HomeMy WebLinkAbout08.07.97 Minutes
MINUTES
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION
Au~ust 7, 1997
CALL TO ORDER:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
7:30 P.M.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chairman Romero, Commissioners Barnett, Masuda, Sim,
Baldocchi, Teglia and Honan
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
ALSO PRESENT:
Dir. ofE. & C. D.
Planning Division:
Chief Planner
Interim Assist. Planner
Contract Planner
Act. Secretary II
Assist. City Attorney
Engineer Division:
Police Department:
Marty Van Duyn
Jim Harnish
Mike Lappen
Allison Knapp
Rosa Perez
Wayne Snodgrass
Richard Harmon
Sgt. Ron Petrocchi
Sgt. Mike Massoni
CHAIRMAN COMMENTS: Chairman Romero welcomed the newly appointed Commissioner Honan.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Motion-Romero/Second - T eglia: Nomination of Commissioner Barnett as Vice-Chair. The Motion was
unanimously approved.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
July 17, 1997
Motion- Teglia/Second-Barnett: To approve Planning Commission Minutes of July 17th. The minutes'
corrections were made as follows: Page 3 eight paragraph "...the center of the building being 56-100 feet
from the front and 50 feet from the side..."; Page 3 on the Motion "...the location of the antenna at the
center of the flont of the building..."; Page 10 fifth paragraph "...they also looked very dense and would
like tit is project to be opened nlore. ..."; and Page 11 second paragraph include in the motion "based on
the findings contained in the resolution, tlte expressed concerns by tlte Planning Conlnlission and....".
Assistant City Attorney Snodgrass noted that they could modify the minutes to include their concerns.
Chief Planner Harnish clarified in the absence of formal modifications to the Conditions of Approval from
the Commission, staff included the Commission's specific concerns in the staff report to the City Council
and the verbal presentation can elaborate on the Commission's concerns.
The Minutes were approved as corrected by a unanimous voice vote with Commissioner Honan
abstaining.
PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEM
230 East Grand A venuelPte. Grand Business Park, Britannia Pt. Grand Ltd., Owner/Applicant
PUD-87-7/MOD 2; Ne~ative Declaration No. ND-97-049 (Continued/rom July 17, 1997)
Modification ofa Planned Unit Development permit, in accordance with SSFMC 20.91, to construct a single
100,000 sq. ft. two-story R & D biotech building in lieu of two single story R & D buildings totaling 71,000 sq. ft.
included in the original PUD approval for a property located in the Planned Industrial (P-I) Zone District.
Chairman Romero opened the public hearing.
Planner Lappen presented staff report noting the proposed building will replace the originally approved
PUD permit increasing the height of the building and parking. He indicated that the proposed project
meets development standards in the East of 101 Area Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The 37.6 foot structure
height exceeds the 35 feet height limitation for the area, however, the plan permits exemptions on the
height if the proposal is consistent with the overall architectural design of the project area and staff finds
it is consistent. The Design Review Board also found the project to be acceptable. A Negative
Declaration was prepared and determined there is no negative environmental impact. He introduced Mr.
Chamorro, the architect representing the applicant, who was here to give a presentation and answer
further questions.
Representin2 the Applicant: Mr. Chamorro described Sugen's plan to enhance the
Al Chamorro, Architect buildings for the company's future needs. He noted that
Britannia Pointe Grand Ltd., Partnership the screening of all the mechanical equipment on the roof
Chamorro Design Group and the 14 foot wall was needed to screen ground
2415 Mariner Square Drive mechanical equipment. The landscaping plans include a
Alameda, CA 94501 plaza located near the entry to help tie in the buildings and
give it a campus effect. He presented an aerial view of the project in digital form to show how the entire
plan and elevations would look.
Commissioner Sim asked for clarification as to whether the building height is measured to the building
parapet or the roof screening/parapet as shown in the elevation drawing. Planner Lappen clarified the
definition of building height included the parapet of the building, but does not include the screening of
roof equipment.
Chairman Romero closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Barnett asked for clarification as to whether the floor area ratio in the staff report refers to
the whole property as a lot. Planner Lappen explained that with the first modification of the PUD, the
property had been divided into several lots, and the floor area ratio refers only to Lot 1, for Sugen, Inc.
building.
The Commission thanked the applicant for a very nice presentation.
Motion-Teglia/Second-Masuda: To approve ND97-049 and PUD-87-7/Mod 2 based on the findings and
subject to the conditions of approval. The Motion passed with a unanimous voice vote.
