Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01.21.99 Minutes CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE January 21, 1999 CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The meeting was called to order at 7:33 p.m. ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Honan, Vice Chairman Sim, Commissioner Masuda, Commissioner Romero, Commissioner Baldocchi, Commissioner Teglia MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: ECD: Planning Division: Marty Van Duyn Jim Harnish, Chief Planner Steve Carlson Susy Kalldn Mike Lappen Adam Lindgren Richard Harmon Ray Honan City Attorney: Engineering: WQC: AGENDA REVIEW No change APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. JMB Contruction - Us Permit allowin2 outdoor stora2e of construction eQuipment and materials and eQuipment repair~ situated on a 1.45 acre portion of a developed site at 160 South Linden Avenue~ in the Industrial eM-I) Zonin2 District~ in accordance with SSFMC Sections 20.30.030 (c) and 20.30.040 (b) \ \CH - PDC\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\worldng\minutes\l999\0 12199 .doc Page 1 of 25 Use Permit to allow storage of construction equipment and vehicles and equipment repair in a Light Industrial (M-1) Zone District. (continued from January 7, 1999) 2. Larkspur/Hilton-Larkspur Hospitality Co.-Applicant~ Heidelber2 West Inc.-Owner~ 670- 690 Gateway Boulevard~ PM-98-110 and ND-96-021 Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide a lot into two lots in accordance with SSFMC Title 19. The clerk read the title for the record. Chairperson Honan asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to speak on either of the Consent Calendar items. Being none she asked for recommendation from the Commission. Motion-Sim/Second-Romero. Consent Calendar approved by majority voice vote. PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEMS 3. Hermie v. Yema~ Owner/Applicant~ 266 Westview Drive~ MUP-98-101 and Cate20rical Exemption~ Class 3~ Section 15303 Minor Use Permit to allow a handicap ramp to encroach 5 feet into the required 5-foot side yard setback in accordance with SSFMC Section 20.71.050. The clerk read the title for the record. Senior Planner Carlson presented the staff report. He commented that some of the concerns raised at the Zoning Administrator's Hearing were that the property would be used for a community care facility and fire safety. He noted that community care facilities al"e exempt by State law from local control, adding that local action is limited to review of the design. He recommended that the Commission contain their focus on the design and location of the ramp, and whether it fits the residence. He noted that other issues raised were fire safety. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren agreed with Mr. Carlson adding that because of the scope of state sanctions, it would not be within the julisdiction of the Commission to deny this project on the basis that it might allow a community care facility. William Walters, the architect representing the applicant spoke briefly. Howard Bresler, 290 Westview Dlive noted that the location for the meeting on the Hearing Notice showed the meeting location as 315 Maple Avenue. After researching the files it was determined that the Notices had the wrong location for the hearing. Motion- Teglia/Masuda-Second to continue to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Approved by majority voice vote. \ \CH - PDC\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\worldng\minutes\1999\0 12199 .doc Page 2 of 25 4. Gatewav Lots 1 and 9~ HMS Gatewav Office~ L.P. and HMS Office~ L. P.~ Owner/Applicant, 601B 951 Gatewav Boulevard~ PUD-98-082 and PM-98-082 Parcel Map to re-subdivide two existing lots totaling 39.14 acres into 5 new commercial lots with reciprocal access easement throughout, and Planned Unit Development to allow creation of lots which do not abut a dedicated public street in accordance with SSFMC Title 19. (continued fronz December 17, 1998) The clerk read the title into the record. Senior Planner Kalkin presented the staff report. Lisa Burke, representing the applicant made a brief presentation and provided visual rendelings and described the projects that are planned for lots 1 and 9 for the Commission. Commissioner Masuda asked whether there would be enough parldng for the existing buildings once the parcels were built up. Staff clarified that the Redevelopment Agency had granted variances to the parking requirements and that the projects will meet or exceed those standards. Commissioner Baldocchi asked for further details on the parldng structure. Ms. Burke explained that there would be two structures. One would be referred to as the "north campus", which would be a six -story parldng structure noting that the natural grading there is lower, so the parldng level would be slightly shorter than the three-story buildings, and would not be visible from Gateway; the other one is integrated into the design of 611 Gateway and would be a four-story structure. Chairperson Honan asked if there was anyone in the audience who wanted to speak on the item. Being none, she closed the public hearing and invited comments from the Commission. Motion-Masuda/Second-Sim to approve. Approved by majority voice vote. Recess called at 8:05 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 8:10 p.m. 5. Materials Recoverv Facilitv and Transfer Station (MRF/TS)~ South San Francisco~ Scaven2ers~ Inc. (SSFSC)~ Owner/Applicant~ Vacant Land on East Jamie Court~ ZA- 98-013~ GP-98-013~ UP-98-013~ EIR-98-013~ RZ-98-013 SSFSC desires to consolidate its existing administrative and refuse disposal operations, including diverting recyclable material from the waste stream, through the construction of a state-of-the-art MRF/TS. The MRF/TS facility will comprise four buildings totaling 128,704 square feet. The primary MRF/TS building is approximately 101,800 square feet in size. The project also contains \ \CH -PDC\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\worldng\minutes\l999\0 12199 .doc Page 3 of 25 a 2-story administrative office building, a smaller MRF Visitor Center, a maintenance building, and service building where containers can be welded, painted and repaired. (continued fronz January 7, 1999) The clerk read the title into the record. Consulting Planner Lappen presented the staff report. Commissioner Teglia asked if the property identified by staff, that may require cleanup could be cleaned up without subdividing. Chief Planner Harnish responded that it could, however he noted that the Scavengers are reluctant to take title to a piece of contaminated property. He noted that staff has worked with them to formulate a subdivision map that would allow them to take title for the larger pm.cel and ultimately take title to the smaller pm.cel when the property owners have completed the cleanup. He described the proposed conditions, which will address the cleanup issue. Commissioner Teglia noted that he felt that the only incentive to get a property cleaned up is attaching it as a whole, and if it is going to be cleaned up there is no need to subdivide it. He noted that to subdivide is a contingency on disaster, citing previous toxic clean up situations where experts have quoted one cost and escalate as they go deeper. He noted that by posting a bond the developer might be absolved of liability and if the bond is less than true clean up costs, they can walk away from it. He added that the subdivision is something that should be attached to the propeI1y, and past owners should all be held responsible for the cleanup. Chief Planner Harnish provided information on concerns that have been raised with respect to the zoning designation for this parcel and the adjacent site and how it might play into the discussions of construction of a natural gas, steam-fired power plant on the other site. He noted that staff has discussed the concerns and determined that a modification to their recommendation that if the Commission recommends approval of this project, the zoning and land use designation change apply only to this parcel, and not the adjacent parcel. He noted that the rationale is that the controversy over the power plant project, even before an application has been submitted, raises a different set of issues, adding that the project should be evaluated on its own merits, and the action taken for this project should not be an indication of a decision on the other site. He noted that staff is still clarifying the California Energy Commission's full role and responsibilities in approving this project and to what extent they have the ability to override local land use and zoning control. