Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.21.98 Minutes MINUTES CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE May 21, 1998 CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL / CHAIRMAN COMMENTS MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Barnett, Vice Chairman Teglia, Commissioner Romero, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Baldocchi, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Masuda MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Council: Planning Division: Eugene Mullin, Mayor Marty Van Dun, ECD Director Jim Harnish, Chief Planner Steve Carlson Susy Kalkin Steve Mattas Kat Wellman S gt. Mike Massoni Ray Honan City Attorney: Police Dept.: Water Quality Control: CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 12, 1998 Study Session - Motion-Sim / Second- Baldocchi. Approved with Chairman Barnett and Commissioner Romero abstained from the March 12,1998 minutes. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Presentation and discussion by Mayor EU2ene Mullen and Steve Mattas, City Attorney re2ardin2 the roles and responsibilities of the Plannin2 Commission. Mayor Eugene Mullin stated that he and Council like to meet with all City Boards and F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\052198pc.wpd Page 1 of 14 Commissions. He stated that he met with Chairman Barnett and Vice Chairman Teglia and Vice Mayor Datzman for dinner earlier and wanted to share some general ideas with the rest of the Commission. He noted that his remarks are the same as he would make to all other boards and commissions relative to the services provided to the public. He stressed the importance of providing all citizens or members of the public with the opportunity to provide their input, and treating them with respect. He recommended that the length of agendas be kept at a manageable level to insure that each item is appropriately addressed. He stated that Council prefers to allow all boards and commissions as much autonomy as possible within their own jurisdiction. He spoke of instances where items that come before the Commission reflect the overall view of the City, and Council may have reviewed them in advance, which should not way affect Commission opinions, adding that offering their opinion is their responsibility, and proves helpful to the Council when making their decision. In Redevelopment areas, particularly, he asked that the Commission keep in mind that some projects have already been reviewed by Council, and staff is generally reflecting the overall direction of the City Council. City Attorney Mattas spoke to the Commission with reference to the responsibilities vested in them, adding that his presentation reflects conversations and concerns that have been raised in the past by Commissioners, board members, and to some extent Council members. He addressed his comments in three areas: 1. Imp artialitv He stated that all commissioners, particularly Planning Commissioners, should show impartiality toward applicants and the public. He noted that there are legal reasons for this impartiality, primarily those related to due process and whether or not an applicant or member of the public has a fair opportunity to present their opinions before the commission. He broke down the issue of impartiality in two levels: 1) Legislative; (advisory) where the Commission is offering advise on a law that's going to have a prospective effect such as the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance and the Commission is free to go out and have conversations with members of the public or applicants and consider their comments; 2) Adjudicatory; (final decision) where the Commission is applying the existing set of laws to an application, such as conditional Use Permit, Variance, or PUD (which has both) and acting almost like a judge. He recommended that when acting in this capacity, all comments be offered through staff or through the public hearing process to insure that all evidence is on the record and available for anyone who is interested. He added that the Commission is not absolutely prohibited from having public contacts; however, if those contacts are made, the contents of the contact must be disclosed on the record. He spoke of controversial issues which may require multiple public hearings in order to resolve all the issues that are raised. He stated that a site visit is appropriate, adding that the only requirement is that the site visit and any other facts established by that site visit be reflected on the record. He stated that the role of staff is to implement the Council's policy, adding that he and the City Manager are directly responsible to the Council, and that they listen very carefully to Council's direction. F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\052198pc. wpd Page 2 of 14 He spoke of situations, particularly in the Redevelopment Agency area, where staff may have already had discussions with the City Council which has already provided policy direction on negotiating a deal. He added that this does not affect the Planning Commission when exercising it's full capabilities with regard to planning issues. However, if the Council has already made an economic decision, hopefully the Planning Commission would recognize that as the wisdom of the Agency. He cited Bay West