Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.21.99 Minutes CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE October 21, 1999 TAPEl CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioner Baldocchi, Commissioner D'Angelo, Commissioner Meloni, Commissioner Romero, Commissioner Teglia, Vice Chairperson Sim and Chairperson Honan MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Planning Division: Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Susy Kalkin Director Marty Van Duyn Steve T. Mattas Richard Harmon City Eng. Cyrus Kianpour Sgt. Mike Massoni ECD City Attorney: Engineering: Police Dept.: AGENDA REVIEW Chief Planner Sparks went through the caseload status and explained that J alisco Market would be continued. He mentioned Crocker's Lockers could be continued because the meeting might run late. He noted that there is a letter in the Commissioners' mail from City Attorney Mattas requesting continuance of the bylaws. He mentioned that it is traditional with the Commission, if the workload is not heavy, to cancel the second meeting in December and suggested that the Commission keep that in mind if they wish to do so. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Chavarria's Market Mary Lonati/owner 900 Linden Ave. UP-99-010 Review of use permit to allow a retail store within 200 ft. of a residential district in a C-l District. 2. Roberto Gonzales-owner/applicant 47 Seville Way PUD-99-063 and Categorical Exemption Class 1 Section 15301 \\MULDER\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\1 02199.doc Page 1 of 12 Planned Unit Development to allow a two-story, approximately 700 square foot addition to the rear of an existing 2-story residence. Motion Romero / Second Te2lia to approve the Consent Calendar. Approved by unanimous voice vote. PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEMS 5. Crocker's Lockers-owner/applicant 345 Shaw Rd. UP-95-1000/MOD2 and ND-99-031 Use Permit Modification allowing the addition of one-story modular storage buildings totaling 17,780 sq. ft. Chairperson Honan spoke to the applicant of Crocker's Lockers and they decided that he would wait after the Costco presentation is given by staff and the applicant at which time he would decide if the item should be continued. 3. Costc%wner-applicant 1556 EI Camino Real UP-98-084, EIR-98-084 and SC-98-084 Use Permit and Type "C" Sign Permit to allow construction of a 147,000 square foot Costco store and associated 16-pump gasoline facility with signage in excess of 300 square feet on a 15.12 acre site located at 1556 EI Camino Real in the P-C-L, Planned Commercial Zone District. Senior Planner Kalkin gave staff report. Jerry Haag, Environmental Consultant, stated that a Draft and Final EIR were prepared for the project He stated that the two major impacts identified in the EIR are air quality impacts and traffic impacts. He noted that Don Ballanti, who prepared the air quality analysis, will discuss those impacts. He added that the City of South San Francisco cannot guarantee that a signal will be installed at the intersection of Mission and EI Camino at the time necessary to fully mitigate the impact, because it is located in the Town of Colma. He noted that staff's recommendation is that the Commission adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations when they certify the EIR. He noted that the Planning Commission could find that the project benefits outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts mentioned. The staff report identifies what staff feels would benefits to the City, such as; more employment, community benefits, reuse of the old vacant Macys site, and economic benefits including tax and revenue fees. Don Ballanti, Air Pollution Meteorologist, elaborated on the BAAQMD threshold that is exceeded and requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations. He noted that the pollutants involved are Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) and Nitrous Oxides (NOX). He explained how ROG and NOX pollutants are a regional impact; ozone is not a problem in South San Francisco but is a regional problem. He noted that it is transported from the Bay Area all the way to Sacramento and Stockton. He added that all projects make a contribution towards this, and the Air District has decided that 80 pounds per day is a reasonable number to represent a threshold. He added that anything over 80 pounds would require a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Chairperson Honan asked that no matter how many cars go through the area, this would not affect South San Francisco but affect other areas like Livermore. Mr. Ballanti stated that there are regional criteria. One of the criteria is that the air quality standards for local pollutants can't be exceeded. He noted that they do have a worse case analysis of local pollutants, such as carbon monoxide. He noted that the maximum impact of this project was 0.4 parts per million for the 7 intersections that were looked at. He noted that ROG and NOX is a regional problem \\MULDER\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\1 02199.doc Page 2 of 12 and is not related to any degradation of SSF' s air quality. Commissioner Baldocchi asked what the average amount of ROG and NOX generated on a per project basis. Mr. Ballanti stated that this is an arbitrary developed by the Air District for a proposed development and the number is calculated based on the land use and it changes by year because of the change in vehicle emissions. He noted that the thresholds are changed periodically; prior to 1996 it was 150 pounds per day. Commissioner Meloni asked if approving the emissions from this project would impact the City's ability to approve new projects in the area. Mr. Ballanti stated that the 80 pounds per day threshold is not