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren noted that he as done a significant amount of research on the process by which the energy plant would be moved toward certification by the State. He noted that he would be happy to brief the Commission on the process that the plant would have to go through for ultimate certification at an upcoming meeting as an item from staff, keeping that discussion separate from the discussion of the MRF. Chairperson Honan asked the applicant if they cared to make a presentation. The applicant chose not to speak at this time. \ \CH - PDC\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\worldng\minutes\1999\0 12199 .doc Page 4 of 25 John Hoffman, 451 E. Jamie Court, noted that he had submitted a letter to the Commission today restating concerns they had expressed in earlier letters regarding Parcel 2 where the power plant has been proposed. He noted that they support the modifications to the proposed General Plan Amendments and the proposed rezoning that Mr. Harnish had presented. He stated that it was premature and inappropriate for the City to make any land use changes to that parcel at this time, adding that there is no need to make those changes in connection with the MRF proposal that was before the Commission. Bill Mayer, 151 Hasldns Way noted that he recently became aware of the application and found it disturbing. He cited concerns with the increase in traffic, noise, odors, debris in areas not identified for clean up, and air quality. He expressed a concern that if the Scavengers are granted the change in zoning, it will be opening the door for AES Services to build a power generation facility on the adjoining piece of property. He noted that the site is a prime piece of Bay front property, which is perfect for a hotel or office building, which are consistent with the sunounding businesses. He expressed concerns that the City would allow a polluter such as AES or a garbage and recycling facility to be built in this area, stating that these projects are inconsistent with the master plan. He asked why the Scavengers must have all the facilities in one place, instead of using their existing properties, together with the property on Belle Air Island, and limit the service to the needs of South San Francisco, not Millbrae, Brisbane, or SFO, questioning why South San Francisco has to solve the needs of their neighbors. He stated that one of South San Francisco's major source of revenue is the hotel tax, and expressed a concern for the noise from garbage trucks throughout all hours of day and night and how it would affect guests paying $100+ per night. He concluded by citing the comments in the Environmental Impact Report, Page 4 regarding the 6 impacts that are still significant and unavoidable and added that the project is not in the City's best interest. He submitted petitions and asked that they be entered into the record. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren noted that the MRF project as amended would have no impact on the City's authority with regard to their rights in processing the energy plant if and when the item comes before the Commission. Commissioner Teglia commented that this would simply be a legal point, but practically spealdng the type of land use you put in would affect what other types of land uses would occur m"ound there. He commented that obviously no one would put their world headquarters next to a MRF. He added that while it may be a legal truth, it was not exactly a practical truth, which is a point in tonight's discussions. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren agreed with Commissioner Teglia, noting that his comment was limited to the legal issue raised by the last commentor with regard to the procedures for processing the energy plant. Debbie Petrini, 100 East Grand noted that the Scavengers opened up their facilities today to let them view their state of the art project. She stated that they are not in favor of the project because it does not suit the site, and that her main concern was with rezoning. She questioned how the rules can be set aside for the Scavengers and possibly the power facility by changing from Coastal Commercial \ \CH -PDC\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\worldng\minutes\l999\0 12199 .doc Page 5 of 25 to Light Industrial. She commented that she did not feel that the search for an alternate site had been thoroughly explored, and the facility would be best suited on a different property. She added that the year 2000 goal was one of the priorities, which in her opinion is not enough reason to change all the zoning requirements, since the City is already at 38% toward the goal. She also expressed concern about subdividing the property to avoid having it become a liability to the City as a prerequisite to building, when the toxic clean up issue has not been dealt with. She noted that she would legally challenge whether a toxic piece of property can be subdivided to avoid liability, and then re-merged it into the property. She commented that the project might not be as favorable if the costs for clean up were known. Chairperson Honan asked the speaker if she had read the EIR, and whether she had attended any of the previous meetings. Ms. Petrini noted that they are not within the legal noticing area, and had only found out about the project on January 6th. Rico Petrini agreed with the previous speakers, and noted that he totally disapproves of the project. He noted that he has been in the trucldng and transportation business for 25 years and knows what damage commercial trucldng can do to a road. He also cited concerns with noise and pollution, adding that he found it hard to believe that a facility of this nature with trucks, garbage, and trash would be allowed to go through the center of a campus environment that the City is trying to create. He noted that the applicant's information cites up to 500 additional truck trips per day, that will be confined to a traffic flow pattern which is already highly congested at peak hours, and due to the operations of this facility between 7:00 and 4:30 those traffic flows would be increased primarily on Grand Avenue. He noted that if anyone wanted to make a comparison of the facility, they should look at the Davis Street transfer station in San Leandro, which is filthy and polluted. He commented that this is not a suitable location. Ralph Kerstetter, 201 California Street, San Francisco, an attorney representing The Glidden Company which owns and operates the neighboring property to the north of the Fuller O'Brien Paint factory. He noted that he delivered copies of a letter to the clerk to be entered into the record and for distribution. He noted that The Glidden Company is very strongly opposed to this project. He stated that The Glidden Company, since purchasing this facility four years ago, has attempted to be a good citizen and neighbor maldng the facility quiet and not disruptive to the neighborhood, and one which fits in with the character of the neighborhood. He stated that since this project requires amendments to the General Plan (East of 101 Area Plan), and the Zoning Code, the approval is discretionary. He noted that the worst decisions are made when under pressure for time adding that he believed pressure is being used in order meet the deadline for the Assembly Bill. He stated that the City is not bound by the date presumed by the Staff Report, since the Assembly Bill has provisions for extensions, so long as it is clear that good faith effort has been made. He commented that the site is adjacent to the Bay, and one of the few sites along the Bay \\CH-PDC\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\0 12199 .doc Page 6 of 25 that is available for development and lends itself to a better use than a transfer facility. He stated that he had serious doubts that the notice requirements were adequately satisfied, and on that basis alone, the Commission may be unable to act on the application this evening. Chief Planner Harnish asked if he was suggesting that a notice had not been provided to the property owner. Mr. Kerstetter stated that they had not seen a notice at the Glidden Company, and they are the adjacent property owners. He noted that the project does not conform with, and is inconsistent with the goals of the East of 101 Area Plan, and cited concerns with noise, odors and traffic. He challenged the reference, both in the Draft EIR and the Staff Report, to amendments to the Area Plan, General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance as being mitigation measures, which he stated are not mitigation measures. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren advised the Commission that the exceptions referred to by the previous speaker were distributed to the Commission on January 21st. William Quirie, 380 Swift Avenue stated that he was 9Pposed to the project. He stated that in his opinion he did not feel that the noticing was adequate, adding that it may have fulfilled the letter of the law but not the intent, adding that they found out about the project two weeks ago. He expressed a concern with traffic, noise, and loss of property value, and wildlife in the area. He indicated that he has visited a couple of other sites where a lot of birds are flying and dropping wherever, which could impact the new airport facility. He expressed a concern that due to the location of their facility it would be used as an illegal dump when the facility is closed. He questioned whether the facility is necessary, and asked if consideration has been given to trucldng the garbage to San Francisco. He also questioned whether alternative sites have been considered. Chairperson Honan asked if the speaker had attended any of the previous meetings, since he only heard about this two weeks ago. Mr. Quirie responded that it was probably three weeks ago, before the meeting of the 7th. Chairperson Honan asked if he had picked up and read the EIR when he spoke with Planning. Mr. Quirie responded that he had received the Final EIR today and was concerned that the Commission would be maldng a decision tonight, adding the document is a big document, which is hard to read. Commissioner Masuda explained that the Commission would not be maldng a decision; that it would be maldng a recommendation to the Council. Mark Melbye, from Burlingame who works in South San Francisco noted that he was