Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04.06.00 Minutes CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE April 6, 2000 TAPE 1 CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioner D'Angelo, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Romero, Commissioner Teglia, Vice Chairperson Meloni and Chairperson Sim MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Baldocchi City Attorney: Engineering: Police Dept.: Bldg./Fire Prevo Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Steve Carlson, Senior Planner Mike Upston, Senior Planner Allison Knapp, Consultant Planner Adam Lindgren Richard Harmon Sgt. Mike Massoni Rocque Yballa STAFF PRESENT: Planning Division: AGENDA REVIEW - Chief Planner Sparks noted that item #2 is recommended to be continued to April 20th and asked that the item be continued to May 4th. He asked the Commission to take Item from Staff, 8a, first because it should be a quick action of the Commission finding the EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan amendment consistent with the General Plan. He pointed out that the Commission will hold a Special meeting and suggested that it be done after 8: 15 p.m.. He mentioned that the Commission can recess the regular meeting and conduct the special meeting or conduct the meeting after they have adjourned the regular meeting. Chairperson Sim asked the Commission if they would like to recess and conduct the special meeting or to conduct it at the end of the regular meeting. The Commission decided to take the item after 8: 15 due to the noticing issues. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of Minutes for February 3, 2000 and February 17, 2000 Regular Meeting. 2. ExelixisIBritannia Pointe Grand Ltd. Partnership, owner/applicant 169 Harbor Way PUD-98-053/MOD2 and Negative Declaration ND-98-053/MOD2 Modification of a Planned Unit Development to allow expansion of the existing 28.8 acre business park to incorporate an additional 1.73 acres into the southwest comer of the park, and construction of a two-story, 49,000 square foot office/R&D building in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.84. (recommend continuance to April 20, 2000) S:\Minutes\040600 RPC.doc Page 1 of 9 Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting. Motion Teglia / Second Romero approving the consent calendar with corrections from Commissioner Romero. Moved before Public Hearings under Agenda Review 8. Items from Staff a. EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan findings of consistency with General Plan Consultant Planner Knapp presented the staff report. Motion Teglia / Second Honan to find the Redevelopment Plan conforms with the General Plan. PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEMS 3. Sprint PCS/Jim Matteson-applicant Jon Toby -owner 407 Cabot Blvd. UP-99-078 and Negative Declaration ND-99-078 Use Permit allowing a 58 ft. tall telecommunications facility. (continuedfrom March 16, 2000) Public Hearing opened. Senior Planner Carlson presented the staff report. Jonas Ionan read a letter from John Toby, owner of the property where the proposed telecommunications facility is going to be installed. The letter mentioned that he was supporting the construction of a monopole on his property. Mr. Ionan noted that there were photomontages to show that the 58 foot monopole would not have a large impact in the industrial area. He added that the recommendation to deny the proposal is solely based on aesthetics and that it is incompatible with its surroundings. He noted that the environment consists of industrial warehouses with mill towers, 50 foot tall telephone polls, and P G & E towers with the wires. He added that their mono-pole would not have wires and is compatible with the surroundings. He added that they have reduced the height and the number of antennas. Commissioner Teglia noted that the area is in transition and is turning into hotels and biotech businesses. He added that there are many opportunities for co-locating and the site seems strange for a cell site. He asked if the applicant has researched co-locating on higher buildings or on a peak nearby. Mr. Ionan noted the people who find a cell site look at alternative locations. He added that a cell site on a peak would create an aesthetic impact in comparison to this location. He also mentioned that locating a cell site on a higher buildings, which are closer to highway 101, would not service the east of 101 area that is being targeted. He added that the location would serve the desires of the Commission by reducing the aesthetic impact. Commissioner Teglia noted that he has seen prior applications with good examples of stealthing technology and there are monuments that can hide them. Commissioner D'Angelo asked what the height of the building was. Mr. Ionan noted that it is approximately 20 feet high. Commissioner D'Angelo asked what the highest an antenna would be allowed to go on top of a building. Senior Planner Carlson replied that it would be 15 