Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.06.99 Minutes CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE May 06, 1999 CALL TO ORDER! PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL 1 CHAIRMAN COMMENTS MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Honan, Vice Chairperson Sim, Commissioner Baldocchi, Commissioner Meloni, Commissioner Romero, and Commissioner Teglia MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner D' Angelo AGENDA REVIEW: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of the March 18, 1999, April 1, 1999, and April 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Minutes and the April 19, 1999 Special Meeting Minutes Chairperson Honan stated that she would also want to add March 4, 1999 minutes as received in the packets. Commissioner's Sim, Baldocchi, & Chairperson Honan noted they had minor comments with the minutes. Chairperson Honan commented that in the essence of time that the commissioners put their comments in writing so that the clerk can correct them. She recommended the minutes be pulled to allow the commissioners provide those comments in writing. Commissioner Baldocchi asked what is the timeframe to submit the corrections. Chief Planner Harnish stated that the corrections should be given by the beginning of next week, so that corrections can be made. Commissioner Teglia asked if only the March 18, 1999 minutes were being pulled he had a quick correction for April 1, 1999. Chairperson Honan stated that they will all be pulled and the corrections should be given to the clerk. 2. Headstart/Institute for Human & Social Dev., SSFUSD, Owner 825 Southwood Dr. UP-99-013 and Categorical Exemption Class 15 Section 15314 G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\050699.doc Page 1 of 10 Use Permit allowing a privately operated Headstart Program on SSFUSD property accommodating 72 children. Chief Planner Harnish recommended to Chairperson Honan that she check if there was anyone from the audience who wanted to comment on this item. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren stated that the consent calendar is not automatically approved. It is approved only if the commission approves all of the items that are on it at the same time. The commission can deny the items on the consent calendar. 3. City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, Applicant 65 Chestnut Ave. PCA -99-025 General Plan Conformity finding for a potential acquisition by the City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency of property located at 65 Chestnut A venue (northwest corner of Chestnut A venue and Mission Road), in the R-3-L Multi-Family Residential Zone District, in accordance with provisions of State Planning Law. Commissioner Teglia asked that item #4 be removed from the Consent Calendar. Motion Te2lia 1 Second Sim to approve the Calendar with the exception of items #1 and #4. Approved by unanimous voice vote. CONSENT CALENDAR - PUBLIC HEARING 4. Cal Water Service, Owner Chestnut Creek Senior HousinglBridge Housing Corp., Applicant 65 Chestnut Ave. UP-99-025 and Statutorily Exemption Section 15280 Use Permit to allow construction of a 40 unit senior housing project development on a one acre site located at the northwest corner of Chestnut Ave. and Mission Rd. Senior Planner Kalkin gave a brief explanation of the project. Lydia Tan V.P. of Bridge Housing stated that they presented this item in a study session last week. She stated that there had been some questions on traffic, which she hoped had been addressed. She noted that her development team was available to any answer questions. Commissioner Teglia stated that there were problems with the traffic, and while it had been addressed he still had concerns. He noted that there was talk about widening Chestnut & questioned whether that had been taken into effect. City Engineer Kianpour stated that stretch of Chestnut is wide enough to accommodate two lanes of traffic in each direction and a left turn pocket. Commissioner Teglia noted concern over traffic turning into the senior center mainly, the cars coming down the hill. G:\Fi1e Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\050699.doc Page 2 of 10 City Engineer Kianpour stated that there is not enough room to accommodate an exclusive right turn. However given the existing traffic controls there should be adequate opportunity to make the right turn and should speeding becomes a persistent problem that would be a code enforcement issue. He noted that one of the goals of the General Plan is to create more connections between Mission and EI Camino (ex. Oak Avenue extension) to reduce congestion on Chestnut. Chairperson Honan asked about the stacking capacity of the turn pocket. City Engineer Kianpour answered that 3 cars can fit. Motion Sim 1 Second Romero. Approved by unanimous voice vote. PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEMS 5. Terrabay Project Description The application requests modifications to the existing approved (1996) Specific Plan. The existing Specific Plan specifies that an 18-story, 400 room hotel, a 268,800 square foot high technology trade center, a 57,500 square foot 4-story condominium office building, an 18,000 square foot health club and three restaurants in a 5,000 square foot hotel seminar center would be built on the Phase ill Terrabay commercial site. The proposed modification would provide for 340,000 square feet of office, a 7,500 square foot restaurant and a 150 room hotel. The archaeological site (known as SMa-40) is proposed to be offered for dedication either to the City of South San Francisco, The County of San Mateo for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County Park or another non-profit public trust. