MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING CITY OF SAN LEANDRO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS DECEMBER 2, 2010

Transcription

1 7:00 P.M. Regular Meeting Item 1: Roll Call Present: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING CITY OF SAN LEANDRO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS DECEMBER 2, 2010 Members Houston, Makin, Mendieta, Pearson, Vice-Chair Shields, Chair Gilcrest Absent: Staff: Member Daly (excused) Larry Ornellas, Civic Center Meeting Room Coordinator; Kathleen Livermore, Planner III; Elmer Penaranda, Planner III/Senior Development Specialist; Kelly Hamer, Planner I; Tom Liao, Planning and Housing Manager; Richard Pio Roda, Assistant City Attorney; Alice Malotte, Recording Secretary; Sally Barros, Secretary. Item 2: Public Comments None Item 3: Minutes (Board Minutes from Regular Meeting of October 7, 2010) Item 4: Presentations Motion to approve the Minutes of October 7, 2010 (Shields/Houston; 5 Ayes, 0 Noes 1 Absent-Daly, 1 Abstain-Mendieta) None Item 5: Correspondence and Oral Communications Secretary Barros stated that copies of written correspondence related to Item 8b were in the Members packets. Planner Hamer stated that she had received two telephone calls, which would be discussed when Item 8a was heard. Item 6: Work Session Item 7: Code Compliance Cases None None

2 Minute No Page 2 of 12 Item 8: Public Hearing (a) PLN ; Conditional Use Permit; to install a wireless telecommunications antenna on an existing transmission tower on Fulton Avenue near Evergreen Avenue; Assessor s Parcel Number 77E ; Clearwire, LLC (applicant); Pacific Gas & Electric Company (property owner); RS Residential Single-Family District. [Hamer] Planner Hamer stated that the applicant proposed to install three panel antennas and three internet service exchange points on an existing PG&E transmission tower. The panel antennas would be approximately four feet tall and the three internet service exchange dishes would 12 to 24 inches in diameter. They would be mounted on the side of a proposed new twelve-foot extension on top of the existing tower which would then total a height of 102 feet. One equipment rack would be located on the ground within an existing enclosed equipment compound. She displayed a vicinity map, site plan and photos that showed the proposed project and the surrounding neighborhood, which included the PG&E right-of-way that ran through the city. This stretch of parcels was actually owned by PG&E; it was not an easement. Two transmission towers were located at one end near the I-580 freeway and two towers at the other end of the parcel. Presently, Nextel had wireless communication facilities on the taller transmission tower and T-Mobile and AT&T had wireless communication facilities on the smaller tower; all approved over the years starting in A voice mail was left by a neighbor near the school who was concerned about more wires on the PG&E right-of-way and children climbing the towers. This application had no wires and no new transmission tower was proposed. The distance from the tower and the caller s residence was almost 1,000 feet. A resident at 1974 Evergreen Street expressed concern about health and safety that was related to radio frequency from the tower. The applicant was required to provide a radio frequency report that showed this project would comply with FCC requirements. Copies were in the Board Members packets and were available to the public, as well. Cumulative radio frequencies emitted from all antennas at this location complied with the FCC requirements and should have no impact on public health or convenience. The zoning code encouraged co-location of antennas on existing towers with the PG&E towers the preferred location, because of their height. Adequate separation existed between the antennas and the residential, church and school uses. Noticing was done in a wider radius than the normal 300 feet, because of the size of the parcel. Member Houston asked if all of the equipment fit into the existing equipment enclosure. Did any other tower structures in the city have as many antennas as the three antennas that would be installed on this tower? Planner Hamer replied that the seven-foot tall rack would fit into the enclosure that was surrounded by an existing ten-foot, solid wood fence. Most of the proposals in the city had involved nine antennas, with three different sectors and three different antennas on each. These towers currently have six, nine and one had twelve antennas that were owned by other telecommunications companies.