meant to stifle development and that the air district has no authority to do that. He noted that the purpose of the threshold is to make the decision-makers aware that their decisions are affecting a larger area than just their own City, and also to require projects to implement mitigation measures. Commissioner Meloni asked if the severity of the mitigation measures affect any other projects. Mr. Ballanti noted that there is no carryover that says they have to make up for another project's shortfalling. Keith Meyer, Rajappan & Meyer, addressed questions raised at the Commission's August meeting. He noted that traffics counts had been conducted at both the north and south legs of Longford, and that the westbound direction toward 1-280 was projected to degrade from level of service (LOS) A to B in the a.m. peak and LOS B to C in the p.m. He noted that at the south Longford leg there is a current LOS B in the a.m. and p.m., and in the a.m. it would go to C. He related that there will be changes but not significant impacts determined by the City. Commissioner Romero asked if the Longford exit would remain a LOS B or degrade. Mr. Meyer stated that it would remain a B for the near term and for the long-term it would go from LOS B to C. Commissioner Romero asked if the information was based on the traffic from Hickey or going out to Longford. Mr. Meyer stated that the traffic study takes into account both approach and average delay for all movements at the intersection. He addressed intersection impacts for the a.m. and p.m. with and without the gas station. He also showed slides with regard to the relative impacts of BART and Costco traffic. City Attorney Mattas noted that the Statement of OvelTiding Considerations had one impact that was mitigated to a less than significant level through the contribution of the fair share by the applicant. He noted that it is in the Statement of Overriding Considerations because there is a potential that it could not be mitigated due to the fact that the City cannot control if a traffic improvement will occur in another area. He noted that the applicant can be required to pay a fair share amount but cannot require that the improvement be completed. He also noted that Mr. Etzel's letter dated 10/13/99 and flyers make reference to a sales tax agreement and a potential tax agreement. He informed the Commission that the issues before them relate to the land use issues and any other issues related to the financing of the project would be within the jurisdiction of the City Council. Commissioner Teglia noted that there were a number of impacts that the Commission needs to override. He noted that a major part of the Statement of Overriding Considerations is dollars. He noted that the Commission has jurisdiction over it because the City is contemplating giving away some of those dollars and it would affect the benefit of the Overriding considerations to those impacts. City Attorney Mattas noted that the financing agreements are not properly before the Commission because they do not have the authority to approve or disapprove financing agreements. He added that if the Commission adopts the statement of overriding considerations, there decision should be based on the information before them. He noted that the authority to deal with financial issues is not the task of the Commission but it is to be addressed by the City Council. Commissioner Teglia stated that financing is not an issue for the Commission but the sales tax should be one of the total numbers that the Commission should know about. He added that the benefits are overriding the significant impacts and that the Commission should have some information on the scope. Jack Frank, Costco, gave a presentation. TAPE 2 Peter Clement, Mulvanny Architects, continued with the presentation. \\MULDER\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\1 02199 .doc Page 3 of 12 Public Hearing opened. Harvey Bryant, 1700 EI Calnino Real RU 21 SP21, stated that he was in favor of the Costco project because of the revenue it would bring to the City, and the beautification of the site. Bill Johnson, 219 EI Campo Drive, disclosed that he is an environmental scientist and has been writing environmental impact reports for the past eight years. He noted that there were a number of flaws in the document: . Storm Water Quality is an issue that was scoped out of the initial study, which stated that the site was paved and that there was a warehouse on it. He noted that under CEQA the setting is what is on the ground today, and he added that there is no parking lot or warehouse on the site. He commented that if the Commission certifies the EIR, they will have a project that has more impervious services and that will increase storm water runoff. The additional cars will add more pollution to the storm water runoff. He noted that the runoff from the parking lot would drain directly into the Bay without treatment. He added that copper would be coming from the cars in the parking lot because it is associated with brake pads. He noted that there is mitigation available, but it will not come from the Regional Board according to the initial study. He informed the Commission that the Regional Board would not do anything for this, it is the jurisdiction of San Mateo County. He suggested that the Commission incorporate some operational management practices, such as, "Start at the Source" from the Bay Area Storm Water Management Association. . He noted that a mitigation measure says that the applicant would go to San Mateo County and ask for clearance in regard to hazardous materials but it does not delineate what Costco will do in terms of the contamination. He noted that the mitigation measure needs to ensure that Costco will do something, and the Commission needs to understand what the range