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was prepared and certified by the City on February 17, 1999. A public hearing will be conducted before the Planning Commission on May 6, 1999 on the above described modified project and will include: Review and action on a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the proposed project; Amendments to the Specific Plan and Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance to modify the development mix and to codify certain development standards including protection of SMa-40 (the archaeological site); Review and action on a vesting tentative subdivision map; Review and action on the covenants, conditions and restrictions (C,C & R;s); Review and action on the Amended and restated Development Agreement. No precise plan review is sought at this time. Allison Knapp presented the staff report for Terrabay Phase ill, the commercial portion of the Terrabay project. Dennis Breen from Sunchase the representative of the applicant. The presentation has been made to everybody on the commission. He stated that everyone is familiar with the project and he would hope that the commissioners recommend approval of this to the City Council. He believes that they have worked diligently over the last several years in putting together as many elements as was feasible. He hopes that he meets the needs of the city. Recess called at 8:30 p.m. Meeting called to order at 8:40 p.m. Public Hearing was opened. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\050699.doc Page 3 of 10 Chairperson Honan stated that before the first speaker card, she made a short announcement each speaker will have 5-minute time limit. Please refrain from applauding or comments. John Mascio, 912 Linden A venue, stated that in his 80 years of living at the foot of the San Bruno Mountain, he stated that Terrabay has been discussed for 25 years so we need to get on with the project. Robert Vetter, 35 Lewis has lived in this area for 40 years, and he loves the windy place. He is very much against this development. He stated that if he had worked for the developer he would have provided a scale model and would have bent over backward to get his points across. He stated that the Native American burial grounds should be respected as well as the people who lived there so many 1000 of years ago. He stated that many people do not understand that the whole San Bruno Mountain is a sacred place. Charlene Moore, 901 Hillside, spoke for Patrick Orozco, he couldn't attend the meeting because there was a death in the family. She read a letter from Patrick Orozco and gave it to the clerk. She stated that for the last 36 years she has seen the mountain in the morning and the night that why she bought her house. She stated that at the last meeting she asked the commissioners to read a book titled "Silent Spring", by Rachel Carson she wanted to know if the commissioners had read it. She stated that there are two other books that she would like the commissioners to read and they are the "The Ohlone Way", and "The Way We Live". Leo Jack, 165 Santa Maria Avenue, San Bruno, stated that the burial grounds should be kept sacred. He said that there are no developments over any other cemeteries and that Indian people should have that same consideration. Michael Barnes, 815 Humboldt, Brisbane, stated that he is opposed to the density of development in this proposed project. He is against the proposed modification of the development standards for the height on the South pad. He stated that the developer was asking for approval for a 150 foot wall as opposed to a 70 foot and the only difference would be whether or not houses go on the point. He thinks that it is premature to approve a 150 foot height without the Phase II proposal. He thinks that it should stay at 70 feet because of view, and traffic purposes. He stated that the traffic has gotten worse since the density development in the area. Dan Shattuc, 907 W. Cardinal Drive, Sunnyvale, questioned the wetland mitigation pending from the corps of Engineers for the Phase ill. He stated that traffic is the major problem. He wants to know about the fly over and hook ramp projects. Chief Planner Harnish answered his question. He stated that a National monument to the Shellmound is significant for the gateway to this city. Ross Crippen, 68 Randolph A venue, would like to know why some of the commissioners are voting yes on the project. Marie Blackowl, 407 Beech A venue, South San Francisco (Left ill). Kathy Manus, 824 Templeton, Serving currently as the President, of the Friends of San Bruno Mountain