concerned with the amount of hypocrisy with respect to the East of 101 Area Plan noting that freight forwarders were evaluated by the City to keep freight and truck operation on East Grand to a minimum, and now \ \CH - PDC\ISHADD\File Cabinet\O ld PC\ worldng\minutes\1999\0 12199. doc Page 7 of 25 this allows a three year window where owners can have trucks and they can put freight in some of the buildings in that area, but after that those uses it would not be allowed. He added that this affects the value of those properties. He noted that market forces will control what ldnd of uses are there, adding that the R&D uses pay more money and will win, so there is no need to regulate something like that. He noted that the Glidden site was particularly affected since the stipulation was that no freight or distribution would be built there, and it would be designated as R&D or a higher and greater use, and now this proposes to place a great number of trucks and a waste facility at this prime corner next to the Glidden site, which has been reserved for R&D uses, and would affect the market. He added that the site could be a key location for a waterfront development, and this would prevent that from taldng place. He stated that in his opinion there had not been an extensive search for an alternate site, since he never heard of it, and works primarily in South City. He noted that the DuPont site, the Rogers Trucldng site, and the International Paint sites are all listings of his, and he has never talked to or heard of Julian Studley who he noted is predominantly an office firm out of San Francisco and LA and he had not talked them about these sites. He stated that due to what is going on with the East of 101 site, and the fact that trucking is being required to be moved to the other side of the freeway, this looked like a good opportunity for the owners of these listings through a combination, or a joint sites for the two that right next to each other. He commented on the impact that trucks have on the streets, without generating revenue. Commissioner Masuda asked if speaker had traveled the Linden Avenue or San Mateo with reference to those properties, and asked how the speaker felt about the traffic in that area. Mr. Melbye noted that it is an industrial area, and traffic is a necessary thing and doesn't phase him. However, he added that there are many ingresses and egresses to that area. He noted that he would welcome the opportunity to try to do something with this. John Dilena expressed his objection to the proposal noting that this is a beautiful Bayside site with west, south and east views, and a small inlet that appears to be a bird habitat. He noted that they regularly see wild rabbits, Canadian geese, hawks and other wild animals. He noted that the project does not appear to meet the objectives stated by the City development manager, Marty Van Duyn in a recent Chronicle article entitled "South San Francisco The Biotech City". He noted that the City has done a great job of change its image from an industrial city to a city blossoming with biotech companies and R&D businesses, and it would be a shame to move backward in that trend. He expressed a concern with the prospects of rezoning the parcel next to this one as well. He questioned the logic used for the traffic impact in traffic on Grand Avenue. He noted that alternate sites might not be available today, however they continue to become available, and spoke of a rumor that an 8.3-acre site is for sale on San Mateo Avenue. He spoke of the goal of attaining the goal by the year 2000, which he indicated is already in the high 30% range. He noted that with further persistence, a better site would become available.. Margret Jauregui, stated that she is a long term resident of South San Francisco and works near East Jamie Court. She expressed opposition to the relocation on East Jamie Court. She noted that by approving this project the City would take away part of the beauty that the City has to offer in this \ \CH - PDC\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\worldng\minutes\1999\0 12199 .doc Page 8 of 25 area. She noted that people employed in the area find it relaxing to take walks during brealcs, as well as having lunch outside without having to deal with the noise, pollution, and traffic congestion that the area is beginning to have, and in her opinion this area could be used in many other ways. Vanessa Hanna spoke against the project citing an increase in traffic. She noted that East Jamie Court is not wide enough and is a hazard to joggers and small cars. She also commented that she did not believe the odors would be contained within the walls. Steve Modena an employee on East Jamie Court stated that the issues have been repeated, and he would not go into them again. He cited concerns with traffic, odor, and what seems to be a situation where the year 2000 deadline is causing for "haste makes waste". He asked that the Commission talce their time, and made the right decision, since it is something that will be in existence for a long time, and other options are available. Carolyn Dilena, 451 East Jamie Court stated that South San Francisco Scavengers had held an informational meeting, and showed plans and slides of the project with immaculate buildings, beautifully landscaped, and they assured her that there would be no noise and no increase in odors, and stated that the facility would be an example for others to follow. She stated that she was impressed with the drawings and has no doubt that the facility would be a state-of-the art. She noted that she also understood that they are trying to help South San Francisco conform to the AB939 requirements. However, she noted that none of this changes her belief that they are placing the facility in the wrong place. She compared placing a transfer station, a hub for garbage collection and sorting at the furthest possible distance from the freeway, accessible by only two main routes, both of which converge onto East Grand A venue, to United Airlines putting their hub in Hawaii. She expressed concerns with the larger tractor-trailers that will be operating during the worst traffic times, and the damage that they would cause to the road surface in the area. She questioned who would be cleaning up garbage, oil, and other debris, which may get dropped along the way. She stressed that alternate sites must be found. She spoke of one of the alternate site mentioned in the EIR, which is referred to as being too close to a residential area; yet at the meeting, they were told that this facility is so state-of-the art, quiet, and odor free that they recently built one in Redding that is in a residential area and have received no complaints. She stated that she is not suggesting that it be placed in a residential area, but suggested that some of the criteria that ruled out some of the alternate sites be looked at again. She noted a concern with the storm drains that will be directed to the existing drains on East Jamie Court, noting that the existing drains flood every time it rains. She referred to comments from the last meeting in response to her husband's concerns regarding the impacts of this project on land values, and cited the EIR, page 156, where Mr. Harnish states that staff would do some comparisons and look at some examples, and fashion a response. She asked if that had been done. She commented that South San Francisco has developed a vision for future of the City, with long term goals, for the best of community, and asked that those goals not be compromised now. She asked that an extension be filed for compliance with AB939, showing that good faith efforts have been made, while helping the Scavengers find an appropriate site. \\CH - PDC\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\worldng\minutes\1999\0 12199 .doc Page 9 of 25 Carita Felbermayr, 383 East Grand Avenue, stated that they have a great view, and asked that it not be obstructed. She indicted that re-doing the zoning at this time is unfair because of such a major project, adding that it should have been done as a separate issue many years ago. She stated that adding the power plant would obstruct their view. She cited concerns with traffic, and debris. She questioned whether recycling is an issue, and why it has not been more of an issue in South San Francisco, adding that more of a community effort could be done. She questioned whether it was an issue, and if so, how much would be minimized, and if they would get a credit as a business in South San Francisco. She stated that she was opposed to this project, as well as the power plant. Lawrence Lanctot, 44 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, stated that he was representing the O'Brien Corporation which is opposed to this project. He noted that he had faxed a letter last FIiday which was not included in the packet, and offered to provide a copy for the Commission. He stated that there is a problem with the noticing, adding that The O'Brien Corporation did not receive notice, and did not participate in providing comments in the Draft EIR. He pointed out that the listed addresses in the appendix is not accurate, and they have not been on Oyster Point Boulevard for three years. He stated that if the Commission kept the principals of the East of 101 Area Plan in mind, it would lead them to a recommended denial of the project. He noted that the O'Brien Corporation and its predecessor have owned the property for over 100 years and have been good citizens. He spoke of the tremendous transformation from