3 Minute No Page 3 of 12 Member Makin asked if the equipment structure shown in the south-east photo was where the equipment would be stored. He asked if a condition could be added to remove the graffiti that was evident in the photo. Planner Hamer assumed that he was correct. She agreed to follow up concerning the graffiti. Member Mendieta had the following questions and comments: For future consideration, the city might think about keeping track of the total radio frequency emissions that occurred within the city. How did other nearby cities deal with the proliferation of these antenna installation requests? Perhaps some kind of cooperation could occur between the adjacent municipalities. How did the city rank in comparison with other local cities regarding the amount of antennas installed in the city? This ordinance had been adopted in 1990 when these antennas were first proposed. Revamping the ordinance was on staff s list. She had a map that showed where every antenna was located in the city. The Clearwire installations were for the 3G and 4G wireless internet service and there were less of them than for cell phones. The internet exchange points emitted no radio frequencies at all. Vice Chair Shields noted that three similar applications had come forward within the last few months. Were there any more that were due to come before the Board? Were these sites scattered throughout the city or were they following the I-580 or I-880 corridors? Planner Hamer stated that Clearwire was a new company that was mainly interested in providing transmission for 3G and 4G (third and fourth generation) wireless communication devices. New applications for cell sites had not been seen for quite a while. Only two applications were left, but they were incomplete at this time, because of design issues that have to be resolved. One would probably become a co- location at a site near the golf course. The corridors had been the easy sites. Now they were infilling. Jacqueline Smart Steinberg, applicant s representative, 26 Stoneyford Avenue, San Francisco, agreed with the Conditions of Approval and also agreed to remove the graffiti. Chair Gilcrest opened the Public Hearing. No one came forward. Motion to Close the Public Hearing (Houston/Shields; 6 Ayes, 0 Noes, 1 Absent-Daly) Secretary Barros suggested altering Condition 4a to read, The site shall be well maintained and shall be kept free of litter, debris, graffiti and weeds. The Board agreed. Motion to Approve PLN with all recommended conditions (Mendieta/Shields; 6 Ayes, 0 Noes, 1 Absent-Daly)

4 Minute No Page 4 of 12 Item 8: Public Hearing (b) PLN ; Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review; to construct a fast food restaurant (Taco Bell) with approximately 3,400 square feet of floor area and with a drive-up facility; Hesperian Boulevard; Alameda County Assessor s Parcel Number ; R. Low, M. Scheider, Dolan Foster Enterprises, LLC (applicant) and PLP Partners, LP/Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (property owner); CC Commercial Community District. [Penaranda] Planner Penaranda stated that applicants Richard Low and Monica Scheider were in the audience. The proposed Taco Bell would take the place of the former Baker s Square restaurant. He displayed a vicinity map, site plan and photos that showed the proposed project and the surrounding neighborhood that included Walmart and In-N-Out on a site that totaled 12.8 acres with the proposed Taco Bell on the 1.25 acres at the corner. A small shopping center was located across the street and the corners to the south were a tire and wheel shop, and a paint store and bed/mattress store. All businesses across the street were in an unincorporated area and in Alameda County s jurisdiction. An historic cemetery and some residences were located to the north, also within the County area. An off- and on-ramp to Highway 238 was adjacent on the north edge to the site. A Caltrans corporation yard was located behind (west) of the site. The existing Baker s Square building would be demolished to make way for the new building. Parking would total 51 spaces where 34 spaces were required. A drive-through lane and the 3,400 square foot building would be located within the original Baker s Square site, along with new landscaping. The building would be setback over 50 feet from Hesperian Boulevard. The drive-through would accommodate queuing for nine vehicles, which exceeded the required five vehicle queue. City traffic engineers preferred this particular design, because in case of back up, vehicles would back up onto the property rather than the driveway or Hesperian Boulevard. The frontage would have a buffer of 12- to 60-feet of landscaping. Original proposed hours were 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m. Fridays and Saturdays. The Police Department recommended changing the closing hours to 1:00 a.m. weekdays and 1:30 a.m. Fridays and Saturdays, similar to the In-N-Out hours, and the applicants had agreed. Two entrances would be available to customers; one facing Hesperian Boulevard and one facing south to the WalMart parking lot. The building would have a stone wainscot with caps, anchor awnings with edge signs, a mosaic earthtone color pallet at the top of the building, and curved, raised arches above the Taco Bell logo over the entrance towers. Landscaping would cover 28 percent of the site where 10 percent is required. A condition addressed litter, similar to other use permits for fast food restaurants. Just 19 more afternoon peak hour trips would be generated than the 5,300 square foot Baker s Square restaurant had, which was considered negligible effect. In a letter dated November 30, 2010 Engineer Bennett Cruz with Oro Loma Sanitary District recommended two standard conditions, which had been shared with the applicant. Florence Anderson, resident across the street at College and Hesperian, had written an opposition letter, dated December 2, The Board Members had copies of both letters. Member Pearson asked if the landscaping would block the resident s view of the drive-through.

