Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/15/2001 (2) CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SPECIAL MEETING PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE November 15,2001 CALL TO ORDER 1 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL 1 CHAIR COMMENTS MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioner D'Angelo, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Ochsenhirt, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia, Vice Chairperson Romero and Chairperson Meloni MEMBERS ABSENT: None City Attorney: Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner Kimberly Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Planning Division: AGENDA REVIEW No Changes ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None STUDY SESSION Britannia East Grand Master Plan a. Study session to introduce the Britannia East Grand (PUD, GP, UP-OI-006) Master Plan to construct a phased development consisting of nine office/R & D buildings totaling approximately 783,533 sq. ft., an 8,000 sq. ft. childcare facility, a 5,000 sq. ft. fitness center, 8,000 sq. ft. of restaurant/retail use and two (2) five-to seven-level parking garages; and a General Plan Amendment to delete the proposed East Grand Avenue roadway extension to Point San Bruno Blvd. Public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR-OI-006). Principal Planner Kalkin gave the staff report. Richard Morehouse, Morehouse & Associates, principal author of the Environmental Impact Report, joined by Mike Aronson, Transportation Planner, who is responsible for the Traffic Impact Analysis. Mr. Morehouse gave an overview of the findings of the EIR, summarizing the potential impacts. The project will cause one landuse impact - the proposed square footage of the project will exceed the amount allowed by the General Plan by about 200,000 square feet. To mitigate the applicant will reduce the proposed square footage or obtain a floor area bonus as allowed by the General Plan if the developer will commit to the trip reductions through a Transportation Den1and Management program. The TDM program figures largely in the mitigation of other impacts beside this landuse impact. There were six transportation impacts identified having to do with the fact that the project would exceed 100 peak hour vehicle trips. To mitigate, the applicant would implement a TDM program that is acceptable to the City and County Association of Governments and consistent with the General Plan. The project would also have impacts to three freeway segments operating at level of service "F" which would result in a significant unavoidable impact that would require a Statement of Overriding Considerations. There would be a decline in levels of service for four intersections in 2003, and a decline of levels of service for six intersections by 2020. This would require implementation of the TDM program. Funds will also be provided for physical improvements to affected intersections and funds for a share of improvements in the East of 101 area consistent with the Transportation Improvement Program. The project would eliminate the extension of East Grand Avenue, which will be resolved through a General Plan Amendment. The plan has a shortage of about 240 parking spaces but that is not a problem because fewer spaces are encouraged by the City S:\Minutes\linalized\111501SSPC.doc Page 1 of 4 and would be supportive of the TDM measures. There were two Air Quality impacts identified in the EIR: construction dust, mitigated by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District guidelines; and regional air pollution, which would be a significant unavoidable impact which would require TDM measures to reduce the pollution from vehicular trips. However, because the TDM measures would not fully mitigate the impact the City would have to make a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The DEIR found 18 technical impacts all having to do with soils conditions and ground conditions including the potential instability of the existing fill soils and bay mud, potential for seismically induced landslides, potential for ground shaking, potential for loose soil potential of clay soils, and differential settlement where development gets built on older buried foundation materials. All these would be mitigated by complying with policies of the East of 101 Area Plan that require incorporation of geotechnical investigation findings into engineering design and structures. The DEIR found two human health impacts: exposure of construction workers to contaminated soils and exposure of children at the childcare facility to both contaminated soils and naturally occurring asbestos in serpentine rock. The reason for separating the construction workers from children is that the children are susceptible to airborne lead problems. The mitigation for the construction workers is a soil management plan, health and safety plan and dust mitigation plan to protect the workers. With respect to children, to mitigate the exposure of children at the daycare facility the soil would need to be sampled and if contamination is not shown to be an unacceptable risk the existing deed restriction could be amended to allow childcare facilities on site. Now it is prohibited. But if the contamination is significant, additional measures would be required or the childcare facility would need to be relocated on site or off-site. Other issues discussed were six biological impacts. Bill Rogalla, Slough Estates, gave a rundown to the Commission of all their projects in South San Francisco and introduced the representatives from DES Architects, the architectural engineering and landscaping firm, Geomatrix, the environmental consultant, and Wilsey Ham, Civil Engineers. Tom Gilman, DES, gave a powerpoint presentation and introduced Susan Eshwiler, partner, Lindsay Noble, project manager and architect, Bill