feet. Commissioner D'Angelo noted that this would be 35 feet and even the applicant's shorter antenna exceeds the City's ordinance. Mr. Ionan noted that he was told by their engineer that 45 foot mono-pole would give them the coverage they needed because of the S:\Minutes\040600 RPC.doc Page 2 of 9 Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting. surrounding environment. Commissioner D'Angelo asked what the coverage area would be from the Toby Enterprises location. Mr. Ionan noted that it is East of 101 and a one mile radius. Commissioner Romero asked how many customers they would be anticipating to receive. Mr. Ionan noted that they are estimating 1000+. Public Hearing closed. Vice Chairperson Meloni noted that the telecommunications ordinance give a 35 foot limit along with stealthing, and suggested that the Commission should guide their decision with the ordinance. Motion Meloni / Second Teglia to approve ND-99-078 and deny UP-99-078 in accordance with the findings of denial. Unanimously approved. 4. PSINet PSINet Realty Inc.-owner/applicant 500 Forbes Blvd. UP-00-004 and Negative Declaration ND-00-004 Use Permit allowing a 24 hour business generating 100 ADT. Senior Planner Carlson presented staff report. Public Hearing opened. Ruth Rosenberg gave the Commission a presentation and went through the landscape plans. She added that they have complied with all the comments from the Design Review Board. She noted that they accepted all the mitigation measures in the Negative Declaration. She asked if the condition of approval with regard to the alarm system can be discussed privately with Sergeant Massoni. Commissioner D'Angelo commended the applicant for a good presentation. He asked what kind of fuel will be used for the emergency generator and what would be the capacity of the tanks above ground. Mr. Garner replied the fuel being used would be diesel number 2 and the capacity would be 48,000 gallons. He noted that there would be 4 tanks at 12,000 gallons each that would be double wall contained up to code. Ms. Rosenberg added that they would be maintained at a regular basis. Commissioner D'Angelo asked if the size and capacity of the above ground tanks have been reviewed by the Fire Department. Mr. Garner noted that the Fire Department had no issues. Commissioner Honan asked if the applicant will be able to have extra shrubbery along the screening wall. Ms. Rosenberg noted that it was discussed that day and they expect to move the loading dock. They will put some landscaping along their fire lane. Commissioner Honan asked about the alarm system being presented to Sergeant Massoni. Ms. Rosenberg noted that they would like to present the system to him and do not want to make it public because of the type of business. Sergeant Massoni noted that he was confident that the alarm system would meet the Municipal Code and that the applicant would even exceed the code. Collin Post, 1136 Sunnyside, asked if the 48,000 gallons of fuel being above ground and why so much fuel is needed. Commissioner D' Angelo noted that the applicant can correct him, but since these emergency generators are for backup purposes, they need to have enough fuel to keep running 24 hours a day due to their responsibility to keep the business running on the World Wide Web. Mr. Post asked that the applicant explain the type of pollutants that come out of the generators and if they are filtered. Mr. Garner noted that they have reviewed the local ordinance with regard to the diesel generators and noted that they will be within the limits of the pollutants. Public Hearing closed. S:\Minutes\040600 RPC.doc Page 3 of 9 Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Teglia asked why the tanks at for this facility were not required to be underground, while other facilities, like the Montegrano's, were required to underground their tanks. Senior Planner Carlson noted that the size of the tanks at the Montegrano facility was small and the facility was only used for fuel for their fleet. They required that the tank be undergrounded and it limited the size of the tank. He added that in this case they have allowed above ground fuel tanks, like the one for the MRF. Commissioner Teglia asked if it would be feasible to have underground tanks. Commissioner D'Angelo noted that they are emergency generator tanks. He added that it would be easier to service the tanks above ground, there is a less chance of underground leaks, and rupture of lines would be reduces. Vice Chairperson Meloni asked if the tanks were convult type. Mr. Garner noted that they are similar but are double wall fire guard tanks. He added that they were a metal outer and inner wall with a fill material inside to protect the enclosure. Commissioner Romero noted that there is a high quality project and there have been a significant amount of improvements made. He noted that he had no issues with the alarm system being discussed with Sergeant Massoni. He suggested that this all be documented in case there is a need for the Police