5 Minute No Page 5 of 12 Planner Penaranda replied that the landscaping along Hesperian Boulevard would be bermed and, along with the plants, the vehicles headlights would not be visible from the residence across the street. Vice Chair Shields asked the following questions: Would the drive-through PA system be heard from the letter writer s residence? He had calculated that the distance from the drive-through, across the street and to the residence would be from 90 to 100 feet. The speaker would be angled away from broadcasting directly across the street. The distance was 120 feet. Would the same driveway used for Baker s Square be used for this Taco Bell? Yes. Was it likely that vehicles would back up to the driveway and onto Hesperian Boulevard? No, vehicles would not be back onto Hesperian Boulevard, because there was plenty of room for them to stack on the site. The San Lorenzo School District had been mentioned. Building Permit fees would go to the San Lorenzo School District rather than the San Leandro School District, which was approximately three dollars per square foot. Secretary Barros added that any construction over 500 square feet was required to pay a fee that would go to either the San Lorenzo or San Leandro School District, depending on where the project was located. Member Makin asked if a monument sign would be installed on the property. Would it be electrified? Where would the trash be located and would it be visible from the street? Planner Penaranda stated that a monument sign was planned, but the details had not yet been decided upon. The sign would be illuminated and it would face Hesperian Boulevard. The trash enclosure would be located to the rear and it would not be visible from the street. Member Houston worried about pedestrians walking across the queuing area to enter the entrance on Hesperian Boulevard. Planner Penaranda said that a walkway was planned for the Hesperian Boulevard entrance. The landscaping berm would be designed to allow adequate sight distance. Perhaps that walkway could be deleted. Vice Chair Shields observed that three other Taco Bell restaurants were close by, as stated in the letter of opposition. How would this new restaurant affect the others? He asked that the litter Conditions be posted on the restaurant s bulletin board to emphasize that the parking lot and the neighborhood were to be policed on a regular basis. Planner Penaranda understood that a network of fast food restaurants helped to keep market share. Condition II. D. cited that the conditions be posted so that all employees area aware of the requirements for the policing of litter produced from the restaurant. He expected complete compliance from the applicant, because he had been operating the other Taco Bell restaurants in the city for many years and selling them to other owners was never considered. Member Mendieta suggested that the queue be started at the opposite end of the line, which would allow a vehicle to exit directly to the driveway and Hesperian Boulevard after picking up food.