Page 2 of7
PC Mtg. 8/7/97
Cultural Arts Ordinance City Wide, ZA-97-014 (Continued/rom July 17, 1997)
Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco (Chapter 20 of the Municipal Ordinance)
to allow for up to a five percent reduction in the landscaping requirements in the commercial, industrial and multi-
family residential zoning districts provided that certain fmdings are made, and to establish an in-lieu fee for the
cultural arts in the City of South San Francisco. The reduction in no cases shall permit the on-site landscaping to
drop below 10%, as required by the South San Francisco General Plan. The in-lieu fee is based on the average cost
of installing and maintaining landscaping on a square foot basis.
Chairman Romero opened the public hearing.
Planner Knapp presented the staff report noting the purpose of the Cultural Arts Ordinance was to
promote cultural arts in the City and provide developers reduced landscaping (up to 5%) for an in-lieu fee
process or provide art/sculptures on the site. She indicated that at no time would the on-site landscaping
be reduced below the 10% requirement. She noted that current projects have 7 to 30% more landscaping
than required in the industrial, commercial and residential areas. She higWighted the proposed process.
Tables 1-3 summarized the in-lieu fees received by the City and the savings to the developer in
maintenance. Planner Knapp concluded staff recommends approval of the Draft Ordinance and that the
Planning Commission recommend Council's approval.
Commissioner Masuda asked for the clarification as to whether the funding would actually go to Cultural
Arts. Planner Knapp indicated it had not be determined but described the understanding of "Cultural
Arts" as sculpture, murals, performing art, paintings, or other similar works of art. She explained that the
ordinance requires the City Council to have the final say and the Cultural Arts Commission to recommend
to Council. Assistant City Attorney Snodgrass explained that the City Council would need to set policies
and guidelines for qualifying arts to use funds, should this ordinance pass. Chief Planner Harnish
explained that this was a vehicle to provide funding for a program, but the definition of the program still
needs to be addressed.
The Commission discussed several concerns including: The administration of the fees; that the
landscaping does not fall below the 10% requirements; how the options would be presented to the
applicants and negotiations of landscaping percentages; and why developers would give 20% landscaping
when only 10% is required. The Commission suggested that the Cultural Arts in-lieu fees be encouraged
in the PUD process where improvements to the City are promoted, and cautioned that they not to be
included in the variance process.
In response to the Commission, Planner Knapp stated that through the development review process the
City gets more landscaping than is required and staff would informed the applicant that there is a process
for 5% in-lieu fees for cultural arts.
Chief Planner explained that the intent of the ordinance is to obtained funds to flow through the Cultural
Arts Commission to enhance the arts in the community. He noted a provision in the ordinance which
gives an option to the developer to propose reduction of landscaping and place an art piece on their site,
which would be subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. He indicated the incentives as
indicated in the maintenance savings that the staff could present to the developers and its relation to art to
enhance the attractiveness to the community.
Page 3 of7
PC Mtg. 8/7/97
be something among a menu of options that staff suggests and could be open ended. The cultural arts
ordinance is not necessary the only avenue, this is one option and it is something the Commission could
accept or reject.
Chairman Romero noted that these options need to be conveyed to the City Council. It is good to
encourage Cultural Arts but does not want to encourage less landscaping.
Commissioner Teglia expressed his main concern in the vehicle being used to obtain the in-lieu fees. He
prefers a vehicle to solve problems instead of an incentive to reduce landscaping.
Chief Planner Harnish noted two approaches: A. The ordinance could provide exceptions to normal
practice. This can be done in three ways: 1) Modify the language that would characterize what would not
be applicable to certain types of applications; 2) Provide a policy that states that there are certain types
of applications that would not be considered for reduction; and 3) unusual circumstances, i.e. a large
development on a small lot. B. A fee could be high but reasonable, and that would only be an advantage
to those who could not meet the standards or had major problems to meet the standards and the
economic benefits would be there.
Commissioner Teglia suggested that the size of trees planted could be a point of consideration as less
landscaping. Chief Planner Harnish noted this could be considered, but he would not recommend too
small of a tree since the smaller trees have less chance to survive.
Commissioner Barnett suggested wording added to staff's recommendation, ".. to allow for a reduction in
landscaping in order to meet zoning or planning requirements, provided the Cultural Arts in-lieu fee is
paid." Discussion continued that the fee be high enough, who would set the fee, and that the Planning
Commission would need to recommend a fee.
Commissioner Masuda concerned with Section 20.101.030(c) that the Cultural Arts Commission would
be approving the art piece before it reaches the Planning Commission. Assistant City Attorney informed
that the Planning Commission would still need to approve it after the Cultural Arts Commission review.
The Commissioner concurred that the ordinance be revised and come back to the Commission.
Chief Planner Hamish cautioned that this not be tied into projects that would require variance, then this
would have to go through public hearing and there may be trouble linking this fee to a variance.