which is the official volunteer park group. She stated that she was there to simply offer a point of information. She stated that while park staff has apparently reviewed some of the design concepts for SMa-40 The commission and the Friends of San Bruno Mountain which will be helping to staff any such area for dedication with volunteers have not had the opportunity to review the shellmound preservation plans. San Mateo County Parks and Recreation Commission maybe interested in having an opportunity to review prior to entering into any agreement with the land owner. One last point is that the Parks and Recreation Commission meets every first Thursday of each month, she invited everyone to attend. David Schooley, P.O. Box 53, Brisbane stated that political people should be protecting their people first and then their land first. He hopes that the San Bruno Mt. our backyard, our children's native learning wild wilderness garden and our intricate history and community growth will help politics to be more humble. He states that rare and endangered species are going to be killed with this development. He states that this valley should not be altered, G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\050699.doc Page 4 of 10 manipulated, in should be added to our land. He stated that a major fire would be dangerous to native things then it would anything else. Philip Batchelder, 2915A Wheeler Street, Berkeley stated that in 1981 the people did not vote for the Terrabay development. The context of the development back in 1981 was so different then what is going to be today because of BART and massive expansion East of 101. He wanted the Commissioners to go back and look at the fiscal analysis and the critique of this analysis from Michael Hitchcook and to think long term regarding this project. He urged that the public hearing not be closed because the public has not been able to review the mitigation monitoring program. Del Schembari, 321 Alta Mesa Drive, wanted to re-state his opposition to Phase IT and Phase ill. He wanted to know if the stream could be preserved. He feels that it is disrespectful to the burial grounds and to the County Park. He would like to recommend to the Council that they want to put out a bond to buy the property and put a ramp towards the South. He wanted to know if the streets could not be named after endangered species or the names of the Indians buried there. Closed Public Hearing Commissioner Meloni asked for explanation of the 70-foot versus the 150-foot height. Allison Knapp stated that when the developer originally submitted the application they were envisioning residential development in the point area. If there were structures in the Commerial area develop south of the shellmound the developer requested a cap of 70 feet in height so that the people living in the residential area can enjoy a view. If Council does not approve that area at the point the developer is asking that the height limit be increased to 150 feet. Chief Planner Harnish commented that this could allow for density from the northern site to be transferred down to the southern site if heights were increased in the southern portion of the site. That is one element of consideration. Commissioner Baldocchi, asked if the developer would consider this. Chief Planner Harnish stated what was discussed in the environmental document one of the alternatives being no development north of the shellmound only south of the shellmound. Allison Knapp added that numbers had been run from Crane Transportation Group and found that 375,000 square feet can be developed south of the shellmound plus the proposed hotel, and restaurant without exceeding the impact identified in the 1999 SEIR. Adam Lindgren, added that in addition to the possible planning issues relating to the development just north\south of the shellmound. He stated that he has had discussions with both the applicant's representative and the applicant about the legal benefits of the development south of the shellmound in that in can offer a means of decreasing likelihood of litigation's. Allison Knapp stated that the current zoning ordinance would allow 250 feet and could be capped at 150 feet. Chairperson Honan stated that she had a concern that came to her mind if the shellmound was dedicated to the County how soon will the County work in preserving that. She stated that her fear is that she does not want it left for a length of time to be destroyed before they start preserving it. Allison Knapp stated that the DA speaks to making an offer dedication within 6 months. The reason that the language is stated in a form acceptable to the Planning Commission and City Council is to be able to address the city issues, the native community issues and people who have spoken on the project. The County has indicated that what they would like to see is that all these issues be ironed out before the land is conveyed to them. Adam Lindgren stated that the development agreement drafted provided for the offer of dedication and if the parties desire to submit it to the County it would first go the City. Both the plans for the offer as well as plans for maintaining and managing