6 Minute No Page 6 of 12 Planner Penaranda agreed that his suggestion would allow for any sized queue; however, it put the driver on the wrong side of the auto when ordering and picking up. Chair Gilcrest knew that litter pick up had been waived for other fast food restaurants, because of safety concerns when picking up litter across busy streets. All of the residential in this area was across Hesperian Boulevard. Were there sufficient crosswalks, etc., that staff was comfortable asking the applicant to police the other side of the street? Planner Penaranda stated that the intersections were signalized. Chair Gilcrest welcomed Planner Penaranda back. He explained that Planner Penaranda used to be the Secretary for the BZA. Richard Low, applicant, 5635 West Las Positas Boulevard, Pleasanton, stated that his company was the franchisee for the Taco Bell Restaurants in the city. The company had originally been founded by Dolan Foster and when he passed away in 1998, he and his partner bought the business from the Foster family. The Baker s Square property owners had tried to lease the building, as is, for quite some time and had finally agreed to develop the property as a Taco Bell. He appreciated the system that the city had created where he had been able to sit down with all of the city departments and the planners to discuss their concerns. The city s input had been very helpful with designing the package that was before the BZA at this time. The sidewalk from Hesperian Boulevard to the restaurant entrance was an ADA requirement (Americans with Disabilities Act), which required that direct access to the public right-of-way be available. The drive-through would be cross hatched and truncated domes would be installed at each end of the walkway for a sight-impaired pedestrian. The building would be recessed 57 feet from the street, so the drive-through lane would be alongside the freeway off- and on-ramp and the vehicles queuing on that side of the building would, essentially, be hidden from view. The berm would screen the vehicles queuing around the front of the building. This was a very heavily traveled, commercial area, which made it a perfect location for a Taco Bell. The East Lewelling Boulevard Taco Bell location would eventually close after this new restaurant was finished. It would not impact the other two restaurants in the city. Member Mendieta asked if there was a reason for the delay for outdoor dining. Mr. Low replied that outdoor dining would not be available. Most of the new locations did not have outdoor dining. However, it had been done in Santa Cruz near the beach. Vice Chair Shields asked the following questions: The possibility of the vehicles stacking up onto Hesperian Boulevard was a concern. Was the applicant comfortable with the nine-vehicle queue availability? This was a very strong queue line, compared to most of the others in the city. Five was required, so this one would be more than adequate. WalMart had also reviewed this design and they had approved it. What was the length of time from the time the order was placed to when it was picked up and the customer left the premises?

7 Minute No Page 7 of 12 Between the times the order was started and when it was finished was between 15 and 25 seconds. The average vehicle moved past the pick-up window within about 45 seconds, with a maximum of 60 seconds. There should always be room in the queue before the ordering board. Some restaurants sent employees outside to start taking orders from customers who might be stacking up. Would this restaurant do the same? They had taken orders outside the restaurant, at times, although it did not happen very often anymore. The sound from the speaker that the neighbors might hear could be intrusive. The sound from the speaker would be shielded by the vehicle making the order, as well as by the berm and landscaping. The sound level would be lower, because of the modern equipment that would be used. It would be hard for the sound to carry a distance of 120 feet across a busy street. He believed that someone standing on the sidewalk would hear very little. When traffic was less at 10 or 11 p.m., the residents should not have sleeping problems because of the noise from the speaker across the street. He agreed and said that the volume could also be adjusted, if necessary. Chair Gilcrest noted that one of the neighbors had alleged that this restaurant would be an attractive nuisance for petty crime, and since he owned the other Taco Bell restaurants in the area, he asked what had been his experience. Did he agree to the Police Department s recommendation of a 1:00 and 1:30 a.m. closing? Mr. Low stated that no robberies had ever occurred at the nearest location. However, incidences had certainly taken place over the 25 or 30 years, including a robbery at the Halcyon Drive location. This location would have state-of-the-art video recording and alarm system. Yes, he approved of those closing hours. Member Houston asked where the two ADA parking spaces would be located. Mr. Low pointed out the parking spaces on the site plan, which would be closest to both front and side entrances. He added that the trash enclosure would be located outside of the sewer easement. Chair Gilcrest opened the Public Hearing. No one came forward. Motion to Close the Public Hearing (Makin/Pearson; 6 Ayes, 0 Noes, 1 Absent-Daly) Member Pearson stated that he was in favor of the project. Member Mendieta concurred. Having a restaurant in the same location of a previous restaurant would fill a need. The building would be very modern and a good fit for the area. Vice Chair Shields was also in favor of the project, because it would improve the appearance of that corner of the parcel. He still had some concerns about the PA system. Motion to Approve PLN with all recommended conditions (Shields/Mendieta; 6 Ayes, 0 Noes, 1 Absent-Daly)

