. Other impacts related to the potential dalnage to the drainage culvert which can be mitigated. Potential localized flooding is not serious with proper design of the drainage system. Potential for water quality degradation to the Bay due to runoff from the parking areas can be mitigated by a storm water prevention plan which will be required. Water quality impact due to sewage treatment plant capacity is a concern until the plant is upgraded. There would be a need for increased police services, and a need for maintenance of the shoreline band. Chapter 19 discusses, as required by CEQA, alternatives to the proposed project which include "no project", and a reduced project, which is at the low end of the range of square footage which will be allowed. The acceptance of the reduced plan would not have an impact on traffic or other impacts of the proposed project. The EIR also analyzed an offsite alternative, the Koll Center/ Sierra Point project. George Nicholson addressed the traffic impacts. He added that they measured the impacts of the project against future baselines, the year 2000 and the year 2010, and the primary difference is that the year 2000 PC Mtg. 10/16/97 Page 10 of 13 included traffic growth from other approved projects, and 2010 included growth or approved projects as well as other proposed and potential projects in the area. The year 2010 baseline included the southbound of 101 flyover ramp to Oyster Point. The impacts in the year 2000 are limited to three intersections which can all be mitigated. In the year 2010 there are five intersections that would have significant impacts which would need to be mitigated. The intersections can all be mitigated with the exception of the Oyster Point/Gateway/ 101 flyover ramp to Oyster Point. Despite all the attempts to add lanes and make it work, it is not possible to mitigate it to the level of service D which which the City has set as the acceptable service level. Commissioner Barnett expressed concern with the reference to mitigation measures and overriding considerations as it pertains to air pollution, adding that he did not believe that pollution could be mitigated or resolved by overriding considerations, and may require that the project be scaled down. Commissioner Masuda asked a question addressed to the traffic engineer, regarding the considerations used for the 2010 study. Mr. Nicholson responded that the project as it was defined when the analysis was completed included a number of components including big box retail and hotels for which they have standard trip generation rates. The only problematic issue was the auto sales which is a new concept. The information for the auto sales came from a special study, the traffic count came from the operations at an existing facility, and to be safe increased it to be on the conservative side. Commissioner Barnett had a concern that the used cars will leak oil into the bay. Commissioner Teglia asked if runoff was one of the issues of the study. Mr. Morehouse stated that any proj ect over 5 acres has to get a permit for control of run off, consideration of grease traps, and other drainage control devices that deter pollutants from entering the bay. That plan will be one of the mitigation requirements. Chairman Romero elaborated on the concern expressed by Commissioner Barnett in that this type of use was discouraged earlier, and added that he would like it used for transitional purposes only, not permanent uses. He also commented on the Shoreline band. He expressed his desire to preserve and protect the shoreline and bring it back to a condition that is going to be enjoyed by the public. He added that parking should be eliminated and building in that band was not appropriate and he did not want to see those uses encroach into the 100 foot setback. Commissioner Sim stated that he had already made his comments at the study session. Commissioner Teglia asked if there was a problem with a recreational use such as a small pier, guest dock or something similar, should it be proposed in the future, since it is not included in this Environmental review. Mr. Van Duyn responded that any project that goes through an entitlement review, would be subject to its own environment clearance. He added that it may be insignificant enough to rest on sufficiency of this document, or it may have to have its own analysis, or be categorically exempt. Commissioner Barnett asked why a project of this magnitude didn't go to a joint study session with the Council. He recommended a study session be scheduled with the Council before it comes before them again. Mr. Van Duyn stated that if that was the consensus of the Commissio~ it would be conveyed to the City Council. Chairman Romero asked if anything would be coming back to the Commission before going to the Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Van Duyn added that they are advisory on this as well. The actual approvals rest with the the Redevelopment Agency Board, which is the City Council. He added that at this point the PC Mtg. 10/16/97 Page 11 of 13 Commission is only reviewing and conducting a public hearing on the environmental document; the actual entitlements, General Plan, Specific Plan, and Zoning will come back as hearing entitlements, which would be the appropriate time to offer comments on the merit of the project. He added that if the Commissions feels that they want to go into dialogue with Council, he will try to arrange for that. The Commissioners agreed by consensus to call for a joint meeting with Council. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 8. Items from Staff a. Scheduling Genentech Tour Commissioners agreed to October 27, 1997 b. Mr. Carlson informed the Commission that the concern raised by Commissioner Honat at the last meeting is being handled by Code Enforcement. c. Heather Heights 10. Items from Commission Commissioner Teglia suggested that a message be conveyed to Council expressing the need for Fire and Code Enforcement to attend these meetings. He also raised a concern regarding the sign at the service station across from Sees Candy, where the new owner has painted a new sign over the existing one. Commissioner Honan raised a concern on Firestone site on EI Camino where the pumps have been eliminated, and are now barricaded with boards, and have been that way for some times. Commissioner Sim thanked the Commission on behalf of Art Rise. 11. Items from the Public None 12. Adjournment Motion-Barnett/ Second- Teglia to adjourn to the Special Meeting on October 27, 1997, 11 :00 a.m, Genentech Tour. PC Mtg. 10/16/97 Page 12 of 13 The Meeting was adjourned at 11 :25 p.m. \/0 Q~ 'f2-~t40 William Romero, Chairman Planning Commission City of South San Francisco Jim Harni~. ' Secretary 0 the r anning Commission City of So th San Francisco MR:JH:is PC Mtg. 10/16/97 Page 13 of 13