Assistance City Attorney explained that a variance procedure is provided under state law, that if this
concept was imposed in such a way that it frustrated the ability for people to get a variance or other
permits under state law, that could get sticky. Director Van Duyn explained that the variance needs to
stand on it own merit irrespective of the condition for in-lieu fee.
Commissioner Barnett agreed that it would not be fair to make it difficult to obtain a variance.
Motion-Masuda/Second-Teglia: To continue the ZA-97-014 Cultural Arts Ordinance for thirty days. The
Motion passed with a unanimous voice vote.
Page 5 of7
PC Mtg. 8/7/97
B~~nnlg~~~Q$~m~p~~~~I~~~~~~~
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Items from Staff:
Chief Planner Harnish informed: 1) that the Commission had received a copy of a report, "Bioscience in
San Mateo County" for information. 2) The special. City Council/Planning Commission meeting has been
tentatively rescheduled to September 3rd (CommissiOners wanted the meeting in August, but it was noted
that it may need to be the last week in September) General Plan update report will be available soon, and
the wireless communication information both will be at special meeting. 4) Nextel wants to come back
with a modification on an existing site, and asked if they could bring it before the Commission. Chairman
Romero noted that they have made the decision to wait the 90 days for the wireless communication
policy. 5) The Heather Heights report is underway and will be on the agenda for the August 21, Planning
Commission meeting. 6) Terrabay has submitted a revised specific plan and supplemental EIR, Planner
Allison Knapp has been working on this, it is on a very tight schedule and will be coming soon. (The
Commission noted that larger projects need several study sessions and they want to see plans with
details.) Chief Planner Harnish explained Terrabay is nearing the end of Phase I and they believe they are
working with an already approved project. Although the Commission and staff are aware that they are
now working with the details of the other phases, and other sensitive issues. Staff will bring this item to
the Commission as early as possible for a review. He noted that the applicant will be asked to have
photo montages to allow the Commission to see a clear idea of what things will look like.
Items from Commission:
Commissioner Masuda asked that the eucalyptus trees that will be staying on the McLellan site could be
trimmed/topped during the construction phase of the project. He also noted that the South San Francisco
entrance sign on Hickey and EI Camino is facing the wrong way for the benefit of people driving South
into Colma.
Commissioner Sim expressed concern that community participation on the General Plan update be
considered. Chief Planner Harnish indicated that the General Plan Consultant will inform the public in
workshops with community groups and advertisement through utility bills, and the newspaper. The
General Plan update will be coming soon to the Commission in October or November.
Commissioner Baldocchi asked how staff goes about informing the public of what they need to do to
obtain permits from the City. Chief Planner Harnish noted that Building, Fire, and Planning Divisions
provide handouts to the public. He also noted that staff is working on implementing the one-stop permit
counter, staff is scheduled to meet scheduled for next week to discuss its implementation. Commissioner
Baldocchi emphasized that she would like to avoid having people who are applying for a permit from
falling through the cracks during the process.
Richard Harmon, Development Review Specialist of the Engineering Division, noted that staff had
prepared a flow chart (which shows the chain of events for permits) a couple years ago, and that can be
handed out to residents in Planning and Building Division.
Page 6 of7
PC Mtg. 8/7/97
Commissioner Teglia asked if the telecommunications companies were going to be in attending the
special meeting between City Council and Planning Commission. Chief Planner Harnish informed the
Commission that Planning Division has received several responses from companies interested in
participating in the telecommunications' meetings.
Commissioner Teglia asked if the Fire/Building Department will be represented at Planning Commission
meetings. Chief Planner Harnish noted that they would be sending a representative when requested and
specifically needed.
Several Commissioners asked about the new portables at All Souls School. Chief Planner Harnish noted it
had gone before the Design Review Board and the condition was to match the structure's color with that
of the existing building.
Chairman Romero noted that there was only one Design Review Board member present at the meeting.
He also noted there is a sign on Grand Avenue across the street from City Hall, the tire shop's sign had
been broken for quit some time, they should replace it or remove it. There is a banner on Spruce drive-
thrn store has several cigarette signs and they keep putting more up. Director Van Duyn noted that Code
Enforcement and Planning Division have informed that and will be reminded.
Items from the Public:
None
Adjournment: Motion-Barnett/Second-Masuda: To adjourn meeting at 9:30 PM to the Regular
Planning Commission Meeting of August 21, 1997. The Motion passed with a unanimous voice vote.
\J)~ ~v'-t4/J1
William Romero, Chairman
Planning Commission
City of South San Francisco
Jim
Planni Commission
City 0 South San Francisco
WR:JH:rp
Page 7 of7
PC Mtg. 8/7/97