8 Minute No Page 8 of 12 Secretary Barros announced that the Board of Zoning Adjustments decisions were final and could be appealed to the City Council by filing a form with the City Clerk within 15 calendar days of the approval. An appeal fee would be required. Chair Gilcrest called for a recess at 8:15 p.m. Chair Gilcrest reconvened the meeting at 8:22 p.m. Item 9: Findings of Fact Item 10: Miscellaneous None (a) Matter of Yearly Review of Various Conditional Use Permits Issued for Waste Management Company; 2615 Davis Street; Assessor s Parcel No. 79A ; Waste Management of Alameda County (applicant and property owner). [Livermore] Planner Livermore explained that this was the yearly report regarding the various activities of Waste Management. A Neighborhood Forum that had originally been held quarterly was now held twice a year in the spring and fall. Those meeting notes were in the Board Members packets. At the November 16 th Forum, Waste Management had announced a number of upgrades to their facility that would be within the context of the 1996 CUP and Master Plan. They were: Enclosure of existing green waste facility under construction. Applications for Site Plan Review had been made for: Food waste/organics/green waste compost facility (200,000 square feet); food waste/organic recycling facility (62,000 square feet); public receiving/disposal enclosure (62,000 square feet); employee building increase (9,000 square feet); vehicle maintenance facility and single stream expansion line (13,000 square feet). An Initial Study/Negative Declaration was currently being circulated for the above improvements with the review period from November 23 through December 22 nd. The Zoning Enforcement Official would review these proposed improvements. Jack Isola, Senior District Manager, 2615 Davis Street, stated that the Neighborhood Forum was a good measure of the facility s performance during the year. It was started for good reason. The neighborhood had not been taken into consideration as much as it should have. Over time, operational procedures had been created to keep in mind the neighbors. The Neighborhood Forum was a good idea that allowed a process in which conversations could take place twice a year. Few to no odor complaints had been received during the 2010 year. Over time, the facility had developed various processes that really supported the solid waste goals of the county, which was, currently, 75 percent diversion from landfills. Starting in 2010 they were behind at about 61 to 65 percent diversion. Three hundred union employees worked at Davis Street and maintaining that infrastructure and the economic stability was important. About $450,000 per quarter was paid to the city through franchise fees and business license fees. Diversion of 75 percent was originally foreseen for 1998 and it was now the goal for Alameda County. Tonnage would not increase and enclosure of the facilities would reduce odors and pests Yard waste and wood waste operations were open, which were the major contributors to odor issues New