Department to get involved. Motion Romero / Second Meloni to approve ND-00-004 and UP-00-004 subject to the attached findings and conditions of approval, and delegating security approval to Sergeant Massoni. Approved by unanimous voice vote. Recess taken at 8:45 p.m. Recalled to order at 8:57 p.m. 5. NetClerk/Huntsman Architectural Group/Tim Murphy, Applicant Elbert Bressie-Owner 720 Dubuque Ave. UP-00-009 and Categorical Exemption Section 15301 Class 1 Existing Facilities Use Permit allowing an office use generating more than 100 average daily vehicle trips. Senior Planner Carlson presented the staff report. Public Hearing opened. Tim Murphy, Architect representing owner and applicant, gave a brief history of Net Clerk. Public Hearing closed. Commissioner Honan felt as if she were not seeing the entire picture because of not having the master plan along with the application. Chairperson Sim noted that he shared that sentiment. Chief Planner Sparks noted that there are many businesses in East of 101 that are multi-tenant buildings and this is one that will have a detailed master plan for review. He added that in most cases there isn't a master plan, and does not think that this use shouldn't be put on hold because of the master plan not being in. He noted that most of the time the Commission looks at individual uses in multi-tenant buildings with no thought of having a master plan. He added that one will be submitted and it should not have much bearing on this application. Vice Chairperson Meloni understood that the master plan had been submitted and asked if the property owner would implement this. Senior Planner Carlson noted that this is the first that the owner has spent a significant amount of resources in developing a master plan. He added that they have met with the owners and they want to convert that facility to office uses. Staff believes that they would be completing the master plan process and implementing it. S:\Minutes\040600 RPC.doc Page 4 of 9 Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting. Vice Chairperson Meloni was concerned about the implementation of the master plan and requiring that if it is not implemented then a revocation hearing will take place on the use permit. Senior Planner Carlson noted that it could do harm to this tenant, considering the amount of money invested, only to be told that their use would be revoked. He added that it is still a step in the right direction and that staff is concerned about the trucking operations and the conflicts that have been created, along with the site degradation that has been caused. Vice Chairperson Meloni was concerned with having the applicant go in and then the improvements are not done and the Commission has a problem where they have hearing after hearing trying to gain compliance. Commissioner Romero noted that this is not the flIst application from this location and the same conversation has taken place in the past about a master plan that never comes forward. He added that they would be penalizing a new applicant when the property owner is responsible for making sure that these things are done. He suggested having some type of moratorium stating that no further applications would be heard until a master plan is developed. Chairperson Sim asked if there was a timeline on the master plan. Senior Planner Carlson noted that there is a master plan and the applicant is looking at 2 - 3 years in which all the elements would be implemented. He added that the applicant is trying to work within those structured leases. Mr. Murphy noted that they expect to complete the exterior phase within one year. T1\.PE2 Commissioner Romero asked what the Commission could do to ensure that the master plan does go forward. Chief Planner Sparks replied that it is in and staff will be processing it. He added that it would be before the Commission in 60-90 days. Senior Planner Carlson noted that there are not anymore applications in for that area now and anyone that tried to file would be behind the master plan. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren responded to the comments made by Commissioners regarding the Use Permit process. He mentioned that if the Commission wishes to add conditions that would require reviews at particular moments it is appropriate and noted that adding an automatic revocation provision would not be consistent with process in the ordinance. He added that the Commission could add a condition to review the use permit. He suggested that the Commission request a review simultaneously with the master plan, and if the master plan is not ready at that time then the Commission could have a four to six month review of the permit. Commissioner Teglia suggested that the applicant could maximize their standards. He noted that the awnings should be properly maintained along with the landscaping. Motion Romero / Second Teglia approving UP-00-009 with the additional condition of six month review. 6. Golden State FlooringlRick Coates, Applicant Arthur Gilbert Real Estate Dev.