Cove on the Shearwater site as an example where Council had previous extensive discussions about policy and economic considerations, adding that the project came before this Commission for consideration of the specific plan amendment related to the water front issues, and the focus of the Commission was limited to the specific plan. He added that the Council sits as the Planning Commission for Redevelopment Agency projects in the Gateway and Shearwater redevelopment areas. He spoke of other situations where the Council may want to condemn properties where the Planning Cormnission may get involved in making a determination on the consistency. In that situation the Commission may be asked to look at a very small part of what might be a very large project, citing that it is staff's responsibility to advise the Commission to avoid having the Commission spend a lot of time preparing on a planning issue, when they are only being asked to respond to a very focused issue. 2. Authoritv of the Planning Commission He stated that the Planning Commission authority, and parameters are spelled out by the following areas: 1) The State Planning and Land Use law; 2) the Municipal Code, Chapter 256, and all provisions under the Zoning Code, which gives this agency considerable control since they have final decision making authority over conditional use permits and variances, unless they are appealed; 3) the General Plan; and 4) Redevelopment. He spoke of the Commission's parameters of authority, adding that it is important that as the Commission works through projects, if deficiencies are observed in the General Plan they should move forward with that project, but consider advising the Council that a General Plan Amendment may be appropriate. He added that it is not within the Commission's jurisdiction to change the policy for a particular project; however, it is appropriate to request that staff ask the City Council if they would like the Commission to propose an amendment. He added that the Planning Commission's authority covers two basic areas: Legislative and adjudicatory. Legislative authority such as with the General Plan, is essentially an advisory role to the City Council. On these matters, the Commission must consider whether there is a rational basis for the decision being made. He stated that, constitutional law requires that all economic value from property is not removed, and rough proportionality between what is being extracted and the impact the development is causing is maintained, which is particularly important while going through the General Plan, if policy of extractions such as view corridors, open space etc. are being considered. He added that the General Plan has to be internally consistent, meaning that if one portion is changed, it cannot be inconsistent with another portion of the plan. He also cautioned, that in going through the General Plan the Commission cannot impair vested rights, i.e. if someone already has a vesting tentative map or they have a development agreement such as Terrabay, there are limits as to what can be regulated. He spoke of Conditional Use Permits where the Commission acts in the adjudicatory role. The Commission has final authority in these matters, adding that they require three findings: l)The F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\052198pc.wpd Page 3 of 14 proposed use must be consistent with the General Plan; 2) the proposed use must comply with all the standards of the Zoning code, unless the Zoning code allows exceptions; 3) and the proposed use will not be adverse to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community, nor detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements. He noted that when considering denial or approval of a project, it is important that the Commission articulate the basis for the findings, which must be considered on a rational basis, and must be accompanied with adequate information on the record to support the ultimate conclusion, adding that it is appropriate to require any information to accomplish that, provided that it is reasonable. He spoke of Variances as rare circumstances where the zoning does not fit the land, which requires a deviation from the physical regulations, and must not provide a special benefit to a particular property. He stated that during a previous joint meeting, City Council gave direction that the Planning Commission should consider variances as an appropriate vehicle provided that they are acting reasonably. He cited some examples of situations where variances could be appropriate. He added that it is important when talking about conditional use permits and variances that findings are required, which must be in writing, and must have a rational basis, adding that the Commission must articulate the findings. 