the industrial town, including the end of East Grand Avenue, and the O'Brien Corporation has worked with the City to bring about that transformation for resem"ch and development campuses and biotechnology. He noted that their listing agent, Mr. David Black, with C. B. Richard Ellis was present to provide details, noting that there have been offers on that site for trucldng and distribution, but when they approached staff, they were told that it was not the direction the City wanted to to, so the property remains on the market today. He stated that he felt the suggested amendments by staff would undermine the basic goals and policies provided in the Plan. He indicated that they strongly believe that you cannot amend the East of 101 Plan and allow this project on the theory that you can limit a garbage facility and its effects to the Hasldns site, adding that it would have a spillover effect that will adversely impact the adjoining properties, including the O'Brien site and the site owned by ICI Glidden, adding that any such amendments as proposed, would degrade the adjacent land uses, and re-industrialization of the area would occur. He noted that the East of 101 Plan describes Planned Industrial as accommodating "campus-like environment for corporate headquarters, R & D, in high quality buildings". He quoted segments of the Plan and permissible uses. He questioned who would want to build a new drug R & D biotech center, hotel, motel, or restaurant on a site that is adjacent to a garbage facility. He also commented that in his opinion the city would experience a loss in revenue. He cited concerns with traffic impacts, noting that his understanding is that the Draft EIR did not consider the cumulative impact of the ultimate development of the O'Brien 17-acre site. He stated that he is aware that this is being driven by AB939. He pointed out that the statute is intended to protect the environment, beyond source reduction of garbage. He noted the statute has a 3-year extension, and suggested that the recommendation to Council should be to apply for the extension to allow time to find a more \ \CH - PDC\ISHADD\File Cabinet\O ld PC\ worldng\minutes\1999\0 12199. doc Page 10 of 25 appropliate site. He stated that Mr. David Black is willing to assist in seeldng an alternative site, and asked that the Commission invoke the help of the County and other cities as well as the Waste Management Board that was created under AB939 to provide technical assistance, in finding an alternate site. Jerome Crowley President of The O'Brien Corporation stated that The O'Brien Corporation has been a partner in South San Francisco since 1967, and a neighbor to the 10-acre Hasldns site. He stated that the proposal is inconsistent with the East of 101 Plan. He stated that The O'Brien Corporation had adjusted its site in 1990 from the 19th century Industrial Revolution to a site prepared for the East of 101 Plan and future needs, and is now a 17-acre piece of property that is ready for development consistent with the East of 101 Plan. He stated that the proposal would denigrate propeIty values, regardless of how it is packaged, which will in turn reduce property taxes. He cited traffic issues and the impact on roads. He encouraged the search for an alternative site throughout the County and recommended filing for an extension, noting that this is not the appropriate site. He strongly urged that the Commission deny the proposal. James Swift stated that much of what he intended to say has already been said. He stated that he is one of the owners of 360 Swift Avenue and during the last 18 years has witnessed the area change drastically, largely under the influence of the Commission and Council, in conformity with the East of 101 Plan. He asked that the Commission not limit this unique real estate to the proposed use. He indicated that he was surprised to find that staff was recommending that the Commission go ahead with the project, since it appears to be in non-conformance with the Plan. He noted that he presented petitions with 166 signatures, but only one of those pages made it to the final EIR with nine signatures, and asked that copies of the petitions be added to the record, along with an additional petition with 65 signatures from people in the neighborhood who oppose the project. He noted that he was pleased to hear that the power plant would be dealt with separately. He asked that the Commission take advantage of the provision, which allows for an extension. He commented that the air, noise, litter, pollution, and heavy traffic impacts on the mile and half of East Grand Avenue that leads to this site is inconsistent with the area's campus environment. He added that the land being considered is unique and deserves a higher use. He asked the Commission to deny the proposal. Dave Mojas, owner of property at 449 Littlefield, noted that he received the notice January 14th and felt that he should have received it sooner. He stated that his main concern was with the possible loss of revenue, due to his tenant's concerns for possible impacts from the project. He noted that if they don't come back to re-lease the property, he would be looldng to the City. He noted that he is against the project, and especially the rezoning. Frank Vieira, 319 Spruce Avenue, noted that as a daily user of East Grand Avenue and has noticed the dramatic increase in traffic the last year or so, adding that due to the timing of the signals to get across, has forced him to use Airport Boulevard. He noted that as a contractor, he knows that dirt, debris, nails, and stagnant water will fall out of the garbage trucks and dumpsters. He commented that he has been looldng forward to the promise of a Bay trail, and could not see how this facility would enhance the waterfront. Chairperson Honan asked if anyone else in the audience would like to speak. \ \CH - PDC\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\worldng\minutes\l999\0 12199 .doc Page 11 of 25 Several members in the audience requested that signed petitions and letters be entered in to the record in opposition of the project. Chairperson Honan asked if anyone else in the audience would like to speak before closing the public heming. Stephanie Uccelli Menner, representative for the South San Francisco Scavenger Company stated that after hearing comments this evening, she felt the need to clarify some factual enors that she thought she heard. She addressed the concerns raised by several speakers with regard to the traffic. She noted that the 1,250 trips per day are based on a maximum peak tonnage of 1,250 tons per day, which is not what is presently collected. She stated that presently they collect approximately 500 to 550 tons per day. She stated that her understanding is that under CEQA law, traffic impacts have to be analyzed at peak capacity. She noted that at the present time they make approximately 200 vehicle trips per day. She also pointed out that a number of their trucks are on the road during off- peak hours, adding that their employees begin arriving at 2:00 a.m., and a great number of their employees arrive and begin worldng at 5:00 a.m., probably before most of the businesses in the East of 101 open and begin operations. She responded to the comments regarding the transfer trucks that would go up and down East Grand Avenue. She noted that the transfer trucks (which are approximately 35 to 40 trucks per day) run between 3:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. She responded to the comment that property values would suffer. She noted that they have been located at 180 Oyster Point in excess of 25 years, and during that time they have not had a formal odor or litter complaint lodged against them, and this is monitored monthly by San Mateo County local enforcement agent, health services. She questioned if a garbage and materials recovery facility would cause property values to suffer, why would so many hotels and large office buildings be would be going in on Gateway Boulevard within such close proximity to their present facility, adding that they have made a substantive investment in the community. She responded to the comments on alternative site selection, noting that for the benefit of those who were not at the last meeting, staff had presented details on the exhaustive search which was undertaken by the Company, the City, and the Redevelopment Agency, and if they had known those details, she felt this would no longer be in question. On the issues of odor, aesthetics, and noise issues, she stated that two weeks ago at the meeting, the odor and noise issues were addressed in detail along with engineering that could be undertaken to remediate those problems. She noted that the litter and garbage that might be dropped would be dealt with the same manner as they cunently do, through the use of employees who pick up garbage, not only on their facility, but also on surrounding facilities and roadways. She noted that they try to be good neighbors and citizens of the community. She responded to the issue raised about the storm drainage, and indicated that the Company has had extensive conversations with the Planning Department and the City Engineer in regards to the storm drain issues, and the City Engineer has been satisfied with the calculations and the numbers. \ \CH - PDC\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\012199.doc Page 12 of 25 She spoke to the issue of the cumulative effect analysis contained in the EIR. She suggested that anyone with concerns should discuss it with their EIR