9 Minute No Page 9 of 12 facilities would improve material diversion The Master Plan was released for public comment on November 18 th The East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) was the large adjacent neighbor and discussions with them were ongoing regarding landscaping view sheds. Current and future projects were as follows: Current construction with 2011 completion date Fully enclosing Green Waste Building with negative air pressure, bio filters, high speed rollup doors (which were closed until a truck drove up), enhanced odor and seagull control, total cost will be $11M. Enclosure of the public area, which would help to seal off the Main Transfer Building where all municipal solid waste was disposed of and transported out to the landfill. Organics MRF (Material Recovery Facility) Under design at this time where recyclables would be separated from organics. Will include new employee building and offices. Organic Composing Facility (200,000 square feet) Onsite composting uses in-vessel units. The existing park had a gas collection system that collected landfill gas, which was now being flared. The methane gas would be captured from the in-vessel units and be combined with the gas coming off the park to produce electricity or to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG) or compressed natural gas (CNG). He had recently visited Germany to observe this kind of facility, which was operating all over Europe. He showed photos. Fourth Quarter of 2012 completion date ($35M) - Phase I, Food Waste Organic Recycling Facility and Employee Building, Phase II, Food Waste Organic Stream Waste Compost Building to be fully enclosed with same improvements as Green Waste Building. Other ongoing improvements were: CNG Fueling Station Currently produced at the Altamont landfill Expanding Single Stream Material Recovery Facility (additional 13,000 square feet), which faced Davis Street. Relocate Retail Operation Mulches and compost were presently sold and it would be relocated to the front of the facility for easier access for the public. WM EarthCare was the product brand. The plan was to close the loop on construction demolition lumber, rock, green waste and food scraps and to become truly sustainable. All New Buildings would meet LEED Gold Certification Standards Roof designs would support solar panels. Local materials and trades would be used 40 to 60 new permanent union jobs to be created with positive economic effect for the city. Vice Chair Shields asked if Eden Road would be used by the Waste Transfer trucks. He complimented Waste Management on this new Master Plan that could not have even been imagined in 1996 when the first Master Plan was presented to the BZA. District Manager Isola stated that trucks converged on Davis Street from all directions. He expected that Eden Road would be used, but he did not plan to mandate its use by the truck drivers. He recalled that the diversion goal was 25 percent diversion in 1998.

10 Minute No Page 10 of 12 Member Makin stated that he had gone to the facility in the springtime a year ago and noticed, at that time, police officers writing tickets for uncovered loads. Had he considered turning people away who did not cover their loads? Who maintained the streets? District Manager Isola stated that turning customers away was difficult. However, the street and gatehouse were posted, tarps were sold and they had the ability to charge an extra fee for an untarped load. If someone was turned away, that person would certainly dump their load on the public right-ofway. That problem had been discussed at the Neighborhood Forums. Another issue was that the gatehouse attendants might be afraid of confrontation. His employees maintained Davis Street and Doolittle Road. This last week, the CHP was out, because of independent dirt haulers working at the East Bay Regional Park. Member Mendieta asked the following questions: What percentage of customers came in with untarped loads? He did not know. What was the surcharge for a truck without a tarp and where did that money go? The money went towards the purchase of the tarps; he was not certain of the exact charge. Would it be possible to require customers with untarped loads to purchase a tarp as an incentive to be used for the next time they brought a load in? Admittedly, the company had not been consistent with charging for untarped loads. He promised to perform a little more investigation to clearly answer those questions. He did not regularly see debris on the roads, but it could be a hazard if a branch had to be maneuvered around. Crews cleaned up early every day. The indoor food scrap containers seemed to draw ants and he suggested that they should be designed to be more air tight. It was difficult within the different jurisdictions to agree on what the container should look like. Standardization had proved to be difficult. He planned to have his neighborhood zealot try out a new design to see if it was any better. Had biofuel been considered, when one thought of how many restaurants were in the city? Grease traps were not something they were interested in. He understood that the water treatment plant was undergoing massive upgrades and that stream would do particularly well in their digesters. The facility already had tremendous energy potential with the organic gas that was being created at there. Since Waste Management was a national firm, were these operations at this facility unique or were they being practiced throughout the country? Seattle and Portland were similar to the Bay Area, as they also were working towards 75 percent diversion. It was creeping up in Southern California, also, because of air regulations. Moving east (even to the eastern California counties), the attention to diversion and sustainability was much less intense. Many companies did not have recycling; there were no two or three carts, which occurred in pockets. The idea was that if it could be made to work in Seattle, Portland and the Bay Area, these processes and facilities would be successfully implemented across the United States, as they became necessary in those areas. Obviously, one person s garbage was another person s treasure. Member Mendieta commended the company on its ambitious plan. It would certainly be good for the city. He was also impressed with the corporate responsibility and the support of the Neighborhood Forums.