3. Conflict of Interest He spoke of gift limitations that apply to all commissioners: they cannot accept gifts in excess of more than $290 from a single source within a year, and the sum of all gifts over $50 within a calendar year must be disclosed on annual reporting forms. He spoke of the exceptions, which can be in the form of informational material, a plaque or award. He noted that the test to insure compliance is that within a twelve month period, the decision being reached does not effect an interest in real property or investment in excess of $1,000, and does not produce a source of income to the individual in excess of $250. He added that if the Commission has any questions about conflicts, they should call the City Attorney's office for a determination, adding that if the question is raised at a meeting, and they have not had the opportunity to research, they should always err on the side of being conservative. He stated that the courts now require that the basis for the conflict must be disclosed with specificity, adding that the minutes must reflect the information. He stated that once the conflict has been identified the individual must leave the dias, and cannot participate in any portion of the decision, including questions to staff. Director of Economic and Community Development, Marty Van Duyn presented the Commission with information which he asked them to consider for discussions at a future date related to the Commission's communication with the City Council addressing concerns previously raised by the Commission on policy issues directed by the Council. He asked the Commission to consider: How productive joint meetings with the City Council are now, and what the Commission expects to get out of them; whether the Commission feels that the message is getting across to both parties; what issues they want brought before the City Council in joint study session; how often the sessions should be; should they be limited to major policy issues or major projects; and whether there is way to improve them. F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\052198pc.wpd Page 4 of 14 He spoke to the Commission about their relationship with other boards and commissions and distributed informational handouts that are prepared by the City Council/City Manager's office that describe the makeup, meeting times, and responsibilities of the nine boards and commissions presently operating in the City. He added that some of his comments relate to prior problems or issues raised by the Commission on jurisdictional overlap, hierarchy, or conflicts of this or other boards or commissions, citing examples such as the Alta Lorna Park issue and the merits of changing the Terrabay swimming pool to a recreational center where Council directed the Parks and Recreation Commission to set up public notices and solicit input from the community. He stated that staff has attempted to provide outreach to all the boards and commissions on the General Plan and the Charrette through presentations and stressed the importance dialogue between the Planning Commission and other boards and Commissions, and asked that consideration be given to having joint sessions or continuing contacts with some of the other boards or commissions in areas of mutual concern. He stated that staff will begin the effort of sharing agendas and methods by which to share information on pending actions in an effort to keep the Commission informed. He asked that the Commission consider his comments and provide feedback. He stated that he plans to come back before the Commission in a workshop setting to outline some of the comments from the Commission in order to taken them back to the Council and to share with other boards and commissions. Chairman Barnett asked if any of the Commissioners had comments for either of the three speakers. Commissioner Masuda stated that he would reserve his comments for staff. Vice Chairman Teglia stated that some of the issues were brought up from concerns raised by the Commission in the past, and added that he felt this was very positive, adding that a study session on this issue alone could be scheduled if the Commission so desired. He added that he is looking forward to improving the way they work within the City specifically in the future with the City Attorney, where at one time portions of the meeting were set aside for specific educational issues, i.e. vested interest of rights of property owners. Commissioner Romero commented that the idea of meeting with other boards and commissions was an excellent one and he would like to see the Commission pursue that as much as possible. He added, however, that the Commission is not always aware of when there is a need for a joint meeting, and the Commission depends on staff to inform them when these meetings are appropriate before they get to the point of decision making, There being no further comments, Chairman Barnett thanked the speakers and proceeded with the next item on the agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR None PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEMS 4. Korv En!ur~ Owner/Applicant~ 713 Linden Avenue~ UP-98-014 and Categorical Exemption Class 2~ Section 15302 F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\052198pc.wpd Page 5 of 14 Use Permit allowing conversion of a portion of a restaurant to office area within 200 lineal feet of a residential district, situated at 713 Linden Avenue (APNs 012-142-040 & 012-142-050), in a Retail Commercial (C-1-L) Zoning District, in accordance with SSFMC Section 20.22.030. Sr. Planner Carlson presented the Staff Report. Mr. Arvin Ayer representing the applicant stated that they have tried to comply with all rules and regulations of the Planning Department. He added that in most instances they have met the requirements, and with respect to the landscaping, they will