Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.18.99 Minutes CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE February 18, 1999 CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL / CHAIRMAN COMMENTS MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Honan, Vice Chairman Sim, Commissioner Masuda, Commissioner Romero, Commissioner Baldocchi, Commissioner Teglia MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Planning Division: Jim Harnish, Chief Planner Mike Upston Mike Lappen Adam Lindgren Richard Harmon City Attorney: Engineering: AGENDA REVIEW Chief Planner Harnish noted that the Agenda was unchanged, and provided a clarification that there were no public hearing items, only a study session. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Hermie V. Yema, Owner/Applicant, 266 Westview Drive, MUP-98-101 and Categorical Exemption Class 3, Section 15303 Minor Use Permit to allow a handicap ramp to encroach 5 feet into the minimum required 5- foot side setback in accordance with SSFMC Section 20.71.050. (Continuedfrom Planning Commission meeting of February 4, 1999) Commissioner Romero pulled the item from Consent Calendar for discussion. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Hermie V. Yema, Owner/Applicant, 266 Westview Drive, MUP-98-101 and Categorical Exemption Class 3, Section 15303 G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\rninutes\1999\021899wchanges.docPage 1 of 16 Minor Use Permit to allow a handicap ramp to encroach 5 feet into the minimum required 5 foot side setback in accordance with SSFMC Section 20.71.050. (Continued from Planning Commission meeting of February 4, 1999) Chairperson Honan opened the public hearing. Commissioner Romero recommended that one item be added on the proposed findings of denial, which should reaffirm that the ramp does not meet the minimum setback requirements established in the Standard Development Regulations. Commissioner Teglia agreed, adding that he had a couple of questions. He cited Item 3, which indicates that the ramp is consistent, he asked if this was a mistake, or needed to be modified. Chief Planner Harnish responded that it was not a mistake, and the ramp could be considered consistent with the General Plan, however the Commission could determine that they don't believe that is the case and modify it. Commissioner Teglia asked if something appropriate could be added to indicate that the construction of the ramp should seek to minimize the visual impact. Mr. Harnish suggested that the Commission indicate that they find that the ramp is visually intrusive. Commissioner Teglia suggested that modification also. Motion Romero / Second Masuda to adopt the findings of denial as modified by the Commission. Approved by majority voice vote. (STUDY SESSION ITEM) 2. Hilton Hotel at Oyster Point Marina, City of South San Francisco, Owner, Corporex Oyster Point, L.L.C., Applicant, Site bounded by Oyster Point Boulevard, Marina Way, Gull Drive, and San Francisco Bay. The construction of a 10 story hotel containing 325 rooms, a restaurant, bar, 8,000 square foot atrium and 14,000 square feet of meeting facilities, and a 3 story parking garage containing 325 parking spaces, situated on an undeveloped site. Chief Planner Harnish presented the staff report. Mr. Gene Hess, Chief Operating Officer for Corporex, provided background information on Corporex and history of the project. The site is a 6.4-acre site subject to adjustments because of the work being done on Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina Boulevard. That will reduce the size but not significantly. The City Of South San Francisco is the owner of the property and has a lease to the San Mateo Harbor District. They have worked with the City and the Harbor District in putting together a 55 year lease with two ten year options, at the end of 55 years the property, the land, and the hotel go to the City. The site is a former landfill and dump site, and there are requirements for remediation of the site. There has been a Phase I and Phase IT environmental study that has been done. Remediation of the Mitigation plan has been put forward to say that it can be developed. The smallest development on the site, whether it would be roads or anything else would require the same remediation. If anything were going to be developed, the individual developing would need to address the issues of the Remediation of the Mitigation. The lease that they have entered in with the City and the Harbor District requires a minimum of 250 rooms, full service, and 4-star hotel. The desire of the City and the Harbor District was to attract a 4-star service airport oriented hotel and that is what is being presented. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\021899wchanges.docPage 2 of 16 They have been able to get the approval of Hilton Hotel to be the franchisee, which is significant in this market because that name is well respected. Hilton has lost their existing Hotel at the Airport of 527 rooms, with the expansion of the international terminal. They have no presence now in the market. In order to secure Hilton they needed to have a significant hotel developed and the 325 rooms proposed is the hotel that they are looking for. The name of the Hotel will be Hilton San Francisco Airport North at Oyster Point Marina, and will be identified as the Hilton Hotel at San Francisco Airport. This is significant in being able to generate the amount of business that is required to support a hotel of this nature. There is a Hilton Garden Inn hotel in South San Francisco on Gateway Blvd. close to the Embassy Suites, and has 150 rooms. There is also another 150-room hotel in Burlingame next to the Red Roof hotel. The site limitations and the characteristics of the site it is necessary to build structured parking. The plan is to do a three level structured parking to accommodate 325 parking spaces. They have tremendous experience in the hotel industry, and are developers, owners, and managers of all their hotels. They went out and did a study of competitive set they would be matching up against would be the Hyatt, Marriott, and Westin Hotel. All these