of remediation is. The public needs to know what safety measures will be taken if they are going to be digging in a contaminated site. He added that they need to know if the residual risk is appropriate for the land use. . He noted the EIR identifies air quality as a significant and unavoidable impact, but there is not much mitigation proposed. He noted that there is nothing in the EIR with regard to air quality emissions. He further noted that this is an unavoidable significant impact, but because it is a regional impact Costco can do many things to offset its emissions. He noted that Costco is vehicle oriented and they can buy emissions credits from other places. He suggested having them talk to the Public Works Department to work this out. . He noted that the alternatives analysis is comparable to the one that was deemed inadequate in the Supreme Court case [Laurel Heights Improvement Association versus University of California at San Francisco]. In conclusion, he noted that the analysis does not try to reduce the significant air quality impacts, and it should reduce those impacts. The EIR says that larger vehicles will be going to Costco, which means there will be more pollution and more SUV s than with a typical commercial development. · He noted that he is looking forward to walking to the BART station and is not going to shop at Costco on his way home. He noted that he envisioned a more commercial retail development that is pedestrian oriented. Karen Torres, 18 Arlington Drive, stated that she is afraid of what will happen at Arlington and EI Camino Real in regards to traffic. She stated that she is opposed to the project. Helen Headlee, 115 Duval Drive, stated she is opposed to having Costco on EI Camino Real. She added that she was not concerned about the air quality in Livermore but cares about the noise and pollution from Hickey Boulevard. She noted that she sat on her porch on Hickey counting cars and she counted 200 cars in one hour. Stanley Scovill, 838 Newman Dr., stated he supported the Costco project. He noted that much of the traffic on Hickey comes from Daly City and Pacifica. He noted that Longford Drive has been a problem since 1952, and that a traffic signal would mitigate the problem or they could consider opening Clay Street. \\MULDER\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\1 02199 .doc Page 4 of 12 Paul Stoffan, 435 Dundee Way-Pacifica, stated that South San Francisco could have a great revenue from Costco Wholesale, which could help the City maintained Fire and Police services. He added that he was in favor of Costco and encouraged the Commission to approve this large source of revenue. Michael Hyde, 26 Conrad Court, stated that Costco has products for small businesses. He asked if the Shell gas station was being protected or if the consumers were going to get the best price for their money. He noted that the applicant's presentation showed that 5% of the EI Camino Real traffic would be attributed to Costco, and asked if Costco is being penalized for building after BART. He pointed out that a flyer he received was distributed by South San Franciscans for Responsible Growth, and asked if the Shell Gas station was putting out this flyer. He related that he was for the Costco project. Milton Zibel, 11 Crown Circle, stated that Costco is a regional shopping facility. He asked if the increase of shoppers and their vehicles would enhance the City of SSP. He thought it would be a negative to the immediate residential area and the traffic. He added that he is in opposition to Costco. Leonard Valdivia, 220 Bonito Ave., stated Costco is a bad change. He added that he is not an expert on the project but questioned why another Costco is needed. He noted that traffic is bad and is going to get worse. Fred Etzel, 4 Embarcadero Ctr. #510- San Francisco, representing Ted and Carol Simas of Shell gas station on EI Camino and Hickey, suggested that the Commission continue their decision on the Costco project. He noted that this is the first time the applicant has presented the details of the project to the Commission. He noted that the Commission is going to be planning a major portion of South San Francisco and urged them to have the vision to do it right. He noted that the project raises enormous design considerations and the Commission needs to have a workshop to discuss various issues. He mentioned that many houses in the Greystone Homes development will be occupied by November and the Commission is representing these people. He mentioned that, according to staff, the developer is informing their buyers of a new Costco. He noted that the developer is required by the Department of Real Estate to disclose what is going to go into the area. He also mentioned that the City Attorney pointed out that the purview of the Commission does not extend to the negotiation of the tax rebate agreement, which is being negotiated between Costco and the City. He noted that he cannot get this agreement because it is in draft form. He added that when tax benefits are used as a basis to override the environmental impacts of a project, the Commission should be entitled to see what the agreement says. He noted that if the Commission cannot see the agreement, then the Commission should strike out the tax benefits from the Statement of Overriding Considerations. He added that the Commission needs to know what the agreement says before they can make an intelligent decision on the project. Ron Conner, 1700 EI Camino Real #17-7, stated that he is for Costco. He added that the traffic is not too bad because he takes EI Camino Real to go to the Costco in San Bruno. Donald Davis, 17 Graystone Dr., stated he is against Costco or any other application for that site. He noted that the traffic is horrendous in that area. He added that the Arlington