-owner 240 Littlefield Ave. UP-00-OI0 and Categorical Exemption Section 15301 Class 1 Existing Facilities Use Permit allowing a construction sales and material business with hours of operation. Senior Planner Carlson presented staff report. Public Hearing opened. Rick Coates, Manager of Golden State Flooring, gave a brief presentation of what has been done to the building since they moved into it. Public Hearing opened. S:\Minutes\040600 RPC.doc Page 5 of 9 Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Romero noted that the Commission has asked the applicant to present in-lieu fees to the Cultural Arts Commission in place of the 10% landscaping when it cannot be met. He asked if this was discussed with the applicant. Senior Planner Carlson replied that this had not been done because the applicant was under the understanding that they could move into the building. He added that there was a stop work notice issued because there were issues with regard to the fire sprinklers which were corrected. He noted that Planning indicated that they needed a use permit, which they were unaware of, and staff tried to work with them because their lease was expiring. He added that staff asked the applicant not to make the improvements to the parking lot until the matter had come to the Commission and asked that the landscaping plan be drafted by a professional. He added that staff was misunderstood and the applicant started work on the parking lot. He added that there is a grant to upgrade the bay trail in the back. Commissioner Honan noted that landscaping is going into projects but it is not being maintained, and asked who would maintain the landscaping. Senior Planner Carlson noted that this was the owner's responsibility and it could be added to the conditions. Commissioner Honan asked that the bay trail be maintained also. Senior Planner Carlson noted that the trail is the City's responsibility. Commissioner Teglia noted that cement is easy to deal with and the applicant could add tree wells in certain areas. He was also concerned about Littlefield and sees the opportunity to increase the landscaping in the front along the street. He added that it is important to have a landscaping plan before the Commission makes a decision on the project. Commissioner D'Angelo was concerned that any other applicant could get the impression that the City does not care about landscaping. He supported postponing approval of the whole permit. Senior Planner Carlson noted that the applicant did install some landscaping and spent a certain amount of money. He added that the applicant is concerned about the image of their building and the applicant still could add tree wells within the parking lot. Commissioner D'Angelo noted that he would like to see an emphasis on Littlefield more than on the back trail. Mr. Coates noted that they have made a lot of improvements to the site and are willing to make changes. Commissioner Romero noted that the applicant has done many improvements but the Commission is in an awkward position because the improvements have been done before the Commission has had a chance to review the application. He suggested continuing the item to get the issues resolved. Senior Planner Carlson suggested having a six month review on the project. Mr. Coates noted that they have someone working on the landscape plan and want to run the business. Commissioner Honan asked that the applicant have a maintenance plan available when they return before the Commission. Mr. Coates stated that he would do as requested and that they already have a company that will be maintaining the landscaping 2-3 times a week. Motion Teglia / Second Romero to continue the item to April 20, 2000. Continued by unanimous voice vote. 7. Airport Blvd. Inn! Arvind Desai, Owner Philip Copland, Applicant 178 & 190 Airport Blvd. UP-99-043 and Negative Declaration ND-99-043 The applicant is proposing to construct a 4-story, 47-room motel with associated site improvements on a commercial site. Senior Planner Upston presented the staff report. Public Hearing opened. Philip Copeland, Architect representing Mr. Desai, noted that the Commission has probably been informed on the project by the City Council and the City Manager. He added that Mr. Desai had been invited to prepare a first S:\Minutes\040600 RPC.doc Page 6 of 9 Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting. class hotel and the direction of the City changed. He proceeded to read a letter dated April 6, 2000, into the record. Chairperson Sim asked Mr. Copeland if he had a design concept. Mr. Copeland noted that they have gone through six designs on the project and noted that the drawings were given to the City. He noted that the project is dead and does not need to waste the Commission's time. Chairperson Sim noted that the Planning Commission is looking solely at the planning issues and design issues. He added that he did not know the history of the project and is trying to address the planning and design issues. Mr. Copeland