try to meet the requirements by providing trees and landscaping to the site. He added that as far as parking is concerned the requirements have been met. He stated that the applicant's intent is to make this a conforming use that will be acceptable to the neighborhood and will reduce traffic and noise. He added that they will also be working with Engineering to comply with their requirements. The following individuals spoke in support of the project. Pedro Gonzales on behalf of some members of the Historical Town Homeowners Association. Mr. John Massio Mr. Melvin Addiego Chairman Barnett closed the public hearing and opened it up to the Commission. Commissioner Masuda raised questions regarding the landscaping along the side of the parking lot, and asked if the re-striping had occurred prior to the improvements. He also asked if the parking lot on the comer of Linden and Aspen belonged to the restaurant property, and could it be left as a public parking lot. Sr. Planner Carlson responded. Chairman Barnett asked if something can be done to reconfigure the parking circulation to avoid two entries from Linden with the exit going out onto Hickory Place which is a very small residential street. Discussions followed on the loss of parking spaces etc. Vice Chairman Teglia added that the entrance could be placed on the southern side. Mr. Carlson provided background information, stating that city staff preferred the existing configuration to discourage left turn movements across Linden. Further discussions followed on this being a different use which changes the dynamics of the situation. Chairman Barnett asked Mr. Ergur for his feelings on the issue. Mr. Ergur indicated that he had requested something along the same lines, and also adding outside seating, but staff had not approved. Mr. Carlson responded that the reconfiguration would lead to a loss of 4 to 6 parking spaces. Commissioner Masuda stated that he has no problem with the building being changed into an office and recommended approval of the plan, with direction that staff work out the parking issue. Commissioner Romero stated that he did not have a problem with the project as presented, adding that he would want any changes brought back to the Commission. Assistant City Attorney Wellman offered a couple of solutions. Vice Chairman Teglia stated that he would like to have the issue looked at, but did not want to delay the project on that issue. He stated that he could agree to leaving the parking as is, or agree F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\052198pc.wpd Page 6 of 14 to a re-design if it works better for the applicant or the engineering division. However if the option is for a re-design he would like to see it come back to the Commission for review. He deferred further comments. Commissioner Honan asked the applicant if he would like to see a re-design to include outside seating. The applicant responded, followed by a comment by Mr. Ayer who indicated that they needed the application approved today since they will be showing it to a couple of tenants. He stated that any consideration for outside seating would involve a loss in parking. He added that there are a lot of restraints on the site, and they would work with staff to see if there is a better alternative, however the present way is the best layout they could come up with. Vice Chairman Teglia asked if they could approve it as is, with the option to work with staff to consider possible changes which would be brought back to the Commission for review. Mr. Harnish responded that it could be done, adding that if they were inclined to approve the office as configured with direction that if there is some discussion or proposal to reconfigure the parking or outside seating area, it would be subject to the Commission's review. Commissioner Baldocchi asked what the applicant anticipates going into the office space. The applicant responded that they have a couple of Fortune 500 companies. Mr. Ayer responded that they are in negotiations, and therefore are unable to divulge the names He added that they are working with a couple of tenants, and as soon as the information is finalized they will inform staff. Commissioner Honan raised a question to staff regarding the landscaping if the applicant decides against paying the in lieu fee, and opts for the addition landscape, will the Commission be provided the opportunity to review that? Vice Chairman Teglia followed with questions on the percentage of landscape on the current site plan, maintenance, upgrade, and replacement on the existing holes in the ground which would include replanting, noting that size in the past has shown that more mature trees fare better in this community. He raised questions on the floor plan, asking if they included a kitchen, adding that the plan appears to be set up for two separate tenants, and asked if more doors should be opened up. Commissioner Sim expressed his appreciation for the community being here in support of the project. He added that the two issues he was concerned with were: 1) the office/commercial building located within 200' of residential neighborhood. This was addressed by the community being here in support of the project. He asked staff for confirmation that the Design Review Board architects have reviewed the plans, which gives him