and EI Camino Real intersection is very bad and it is hard to get out of the area in the morning. He noted that the City should have the State Agencies agree to install a signal at the intersection, because the residents were promised a signal before the Macys warehouse was built. He noted that it is a LOS F intersection as well as Chestnut and other intersections in SSP. He added that he could be in favor of Costco in the future but at the time is against Costco or any other application because of the traffic. Alan Beers, 226, EI Campo Dr., asked why the Planning Commission meetings are not televised. He also mentioned that the meeting announcements aren't in the Independent newspaper. He added that he is for Costco because it takes money to run a City. He noted that all the services from the City are given to everyone and this is possible because of the tax revenue from the City businesses. He mentioned that he saw figures showing that $950,000 was generated from tax revenue in 1997 by the City. He added that this project has been delayed 100 days and it has cost the City about $300,000 in services that should be given to the citizens. He noted that the traffic does not match up with the BART peak hour commute. He added that the Winston Manor residents have been \\MULDER\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\102199 .doc Page 5 of 12 complaining for 20 years about the traffic at that intersection. He noted that the Shell gas station at Hickey wants to keep Costco out because of the proposed gas fueling area. He related that traffic is good for a gas station because people pump gas where it is convenient for them. He added that the owners of the Shell station own 10 gas stations and added that they probably do not live in SSP. TAPE 3 Rick Myers, 1700 EI Camino Real, stated that the Shell gas station has invested heavily to sell their gas at $1.67 per gallon. He stated that he buys gas at the Costco in Sunnyvale when he is in the area. He mentioned that the Costco in Sunnyvale has no traffic and the citizens of that City are happy with it. He noted that SSF is the Industrial City and is comprised of the working class. He added that he sees 5 lobby groups. Two of them were the Shell station and the Winston Manor community that are both trying to keep Costco out. Kwok For Yee, 2569 Adams Court, stated that Costco would cause more traffic and pollution. JoAnn D'Angelo, 60 Calvert Ave., stated she was speaking against Costco. She questioned how the property was sold to Costco. She stated that BART has been accepted because it is needed, but the City does not need Costco. She stated that SSF is a City for the people and added that she is against Costco because it will cause traffic and pollution. Sophia Mason, 10 Arlington Dr., stated that the Costco project was not supposed to be a financial discussion and that the discussion should be based on the environmental impact. She added that the traffic report was revised in September and at that time they did not take into consideration the new homes in the area. She asked if there were going to be diesel pumps at the site. She noted that the San Bruno store would be closed and they also mentioned that the SSF store at Airport Boulevard would also be closing. She related that that the residents of Winston Manor have been promised a signal at Arlington and EI Camino, and still have not seen it. She stated that they are talking about the environment and the traffic, but not any money issues. She mentioned that the newspaper cited Anoyo and EI Camino as one of the 7 most deadliest intersections San Mateo County. Commissioner Baldocchi clarified that the Costco at Airport Boulevard was not closing but the San Bruno Costco was the one that would be closing. Mrs. Mason asked the Commission to make sure the landscaping would be maintained. Keith Simas, 110 Hickey Blvd., stated that the Commission needs more clarification as to whether EI Camino Real, a State highway, will be considered a primary highway in regard to the bathroom issue with gas stations. He pointed out page 7 of the staff report, which stated that 2-Yz tanker loads a day at 9, 000 gallons a load is equal to six times the best average gas station business. He noted that the environmental impacts are not mitigated properly for the project, especially the stormwater issue and particularly regarding MTBE that is highly water-soluble. He noted that there is a greater chance for spills with the high volume of this station. He stated that the fueling facility is going to be unattended and no one will be there to clean up spills. He added that the same benefits, jobs and revenues, can be gained without sacrificing the air and traffic. He noted that a traffic mitigation requires acquisition of a right of way at EI Camino Real and Chestnut, and noted the applicant will be required to pay a portion of this. Carol Simas, 110 Hickey Blvd., stated that the staff report did not address the economic impact. She added that the small businesses in the community will be greatly impacted by the Costco project. She noted that business owners do not realize that there is sales tax bickering between Costco and the City. She stated that she had addressed this issue with the City Council and has not gotten an answer. She noted that this impacts the City because a portion of the taxes that should be given to the City are retmning to Costco. She noted that the public should know because other business owners and property owners don't get a rebate and Costco should not get one either. Mark Beers, 226 EI Campo Dr., stated that if there were a gas spill no one would walk out from the bullet proof glass to clean it up at the Shell station on Hickey. He stated that he has been approached by people with flyers to gather opposition. He added that they are being delivered illegally. He stated that Costco can add revenues to the City. He added that Costco offers good jobs, and donates to the community. He urged the Planning Commission to look at the signatures that have been submitted of SSF residents that are in favor of Costco. \\MULDER\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\1 02199 .doc Page 6 of 12 Daniel Smith of Smith Engineering Management, a registered Civil and Traffic Engineer in California, 5311 Lowry Rd.