consultant. Chairperson Honan asked for clarification on the reference to 1,250 trips per day, and asked if Ms. Uccelli Menner had quoted 200 actual trips per day. Ms. Uccelli Menner responded that the number is approximately 200 trips per day. She added that the point she was trying to make is that the additional 1,262 truck trips per day is based on their collection of 1,250 tons of garbage a day, which is at a peak, and they are not nem- 1,250 tons per day. Chairperson Honan asked if there was anyone else in the audience who would like to speak. There being none she invited the Commission's comments. Commissioner Teglia noted that he would try to look at the big practical picture, adding that his comments on the minutia of the EIR are already on the record. He noted that this is a momentous and complicated issue, and one that is very important to look at it as one that is not a black and white issue, not one of a yes or no. He stated that with a vision, a common thread with all the speakers is seen. He noted that he doesn't see this as two opposing sides, but two sides of the same coin who are all here for South San Francisco. He noted that everybody here is proud of the metamorphosis that has occurred in the East of 101. He spoke to the tinge of pride felt by people when they see comments in Time Magazine or national news media of "such and such software company of South San Francisco" , "World renowned biot~ch company of South San Francisco". He noted that South San Francisco is on the world map because of changes that have occurred in that area and everyone here is proud of that. He noted that even regionally, most people have seen the December 14th San Francisco Chronicle "The Bio Industrial City", with the headline "Through a Combination of Luck, Geography and City Plannin2, South San Francisco Has Quietly Become The World Capital of Biotechnology", which he added is incredible. He noted that the article talks about good planning, which is what is being done tonight by planning for the future. He noted that what Ms. Uccelli Menner stated is conect, that the EIR calls out vehicle trips, noting that this is looldng toward the future, toward the peak. He stated that all these companies have to be planned for the peak so that ten years down the line, the area is not gridlocked. He noted that the best communities were thought out with twenty or thirty years down the line. He spoke of his recent recollection of Bethlehem Steel, U.S. Steel, and GSA property, and commented on the change within such a relatively short period that has come about through a concerted effort by the City Council and past Planning Commissions. He noted that many suitors have been turned away from this piece of propeIty who were trucldng, warehousing type businesses, Hertz because it was not felt that pm-lung cars was appropriate. He stated that moving Blue Line from Oyster Point was in part due to the recognition that with the change, Blue Line no longer fit there. He stated that you have to understand redevelopment, where it almost creates a critical mass as the Gateway and Genentech properties were created you began to see other outcroppings and recent development has shown the rest of Gateway developed. He \ \CH - PDC\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\worldng\minutes\1999\0 12199 .doc Page 13 of 25 spoke of another piece of property across from Point Brittania where the landowner had been concerned about the freight forwarders, and now it's obvious that it is a more valuable piece of property and will be redeveloped. He commented that the Georgia Pacific site is inappropliate for this because it's across from the beautiful R & D facility. He noted that if you go out to the end of Grand and East Jamie Court, the older uses in transition, and everybody expects that this piece of propeIiy will be intertwined with the paint company property assuming that they would recognize the value of that property and try to maximize it with new development, which could conceivable could be a world headquarter, hotel or something else. He spoke of changes that could lead to a world class center that everyone could be proud of, adding that in a practical sense, this site would change that course, if this particulm" use is put in, since other warehousing, trucldng, freight forwarding, smoke stack power plant type uses could not be turned away. He commented that the area would stagnate, because no one would locate their world headquarters or hotels next to this MRF. He indicated that he felt bad for the Scavengers, adding that they are a good Company and have been an asset to the community, m"e a good corporate citizen, and are trying to provide the City services, and are the City's friends. He noted that he thoroughly supports the Company and the MRF, which is something that is in our interest and is needed. He added that it was very important to consider the concerned parties that they have heard from. He called out a list of concerned businesses, and individuals that have agreed that the Scavengers are an asset to the Community, and recognize the need for the facility, but not on this particular site. He noted that the EIR clearly says that this is an inappropriate use of that site, and staff knows it. He stated that today the Chief Planner, on Channel 4, twice said that it was not the right use on that property. He applauded the Scavengers for planning a world class facility worth of the community, adding that he had no doubt people would come from around the region to see it. However he noted the need to sit back and look at the big picture. He noted that he supports the Scavengers and the MRF, adding that he felt that the City needs to help them, and didn't feel that the project should be delayed, and stated the need to help push it to the next level. He indicated that his win-win proposal is that the Commission deny the recommendation for two reasons: 1) to approve this as, there would be a number of law suits, and a number of political actions, and it would become divisive issue in the City, which is counterproductive and not what they needed to see. He noted the Franchise Agreement talks about the City lending assistance to the Scavengers to procure a site. He stated that he did not feel that the City has had a chance yet to provide that assistance. He stated that he felt the true assistance, adding that this was no reflection on staff who has done their best with this application, is leaving the door open to the City Council understanding that the Commission has major concerns about this, and need to see some creative ideas. He spoke about the offers tonight from the business community to help could be a major asset, but the City from the Mayor's office, Council, and the City Manager, going beyond looldng at MLS, should put together a proposal, and target it towards a site, and present it. He used an example of Belle Air Island, which he noted may not be feasible, but is probably the most strategic location to place a MRF, unfortunately Sam Trans has their station there. He noted that out of hand Sam Trans may say they aren't interested, but a creative approach, could through concessions could \ \CH-PDC\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\worldng\minutes\1999\0 12199 .doc Page 14 of 25 provide a win-win situation while protecting the world class area, noting that the City has eminent domain powers, especially in an area that needs to be redeveloped such as down Harbor or on Linden. He noted that these effoIts from the top end of the City is the least the Scavengers deserve, and the least that should be expected from our elected officials, adding that he felt they would be the first to agree. Chairperson Honan asked if Commissioner Teglia if he had ever suggested the specific suggestions to staff or Council prior to this meeting. Commissioner Teglia responded that he has gone on record in the past stating that this is not normal application. He noted that he had not been that specific, however, the Belle Air idea had been mentioned to a couple of members of the Council, who have found it to have some merit, and it was his understanding that it has been communicated to the City Manager, and is something they will look into. He noted that the second thing that could happen out of the denial would be that if after that effort, the City might still find that there is no other site, and this is such an important facility that it will go on this site. He suggested leaving the door open to approve the project, and recommend a denial at this point, so that the due diligence can be made adding that at the appropriate time he would be happy to make the appropriate motion. Commissioner Masuda asked if denial would provide the opportunity for an appeal. Mr. Harnish responded that it would be a recommendation to the City Council, so there would not be an appeal involved. Commissioner Masuda indicated that he was not maldng a motion, but suggested turning it over to the Council, with the new information provided by the speakers tonight. He noted that denial would not do any good and following dialogue with Commissioner Teglia, he indicated that he would go along with staff and recommend the City Council look at with the new evidence. Chairperson Honan asked that for the benefit of those who did not watch the 6:00 news on Channel 4, could Mr. Harnish update the Commission on what was said. Mr. Harnish stated that he thought the comments Commissioner Teglia was referring to was that the site was not conceived and was not planned for this ldnd of use, however