confidence; 2) shortage of landscaping and setback, and the applicant has agreed to the findings and mitigation measures recommended by staff, and the cultural arts funds has a way to mitigate the 5 % shortage, which may increase later. He stated that he is ready to make a motion for approval of the project. Commissioner Honan asked if the section with the concrete that has been tom up would be repaired. Motion - Sim/ Amended - Romero to include that a study with staff be done to determine if the circulation of the parking lot can be improved, and any addition to the coffee shop should come F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\052198pc.wpd Page 7 of 14 back to the Commission for subsequent review. Second - Teglia. The amendment was approved by a 6- 0 vote. Original motion approved by majority voice vote. Chairman Barnett called a recess at 9: 15 p.m. Meeting was called to order at 9:28 ADMINISTRA TIVE BUSINESS s. Items from Staff Chief Planner Harnish indicated that he had been asked to shorten the presentation and move it forward to the meeting of June 4th. b. Cancellation of June 4, 1998 Regular Meeting Chief Planner Harnish presented an update of the caseload to the Commission, adding that more recent evaluation has shown that there were additional items which could be placed on the June 4th agenda, and considering that the June 18th agenda was becoming full, particularly in lieu of the South Park project coming forth at that time. He asked that the Commission consider having the June 4th meeting. The Commission agreed. Vice Chairman Teglia stated that since the June 4th meeting is expected to be a short one, it may be a good time to schedule some extra items, citing his desire to see an explanation of the R-2 zones and property owners' vested rights with a particular zoning. a. General Plan Update Sketch Plans Report Chief Planner spoke to the Commission about staff's continuing desire to carry on an in depth discussion of the sketch plans owing to the importance of the Commission's role in sorting through process. He advised the Commission of ongoing presentations to other commissions and library board as an opportunity for the public to make comments (which will be brought forth to the Commission). He added that all the meetings have been advertised, and display ads have been posted in the papers. He indicated that staff is attempting to narrow down the three alternatives into a prefelTed plan which is centered around the land use plan. He stated that the purpose of bringing the plans before the Commission is to revisit the plans that were introduced at the previous study session, and begin talking about specific areas of each of the alternatives. He stated that the intent is to continue discussions until the Commission is satisfied that a prefelTed plan should be brought forth. The same level of discussions will be held at the prefelTed plan level. He continued with a preview of the presentation which will be continued at the June 4th meeting. He stated that in preparing the sketch plans, staff is looking at broad concepts and ideas about projected growth for the next twenty years, and how to accommodate that growth, maintaining the opportunity to diversify the economy, how to deal with the downtown, balancing the development prospects and different land use needs. With the help of a power point presentation he detailed the three alternatives that were prepared: F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\052198pc.wpd Page 8 of 14 1) the Lindenville alternative, 2) East of 101 alternative, and 3) the Transit alternative. He provided further details on those alternatives and other areas of the plans. He explained the process for breaking the sketch down into specific changes that would occur within each alternati ve. Vice Mayor Teglia stated that he feels that the consultant, who presumably is spending a lot of time in the city, should take time to become familiar with the different areas of the city in order to refer to them in terms that the citizens understand, citing the reference to Lindenville which he stated citizens recognize as South Linden and the mistake of naming Mayfair Orange Parle Mr. Harnish stated that staff also wants to discuss increased circulation potential in further detail. He quickly ran through the remaining areas, and summarized the East of 101 area. Commissioner Romero commented on the extensive previous study that led to Council adopting a plan on the East of 101 area. He asked if that plan could be incorporated into the General Plan to avoid duplicating the process. Mr. Harnish responded that the bulk of the East of 101 plan will be preserved and efforts are being made to avoid duplicating what was already done, and only issues that warrant re-visiting will be looked at. He spoke of the circulation system change which would not be in conflict, but rather add to and improve the encouragement of biotech and hi tech uses in the area north of East Grand Avenue. Commissioner Romero asked if the East of 101 Plan would be incorporated into the adopted General Plan. Mr. Harnish responded that he did not envision that happening. He proceeded to explain the hierarchy of planning tools which can be used: The General Plan, Area Plans, and Specific Plans. He stated that the East of 101 plan is considered an area