-Union City, stated that he represents the owners of the Shell station at Hickey and EI Camino. He added that he has provided the City with comments on both the Draft and Final EIR. He noted that the EIR should be deemed inadequate or sent back to the consultants for remedy due to the following reasons: · The EIR is inadequate due to the lack of an a.m. analysis. He pointed out that the consultants' cited data that Costco provided them that suggested that the gas station would only attract about 3 ~ cars per fueling position in an a.m. peak hour. This amounts to one car every 17-18 minutes. He noted that the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual indicates about 12 Yz cars per hour for each fueling position in the a.m. peak hour or one car every five minutes. The consultants say that there are 1,500 cars passing the station in the a.m. peak hour and half of them will have Costco cards, so 750 are eligible. If 200-fuel everyday that means each person with a Costco card would have to stop on the average of every third and every fourth day. · The BART station has been incorrectly treated in the analysis. It is treated as if it is a distant event but BART is approved and under construction. As an approved project, it should have been treated within the base condition before Costco was ever added. The entire analysis should be done as if BART exists and then see what the immediate impacts of Costco are. The City has refused to consider a queuing analysis except at the immediate project entrances. If the records are examined you will notice that there are extensive queues at many of the intersections, but they refuse to consider their data in light of the left turn storage lengths. If the queues with Costco exceed the left turn storage lengths, conditions would be far worse than forecasted in the EIR. Like wise, although they admitted signal coordination is needed on ECR and the vicinity of the project. They have refused to demonstrate that a functional signal coordination plan can be achieved. · Conceln was noted that the mitigations rely on fair share contributions. Under CEQA, mitigation is not satisfactory unless there is full guarantee for funding of the entire mitigation, not just a fair share. · The project traffic consultant stated that safety impacts at the Longford intersection have not been considered in the analysis. · The project traffic consultant's presentation included a slide that noted that the analysis had thoroughly analyzed all the future development up to 2010. BART was the only one that was existing and was the only additional development analyzed in the future cumulative impacts. Collin Post informed the Commission that he was running for City Council to save the constituents money. He added that he is neutral on the Costco project and a decision needs to be made before the election. He noted that the traffic needs to be looked at and added that he wants to listen to what the people have to stay in order to give a response to their concelns. He urged the Commission to think hard because their decision would impact the future of the City. Karen Hobin, 43 Bradford Dr., stated that she does not have any interest in any gas station and is not an employee of Costco. She stated that the San Bruno Costco has been open for a few years and it is coming to a halt. She added that the customers from the San Bruno location and the customers from SSF will be going to the Costco on EI Camino Real. She added that when the Costco at Airport Boulevard location customers are drawn to the location on EI Camino Real, Costco will make a financial decision and close the Airport Boulevard store. She added that this is a convenient location and the land can be developed with other uses. She was also concelned with MTBE level because they are so close to the Hetch Hetchy water supply. She added that an industrial development should not be put next to any schools. She stated that the tax issue concelns her and wants to get more information on it. She encouraged the Commissioners to get that information and find out what the agreement is about. Tony Khorozian, 116 Aptos Way, stated that he is present to talk about the gas station and not money. He asked how they were going to put 20,000 gallon tanks underground and wanted to know what type of gas was going to be used in their facility. Chairperson Honan stated that Mr. Khorozian could step outside with a Costco representative and get answers to his questions. \\MULDER\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\1 02199.doc Page 7 of 12 William T. Eagleton, 14 Graystone Dr., was concerned about the EI Camino High School students. He added that the neighbors have to be notified of a gas station going in within 1,000 ft of a school. He added that there could be a compromise with different uses. He added that some of the smog could be eliminated by changing the use. He stated that the Old Country Garden Nursery was lost due to a right of way change. He noted that the Industrial City was becoming a Corporate City. He stated that there could be an alternative to Costco and added that he is not against Costco but the traffic issue. Oscar Gomez, 2642 Farnee Court, stated that there are too many Costco's in the area. He noted that he works in Santa Clara where there is a Costco near the train station, and