11 Minute No Page 11 of 12 Member Houston stated that she was excited to see the retailing component. What did he believe the marketability was for it? She was okay with calling the facility the dump. She used to beg her father to take her with him, because, to her, it was a total treasure trove and she would always come home with wonderful things. This was an excellent plan that would benefit everyone. District Manager Isola replied that a full-time salesperson had been hired. The EarthCare centers were being developed in Marin County where the Redwood Landfill was located and at the Altamont Landfill. They would, eventually, be available across the Bay Area. Vice Chair Shields asked if a dumpster that could be bought at local home improvement stores was part of the Master Plan. District Manager Isola said that Waste Management did have it available. It was called Bagster and was it was fraught with rather interesting problems. If one company s Bagster was purchased by someone located in another company s franchise area, it could not be picked up. It was a great product, if one could use it. When buying it, check the zip codes on the back of it to make certain your zip code was there. Chair Gilcrest asked the following questions: His presentation mentioned $60M to $100M total to be spent on these projects. What else would he like to do, if the money was available? At this point, he was unable to think past this. The total was wobbly, because of construction costs and some projects had not been bid, yet. The first job had been bid at $11M. The second phase was budgeted for $35M and the technology for the third phase kept changing and it could be as much as three years in the future. Did the energy possibilities represent untapped potential or would everything be captured with this plan? The composter should tap the 250 to 350 tons per day that was processed and it would be the maximum. Would it benefit the work load if recycling bins were picked up every week rather than twice a month? Was there an overflow of recyclables into the regular waste bin because the recycle bin filled up between pickups? His company picked up weekly and was not aware of anyone who picked up biweekly. Oro Loma picked up recyclables biweekly. The Single Stream facility processed approximately 360 tons per day and it was not overtaxed. This project would expand the facility to allow for more processing. Chair Gilcrest opened the Public Hearing. Gerd Marggraff, Neptune Drive, stated that he had presented a petition signed by every homeowner on Neptune Drive at the last Neighborhood Forum regarding the still existing odor problem. He admitted that it was not as unpleasant as it had been in the past, but it still existed. He believed the new enclosed Green Waste Facility would solve all of the odor problems and he and his neighbors welcomed it. District Manager Isola agreed that it had continued to be an issue and he had not been willing to ignore it. He appreciated that their plan was supported by the neighbors.

12 Minute No Page 12 of 12 Member Mendieta commended Waste Management s ambitious plans and looked forward to it coming to fruition. District Manager Isola invited the Board Members (and any interested person) to visit the facility to see what went on behind the scenes. Secretary Barros added that the Zoning Enforcement Official planned to hold an administrative meeting to consider the Site Plan Review in early January and the Board s consensus statement would be presented to him. Motion to Signify Support of the Master Plan SPR (Mendieta/Shields/Houston; 6 Ayes, 0 Noes, 1 Absent-Daly) Item 11: Board Members Comments Member Mendieta stated that this meeting was very informative and productive, because of District Manager Isola s thorough presentation. Chair Gilcrest complimented staff on their excellent work. Item 12: Staff Updates/Project Status Report Secretary Barros distributed flyers for the Brian Copeland community event to be held at the California Conservatory Theater on January 21st and 22nd. Chair Gilcrest understood that the Bal Theater was seeking a modification of their CUP to allow matinees on weekends and some charitable/assembly use. Apparently, when they showed the World Series for friends and customers, it technically violated their conditions. Would that be handled administratively or would it come to the BZA? Secretary Barros replied that they had made a request for a slight expansion of hours, which would be handled administratively. If they wanted to change the nature of what they were currently showing, it would come before the BZA. Item 13: Adjourn The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Sally Barros, Secretary Alice Malotte, Recording Secretary Motion to Adjourn