the area would be submitted to the City for review both at the Planning Commission and City Council level. The initial submission of these plans would be made within 6 months. The City would have the time to consider the offer of dedication and the plans for the site before forwarding it on. Chief Planner Harnish stated that the design of the Shellmound is certainly not the final representation. It is going to take a lot of discussion and a lot of work with all the interested parties before the final design is accepted. Adam Lindgren stated that the development agreement is drafted in such a way to allow the discussion to continue after the G:\Fi1e Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\050699.doc Page 5 of 10 action is taken on Phase ill if desired. Commissioner Sim, asked who has been involved in the design and have we had participation from the Ohlone tribe. Allison Knapp, stated that the Historic Commission which is a public process has reviewed this and she stated that the landscape architect planner by the name of Bruce Chan drafted the plans. Commissioner Romero stated that the preservation of the shellmound is one of the important parts of this project and he disagrees with some statements made by the public. He stated that there are developments close to the cemeteries and places that are considered to be very sacred can be done in a way that is appropriate. He states that a project around a sacred site can be done in a way that will work. He stated that this is a very difficult project; it is something that we have to be very careful in considering until the next meeting. Commissioner Baldocchi asked if there would be partnership once the preservation has been decided about there would be a partnership for continued preservation on the site. Allison Knapp answered that it seems like a reasonable approach to consider a partnership when you look at the amount of the community that has been involved in that site. She believes that they should be involved also in maintaining the site. Another aspect would be to have the new occupants have stated in the CC & R's an education program for people to understand and respect the land. Commissioner Baldocchi, stated what she would like to see representatives of South San Francisco Preservation Commission as well as the Historic Society involved in the process. She had a question on the catchment basins, will they be mitigated. Eric McHuron, Engineering geo. consultant. He stated that the problems with the water towers is that they want to pump it once so you want to pump it to the top of the hill and then you want it by gravity feed your system so by design they are always at the top of the development. He stated that the debris basin is hard to find in the Phase I area they are tucked in. Chairperson Honan asked in regards to the shellmound, if we were not to build north of the shellmound is there an assurance that the shellmound does not exist further south. Commissioner Teglia stated that since we are speaking about the wetlands just above the office tower and that is the perennial stream one of the speakers was questioning about the drainage from there. Are we proposing to handle that drainage? Eric McHuron, It is certainly well within our design to work that around to run by the shellmound. Commissioner Teglia, so that the understanding is preserving the spring plus also adding another barrier to the shellmound. Chief Planner Harnish, there was a discussion about possible modification to the wetland mitigation plan, diverting that water flow so it would feed other wetland areas or newer created wetlands so that water would not be piped. Commissioner Meloni added that in the new plan they talk about 750,000 yards of grading what is the total. Eric McHuron, estimates from the earliest plans where they were going to have to export on the order of 400,000 to 500,000 cubic yards in materials, so if you are saving 150,000 cubic yards of material then that is less export. Commissioner Meloni In looking at part of the grading, on the north part of the site seems to be some extensive grading there. Eric McHuron, answered that probably the most extensive would be above parcel F as far as the visual impact because the grading goes up the side of the hill. Commissioner Meloni: stated that he was looking at the contours of the office tower. Eric McHuron, stated that if you take that office tower and pick it up and put it on top of the parking structure then it pulls all of that grading that you see northwest of the office tower and it eliminates it. The grading is moved further to the north away from the perennial seep area that is off to the south. Chairperson Honan asked again, If we do not build north of the shellmound, and take all that out and leave it as is, can we be assured that the area south of the shellmound does not affect it? She remembers at an earlier meeting the some people spoke and stated that they were afraid that part of the shellmound still would exist north but no one ever said anything about south of the area. Her question was if we do not build north could we be assured that there is nothing south. Mike Holman, Consulting Archaeologist, stated that he feels really confident about all the borders of the shellmound as they have explored them especially to the south. He stated that there is that dirt road that you walk up and you can see that you are down into the subsoil. He feels confident about all the borders that are defmed. He also G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\050699.doc Page 6 of 10 stated that the archeologist that first worked there as well, searched the areas to the north and did not find extra deposits. If you look at the field parcel G & F there is significant evidence of past excavation they have quarried the soil and quarried the rock. If there were archeological remains in either pad F or G it has been removed through the historical activity. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren stated that we could modify the language in the development agreement very slightly to insure participation simply by adding them in the paragraph where it discusses the offer to dedicate. It would describe the process that he had just summarized were it would be reviewed by the City Council and by the Planning Commission. If they wanted to give it to the county or non-profit you would simply add the Historic Commission to that list of city entities that would review the dedication and the plans for maintenance and use of the site if you wanted to. Otherwise would consider the jurisdiction of the Historic Commission independent of that decision but you can certainly add it to the language if you chose to. Commissioner Meloni asked about the reduction of traffic. Allison Knapp, the 13% comes from the MTSMA studies and it is patterned on that. The applicant came back stating they would try to do some design concepts to get up to 25%. What the staff report relies is the 13% Commissioner Meloni, asked if this is a realistic number. Allison Knapp, answered she thinks that with the aggressive program that has been outlined we could get close to that or even more than that. This was patterned again on the MTSMA study which is shown that different businesses have incorporated some of the components that have been suggested to add to the TDM. which has reached 13% to 15% traffic reduction, What we are doing is adding more components. Commissioner Meloni, what are we doing to achieve this. Allison Knapp, there are no penalties built into the program but what is built in is the recommended condition of approval for the CC&R's. On an annual basis monitor, implement, and send a study to the City to review and modify the program as necessary, which might mean be more aggressive in some of the program components that we would implement. Mark Crane stated that one thing to keep in mind is that this other study found up to 13% which was achieved when air quality required mandating that companies do TDM programs. He stated that any TDM program at this point is voluntary on the applicant's part. Adam Lindgren: stated that the SEIR considered the TDM measure very carefully and it concluded that 13% was an achievable mitigation level. He believes that through the CC&R's there is an enforcement mechanism available. The CC&R's provide that certain provisions are enforceable by the City. The City essentially stands in the same position as another property owner would within that development. He stated that it can certainly include among the provisions that the City can enforce these TDM measures. He stated that the city could employ measures to ensure that they are enforceable so it is his offices' position to inform the certification of the SEIR He stated that 13% was an achievable level. and we are aware at the applicant's representation. Above and beyond that level will be attempting to achieve the 25 % level. In the statement of overriding considerations that will be before you at your next meeting he will be asking for an override on the traffic related issues. He will be asking for an override for that portion of the traffic above and beyond this 13% level. He also stated that what was determined was that the mitigation measure is enforceable and can be achieved as described in the SEIR at this 13% level. Commissioner Sim asked what is that formula that will come up with 13%. He has difficulty with the traffic. Mike Crane stated that the formula of 13% was found for businesses in northern San Mateo County. Recess called at 9:00 p.m. Meeting recalled to order at 9:20 p.m. Commissioner Sim asked if there is no development or partial development what is left for us to do from a bonding standpoint for the hook ramps. He wants to know all options available. Adam Lindgren, The developer's contribution identified in the development agreement is a sum of money totaling 8.5 million that the developer would be contributing the hook ramps and the related circulation improvements. If all or a portion of the commercial project is not approved we expect that the developer would attempt to renegotiate that provision. What is important is the G:\Fi1e Cabinet\01d PC\working\minutes\1999\050699.doc Page 7 of 10 existing obligation of a full construction obligation, that is to say that the City has a degree of leverage. Chief