does not find it convenient to shop there before going home. He added that the site should be a pedestrian oriented development and not big box retail. I van Zagar, 466 Dellbrook Ave., stated that there would not be any difference in traffic if the San Bruno store would relocate to SSP. Jackie Williams, 242 Longford Dr., stated that she is against the gas pumps and Costco might generate less traffic without the gas pumps. She added that the traffic study does not show what was taken into consideration in regard to intersections. She added that after BART and all the homes are built, traffic will get much worse in the area. She added that 700 of the cards sent in by Costco were from SSF residents and that was not enough. Saro Shahijanian, 123 Linden Ave., stated that the Commission is trying to figure out what to do in regard to Costco. He noted that most of the people want to see development in SSF and a lot of that is being done. He added that Costco is interfering with a lot of businesses. Costco sells food, gas, coffee, tires, and batteries and some of these things are the ones that small businesses in SSF sell. He added that Costco encouraged him to go to the Planning Commission meeting to support the project with a letter that was sent in the mail but he is against it. Tony Khorozian, 116 Aptos Way, stated he got some satisfactory answers. He added that when someone fills up their gas tank, they pay for the brand name and not the gas. He added that every fill up is costing $25.00 dollars more a month for those that live in the Bay Area. He added that competition is good for the area to keep the businesses running. He noted that there is traffic everywhere and if there is too much traffic the City Council can work something out with the applicant in about 2-3 years. He added the dollars are needed for the City services and encouraged the Commission to approve the project. John Mason, 10 Arlington Drive, stated that he has been involved in various projects. He noted that Costco does not belong in the City. He wanted the City Council to tell the public why Costco was back before the Commission. Cecilia Quadra Eagleton 14 Greystone Drive, stated that she does not represent anyone and is concerned with Costco going into the City. She added that with BART there will be traffic and there will be much more if Costco gets approved. She added that her children cross Hickey and EI Camino to go to school. She added that a signal needs to be put in the area. She mentioned that she does not shop at Costco or get gas in the area. Ms. Eagleton stated that transit oriented businesses are a plus for the area. Charles Peter, 226 Alta Loma Drive, stated that a new Costco at EI Camino Real does not guarantee that the Airport Boulevard store will stay open for five years. The new store is bigger than the other two store put together. He noted that if people are drawn from the other two stores, businesses will be closing. There will be a loss in revenue from local businesses. He added that it would be difficult to get out of the Shell station and that will be an impact from Costco. Public Hearing was closed. Chairperson Honan asked if Costco was thinking of putting a gas station at the South Airport location. Mr. Frank noted that they are thinking of it and are evaluating every facility that can accommodate gas bays. Chairperson \\MULDER\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\1 02199.doc Page 8 of 12 Honan asked if the Airport Boulevard store would be closing. Mr. Frank stated that there were not plans to do so and apologizes if he left that impression. He added that this is a relocation of the San Bruno store. Commissioner Teglia stated that the Commission has asked for certain things from the applicant. He noted that the Commission was concerned about the setback from EI Camino and asked for options. He added that the applicant came back with various options but returned to the original proposal. He noted that Costco wants to maximize the use of their residual land but they need to utilize that to make it a better project. They could have some more landscaping on EI Camino. He noted that as zoning changes, the City would improve. He added that the City is going to give up many impacts based on the Statement of Overriding Considerations and he also was concerned about giving sales taxes back. He stated that Costco should be paying the City a premium to locate in the City rather than the City giving back that money. He noted that he would like to hear what the bottom line figures are going to be before he can consider a statement of overriding considerations. He suggested that the item be continued and allow staff to return with the final numbers and what could be done on the existing site. Chairperson Honan stated that the population in Sacramento, Santa Rosa and San Diego is higher than the population in SSF and questioned why the City needs two Costco stores. Mr. Frank stated that Costco's trade area is larger than the population of SSP. He noted the 3,600 cards that were provided at the last City Council meeting, only 700 were SSF residents and the remainder were from surrounding communities. He noted that they have obtained another 3,600 in the last week requesting that they proceed with the project at this location, and the same number were SSF residents. He noted that they are a regional draw and the General Plan specifies that this area is for regional commercial land uses. He noted that the selection criteria should not be limited to the population base of SSF because it would serve a larger community. Chairperson Honan asked what SSF would earn from the store besides the traffic impacts and air pollution. Mr. Frank stated that there are many community benefits other than property taxes and business licenses. He noted that other