Southern, landscape architect, Jeff Peterson, Civil Engineer, Tom Graf, Environmental Consultant, and Will Lee Graphics. Jackie Williams, 242 Longford Drive, had a question answered by the presentation, which was whether the project was going to hook up to the Scavenger Company's portion of the Bay Trail. The Bay Trail is going to be extended so there is public access. The second question was with regard to lead contamination. That didn't seem that was going to be a mitigation that was considered right now. What happened to the lead contamination? When the Scavenger Company got their approvals they were supposed to do remedial action for lead and as far as she knows it has never been done. She questioned whether the remedial action would occur with this project. Thirdly, she questioned whether consideration had been given to providing for solar panels on the roofs of these buildings since they have big flat roofs. She hoped that solar could be considered more strongly to prevent a power plant from being built in the City. Chairperson Meloni requested a response from the Environmental Engineer. Tom Graf, Geomatrix, responded that The Fuller O'Brien Co. manufactured paint since the turn of the century. He noted that because the manufacturing occurred only in specific areas, in looking at the contamination of the site over time it has been restricted to a few areas. The contamination was lead and lacquer thinners and the additives to oil based paints. Most of the site has been demolished and is vacant land. The clean up on the vacant area of the land has been completed. It has been certified by the EP A and Department of Toxic Substances Control from the soils stand point. The lnaterials excavated along the shoreline area and wetland area was removed to the satisfaction of those agencies and now exists only in relatively low concentrations. The lead contmnination in that area is actually primarily from ceramics and not paint. It was from the original fill that was there. The operating facility is considered a capsule. The open land has been cleaned up. There is one area that is currently capped that has some concentrations of lead underneath it, relatively low concentrations. Underneath the operating facility there are some higher concentrations of lead and this was historically where the paint was formulated and mixed. The whole point of the EP A and DTSC involvement on industrial commercial sites has been to provide adequate clean up to allow a development to take place without being a threat, or propose a potential threat, to either human health or the ecological health around it. The way the site is being developed is that the current vacant pieces of land have been taken care of for lead contamination and petroleum hydrocarbons. The existing facility that will be demolished as a second phase as the campus gets developed, we have been in discussions with DTSC and they have agreed, that the existing facility operates as a cap and during construction S:\Minutes\linalized\111501SSPC.doc Page 2 of 4 there will be dust control and mitigation for any airborne contaminates lead. The final site becomes the cap again because lead is not soluble and it won't go into the groundwater. The only exposure is in dust that would be generated. The whole development becomes a cap over the lead so that when the project is finished there is not exposure to either the site occupants, the people working there or people walking around the Bay Trail. There is some naturally occurring serpentine up in the hills and there are some layers in the serpentine that contain asbestos. As part of the construction, there are very strict dust control plans that will be undertaken during the time the site is being developed so there won't be an asbestos problem in the air to the construction workers or the adjacent Genentech or transportation properties. At the completion of site development the landscaping, the building and the pavements form a cap. The asbestos is taken care of in the same way the lead is taken care of; the airborne dust problems are mitigated by the actual development itself. Commissioner Teglia questioned the type of cap being discussed. Tom Graf, Geomatrix, responded: fu the second phase, which is a higher contamination area, the buildings themselves would be a cap over the soil that they occupy. The roadways are a cap, and in the landscaped areas there is 2 feet of soil over the affected lead soil. You either have a 2- foot thick landscaping cap, pavement, sidewalks or buildings which form the entire cap. Commissioner Teglia questioned whether a more intense mitigation or more of a cleanup is feasible. For example: removing contaminated soil off-site. Tom Graf, Geomatrix, noted it is actually the policy of the agencies not to perform those types unless it is actually considered necessary. Both the Water Board and the DTSC for a long time have come to the conclusion if it can stay in place safely that is acceptable, rather than digging it up and moving it to another place, as long as the development of the site actually mitigates and is protective of the environment around it. Commissioner Teglia noted his concern about the cap near the shoreline since that area is subject to severe winds which could readily erode two feet of top soil. Tom Graf, Geomatrix, responded that higher concentration lead is back up underneath the buildings away from the shore. The excavations that took place were right along the shoreline both along the bayside and the San Bruno channel side so those areas don't even need a cap because they have already been cleaned up. Commissioner Teglia questioned whether the slough between this property and the Scavengers' had been fully cleaned up. Tom Graf, Geomatrix, noted that is something that is ongoing with the Water Board in negotiation with the owners of that property. It is not part of the Fuller O'Brien property. He was not sure of the