plan, however there may be areas that could be in conflict or no longer appropriate which would be referenced in the General Plan. Vice Chairman Teglia commented on the area between Genentech and Oyster Point - Gull Drive. He pointed to the road which intersects Gull Drive, which falls off from the cliff and the remainder is wetlands; between UPS and the hill that goes straight up to the Marina, which he stated does not stand a chance of reality, adding that the road coming around doesn't make much sense either. Mr. Hamish responded that staff is looking at specific issues such as those for reality checks. Vice Chairman Teglia responded that what is bothering him is that a high paid consultant has worked a whole year on this; where as he (Teglia) could have sketched this out in about twenty minutes. He added that he would assume that they study the city to help determine where they should go on the sketches. He continued that it almost looks like they took a flat pallet without taking into consideration geographic barriers, which he feels they may have missed some opportunities by not seeing some of those things and trying to find ways to improve them. Commissioner Romero asked if the consultant will be presenting the visuals in a three dimensional format, adding that with today's technology it doesn't seem that it would be too difficult to create. Mr Harnish responded that for the most part it will be two dimensional, due to budget constraints adding that three dimensional graphic presentations (which they are capable of producing) would substantially increase the budget, adding that he felt it would be a prohibitively expensive program, but he could research it. F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\052198pc.wpd Page 9 of 14 Vice Chairman Teglia asked if the Commission would have a menu of items to choose from. Chairman Barnett expressed his desire to see either staff or the consultant offer options that explain the impacts on the infrastructure caused by the proposed changes. Mr. Harnish suggested doing that with the preferred plan. Commissioner Honan asked why other areas in the city are not being addressed, and with that should the change be referred to as East of 101 General Plan. Mr. Harnish responded that only a portion of the General Plan is being looked at now which is the land use portion, and the areas that are subject to change in land use over a period of time. He noted that other areas that are single family residential from a land use standpoint will not be changing appreciably for the foreseeable future. He added that there are other aspects that include circulation system, noise, open space, conservation, economic development that will have policies and programs that will directed citywide, and if the Commission observes areas that are not being appropriately addressed, staff should be made aware of those concerns now. Commissioner Romero asked if the water department right of way that runs through the city could be made part of the General Plan to create green space. Vice Chairman Teglia asked if Cal Water is exempt, citing the big project where they ripped out all the mature pine trees at St. Veronica's, and left nothing in their path, adding that any other construction would be required to mitigate. Mr. Harnish responded that they are not exempt from CEQA, since it was a public project which would have required an environmental document. Commissioner Masuda stated that he had asked a water employee about that, and was told that their land use allows for building over a water easement, however, if it becomes necessary for them to excavate the area, they are not required to replace what was built. He asked if something can be done about improving the appearance of the big green bush which continues to get bigger and bigger close to the entrance of the California Golf Course at Westborough and Orange. Mr. Harnish stated that it's in an unincorporated area, and doesn't know if we have jurisdiction, or if it is a hazard, but added that he would see what he could do. Mr. Harnish notified the Commission that the Terrabay EIR will probably will be distributed for review about the middle of June and in addition the Specific Plan amendments, Zoning ordinance amendment, very detailed precise plans, which is a huge volume of information to digest will be coming up. He added that the process requires that the EIR be distributed for public review, and during the 45 day review period a public meeting to accept comments on the draft will be held, which will be the only public meeting that will be held for purpose of taking public comments. He added that the COlnmission will not be required to do anything but listen at this meeting. He added that in order for the Commission to go through all the other documents, at least one study session should be scheduled at which time they would probably go back to the EIR to discuss questions raised after the public testimony. The assistant city attorney responded to questions raised on whether the meetings would be for the Commission only stating that any time the Commission meets as a body, it's open to the public, and some time must be allowed for the public to comment. Mr. Harnish suggested that due to the length of time involved in going over the material at the study session, the public comment