hotels have less than one to one parking ratio. They have talked to the S.S.F. Conference Center and they welcome Corporex to the area. The area is bounded by Oyster Point Boulevard, Marina Boulevard, Gull Drive and a drainage swell to the south of the project. This swell feeds into the San Francisco Bay. Therefore there is jurisdiction on the site by the BCDC for the 100'band. Part of the parking structure planned sits within those 100 feet. They have had preliminary meetings with BCDC and they have an understanding that what is being presented they can work in agreement as to placing the structure within that 100 foot shoreline band, as long as they maintain bay views, public access and the setback of the height of the structure building. The plan on the parcel is to take a portion of parcel 9 and merge it with parcel 3 to make one new parcel to accommodate the planned development on the site. The designated use for parcel 9 is public use and the proposal is to change it to from Coastal Commercial to Planned COilllllercial use. This will give the ability to comply with possible 1.6 FAR, which they are at 1.35, which includes the floor area of a parking structured garage. The benefits to the developer, City and the Harbor District are that they go beyond jobs to be created and the expansion to other businesses. The quality will raise the level and be a bonus to the community in the future. It is also projected to give the economics that the City and the Harbor District would gain from this. The lease would pay, based on study done by Hospitality Valuation Services, to the Harbor District in excess of $600,000 per year and the City would gain TOT in excess of $1 million per year. These are significant dollars to the City and also to the Harbor District. Vice Chairman Sim asked what the number of rooms were in the Hyatt Regency Burlingame Hotel. Mr. Hess replied that it had 793 rooms. The Marriott is 686 rooms and the Westin has 391 rooms. They also looked into the crown Plaza, Doubletree, Embassy Suites and the Clarion. These all have a less than one to one parking ratio. The Hyatt has 46,000-sf of meeting space, Marriott 28,000, and Westin 22,000 and they are able to meet that one-to-one ratio. The formula in the Specific Plan added with the South San Francisco East of 101 Plan requirements adds up to 525 parking spaces. They feel they have a basis for history to support the 325 spaces. As a fall back position they can make arrangements for off-site parking at night which can be used for employee parking if there was a spill over even though it is not expected. Chairperson Honan asked for history on how the name was derived. Mr. Hess noted that the City and the Harbor District were interested in attracting a full service, four-star hotel to the area. They met with a number of hotel flags to see who was in the market or wanted to come into the market. The two that showed interest were Radisson and Hilton, because this is a great market. Hilton lost their hotel, in order to replace that they needed an airport hotel, it is beneficial to the developer, the City, and the Harbor District to put the name of Hilton on it and designate it as an airport hotel. The name Hilton San Francisco Airport North at Oyster Point Marina is what they came up with. It identifies the location, for Hilton it is a plus because many people want to stay at the airport. Commissioner Masuda expressed a problem with San Francisco and North in the name of the hotel. It should be called Hilton South San Francisco or Airport Hilton South San Francisco G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\021899wchanges.docPage 3 of 16 Other Commissioners expressed the desire to have the name include South San Francisco. Commissioner Baldocchi and Masuda asked about the effects on the bay trail. Mr. Jim Sparesus stated that they have approached the site coming in on 101 and along Marina Boulevard there is a boutique hotel, commercial uses and offices. This was a landfill site and there are some early dramatic grade changes on the site. There is a roadway of 20-25' of sea level and as it gets to the top of the site it will be 65'. There is a definite impact on the site utilization by that kind of grade change. The hotel is going to be on structured slabs because of the fill. The elevators and stairways are kept to the outside of the building and they have put ramps in so they will accommodate the handicap. Many of the comments brought up by staff have been answered, such as accessibility by the Fire Department and to be able to make the turns around the site. A concern was, stacking along the roadway and access to loading docks. There can be two loading and one will come up front and one can be coming in. You will never get that kind of backup when people service a hotel. There is adequate room for trucks to come in and maneuver around the site. They have met with BCDC and talked to them about their jurisdiction and where the hotel takes place. There is a swale and BCDC wants them to maintain the natural character of that swale and the applicant intends to do so. They also talked about public access and they decided that they don't want to have people going through there. The access should be more street oriented and tied into the pathways being developed beyond. They will be able to get the majority of their utilities off of Oyster Point Boulevard. They have space for parking for airport transport. They were looking at a large circular ramp, which has been incorporated into the building and now is flat at both ends and pitches back and forth in term. Mr. Hess brought up some information in regard to the height issue. The staff report says that the height states that there are 130 feet, and the applicant has 126. He pointed out that the lease entered into with the Harbor District and the City permits 126 feet in height. Commissioner Teglia questioned what the difference in height was from the parking garage and the rest of the project. Mr. Sparesus replied by saying that the lobby area was 2 Y2 feet lower than the main floor. There are elevators in the atrium and have done a lot of changes because of the elevations. Vice