South San Francisco Planning Commission Meeting - September 19, 2019: Appeal of Untimely Filing Ruling
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
South San Francisco Planning Commission Meeting - September 19, 2019: Appeal of Untimely Filing Ruling
The Planning Commission met on September 19, 2019, at 7:00 PM in the Municipal Services Building Council Chambers at 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco. The sole agenda item was a public hearing on an appeal of the Chief Planner's June 27, 2019 rejection of an appeal filed by Peninou French Laundry and the Edwards Living Trust on June 21, 2019, regarding a use permit (Project P18-0084) for a fleet-based service at 111 South Maple Avenue. The Chief Planner had determined the June 21 appeal was untimely. The commission heard testimony from the appellant, the applicant, and legal counsel, and ultimately voted to uphold the Chief Planner's decision.
Public Hearing: Appeal of Chief Planner's Rejection of Appeal
-
Appellant's Position (Todd Edwards, representing Peninou French Laundry, and attorney Jeff Below): The appellants argued that the appeal was not filed untimely because they were misled by city staff. Mr. Edwards stated that after the Planning Commission's May 30, 2019 decision to grant the use permit, he asked Senior Planner Tony Rozzi for the specific language of the conditions. Tony Rozzi told him the language would be in the minutes, which would be available the following week. However, the minutes were not posted for 24 days (until June 20, 2019). The notice of action was signed on June 5, mailed on June 12, and arrived after the 15-day appeal period had expired on June 13. The appellants contended that the city's failure to provide timely minutes or the correct language prevented them from filing a timely appeal. They also raised new concerns about parking and employee numbers, alleging that the applicant stated at the September 5 hearing that the business had 55–60 employees, while the application listed 30–35. They requested that the commission send the matter back to planning for a comprehensive review, including the involvement of the building owner.
-
Applicant's Position (Gary Lillian, Extranomical Tours LLC): Mr. Lillian disputed the characterization of the meeting after the September 5 hearing, stating he had tried to focus on resolving the use permit issues. He clarified that his business has 4–5 employees on site at any given time, with a maximum of 55 part-time employees annually. He claimed he had made multiple concessions, including limiting bus idling to four at a time and agreeing to no manual regeneration of filters on the lot. He stated that the appellant had rejected or not responded to these offers and instead introduced new demands. He accused the appellant of negotiating in bad faith and engaging in a strategy of obstruction and delay.
-
Staff and Legal Counsel: Planning Manager Sailesh Mehra explained that the item was continued from September 5, 2019, to allow legal representation and time for the parties to negotiate. City Attorney clarified that the South San Francisco Municipal Code requires an appeal to be filed within 15 days of the Planning Commission's decision (May 30, 2019). The code does not authorize any extension of that period, even if staff provided incorrect information about the deadline. The proper remedy for the appellant would be to seek modification of conditions through other means, but the appeal itself was untimely.
Discussion Items
- Commissioners acknowledged that the appellant received incorrect information from staff but noted that the code is clear and cannot be overridden. Several commissioners expressed disappointment that the two-week continuance did not lead to a resolution between the parties. Commissioner Wong noted that the city had admitted the mistake and that the commission had done what it could. Commissioner Faria questioned whether the appellant had 60 days to appeal after the original decision, but city attorney corrected that the 15-day period applied. Commissioner Bernardo stated that the issue was purely legal and that the code was clear.
Key Outcomes
- Motion and Vote: Commissioner Bernardo moved to affirm the Chief Planner's decision that the June 21, 2019 appeal was untimely and should be rejected. Commissioner Faria seconded. The motion passed unanimously (6-0, with Commissioner Evans absent).
- Next Steps: City Attorney stated that the appellant has the right to further appeal this decision to the City Council, subject to the same 15-day appeal period running from the date of this meeting (September 19, 2019).
- Staff Update: The Planning Manager reminded the commission of a joint study session with the City Council on Monday, September 23, 2019, regarding the Genentech Master Plan.
Meeting Transcript
Meeting of the South San Francisco Planning Commission. Can you please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance? Madam Clerk, can we have a roll call, please? Commissioner Zhang. Here. Commissioner Shahade. Here. Commissioner Bernardo. Here. Commissioner Furrier. Here. Vice Chair Wong? Here. Chair Murphy here. And Commissioner Evans is absent this evening. Thank you. Gender review. Is there any changes to tonight's agenda? No changes to the agenda, Chair Murphy. Thank you. Is there anyone here to speak on an item that is not listed on tonight's agenda? I'm not seeing any. With that, can we please have a reading of item number one, Madam Clerk? Report regarding an appeal of the Chief Planners, June 27, 2019, rejection of an appeal filed by the Pennou French Laundry and the Edwards Living Trust on June 21st, 2019, regarding Project P 18-0084 for applicants Gary Lillian and Extronomical Tours L L C to operate a fleet-based service at 11 South Maple Avenue based on the determination that the June 21 21 2019 appeal was filed untimely. Thank you. With that, I'll throw it over to Staff Report. Chair Murphy, Vice Chair Wong, members of the Planning Commission, uh Salesh Mara, your chief planner. Um just to give you a quick recap. So this item, this appeal was heard by you on uh September 5th. And at that meeting, um, I I think both the appellant and the applicant spoke uh as well as staff with a presentation. However, at that meeting, um the planning commission deemed it fit to continue the item for two weeks, and that's why we're back uh in front of you. And the reasons for that continuance uh were two one, um the city didn't have legal representation, which we do now, and secondly, it provided uh a little bit of time for the applicant and the appellant to try and uh come to some kind of an agreement with respect to the issues that concerned the appellant. Um so that's that's the update that I have for you. And um with that, I will turn it over to the appellant and and their counsel um and and the applicant if uh he has a presentation. Thank you. Um would the appellant like to make a statement thank you for your time tonight. Um Jeff Below with Clark Hill, and I'm representing Brent Edwards. Uh, Mr. Todd Edwards is here on his own behalf on behalf of the Pinanou French Laundry. Uh after the last meeting, I did have an opportunity to sit down uh with my client and the applicant, and we spoke immediately after the meeting. Uh we explained to him that look what we need here is a comprehensive result, and we need the owner involved in our uh determination here. We we've got to have the owner involved because the underlying permit had problems uh when it was issued. The underlying permit, and we raised these issues uh with planning. The underlying permit, we never received notice on the underlying permit. This was a conversion from a single use facility to a six-unit facility, and there should have been notice that was sent out to the neighbors. No notice was sent out, so we were were not receiving any sort of notice on that. So when we sat down with the applicant, we explained to him look, we need to get the owner. You have the best uh uh reason to contact the owner. He wants you as a tenant. Let's get all three of us sitting down.
openpublica.com