schedule on it but believed there is a clean up that has been proposed. Commissioner Honan questioned how the integrity of the cap is maintained when pilings are to be used. Tom Graf, Geomatrix, responded that there are three different plans that have to be given to the agencies and the site management plan and dust control plan would address this issue. There will be a small amount of excavation in a few feet with a pile diameter of about 16-18 inches and then the piles are driven into the ground. There is very little lead soil that actually comes to the surface. Lead is not soluble in groundwater, so there would be no groundwater pollution problem and because it is underneath the building the lead is encapsulated. What small amount that does get brought to the surface is managed under the site soil management program and dust control program so it is not allowed to dry up and blow away and has to be managed in separate stockpiles away from the regular construction dirt. Commissioner Honan questioned whether the contaminated soils were anywhere near the childcare center. Tom Graf, Geomatrix, noted there are two types of contamination on site. One is the lead and petroleum and the other is naturally occurring asbestos in the serpentine rock along the slopes. What we know so far is the serpentine containing asbestos is typically found toward the bay, to the east of the childcare facility. fu moving forward with the childcare center, because of the deed restrictions on site, the applicant would be in negotiations with the DTSC to be able to do a childcare center based on a risk assessment. What will be done in between now and actually building the childcare center would be demonstrating that the soil on the embankment surrounding the childcare center doesn't contain a significant amount of asbestos in the serpentine and that there isn't a dust problem going in there. The childcare center would be built last so that all the disturbances in contaminated areas would be completed, buildings done and landscaping in, before the childcare facility is built. That is the other mitigation so that there wouldn't be any potential for construction dust to be moving toward the childcare center. S:\Minutes\finalized\111501SSPC.doc Page 3 of 4 Commissioner Sim complimented the applicant on an excellent presentation. He questioned the capping methods for utility lines, stormdrain lines, sanitary sewer lines, etc., that are not underneath the buildings. Tom Graf, Geomatrix, responded that the storm-drain and utility lines are in utility corridors. Trenches will be dug and the materials deemed to be contaminated are set aside and dealt with on other areas of the site. "Clean soil" fill is put back in above the utilities so that if you go back into the utility corridor you would have clean soil to dig into. So, it would minimize future maintenance operation exposure to contaminated soil. Chairperson Meloni noted for the television audience and others in attendance for the regular meeting that the regular meeting will start as soon as we get through with the presentation that is before us on this special study seSSIOn. Commissioner D'Angelo noted concern that there are a lot of people waiting and this item was scheduled for an hour. Commissioner Ochsenhirt agreed, noting he would hold his comments for another time. Chairperson Meloni asked whether the Study Session could be continued. Principal Planner Kalkin noted that the public comment period on the EIR closes on November 26th which would be before the next Planning Commission meeting. Written comments would certainly be accepted through that period. Chairperson Meloni asked for additional EIR related comments. Vice Chairperson Romero reiterated concern with the clean up of the area on the Scavenger site noting he wouldn't want to see that particular area to be ignored and allow a project to go forward without an adequate clean up of both of these areas. Chief Planner Sparks responded that the slough area is being cleaned up. The staff at the Regional Board overseeing it indicated that the person responsible is moving with all deliberate speed. It is not the most aggressive clean up but it is proceeding. Commissioner Teglia commented that the project is obviously going to generate a lot of traffic. He wanted to lnention that the applicant should expect to hear this as a major concern when the project comes to public hearing. He acknowledged that we have the TDM Ordinance provisions but was still concerned with the level of traffic. This is a very dense project and perhaps slightly lower density should also be considered or feasibilities examined. Chairperson Meloni asked that as the project proceeds to the public hearing stage that clear designs, including heights and building sizes and materials, are clearly depicted. Tom Gillman, DES Architects responded that the project design has been proceeding through the Design Review Board process as details on the buildings and garages are finalized. He further noted, regarding solar panels on the projects, that as these are biotech buildings they require a great deal of mechanical equipment on the roofs. The penthouses in most cases account for only a third of the roof but the area that will be required with the roof screen area typically on a biotech building might get up to 75% or greater. There is not a lot of space left. The amount of power and electricity generated, given the particular surface area and buildings of this nature, would be fairly incidental. ADJOURNMENT 7:41 p.m. Motion D' An2:elo / Second Honan to adjourn. ~-~#~ Cf~p~ Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco "/~~L?A,-~L " Michael ~loni, Chairperson Planning Commission City of South San Francisco NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting December 6,2001, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA. TCS/pc S:\Minutes\finalized\111501SSPC.doc Page 4 of 4