benefits would be: . Living wage employment. · Community contributions to children mentoring programs, stuffed backpacks, and reading programs. . Surplus food is given to the senior citizen homes. · Hundreds and thousands of dollars toward fair share contributions and real contributions to offsite improvements. . Sales tax dollars stay within the community He added that Costco contributes to many improvements throughout the region and citywide. Commissioner Meloni asked how many employees the San Bruno store has and how many are projected for the EI Camino Reallocation. Mr. Frank stated that are 180 employees currently at the San Bruno store and there could be an increase of 100 employees. Commissioner Romero asked why the new signal at the Costco site was getting more preference than the existing impacts. City Engineer Kianpour stated that the intersection is an integral part of the project, in order to get to the site the intersection needs to be constructed, and the signal needs to be operating before the warehouse can open. He noted that intersections like Arlington, Camaritas/Hickey and Hilton are currently operating at LOS F, which is what the traffic study indicates. The intersection adjacent to Costco is financed and built with 100% of Costco funds; there are no public funds involved. He added that Costco is contributing a certain percentage for the construction of the remaining intersection. The difference in time schedule is because of the financing for the intersections. Commissioner Romero asked what the distance would be between the two intersections. City Engineer Kianpour stated that it is approximately 500 feet. TAPE 4 Commissioner Romero asked if it was prudent to put two intersections that close together, which will cause delays for those going down EI Camino Real. City Engineer Kianpour stated that regardless of who goes into the site an intersection needs to be built in the area. He noted that they had the choice of having two opposite intersections or \\MULDER\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\1 02199 .doc Page 9 of 12 one intersection. He noted that CalTrans looked at the geometry of the existing intersection separation and did not have any problem with the intersection. Commissioner Romero asked how Camaritas and Hickey would be getting a signal installed but was not shown when they reviewed the CIP. City Engineer Kianpour stated that they had created a criteria called "Signalization Citywide", which was to evaluate and analyze intersections that are operating at unacceptable levels of service. He noted that they are in the process of designing a signal at Hickey and Hilton and they decided to include the design of Camaritas and Hickey signal installation with that one. Commissioner Romero asked when the decision was made to do the Camaritas at Hickey signalization. City Engineer Kianpour stated that the direction came from City Council when the traffic issues were brought up. Commissioner Romero was concerned with the intersection of Longford @ Hickey, which may be at a level C, but the visual difficulties may increase the problems at that intersection. He noted that an alternative may have been to do something at Clay and Junipero Serra to give the residents an alternative to exit the site. He added that this was not considered in the analysis. City Engineer Kianpour stated that when they analyze levels of service, they look at the legs of the intersections. He added that they are not looking at operations or sight distance problems but only levels of service. He noted that there are other ways to improve the sight distance. He stated that opening Clay A venue is an option that needs to be considered with or without Costco. Commissioner Romero stated that this should have been included in the EIR analysis. City Engineer Kianpour stated that Longford was not a key intersection, and they looked at arterial intersections only. He added that there is a limit to what can be analyzed in a traffic study. Vice Chairperson Sim asked for some information on toxic clean up and what that entailed. Mr. Haag stated that a technical firm was hired to do a remediation plan. He added that the EIR requires Costco to get necessary approvals from the County to make sure that all the agencies sign off that the site is clean. He added that Costco was doing that on the whole site. Commissioner Baldocchi stated that the Statement of Overriding Considerations is a large document and suggested that the item should be continued because she wanted time to read it due to the fact that she had just received it. Commissioner Teglia echoed Commissioner Baldocchi' s concerns with a demand that the sales tax agreement be given to the Commission. He noted that the applicant should come back with possibilities on how to re-orient the building and Commissioner Romero's comments on Longford should be included. He mentioned that at that time they will be ready to make a decision and Council would have all the information needed. Commissioner Teglia left the meeting at 12:25 a.m. Chairperson Honan stated that everyone has been patient and wanted to know what the Commission will do about the project. She asked if the Commission would get the information requested from the applicant. City Attorney Mattas stated that the sales tax agreement is brought before the City Council and dealt with at the City Council level, the information could be available at that time. He added that if the Commission is concerned with the Statement of Overriding Considerations, its reference to the sales tax could be omitted from the document. Commissioner Baldocchi stated she had not been able to see the Statement of Overriding Considerations and was concelned about that. Senior Planner Kalkin stated that the document was provided in the packet and the changes