Chairman Sim asked for occupant capacity and wanted a comparison comparable with the ballroom. Mr. Sparesus stated that it is about 80,00-sf. Mr. Hess stated that the ballroom could be reduced on its size for smaller meets. Commissioner Baldocchi asked what the maximum capacity for the ballroom. Mr. Sparesus stated that they would work on it with a formula. At the second floor level is the greatest extent of the room. The one story building can be seen as it stretches out beyond closer to the property. There is a two story area that is opened as you enter and the rooms wrap around. Mr. Hess indicated that the component of the hotel consists of 245 standard rooms, and 80 suites, of which 2/3 have bay views, and others have views of the San Bruno hills. He distributed some visual renderings of the buildings. Mr. Sparesus continued by saying that the 3rd and 4th floors there are similar configurations. The 5th and 7th they start to drop in and it is still the same configuration on the outside. The 8th and 9th floors come in substantially and are now down to two stairs. On the 10th floor they have a large viewing area and the suites G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\021899wchal1ges.docPage 4 of 16 wrap around and there is nothing substantial. There are different loop forms taking place at the different levels. He then proceeded to show different views of the hotel to the Commission. There was an issue that they could have been in a flood plane area but they are not. Because of the conditions that they have to deal with they can go down to a certain point and then they start going to where there is landfill. He then proceeded to show the Commission the appearance of the building. Commissioner Teglia related that the applicant has the capability to increase parking. Mr. Sparesus stated that with the circular motion that was being worked with. They have gone as far as they can go. Commissioner Teglia stated that it was possible to get another half level in there. Any spill over employee parking would not equate to more than a half level and it would be desirable to keep everyone on site anyway. Mr. Sparesus stated that the parking structure allows 337 cars with the correct amount of handicap stalls and is laid out height wise to accommodate vans on any of the levels Commissioner Baldocchi questioned if the 337 included the handicap parking. Mr. Sparesus replied that they were including these stalls. Mr. Hess proceeded to show a picture of the hotel to the Commission. Mr. Kato the landscape architect on behalf of the applicant noted that what he was still in the conceptual stage. He stated that they could not pump a lot of water through the site and they would simulate and limit the amount of water. He then proceeded to explain how they could cut down 50% of the water being put on the site. The site would settle 3-4 feet in fifteen years so they can't plant trees that will not survive. He proposed to plant palm trees up to 10 feet in order to have them survive. In regard to the native plant material it should be around the channel and non-irrigated. He then proceeded to give a list on what native plants he would be using. He then proceeded to explain how they would address the Bay Trail, and described where they would put it to connect it with the Harbor District's trail. Commissioner Teglia questioned what would happen to the trees on the site Mr. Hess and Mr. Kato indicated that they plan to work with the adjacent developer to coordinate a landscape plan that will compliment the entry way for the King Ventures site and their site. Commissioner Teglia asked about the impervious cap. Mr. Hess responded that if they want to penetrate it then they are creating a spot for moisture to get in. Then the consistency is lost. In the remediation of mitigation they will be putting in clay, landfill, liner, and gravel base to comply with in the mitigation-monitoring plan. Commissioner Baldocchi asked about the stability for earthquake safety with the layers being described. Mr. Sparesus responded that the building would be on piles, which would go down to stable ground. Those piles would have to be sealed so that the penetration is not being broken. Richard Harmon, Engineering Division, stated that the Eucalyptus trees on the site were there before the landfill. Mr. Kato stated that as they go west and north where the building is located it is not on landfill. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\021899wchanges.docPage 5 of 16 Mr. Harmon stated that the aerial photographs from 1950 show that how the area was filled and they also have drawings to show how things were developed. Mr. Hess noted that the area is 55% landscaping. Mr. Sparesus related that the landscaping will be done in a natural manner for the King site. Chairperson Honan asked the applicant to explain why such tall trees were being proposed. Mr. Kato explained two options. If the soil is good to put trees and cover the building, or plant things that are in scale. These are tall trees in scale with the building but don't cover the building. Mr. Hess explained that they were trying to keep views out of the building, the trees would create a mild filter. Vice Chairman Sim asked the applicant what was being done in response to the comments of the Design Review Board. Mr. Sparesus stated that they went back, looked at the character of the building and reviewed the recommendations. They feel better in trying to keep the natural tones. They have gone through some stages and down shifted the character. Vice Chairman Sim commented that in his opinion the building appears to be bulky, and the design as presented would require improvements. He stated that three dimensionally it could be more convincing. He asked about the parking issue. Commissioner Baldocchi encouraged the applicant to work with King Ventures and other developers in the Oyster Point area, and to work on landscaping, signage and design. Mr. Hess replied stated that some of the characteristics of the hotel could change. The number of units and size of the building would not change because they need this to be a full service hotel. Vice Chairman Sim questioned the parking issues. Mr. Harnish indicated that those were initially considered and may not be done in the Negative Declaration. Mr. Hess commented that the study would include other areas as well, such as shadow, wind, parking, traffic plan and other studies. Mr. Kato talked about the Oyster Point Specific Plan where it talks about a landscape buffer or a tree within every 200-sf. He explained that he could not see where to put a buffer because of inputting native grasses and the Bay Trail connection. He asked for a waiver of that requirement, which he thought, was in either the East of 101 or the Oyster Point Specific Plans. Chairperson Honan questioned the clock at the top of the building. Commissioner Baldocchi questioned if anything could be done about the clock to keep it with the water theme. Mr. Kato replied that they could remove the clock. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\021899wchanges.docPage 6 of 16 Vice Chairman Sim would like a unique building for the City and something the residents can be proud of. Mr. Hess stated that the Design Review Board was concerned with the way their building would tie in to the other surrounding buildings. Commissioner Romero recommended that the landscape architect get together with the landscape architect on the other project and come up with a plan that is unique to both, but complement the entrance to the marina. Mr. Hess stated that the Harbor District wants to put a sign at the entrance of the marina to identify all the things located in the area. He thought that this would be confusing and that would be the standard that the Commission is looking for. They also wanted to put in a gatehouse and dress it up. He then proceeded to explain the different types of activities that are going on in the area, which appears to be a good time to take the comer because of the activity on both sides. Commissioner Baldocchi asked if utilities would be underground or above ground. Mr. Sparesus stated that it would be above grade. Wherever there is grade the utilities would be suspended off the structural slab, and once they are beyond the fill the utilities will go above grade again. Commissioner Teglia noted that the utilities were addressed early on, adding that there is a consensus on the landscaping and expressed some concerns with some of the material being proposed. The applicant mentioned that they did not want to put too much water on the site. He suggested other ways to do it, such as a drip irrigation. There are many native plants which could be used. He then stated that the waves of gravel had caught his attention and suggested some green in the area, and encouraged the landscape architect to work more with the landscaping. Mr. Sparesus stated that the structural slab would be similar to what is in a house, it would not be visible. Mr. Kato did some investigation before the meeting where drip has become the buzz word. He has no problem using the drip irrigation for the areas of shrubs and ground covers. It falls short of working in a turf area. He stated that the project was on a conceptual phase, and if they use a normal low gallonage time irrigation system. Until they can figure out how the capping mechanism is going to occur. Commissioner Masuda noted that he thought there would be a problem watering with a drip due to clay on plastic, and if they add too much water it will start shifting downhill. Mr. Kato stated that they can come up with a sloped system that can pick up the subsurface water and it has to be timed so there is not a lot of water. He asked the Commission to take a look at the wave concept. Commissioner Baldocchi stated that she would like to see as much native plants as possible integrated into the area. She noted that she thought the concept of working with the surrounding area to coordinate the landscaping. She asked if the plans could come back to the Commission the next time. Mr. Kato stated that he would prefer not to use too many natives, and he would do some further investigation. Then he would come back to the Commission with some better solutions. Commissioner Baldocchi was happy to see that the applicant was collaborating with the other businesses in the area. She suggested that when the applicant comes back to the Commission, that they bring plans showing what is going to be happening and how it will fit in. Commissioner Baldocchi was concern with the parking and encouraged them to look into ways of increasing the parking. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\rninutes\1999\021899wchanges.docPage 7 of 16 Mr. Hess noted that this is a hotel that would generate airport passengers, where many of them would use alternative means for transportation, such as the courtesy vans. Chairperson Honan noted that it was a study session and she appreciated the applicant's comments. She suggested that when the applicants comes back they would have all the concerns addressed. She thanked them for their presentation. Recess taken at 9:30 p.m. Meeting recalled to order at 9:38 p.m. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 3. Items from Staff . PUDs and Exceptions - Study session to discuss options for handling PUDs and various requests for exceptions to the City's General Development Standards. Chairperson Honan recommended that in the interest of time, and considering that some people were not feeling well, the PUDs and exceptions should be carried forward to another meeting. Chief Planner Harnish stated that the next agenda was fairly light and that there was room to move the PUDs and exceptions Consensus of the Plannin2 Commission to carry the PUDs and Exceptions to the March 4th Meetin2. . Parliamentary Procedures - Study session for discussion of Parliamentary Procedures. Commissioner Baldocchi noted that she felt the parliamentary procedures should be held until the vacancy was filled. Chairperson Honan stated that she would prefer to deal with it tonight and at a later time the Commission can choose to hold another study session to discuss the item with the new person or persons. Chief Planner Harnish explained that the purpose of bringing the issue to the Commission was to give them the opportunity to reevaluate what they want to modify or change. The new person coming on wouldn't have much of a reference to see how things were done in the past. The person would pick up on the new procedures. The new person/persons coming on would benefit from the discussions that would relate to any considerations by the Commission. Commissioner Baldocchi was concerned about not having the new Commissioner participate in the discussion. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren stated that staff would be willing to talk with who ever comes on, and address the procedures. The most important thing for the Commission to do is to decide how the Commission wants to handle business. When the new person coming in would be adapting to and following the Commission's following. Rather than having staff instnlct them as to what the proper procedure would be. He also mentioned about a new document that came out in January for Mayors and Councilmembers that talked about habits that affect them, and the ideas are applicable to the Commission. Commissioner Baldocchi stated that she was for the discussion but didn't have any idea they would be G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\021899wchal1ges.docPage 8 of 16 changing anything. Chief Planner Harnish stated that they do not have any proposals to change but that the discussion is to identify the way things are changing. Commissioner Teglia agreed with Chief Planner Harnish and felt that everyone should get their opportuntiy to speak. He stated that the Commission should not debate aloud but to themselves, without arguing back and forth. He explained how some people have been confused on what staff's recomendation on the project is and it is due to the fact that staff makes a presentation and then the applicant make a presentation. He suggested that there be no staff presentation, the applicant give a presentation, public comments and then the Commission asks questions. A controlled meeting would be better without arguments from the applicant. Should there be a clarification staff or the applicant can reply. This gives more of a fair hearing to everyone. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren suggested that staff should be sitting at the table that needs to answer questions, so not to confuse the public. Chief Planner Harnish explained how staff and the Commission have been conducting these meetings for some time. The public who attends a meeting for the first time does not clearly understand what is happening. Commissioner Teglia stated the public should get that opportunity to talk about an item and then the Commission can discuss it. He explained how the Commission.can ask questions to the applicant and he thinks that too many applicants have argued back and forth with the Commission. Commissioner Romero stated that he does not feel that his role is to get into an adversarial situation with other Commissioners. He explained how his opinions were firm and if the Commission does not support them it does not matter. He does not want to get into any debates. He expressed a concern about not bieng repetitive, and this would expedite the meetings. He cited an example of the Council's handling of the MRF. He recommended a process where the Commission states their positions, then makes a decision, without being being intimidated or having heated debates. The arguments prolong the item and make an individual want to reaffirm what they are saying by rephrasing everything without intimidation. Commissioner Baldocchi stated that she felt that debate was an important part of the process, and everyone can express his or her opinions to make better a project. Commissioner Romero stated that there are 7 people on the Commission and at least four people should agree with the individual who is debating. The Commission should be perceptive and supportive to an idea to push it further. If four members of the Commission do not support the idea it is an effortless process. The process is that the Chairperson comes up with the consensus of the Commission to approve or deny a project. Commissioner Teglia agreed with Commissioner Romero's point. He has seen times when the Commission is going in the same direction and someone may disagree, but it is obvious what the consensus will be. He agreed with having the Chairperson call for consensuses if no one will step up to make the motion. Commissioner Masuda commented that the role of the Commission is to act upon their own individual preference, and not to be influenced by other Commissioners. Debate gives the impression to the public that the Commissioners are arguing. He also commented that he felt there was no need for the Commissioners to explain why they vote the way they vote. Commissioner Teglia agreed with Commissioner Masuda and stated how a change is suggested and the question would be if the Commission likes it or not. When someone brings up a recommendation the Commission should feel free to say if they are for or against the recommendation. The Commission does need to have discussion on modifications and another Commissioner could then refine it. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\rninutes\1999\021899wchanges.docPage 9 of 16 Commissioner Masuda stated that the reasons for voting could be given but not explained. Commissioner Romero asked if as a matter of procedure, any Commissioner could call for a consensus or request the Chairperson to call for a consensus. Chief Planner Harnish stated that if there is a motion on the floor a question could be called. Commissioner Masuda questioned if it was up to the Chairperson to call for a consensus if there is a heated discussion. Chief Planner Harnish stated that the Chairperson can call a concensus but anyone can call the question. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren stated that the previous question would not be moved. Chairperson Honan noted that as the Chair, she would, in the interest of moving a meeting ahead, call for a vote if she felt that a discussion was getting argumentative. This would not mean that she agrees or disagrees, but that she is trying to move the meeting along. She suggested that placing the minutes on Consent Calendar would move the meeting along. Consensus by the Commission to add the Minutes to the Consent Calendar. Chairperson Honan asked for clarification why the Commission had been told that it was not appropriate to explain their vote. Chief Planner Harnish noted that the explanation should be made prior to the roll call vote, and when the Commission is asked to vote it should be aye or nay. The explanation should not be done while the roll call is being done. Commissioner Masuda explained that the reason is to be given before the vote, and when the roll is called he would say aye or nay. Commissioner Teglia stated that while this makes the meeting flow better, it was not wrong, and if the Commission decided it was appropriate they could do that. Chairperson Honan asked the Assistant City Attorney if that was true. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren noted that the parliamentary procedures say that in order for a motion to be on the floor there has to be a second. The City Council does not call a roll call and then explain why they are voting for this. Commissioner Masuda asked if this was legal. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren noted that he would research to make sure that it was legal. They are not talking about what is legal or illegal but what is parliamentary procedure. Chief Planner Harnish explained the sequence of the parliamentary procedure. First the staff report is given, the applicant gives there presentation, the Public Hearing is opened then closed, ask for discussion by the Commission, call for a motion then a second, and discussion on the motion and then the Commission would vote on the motion. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren explained that if discussion continues after roll call there may be G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\rninutes\1999\021899wchal1ges.docPage 10 of 16 discussion on an amendment and is more difficult. Commissioner Baldocchi stated that she had a real concern with what was being proposed in that she felt that she would be prevented from debating and expressing her concerns. She feels that if she cannot give her opinion something is being taken away from her. She understood by the discussion that people don't want to debate and she felt this was an important part of the meeting. She also stated that it was her job to give an opinion at the meeting and that Council had appointed her to do so. Commissioner Teglia stated that it is o.k. to debate at the proper time, but the Commission is trying to move toward the roll call vote. The vote can be done and the Commission has had an opportunity prior to the motion to discuss and try to explain their reasoning to the way they plan to vote. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren explained how a motion can be amended and that amendment can be amended. The Commission should always take action one at a time so they can be organized. Chairperson Honan asked about a complex project dealing with sub-issues, such as amendments to conditions with separate motions rather than to approve something with various amendments. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren stated that he would not encourage strictly following this parliamentary procedure. Commissioner Teglia related this is a tool kit of different options and each type of issue should not be handled the same. He explained how asking if each Commissioner wants to speak will slow the process down because there are too many issues. He questioned if a motion has been made followed by a second, and the Commission realizes that something should be different, could the motion and second be withdrawn rather than amended. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren explained that if the motion was on the floor the Commission would have to vote against the it cousing it to go down. Commissioner Masuda questioned if the amendment didn't pass if it would go back to the original motion. Chief Planner Harnish stated that if the original maker of the motion was convinced to withdraw the motion then it could be withdrawn. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren wanted to keep the parliamentary portion as straight forward as possible, and did not want the Commission to act parliamentary. The Commission has chosen to use parliamentary procedures as a helping tool, and they need to work on how it should work for them. Commissioner Masuda suggested that a certain order for speaking could be used to avoid having more than one speaker trying to speak through the chair. Commissioner Baldocchi indicated that she would prefer to speak when she was ready, and was not comfortable with a more organized meeting. She again expressed a concern that her right to speak was being taken away. Commissioner Teglia noted that there are a lot of issues that Commission doesn't address and this would be a tool, but cautioned against being so restrictive. Chairperson Honan noted that she would like a consensus that if there is a motion on the table, and there is an amendment, could the Commission vote on the amendment first, then on the original motion. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\021899wchanges.docPage 11 of 16 Assistant City Attorney Lindgren noted that this was appropriate. Consensus of the Commission to vote on an amendment and then vote on the original motion. Chairperson Honan explained how following staff's presentation she has questions and writes them down, and if anyone asks questions the focus on the presentation is lost. She asked for a consensus to hold any comments until the presentation finished and then comment on staff's presentation before turning it over to the applicant. Consensus bv the Commission to hold Questions on staff's presentation until staff has finished presenting or after the hearing has closed and the item is open for discussion bv the Commission. Chairperson Honan asked how reporters were getting Commissioners' home phone numbers. Chief Planner Harnish explained that if a person is trying to contact the