period be scheduled at the end of the meeting and of limited duration. F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\rninutes\1998\052198pc.wpd Page 10 of 14 Chairman Barnett asked for definitive information on whether Phase III of the Terrabay development will take place. Mr. Harnish responded that it has been approved and the current Specific Plan shows a Phase III project, he added that in order to implement that, the precise plans must be approved, and they are proposing a change to that specific plan in both Phase IT and Phase III, noting that the precise plans being reviewed show that reconfiguration. Vice Chairman Teglia asked that the next meeting include an explanation on vested rights of someone with a Specific Plan can be explained when a change is requested. Assistant City Attorney Wellman agreed to bring something to the Commission at the next meeting. Commissioner Romero asked if Phase IT and Phase III will be coming to them at the same time, and asked if it could be split. Mr. Hamish responded that the current development agreement requires that Phase III be done in conjunction with Phase IT, and a change to that would require an amendment to the Development Agreement. Discussions followed on scheduling the meetings, policy on how the meetings will be conducted, and whether both phases should be scheduled at the same time. Mr. Harnish indicated that he visualizes the study sessions occurring toward the end of July and August. He proposed putting out a schedule by the June 18th meeting agenda with guidelines for conducting the meeting. Vice Chairman Barnett requested that all the Commissioners look at their schedules to insure that they are all involved in the process. Mr. Harnish proposed that the special meeting be scheduled for July 9, 1998 for the public meeting to take comments on the EIR with the EIR team present to do a major presentation and take comments. The Commission agreed to July 9. 6. Items from Commission Commissioner Honan stated that her previous concern for tree stump problem on Hazelwood are still there and now another tree has fallen over. Mr. Harnish stated that he has notified Code Enforcement, however they have been very short handed, he suggested that it be referred to Park and Recreation since it is a City maintenance issue. Chairman Barnett requested that someone tell the Philippine restaurant across the street to take their banner down. Vice Chairman Teglia added that they be told that this is one of the things that will be looked at when they come up for review. Chairman Barnett also reported that he has had concerns from merchants on Grand Avenue that the trees have grown so high that they block their nice facades. Commissioner Baldocchi commented that she has observed many banners going up on Grand A venue such as the one at Grand and Walnut. Vice Chairman Teglia cited the same exists at Town Liquors where the city spent all the money beautifying. Vice Chairman Teglia asked if the Commission can schedule a Use Permit for revocation if certain permits are in violation, and the city decides to get hard core and is attempting to put the fear of God on violators as a means of dealing with the code enforcement procedure. Mr. Harnish F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\052198pc.wpd Page 11 of 14 stated that violation of the Municipal Code is a misdemeanor. Vice Chairman Teglia stated that takes forever. Assistant City Attorney stated that if there is a violation of the Use Permit, it is possible to go forward with a revocation of the Use Permit. Vice Chairman Teglia stated that a notice of a revocation hearing, plus the misdemeanor might entice someone to take action. Commissioner Masuda commented that the last fruit stand that was approved looks terrible. He indicated that he had observed the activities at the location the previous Saturday for an hour and a half, where a truck was double parked, boxes stacked up, tomatoes rolling all over the place, adding that the parking enforcement officer was across the street and did nothing about the truck that was double parked. Commissioner Romero asked if dialogue should be taking place with other boards and commissions with reference to the General Plan. Mr. Harnish responded that so far the meetings have not shown that they are offering very many comments to be shared. Commissioner Masuda asked if Cultural Arts projects require public noticing and approval by this Commission. Mr. Harnish responded that his understanding is that anything they do must be approved by Council. Ms. Wellman added that anything they do is subject to the Brown Act. Vice Mayor Teglia stated that his comments have to do with the interaction of the Commission; how they run the meetings; and how they get along. He added that these are his feelings, and asked that they be taken for what they are worth, that the spirit he was offering the comments is constructive. He added that he doesn't take anything in this vein personally, yet he is brutally honest, and he would hope that if anyone had a problem with him, they would let him know, like he would do. He added that he felt that the Commission has grown a lot and he thoroughly enjoys working with the rest of the Commission. He added that he thinks that the Commission has gotten better at controlling the meeting, and he thinks it's