the City has a commitment and an obligation in part to fulfill its AB939 goals and to work with the Scavengers to not simply deny the application, but if there is an alternative site, and his comment was that staff has worked diligently, and it was his belief that there are no adequate alternative sites in the service area, and that this is the only site that staff sees as available, and based upon the mitigation measures that have been recommended, the potential negative impacts would be minimized. He noted that that they have seen other MRF's in other parts of the Bay area that are located adjacent to office uses and other high employment areas, and they are good neighbors. He pointed out that the site is vacant today, and it will be developed with something, and traffic will be generated, and may be more, it could be the same, or it could be less, but this is a vacant site that has no traffic now. He noted that the traffic issues were considered, and addressed in the EIR and something that staff was concerned about, and one of the reasons why staff looked for alternative sites, but in the end, he stated that he is satisfied that the site can be appropriately developed for this use given the mitigation measures \ \CH - PDC\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\0 12199 .doc Page 15 of 25 that will be placed on it. Commissioner Romero noted that this was a very difficult recommendation to be maldng to the Council. He noted that he has heard a lot of opposition to this project on this particular site, and added that his first inclination when the project was submitted was that it was an inappropriate use on the site. He noted that he has considered various pros and cons of the project besides his personal opinion as to what he would prefer to see out there. He noted that there are positive aspects to the project, which he did not think had been taken into consideration because this is the type of use that nobody wants to see built in their back yard. He cQmmented that if it was being built in a residential, a different set of faces would show up to oppose it. He noted that what he sees as the primary beneficiary of the project, is the environment. He noted that we need to create a type of facility that will enable us to recover the materials that we recycle, and get those materials to the appropliate locations, where they can be properly utilized. He noted that a tremendous amount of waste is produced both by commercial and it is very important that it be reduced. He noted that every day that this project is delayed is another day worth of garbage going into the landfill that is not being recycled, and needs to be a primacy consideration in recommending this project for approval. He noted that he did not want to make a recommendation to the City Council that would make it more difficult for them to come to an appropriate decision on the project. He noted that he also would like to see a better use at that site, but also felt that the project is important, and this Company provides an important service to everyone. He noted that it was his opinion that it should go to Council with a recommendation that it be approved. Vice Chairman Sim noted that he would have a difficult time deliberating this, and maldng a recommendation. He stated that his concern was for fairness and preferential treatment where a precedent was not being set. He stated that he has also looked for an alternate location, however all indications are that City staff, the Scavengers, and the Redevelopment Agency have looked for alternative sites. He stated that perhaps with the volunteers tonight, as it goes through the City Council, they may come with some other ideas, however at this time they have not seen that. He made an observation that this type of facility, trash collecting agencies could have a significant role in the future of the community. He noted that having gone through all this he would suggest that it be forward to the City Council with the stipulation that other people will look at other sites. Commissioner Baldocchi agreed that South San Francisco Scavengers performs a public service, and this is something we need to support in the Community because of the State mandate and Franchise Agreement. She noted that the Franchise Agreement does not specify that we are committed to this use on this particular piece of land. She noted that she was born and raised in the City and has always been very proud of it being an Industrial City, adding that it has provided a lot of people jobs, ships were built during the war, but that was then, and this is now. She noted that there has been a lot of effort which has gone into the City to revitalize it, and to bring new life to it. She noted that she went over the East of 101 Area Plan, and the Draft EIR's, and amendments and read the letters, staff reports, study sessions, and the bottom line was that she did not believe that is an appropriate land use for this particular piece of property, and she could not suppoI1 the recommendation to change the General Plan to the Council, when she does not feel that this is an appropriate land use for this parcel, adding that there are other ways to work together to support this need, but it does not belong on this property. \ \CH - PDC\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\worldng\minutes\l999\0 12199 .doc Page 16 of 25 Motion- Teglia to deny and recommend that the City Council take into consideration the comments, the letters, the EIR, and the proper land use of this area. That all due diligence be made at their level to try and secure a more appropriate and better site for the Scavengers. Chairperson Honan noted that it was fine, however before he did, she would like the opportunity to speak. Commissioner Teglia noted that he thought the first thing should be to see if there was a second, and then call on the questions. After some dialogue back and forth, Assistant City Attorney Lindgren noted that a motion was on the floor, and a request for second was appropriate, or a completion of the motion if it was not complete. He added that after the call for a second, if the second is made, there will be comments on the motion, and further comments from the Commission would be appropriate. Chairperson Honan asked Commissioner Teglia if he wished to complete his motion. Commissioner Teglia added that he is strongly in support of the concept, but need more work on looldng for a site which atthe very least will validate this site in the future, if no other sites can be found, adding that that was his motion. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren explained that the code calls for a recommendation to be made by the Commission, but does not provide for specific provision for the recommendation to include specific instructions to the Council about the manner in which they should consider the item when it comes to them. Commissioner Teglia asked if his motion could be re-worded to deny the above case numbers as already stated, based on the comments of this evening. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren agreed that it would be an appropriate motion. Commissioner Teglia noted that it was his motion. Second-Baldocchi. She apologized that Madame Chair had not been able to make her comments. Vice Chairman Sim stated that he could also have struck a motion to approve with the comments that were made tonight, and allow City Council to look at, which he indicated is the direction he was . trying to go. Mr. Harnish stated that, because the Council gets the Minutes of the meetings, which include all of the testimony, and discussions, he felt the Council would understand the different positions and concerns the Commissioners have, adding that even though the motion may not include caveats or qualifiers, the discussions will be transmitted. Vice Chairman Sim stated that his point is that the Commission has a solid proposal before them, whether there are disagreements, but weighing the comments presented should be allowed to be \ \CH - PDC\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\worldng\minutes\1999\0 12199 .doc Page 17 of 25 fused in which could be a win-win situation, while he felt that a denial would not provide a solution by allowing the input to go forward. He noted that he had a problem with the motion. Assistant City Attorney explained that the point he was attempting to make when correcting the first motion was that it is appropriate to either approve or deny. He noted that he should have cut off the caveat that was added at the end of the motion. He noted that the proper motion, and the proper action to take, as suggested by the Chief Planner, is that the Commission should be either recommending approval of denial, which he agreed would reflect all of the comments and discussions, and the Commission has the opportunity to go and observe that those discussions are reflected in the discussions at the Council level. He noted that the appropriate motion that he should have allowed, and would like to now allow, was that the Commission either approve or deny the recommendation, without the caveat. Commissioner Teglia stated that he believed he had taken the caveats off. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren asked if the motion was to approve or deny without the comments. Commissioner Teglia stated that the CUlTent motion was to deny the above-enumerated case number. Commissioner Baldocchi asked for clarification from the City Attorney in laymen's telms. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren explained that as an alternative, the Commission always has the opportunity to make specific amendments or changes to projects, but the nature of this motion was not to identify specific changes, but to provide instructions to the Council about how they should proceed with their deliberations on the item, which he noted is not appropriate. Commissioner Teglia clmified that his reason for maldng the motion in that matter, was that in his interpretation, and he felt most people agreed with it; to approve the item, as is, everything done would be done, suggest take it as is, while by denying it, as was clear from the comments, the Commission is saying that more work should still be taken up, leaving the door open to either improve it, or to validate that this is the best, adding that either way it would be a better project, adding that this was the essence of the motion. Chairperson Honan asked if, would it be appropriate to take a vote before she made any comments, since there was a motion. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren stated that the floor was open for comments before the Commission considered the motion. Chairperson Honan noted that she had heavily pondered over this, adding that she saw good, and she saw bad. She stated that she sawall of the Commissioner's points, but yet she saw some of her own. She noted that a MRF is something that is needed, like it or not, if not today, if not the year 2003, it will be needed. She added that the question was how to come about it. She stated that while sitting through several meetings, study sessions, reading articles, being proud of South San \\CH-PDC\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\worldng\minutes\1999\012199.doc Page 18 of 25 Francisco, which she noted she is, and always will be, whether the MRF is here or not. She stated that South San Francisco has worked very hard to become what it is becoming. She stated that one issue, which had not been raised, was the fact that the MRF will have an educational facility, which is needed to educate children about recycling. She spoke to the COnCeITIS raised about the trucks. She indicated that her observation of other MRF's has shown that most of the trucks are self-contained covered trucks, so debris is not flying out of the top. She also added that the facilities also go out at the end of the day, and check the streets, and have the streets swept daily. She strongly urged the Scavengers to work with the City regarding the educational purpose of the facility noting that the Source Control staff has a joint venture with the School District. She concluded by stating that she recognized that it was not something that everyone wanted to see, she agreed with Commissioners Sim, Romero, and Masuda. She noted that the facility is needed, and this was only a recommendation to Council. Commissioner Teglia responded to the Chair's comment that this was only a recommendation to Council. He stated that he took the Commission's recommendations very seriously, and have a very important duty. He pointed out that he was not asldng to ldll the project, but asldng that the door be left open, adding that the world class facility with it's educational facility could still be located in South San Francisco in a better spot that would benefit the Scavengers and the City. Commissioner Baldocchi stated that everyone knows that this is needed since it is a State mandate, adding that the City needs to work with the Scavengers as part of the Franchise Agreement. She followed by asldng whether this was an appropriate land use for the Hasldns property, adding that she did not believe it is, and further was not consistent with the concept and goals of the East of 101 Area Plan. She noted that she has also read it, and pondered it, and could not in good conscience support the recommendation. She asked that people vote their conscience, and think if this is appropriate land use, which is what is being debated. Motion- Teglia/Second-Baldocchi - to deny Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Teglia, Commissioner Baldocchi Chairperson Honan, Vice-Chairman Sim, Commissioner Masuda, and Commissioner Romero ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: (1 Vacancy) AYES: NOES: Motion failed 4 - 2 \\CH - PDC\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\worldng\minutes\1999\0 12199 .doc Page 19 of 25 Commissioner Masuda commented that he felt that a vote to deny, it would send a message to the Council that the Commission is against the project. Vice Chairman Sim commented that he was open to Mr. Black and Mr. Melby coming up with alternative sites, as mentioned tonight. Commissioner Baldocchi commented, that not if they read the minutes. Motion-Romero/Second-Masuda to approve. Mr. Harnish asked for a clarification on whether this included the recommendation made at the beginning regm"ding the application of the land use and zoning change only applying to this parcel. Comnllssioner Romero answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Teglia noted that he felt it was important to note, now that it was going for recommendation, that the EIR responses had been cursory, where there are specific assumptions being made where precedence are not liked, and are being interpreted improperly. He cited an example; H - 1. He noted that his comments had been specifically referenced to other comments of other questions, and had not been given proper consideration. He moved to amend the motion that the recommendation include the following modifications: 1) that the design standards of the building be brought up and in line with the East of 101 design standards, adding that currently the building was not in keeping with what is out there, and it could easily be changed to a different material; 2) that the trees being planted not be the small trees that will blow over in the wind, but be mature trees on the maturity level of what has been placed on Airport Boulevm"d; 3) that the 100' shoreline setback be respected without exception. He noted that exceptions in the past have been allowed where open space has been a proper mitigation, but have not been allowed where an environmentally impacting use was next to an environmentally sensitive resource; 4) that a subdivision of the toxic slough not be allowed, and 5) that fuel tanks not be not be allowed above ground. Motion- Teglia Second/Baldocchi to amend. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren asked for repeat and summm)' clarification from Commissioner Teglia on his amended motion. He noted that there was a motion on the floor to amend the motion to adopt the staff recommendation. He noted that the appropriate order was to proceed with a vote on the proposed amendment, and then proceed with possible consideration of the motion. Commissioner Romero asked if the amended motion was to approve the recommendation to staff. Mr. Harnish responded that it was not to approve, but rather to amend Commissioner Romero's motion to approve, adding that if that if the motion for amendment passed, the next action would be to act on the original motion with the amendment. Commissioner Baldocchi commented that if the amendment was approved, the quality of the \ \CH - PDC\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\0 12199 .doc Page 20 of 25 project would become a little bit better visually by meeting the East of 101 Area Plan standards, so if it was going in, it would at least be consistent with the existing buildings. Mr. Harnish responded that the existing buildings do not conform to the Coastal Commercial standards, adding that they are below those standards. Commissioner Baldocchi asked if Genentech met those standm"ds. Mr. Harnish responded that they m"e in the Planned Industlial Distlict, not the Coastal Commercial. Vice Chairman Sim asked if the Staff Report was based on the East of 101 Area Plan, which would mean that the design guidelines would automatically be in place. Mr. Harnish responded that staff, in their recommendations, had attempted to push the project as close to the Coastal Commercial design standards as possible, adding that some would be difficult to apply, because of the nature of the project, and without that, if the project was approved, it would conform to light industrial standards, which are of a lesser standard. Vice Chairman Sim also asked clarification on whether the mature tree ordinance would automatically be in effect in that area. Mr. Harnish noted that, if not modified based on the motion, the recommendation would be that the landscaping be what is normally found. Commissioner Baldocchi commented that if a recommendation is going to be made to the Council to allow this land use, it might as well be a quality product. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren noted that what was on the floor was the amendment being proposed by Commissioner Teglia, and seconded by Commissioner Baldocchi. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Teglia, Commissioner Baldocchi, Vice Chairman Sim Chairperson Honan, Commissioner Romero, Commissioner Masuda None (1 vacancy) Motion to amend failed 3 - 3 Roll Call Vote on Commissioner Romero's original motion to recommend: AYES: Chairperson Honan, Vice Chairman Sim, Commissioner Romero, Commissioner Masuda Commissioner Teglia, Commissioner Baldocchi None (1 vacancy) NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: \\CH-PDC\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\worldng\minutes\l999\012199.doc Page 21 of 25 Motion passed 4 - 2. Chairperson Honan requested a recess at 11 :00 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 11:10 p.m. ADMINISTRA TIVE BUSINESS 6. Items from Staff a) Information on EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Process. Mr. Harnish noted that this item would be on the next agenda. He informed the Commission that the Planning Commissioners Institute sponsored by the League of Cities is scheduled for Mm-ch in Monterey, and budget includes funds for all of the Commissioners to attend. Chairperson Honan requested that the Commissioners give some thought as to whether they m-e interested in attending the prior to next meeting so that early arrangements can be made. Mr. Harnish reported on the progress for filling the Commissioner's vacancy. He noted that the Commission's next packet would include a schedule for the Terrabay project. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren stated that the final staff comments on the final EIR would be going to the pI inters tomorrow. He also asked the Commission if they had some sense of whether his comment regarding the California code for processing the energy plant was something they would like for him to bring to discuss at the end of the next meeting. He provided a status update noting that there is an application that had been lodged with the State agency. He noted that it is an area in which local authority is preempted in part by the State law. 7. Items from Commission Commissioner Teglia thanked the Chair and staff, noting that one of the initiatives that he had been planning in changes of the meeting was to involve the clerk more in the meeting, to have her read the items, and make it more participatory and more formal, such as the Council meetings are. He stated that he appreciated that the Chair found merit in that suggestion and included in her Chairmanship. Commissioner Masuda suggested that whenever a Commissioner intends to make a motion they make it clear from the beginning, thereby allowing anyone who wishes to comment the opportunity. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren noted that he had been forced to cut the Chair off, because once the motion is started, it is the motion that has the floor, and then the call is for a second on the motion, and then to allow for deliberation. He noted that tonight more parliamentary and further into the layers of the amendment that has occurred in the last six months. He noted that if they would like any update, he could provide information that is available. \\CH-PDC\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\worldng\minutes\1999\012199.doc Page 22 of 25 Commissioner Romero suggested that it would seem appropriate that the Chair be allowed the option of asldng if anyone would like to make a motion before a motion is introduced. Chairperson Honan noted that she thought the polite thing, and what has been done in the past, was that everybody spoke before a motion was placed on the table. She noted that perhaps it was through an oversight that it was not recognized that she had not yet spoken. She added, however that she had waited patiently, since past practice had been that the chair spoke last. She added, that in all honesty, when she finally did get to speak, her thoughts were totally scrambled. Commissioner Teglia noted that he understood the comments, adding that in looldng back to the point, he thought there was a lull, and the Chair was looldng for the next comment, adding that there was a long pause, and in the past each has taken the opportunity to make motions. Mr. Harnish suggested that at some future meeting, when time is available, basic parliamentary procedures at the level normally applicable to the Commission's situation could be brought before the Commission. He added that there are some issues, where the way the meetings m"e conducted do not conform to the normal procedures, citing the example of explaining votes. He added that it is acceptable to make a motion, than a second, followed by a lot of discussions, however, the Commission tends to have the discussions before any motion is put on the floor. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren agreed adding that the options might have some benefit to the Commission. Commissioner Teglia stated that the more the Commission knows about their options, the better, however he added that they should keep in mind that each issue is dynamic, and changes, and there are always different ways to approach them. He stated that he would not think to limit their options, but would welcome adding to them. Chairperson Honan thanked all the Commissioners for their confidence in allowing her to be the Chair. She pointed out that her idea of being the Chair, was that the Chair is nothing more than a figurehead who leads the meeting. She noted that the Chair is not the Commission, and no one Commissioner is a Commission. She noted that this is a body of seven people who are appointed by the Council to help give them direction. She noted that each Commissioner sees things differently, and express themselves, and think differently, and there's nothing wrong with that. She called on the Commission to work together to be a great Commission. She added the need for the Commission to work together to face the heavy issues coming to them, and with that they need unity and fairness, and the sole idea that seven people can work together. She noted that she would welcome suggestions, adding that the Commissioners should feel free to call her any time to provide suggestions, or raise issues that they disagree with, adding that she would not take those actions personally. She noted that her idea for the next year is to work together and get the items in front of them resolved to the best of their ability. Commissioner Baldocchi (Verbatim at Commissioner Baldocchi' s request). Madame Chair, I do have a few comments, if I may. And I do want to congratulate you and Chair Pro Tern Sims on your leadership positions, I don't think I've done that for the record. And we do have a busy year ahead of us and I hope that we can work together to make it a productive and successful one, and I want \ \CH- PDC\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\worldng\minutes\1999\0 12199 .doc Page 23 of 25 to assure you that I will work hard to support you and this Commission to do what is best for our community. Um, I am, and I need to say this, because this is heavy on my heart, since we're talking about fairness, and process is deeply concerned about the precedence that we set at our January 7th restructuring. Uh, I think traditionally there has been a reasonable assumption amongst Council's Boards and Commissions that the Chair Pro Tern will assume the Chair, and there has been very few occasions when this process, I think there's very few occasions that this process should be bypassed without good cause. Urn, it's written in our Municipal Code, Chapter 2.56, Section 040, that the duties of the Chair Pro Tern is to serve in the absence of the Chairperson, and it's my opinion, that it's not good cause to bypass the Vice Chair if they perform their duties, the duties that we've elected them to do, to perform. Urn, what disturbs me about this, is that we all work very hard on this Commission, we put in a lot of personal time, and I would hate to see this happen to me, I don't like to see it happen to other people, and I truly believe, that no one on this Commission would want this to happen to them, um without good cause. And, uh, and what scares me is that I'm afraid that the precedence might be there, that it could happen to any, each and every subsequent Vice Chair, and I hope that's not the case. Urn, but you do have my assurance that I will support you 100%, I just did not agree bypassing the Chair, because I felt that the Chair was the, I believe in the process, and I believe in a fair process, so. Chairperson Honan responded that this is a Commission that is run by a democratic way, and is ruled by the vote of the Commission, adding that Commissioner Baldocchi had a right to feel the way she felt. She added that they have a job to do, and asked that they do it in an adult and professional way. Commissioner Teglia spoke to the earlier comments about teamwork, and the Chair being basically a chief among equals, he agreed with wholeheartedly, adding that the Commission's greatest triumphs this year had been almost unanimous, noting that in that unity they have had a great deal of power and ability to change things. He stated that he is all for that, and added that he thoroughly recognized that, and looked forward to, and planned to work with the Commission, and hoped that they could work as a united force. He stated that this is definitely a Commission to be reckoned with, when they are united, and he thanked Commissioner Baldocchi for her comments. Commissioner Baldocchi noted that she had made the comments for the record, and not to stir up anything or for rebuttal or debate. Commissioner Masuda noted that the noodle house across the street, is using the area that is supposed to be an office as an overflow. 8. Items from the Public None \ \CH - PDC\ISHAD D\File Cabinet\O ld PC\ worldng\minutes\1999\0 12199 .doc Page 24 of 25 9. Adjourn Motion- Romero/Second- Masuda The meeting was adjourned at 11 :35 p.m. J~~J Ju~o;?an Pl ning Commission City of South San Francisco JH:is NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting February 4, 1999, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA \ \CH - PDC\ISHADD\File Cabinet\O ld PC\ worldng\minutes\1999\0 12199. doc Page 25 of 25