Planner Harnish If the project was not approved and whatever sum of money from this project was not provided to the City, there would be a short fall in the amount of money to do the hook ramps and the fly over. This amount is about 8.5 million and the project is up $30 million dollars now. Commissioner Romero asked if the Commission and Council were to decide not to allow the project to be built what would the City be faced with. Adam Lindgren: stated that the entitlements for this project dates all the way back to 1982 and the developer represents the currently approved entitlements that is at the very least, complex. Commissioner Baldocchi stated that she would like to go back to something the chair touched on. And that was the southern\northern part of the project not being or developed and only allowing the southern part to be developed. She stated that she would like to see a picture of how high a 70-foot building would go in comparison to a 250 ft. She asked how long would the pads sit before they are developed into a building. Chief Planner Harnish, stated that we would have to ask the applicant for an estimate and the understanding is that there has been a prospective buyer. He stated that there are measures in place that would hopefully assure that if pads are graded and not built on that erosion and other physical problems do not occur. Commissioner Baldocchi, asked if the work can go forward on the preservation of the mound with those pads. Chief Planner Harnish, answered that yes the work can go on. Chairperson Honan, asked if this would be within the six-month range that was originally brought up. Allision Knapp, answered that yes that is the range. Adam Lindgren, stated that there are mechanisms for attempting to prevent the site from remaining in a transitional state for a long time. There have been modifications to the development procedures. That is outlined in the zoning ordinance revision that is recommended at section 20.63.150. He also stated that a grading permit would only be issued after a precise plan is approved and a final subdivision map is approved. So there will not be grading on sites until you have reached the tail end of your land use approval process. Commissioner Teglia stated that one of the speakers was concerned about the public hearing closing and not being able to speak at a subsequent meeting. He just wanted to know if the hearing would simply continue. Chief Planner Harnish, stated that his recommendation is to close the public hearing and not reopen it at the next meeting. Commissioner Teglia, stated that if somebody wished to pull it off the consent calendar would they have a right to speak. Chief Planner Harnish, stated that it would not be on the consent calendar, he stated that Adam should answer this. He stated that you can reopen the hearing if you choose to do so. Adam Lindgren, stated that this can be reopened and he will double check the issue. Chief Planner Harnish, wanted to clarify that the rationale for the recommendation of closing the hearing, rather than continuing it is that if you continue it and it opens up in two weeks, you could hear all of the testimony again. If you limit the hearing to specific items, then the testimony would be focused on that. He stated that the concern is that you would hear the same testimony in two weeks. And if you continue to open the hearing, then the public would have the right to come back and say the same things tonight. Commissioner Teglia, agreed but he would like the public have an opportunity to speak. Commissioner Teglia stated that he had a couple of concerns that there was talk about the change in the approval process and the approval of the specific plan by the city engineer. Allison Knapp, stated that it was the Precise plan that allowed conditional approval with City Engineer oversight. Commissioner Teglia stated that there was SOlne talk about the pads. He stated that he is more comfortable in approving something more general. He finds it really difficult to lock pads without knowing specifically what is planned. He also stated that he hates to see pads get stuck there, and then later have to market those pads to uses that can only fit those pads. He said what if it was simply raw land, and number of uses, and configurations, where infrastructures can be changed. Unless there is nothing more specific, he would be interested in how that is going to be handled. Chief Planner Harnish stated that this is a concern . He said that there needs to be a balance between the applicant having something that can be given to the buyer and state that it has been approved. Commissioner Teglia stated that the 75ft - 100ft height change can be a controversial issue. He stated that if we were trying to protect part of that mountain by not allowing residential in that section, raising that height level would defeat G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\050699.doc Page 8 of 10 that attempt. Perhaps one more discussion on the need for that height increase, obviously, it would necessitate more parking, more traffic. He would be uncomfortable putting this language in. If residential is not there the