very important to get the applicant to present his speech, without the Commission talking to them, let the public offer their speech, then it's close the public hearing, and it's the Commission's turn to talk, ask questions or whatever, generally done as a consensus of the whole Planning Commission. He added that one of the things he dislikes about the study sessions, is that people tend to make statements and interaction doesn't occur. He added that there are times when he throws something out that he thinks should be considered, and he draws on everyone else's knowledge and opinions on how to accept, deny, modify something. He spoke of tonight's discussions about parking, and everyone commented. He added that it's important that as this is taking place, everybody should participate. He added that he felt the rest of the Commission has been growing that way. Stating that, "this sounds unpleasant", and asked that it not be taken for that, stating that he did not think it was very constructive, and he did not think someone was living up to their duties when they sit there, offering no constructive information, wait til the end of the meeting to be nice to the people in the audience and thank everybody in the world. Commissioner Romero asked that before he proceeded, it was his personal opinion that if this was an issue with an individual Commissioner, it should be addressed with that individual on a one to one basis, and that it was not something that should be discussed in the open meeting. Vice Chairman Teglia stated that he wanted the rest of the Commission to know about it. He added that the one thing that bothers him is that if someone is going to reserve the chance to F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\052198pc.wpd Page 12 of 14 make a motion, at least do the rest of the Commission the courtesy of listening to what is going on during the meeting, and include that in the motion, if in the zeal to make the motion, and not pay attention to what has been going on, it does the rest of the Commission a disservice, which requires amendments. He also added that he thinks that when thanking people, the fact that someone did a good job should be mentioned to the Commission, and the Commission should commend them, adding that each one has the right to thank people too, but, again it should be a consensus, and the Commission needs to talk with each other, and not make statements out at the audience. He again stated that he was saying this in a constructive mood, and asked that it not be taken personally, and hoped it would help in the future, and he would be willing to discuss this further with anyone. Commissioner Baldocchi asked if the Terrabay meetings could they start at 7:00 or even earlier. Mr. Hamish responded that the time for regular Planning Commission is set by ordinance at 7:30 p.m. but other special meetings could be scheduled at any time, any day the Commission desires. Commissioner Sim requested permission through the chair to say something. Chairman Barnett requested that the response should be kept constructive and not get into a cat fight. Commissioner Sim agreed adding that he is not that kind of individual and would be constructive. He stated that he has refrained from making comments back, adding that each Commissioner has different personalities, different qualities, different talents that are brought to the Commission. He added that each one has a their own way of dealing with situations, and enough stress exists in issues that come before the Commission. He stated that he is trying to do it his way, trying to cooperate in ways that things can be seen together. He added that he saw no problems with each one of the COlnmissioners working in the way they feel best serves the community. He added that he has refrained from making rhetorical comments in response to any issues or other things that have been brought up personally on him, he took it professionally, and as constructive, but felt that now it was time to hold the line. He added that he has been doing his best as a Commissioner, doing his work, analyzing the situation, and this is the best he knows he can do for this Commission and the city. He stated that he highly favors the fact that the Commission can work together, and he respects everyone's individual opinion, but he added that enough is enough, and asked that each one be allowed to serve in the manner that each is comfortable with for the Commission and the city. He added that he enjoys this Commission and would like to continue working, adding that he likes each one of the other Commissioners personally and respects them immensely for their various perspectives, but added that he has his own way of dealing with things also. He thanked Mr. Teglia for his comments, and added that he looked forward to continuing to work together to make the city better. 7. Items from the Public None 8. Adjourn F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\052198pc.wpd Page 13 of 14 Motion - Baldocchi /Second - Sim to adjourn --- Christophe Barn , Chairman Planning Commission City of South San Francisco JH:CB:is NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting, June 4, 1998, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA. F:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1998\052198pc.wpd Page 14 of 14