Commission they leave a message with staff, and then staff calls the Commissioner and gives them the message along with the phone number. Commissioner Baldocchi related that this process has worked and there was a time when she was called at home. Chief Planner Harnish explained how many people in the City have the confidential phone list in the City. Staff has their direct lines and they are not given out to the general public, and they should call the Planning Division's phone number. He also mentioned that there are cards with staff's main numbers and if the Commission would like those they can be given to them along with the e-mail addresses Commissioner Teglia stated that this could not be stopped and just wanted to make sure the protocol was set. Chairperson Honan suggested that the Commissioners, including herself, should be aware of their body language. Vice Chairman Sim encourages speaking in rotation and that Chairperson Honan makes sure that everyone has spoken and asked their questions. Everyone has the opportunity to speak and encourages what they have decided. He also stated that with the debating issue it should be a fair level, whether one Commissioner likes to debate or not. Commissioner Baldocchi stated that the word debate and discussion can be synonymous and are important to the process. This may be where the misunderstading lies in the definitions and interpretation of the words. Commissioner Romero thinks it is important that the Commission is there to help the applicant and to give them the opportunity to do what they feel is appropriate with any particular project. He suggested that the Commission should let staff know if they have any issues with the project before the meeting. This will allow the applicant to respond and help move the meeting along. Commissioner Teglia stated that it is important to bring these things out at the meeting. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren would like a hand with any problems the Commission has on a certain project. He then can focus on those conditions and also respond. Chief Planner Harnish stated that the comment staff would like to see, is if the Commission had any questions, and if staff needs to prepare any additional information. This would keep staff and the Commission from continuing the item to the next meeting, which he felt, was most important. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\021899wchanges.docPage 12 of 16 Commissioner Teglia noted that if a Commissioner disagrees on something, then the Commission would like to know why that one Commissioner is disagreeing. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren stated that if a legal memo handed to the Commission was not clear or did not cover everything with a call, he could give an oral opinion to supplement it. Commissioner Masuda asked if the Chairperson could in some way keep the meeting focused on the item discussed and not have the public change the subject during the five minute speaking time. Commissioner Teglia agreed with having to use the gavel and was concerned about using the gavel. He also suggested that they first be asked to get back on the subject. Commissioner Baldocchi suggested that the speakers be limited to less time than five minutes to speak in the case of Terrabay, where there have been many hearings on the subject. Chairperson Honan explained that speaking time could be limited depending on how many cards have been submitted. Commissioner Baldocchi asked about the way staff reports were written. An example was the Hilton Hotel and how the action and the description were separate. This helped her to understand what was happening. She felt that this gave more information the public . Handout on packet for Terrabay Phase II. Chief Planner Harnish related that these illustrations were available if the Commission wanted the big illustrations. Commissioner Baldocchi stated she did not have a problem with the small illustrations. Commissioner Romero prefers big illustrations. Commissioner Teglia mentioned that when a presentation is given only the Commission sees it and the public does not see it. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren suggested that the presenter be facing the public. Chief Planner Harnish suggested that staff work with the applicants. . Irene's Retirement Chief Planner Harnish stated that Irene Shadd was retiring. Commissioner Teglia recommended that staff draft a resolution for Irene. 4. Items from Commission . Commissioner Romero noted that the League of California Cities is having a conference in March and suggested that other cities in the County can get together to socialize. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren notified the Commission that he would be attending the conference also and another attorney from his firm was doing a presentation. They decided that they would take the Commissioners out to dinner. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\021899wchanges.docPage 13 of 16 . Chairperson Honan requested that at the Terrabay Public Hearings people stop putting their literature out in the front. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren offered to look at that because he thought it was problematic. Chairperson Honan related that at the last Terrabay Public hearing someone was trying to coerce her son to join the San Bruno Mountain Watch group. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren stated that if anything ever disturbs the Commission in conducting the meetings it is appropriate for him to act on and there are specific procedures that he can help with to make sure that the meeting goes forward. Commissioner Masuda questioned that Mr. Schooley has interviewed a couple of people and if the document was on file. Chief Planner Harnish stated that this was not on file. Commissioner Masuda stated that he will ask him to file such a document with the City. . Commissioner Baldocchi noted that Castillo's Market was not in good condition, and proceeded to mention what things she had seen in the area. The Old Town Homeowners Association is trying to keep the area clean but she wanted to know if there was a way that the Commission could help. Chief Planner Harnish stated that it is believed that the Redevelopment Agency is targeting the site for a housing project. Commissioner Masuda stated that someone was putting out a stand of things to sell on the sidewalk in front of the washing and drying place. He mentioned about a produce market on Linden and Hillside, and how it is getting dirty. Chief Planner Harnish stated that the Commission will have a Use Permit before them on March 4, 1999. . Commissioner Baldocchi wanted to get some information on the proposed power plant. Chief Planner Harnish stated that there were several meetings months ago, where they expressed some interest. Some information was provided and staff tried to get some initial feedback. He has had some phone calls on the subject but a formal application has not been submitted. He stated that CEC would not go forward with the application if the City does not approve of the zoning entitlements, which are required by the CEC to come into the City. The CEC application is a functional equivalent and when all the application requirements are fulfilled this can serve as an EIR in the process. AES would then give this to the City as an environmental analysis that would support the application for the zoning entitlements. Commissioner Masuda asked if the City could not stop the California Energy Commission from overriding the City's say on the project. Chief Planner Harnish stated that this was not correct and that the State can preempt local zoning and landuse regulations if it makes certain findings. This law was established in the 70s during the energy crisis and the state had an interest in locating nuclear power plants. CEC staff said that they do not exercise that authority. He then related an example where the Planning Commission of Sutter County had turned down zoning for a power plant. There was an appeal to the Board of Supervisors and if the Board upheld the Planning Commission's decision then the project was dead. G:\File Cabinet\Old PC\workil1g\mil1utes\1999\021899wchanges,docPage 14 of 16 Assistant City Attorney Lindgren noted that the way the law is written it is put in the State's court. It requires a consultation process. The feedback from the agency on how they interpret their authority is critical, and it is important to note that there are specific finding that they would have to make if they contradicted local authority. This does create an area where the State has specific authority in the environmental documentation. If the State continues to exercise there authority consistent with the City's processing permits it is the bottom line and this is a State area. Commissioner Masuda wanted to know if South San Francisco, Airport and Bart needed a low cost electrical producer, could the State preempt the City's say and build it. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren answered that the law requires that the State make very specific findings before preempting local authority. Chief Planner Harnish stated that the project was not intended to be a local power supply. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren offered to give the Commission to give them a memo on the subject. . Commissioner Baldocchi suggested that the Policy documents pertaining to items on the agenda be available for the Commission's regerence. Chief Planner Harnish noted that this was a good suggestion and staff would keep copies of these documents at the MSB. . Commissioner Teglia asked for a follow up on the Use Permit revocation hearings and when they would get scheduled. Chief Planner Harnish stated that this has not yet been done because of the work load in the Planning Division. . Commissioner Teglia asked that when a meeting is scheduled other than a regularly scheduled meeting, it should be done at the Planning Commission meeting and the decision should be made as a whole. Commissioner Baldocchi was concerned with this issue and she finds that when she opens the newspaper and reads that there will be a Public Hearing it comes as a surprise to her. When the Commission decided to schedule the Terrabay Phase II Public Hearing it was only scheduled toward the end of February and would have liked to be given a specific date. She also agrees that the Commission should make the decision for special meetings. Chief Planner Harnish stated that he may have misunderstood the direction given by the Commission. He understood that the Commission had given him the authority to set the meeting date. Commissioner Baldocchi once again addressed the issue of opening the newspaper and would have like staff to have confirmed the date at a meeting or by telephone. She stated that a meeting date should be agreed upon by the Commission, and that without a quorum there can't be a meeting. Chief Planner Harnish stated that the Commission is provided the caseload status for their review and the upcoming meetings shown on that. Commissioner Teglia suggested that staff give the Commission some dates and the Commission can decide which one to have the meeting. G:\File Cabil1et\Old PC\workil1g\minutes\1999\021899wchanges.docPage 15 of 16 Commissioner Masuda stated that the caseload helps him in planning his month and not scheduling anything for the scheduled meeting dates. If the Commission waits for the next meeting to schedule a meeting he will be missing a lot of meetings. Commissioner Baldocchi stated that the caseload status is a great tool, but her concern was not being notified that the meeting for Terrabay was final and not tentative. Commissioner Teglia stated that at the rate things are going that projects should not be scheduled urgently. Chief Planner Harnish stated that the Terrabay Phases were looked at a long-range schedule, and he then brought it up to the Commission. 5. Items from the Public None 6. Adjourn Motion Teglia I Second Romero Meeting adjourned at 11 :00 p.m. ~ andith Honan, Chairperson . Planning Commission City of South San Francisco NEXT MEETING: Special Meeting February 25, 1999, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA. G:\File Cabil1et\Old PC\working\mil1utes\1999\021899wchanges,docPage 16 of 16