attempt is not to have something high up there, some more input on that would be appreciated. He also stated that a lot of the sentiment is to try to keep the area as natural as possible. He would be interested in seeing a change of the configuration to minimize the height of the retaining wall. He asked if the fly over and the hook ramps were set in stone. Chief Planner Harnish, stated that the design of the hook ramps and the flyover have been a very difficult design process. One of the limiting factors in terms of the height of Bayshore Boulevard are the utilities that exist in the road. There has been an attempt to minimize the relocation. Commissioner Teglia, just wanted to know if there could be a possibility of minimizing it. Commissioner Sim stated that we would highly recommend to the Commission, that staff show the two phases together, if it is achievable. Grading plan would be fine. He asked if the applicant can mass it out somehow, like a FAR study. Chief Planner Harnish stated that he would try to provide something. Commissioner Baldocchi asked how tall are the buildings over at Oyster Point, are they 150 feet. She is trying to figure out the 75ft versus 150ft versus the 250ft allowed by zoning. Chief Planner Harnish, stated that they are between 100 and 125ft. Commissioner Baldocchi, would like to see a view of the mountain at 75ft and 100ft. Commissioner Sim, stated that a critical cross-section would be where the relationship Phase IT and that the southern portion is shown, the topography, and the cross-section, here is the housing and here is the 75 feet or whatever in terms of the FAR you'll get some tenants and the height. He needs all the information before all of them the right decision. Chairperson Honan asked if someone from San Mateo be at the May 20, 1999 meeting. Allison Knapp, answered that she will ask. Commissioner Teglia asked if someone would get back to them on the public hearings. Adam Lindgren, stated to close the public hearing and not take further testimony. The public does have a right to speak on items, but this is an item on which the public would have already had the opportunity to be heard. Chairperson Honan, stated that the only problem was that the mitigation monitoring program has not been seen yet. And to close it on something that has not been seen yet is unfair. Commissioner Teglia, stated that he is uncomfortable denying the public a chance to speak, so he moves to continue this hearing. Motion Te2lia/Second Romero to continue the Public Hearing to May 20, 1999. Chairperson Honan stated that the only thing in leaving it open is that the public has already spoke several times. She stated that the public wants to hear results. If the public hearing is closed but remained open for the mitigation- monitoring program that would at least expedite it. Commissioner Baldocchi stated that maybe limiting the time to two, or three minutes could work. She does not have a problem with being able to reopen and letting the residents that have been following the project speak. Commissioner Teglia He stated that the only problem he had was the commission has gotten into a pattern of agendizing a meeting. He states that some people show up and not able to speak. He stated that council had a number of meetings that were agendized and did not take public testimony. He states that maybe it should be agendized, discussed and then voted on that evening. Chairperson Honan disagrees with that. Commissioner Romero, stated the he thinks that in the past where there were certain items agendized, most specifically the EIR. The issue and the discussion by the public was specific with regards to the project not the EIR. He stated that regardless of what is done, the public will speak what they wish to speak. So he thinks that limiting the time is not going to work. He agrees with opening the public hearing again. Commissioner Baldocchi stated that she thinks the time limit option would work. Chairperson Honan: stated that before there would be a vote to close it on May 20, 1999, could it be reopened. Adam Lindgren stated that he would not advise to reopen because it has not been noticed. He advised that If a open public hearing is needed then you choose to continue it. Chairperson Honan stated that the public hearing remains open and it will continue to May 20, 1999. Approved bv unanimous Voice Vote with Commissioner D' Angelo being absent G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\050699.doc Page 9 of 10 ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 7. Items from Staff None 8. Items from Commission Commissioner Teglia requested that the bylaws subcommittee tape record their meeting so the commission can have a background on there recommendation 9. Items from the Public: None 10. Adjourn Motion Romero/Second Te2lia to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11 :20 p.m. ~~~ Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco ~~~ /Jl:jM'ith Honan, Chairperson L--Planning Commission City of South San Francisco NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting May 20, 1999, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\050699.doc Page 10 of 10