presented to the Commission are minor and highlighted in the document. City Attorney Mattas stated that the changes were to reflect the change in policy direction by the City Council with regard to the residual parcels. He noted that the Statement of Overriding Considerations, which was distributed with the packet on Friday, anticipated that the residual parcels would be developed at the pre-existing density and the Council had modified that density. He added that he can't tell when the sales tax agreement would be going to the Commission. He noted that the Commission can omit the reference to the sales tax and the Statement of Overriding Considerations would still be legally valid. \\MULDER\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\1 02199 .doc Page 10 of 12 Commissioner Meloni stated he was not happy with the design and asked if Costco would be willing to redesign the building. Mr. Frank stated that they have worked very hard to develop the design, and have been working with staff for the last 15-18 months. He noted that it is a first rate design and they are pleased with the architecture. He proposed to leave the design as is and would request the Commission deny the use permit if they can't approve it. Commissioner Baldocchi asked if the City had talked to Colma about the Statement of Overriding Considerations, section 4.2 #2, in regard to traffic mitigation at EI Camino ReallMission. City Attorney Mattas stated that the mitigation was in the document for a fair share contribution and the mitigation doesn't change by identifying it as a potentially unavoidable impact. City Engineer Kianpour stated that he has spoken to the Town of Colma and the signal at Mission and EI Camino is mid priority for them. He also mentioned that Colma may be willing to take the project on in about 3-4 years. Commissioner D'Angelo agreed with Commissioner Baldocchi's comments in regard to making a decision at that moment. He noted that he is not ready to make a decision and suggested that it be continued until after the next Council meeting so the Commission can get the answers they need. Commissioner Romero concurred with continuing the item. He added that he would like to have the minutes from this meeting and the one from the previous meeting and have a chance to review them. He noted that they need this information to refer to. Chief Planner Sparks stated that the Commission should be explicit about the questions they want answered. Chairperson Honan summarized what was heard at the meeting. 1.) Costco does not want to redesign their building. 2.) Costco will not move their building back any further. 3.) The Commission will not be provided the fiscal information requested. She added that they will not get any answers and they should approve or deny the project. She stated that there is one Costco in SSF and they will be adding a Costco, as well as, a gas station. She noted that she is for Costco but does not want them all over the City. Motion Romero / Second Sim to not adopt the resolution certifying the EIR or the Statement of Overriding Considerations because they do not adequately address the air quality issues or the traffic concerns. Ayes: Commissioner Baldocchi, Commissioner D'Angelo, Commissioner Meloni, Commissioner Romero, Vice Chairman Sim and Chairperson Honan Noes: None Absent: Commissioner Teglia Motion Honan / Second Meloni to deny the Costco application:: Use Permit and Sign Permit applications. Ayes: Commissioner Baldocchi, Commissioner D'Angelo, Commissioner Meloni, Commissioner Romero, Vice Chairman Sim and Chairperson Honan Noes: None Absent: Commissioner Teglia 4. J alisco Produce Market, Jose Ayar, Owner Roberto & Jose Ayar, Applicant 441 Grand Ave. UP-98-019 and Categorical Exemption: Class 11, Section 15311(c) Evidentiary Hearing to consider modifying or revoking Use Permit 98-019 which allows outside display of fresh produce. (Recommend continuance to November 4, 1999) Motion Meloni / Second D' An2elo to continue the item to November 4, 1999. Approved by unanimous voice vote. \\MULDER\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\1 02199 .doc Page 11 of 12 5. Crocker's Lockers-owner/applicant 345 Shaw Rd. UP-95-1000/MOD2 and ND-99-031 Use Permit Modification allowing the addition of one-story modular storage buildings totaling 17,780 sq. ft. Motion Meloni / Second D' An2elo to continue the item to November 4,1999. Approved by unanimous voice vote. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 6. Items from Commission a. Subcommittee Report Discussion of Planning Commission Bylaws, Rules & Procedures. Chairperson Honan asked when the bylaws will be before the Commission. City Attorney Mattas stated that they would be before the City Council on their first meeting in November and they would be before the Commission in December. He mentioned some changes that would need to be consistent with the Brown Act. Commissioner Meloni suggested having a joint meeting to discuss the bylaws. City Attorney Mattas stated that if the Council wants to make changes than he could retmn to the Commission with that information and then they could request a joint meeting. 7. Items from the Public - None 8. Adjournment Motion Meloni / Second Sim to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 1:00 a.m. Tomas C. Sparks Secretary to the Plam ng Commission City of South San Francisco /~~ JxKI)th Honan, Chairperson {Pfunning Commission City of South San Francisco NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting November 4, 1999, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA. \\MULDER\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\1 02199 .doc Page 12 of 12 .........................,....."TT"""'IT"<o. T'"IIo,rmTTT"" rtoT A"I\.T"lI.T~Tr-1 '-'r'\.ll.Kl\.KTC\C"Tr\l\.TAl\.T1\.Tfl."\TD1\JfDDD 10 1000