noted that if he believed that the Commission had an option to vote for the project, he would have been prepared to make a presentation. He does not believe that an approval is even a consideration because of the history of the project. He added that his understanding was that the Commission would deny the project because of the City's involvement with TelTanomics and the entire Downtown Plan. He added that the issue is wrapped up with the City Council and he cannot see the Commission taking any action. Chairperson Sim asked Mr. Copeland if he was challenging or questioning the Commission' integrity. Mr. Copeland noted that he would not do that and added that there are issues and forces at the City level that make the project a conclusion. Jackie Williams, 242 Longford Drive, added that there was a closed session at the Council level and they agreed on Terranomics. She added that many things happened at that meeting and this is why Mr. Copeland is very upset. She noted that she is at the Planning Commission meeting to find out what was going to be the Commission's action. She added that most of the frustration from the applicant is from having the Commission bypassed by sending this straight to the Council. She suggested that the Commission find out what happened at the Council level. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren reinforced the comments made with regard to the jurisdiction and authority of the Planning Commission. He added that the Commission has received a report from Staff and it is entirely within their discretion if they want to accept or reject the report. He added that the Commission is fully empowered to make the decision before them and there has not been any interaction that would not legally remove that authority from the Commission. Chairperson Sim asked if it was within the Redevelopment Agency's jurisdiction. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren replied that it is within the Redevelopment Plan. He added that the report from that the applicant requested is available to all the public. Chief Planner Sparks clarified that staff never presumes what the outcome of the Commission's vote will be on any project and did not consider this project dead on arrival. He added that staff has acknowledged that the building can work on the site and there is access to it. He noted that the recommendation for denial is that there is a land use issue as to what is the appropriate kind of development at the major entrance to downtown South San Francisco. He added that this site defines that entrance and putting this structure there precludes any other options for a comprehensive development. He explained that the application is the hotel at this site and staff recommends denial because they think this is not the appropriate use at the site in the context of the General Plan policies. William Borba Jr., owner of Clearlite Trophies, gave a brief history of their business and mentioned that they are adjacent to the site in question. He noted that they are aware of the redevelopment reviews on their properties and also aware of the TelTanomics plan that was presented to the Council in 1999. He added that it would require the use of their property, the Desai property, and the CalTrans property for a 10 story office building. He noted that they have had discussions with the City on how that would affect their family owned businesses along with the negative economic impact. He added that the property owners are exploring the possibility of developing the Airport Boulevard site and would present the City exactly what is in their Master Plan. He added that there are two property owners that are coming forward and want to be a part of the Redevelopment project in the City. Public Hearing closed. Commissioner Teglia noted he has not seen an application like this one come through before. He added that there is a lot of discussion about TelTanomics and a Master Plan that he has heard nothing about. He noted that the applicant has done good research on staff's report and does not know if they are good points or not. He noted S:\Minutes\040600 RPC.doc Page 7 of 9 Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting. that the good point is the vibration of La Quinta. He added that the Commission needs to be more informed in regard to the City's direction. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the issue before the Commission is what the use of the property should be in the context of the General Plan policies and the desire of the City to have an impressive entrance to downtown, which will add to the revitalization of the downtown. He noted that the recommendation for denial is consistent with the clear approach of the General Plan policy. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren noted that the Commission has to make a finding of General Plan consistency if they approve the Use Permit, and in this case the project is not consistent with the General Plan which led to the recommendation of denial. Commissioner Teglia noted that there were comments that the applicant had multiple designs ranging from 150 rooms to a 47 room motel. He stated that the City has a better time coordinating with developers, and asked what went wrong in the process, what the vision is and how they would fit together on the site. Chief Planner Sparks stated that staff can bring back the alternatives for that site. He noted that the issue is the consistency with the General Plan. Chairperson Sim asked if Redevelopment funds were available to help the site with improvements. Senior Planner Ups ton read directly from the staff report what the City's intent was for that property and that funding has already been secured for the subject site. Commissioner D'Angelo noted that the applicant has gone through the whole process with the understanding that his project would be denied and does not know what is actually happening. He added that many applicants say that they have worked with the City for a while before they get to the Commission and was wondering where the disconnect with Mr. Desai was. Senior Planner Upston noted that the applicant has a legal right to submit the application and present their project to the Commission. Vice Chairperson Meloni was disturbed that the applicant did not have a presentation and was not prepared to make one. He believes that this item was brought before the Commission too soon and if in fact there are issues at the Council level, they should have been resolved before it went to the Commission for action. Chairperson Sim agreed that the Commission would need a presentation to make a decision. Commissioner Romero noted that Mr. Copeland is concerned that the Commission was brought up-to-date by the City Councilor the City Manager. He clarified that he has never been approached by these two parties on any proposal before the Commission in the time he has served as a Commissioner. He added that the Council allows the Commission to make their own decisions. He mentioned that the City Commission's and staff came up with the Design Charrette which had good ideas for the downtown area and did not recall that this was part of that consideration when the designs were submitted. He believes that is not a proposal that he would support and recommend it to the City Council. He suggested that staff's recommendation be approved and deny the Use Permit and have something that would be beneficial for the property owners and the City. Commissioner Honan noted that she was insulted with the way that the applicant presented himself tonight. She clarified that she was speaking for herself and believes that the applicant approached the Commission with a no win attitude. She noted that the Commission did not have an opportunity to consider the project. She added that she was not aware of all the past conversations between the Council and the applicant. She was concerned that there was not a presentation which only leaves the Commission with what is the best use for the site and the General Plan policy consistency. She noted that the applicant has left the Commission with the question in mind that if their project is the highest and best use for that site. Chairperson Sim noted that the site is a gateway project to the City and there should be a benefit to the cmmunity as a whole. He added that he did not have enough facts from the applicant with regard to a presentation. He noted hat the applicant spoke of issues that he has no business in knowing and does not wish to know them. He added that this is a General Plan issue, which the Commission made a decision on half a year ago, and this is a statement that represents the community. Motion Romero / Second Honan to approve ND-99-043 and deny UP-99-043 with the Findings of Denial. S:\Minutes\040600 RPC.doc Page 8 of 9 Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting. 'Fi\RE3 Assistant City Attorney Lindgren asked if staff could read the proposed Findings of Denial into the record. Senior Planner Upston read the Findings of Denial into the Record. Chairperson Sim asked for a roll call vote. Ayes: Commissioner D'Angelo, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Romero, Commissioner Teglia, Vice Chairperson Meloni and Chairperson Sim None None Commissioner Baldocchi Noes: Abstain: Absent: Approved by unanimous roll call vote. ADMINISTRA TIVE BUSINESS 8. Items from Staff a) EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan and SEIR findings of consistency with General Plan Heard before Public Hearings. 9. Items from Commission - None 10. Items from the Public - None 11. Adjournment Motion Romero / Second Meloni to adjourn the meeting. Approved by unanimous voice vote. The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. ~') ~ !~~) . (/0' .I \,~I~r(/~'\/I--j "1/(/'-7' , i. ,'/ , 1 / . l ,I / E ! S' } Ch.\I \ \ / ugene Im~ arrpersolt"" Plann\ng~6mmission City of South San Francisco ~~~ Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting April 20, 2000, Municipal Services Building, 33 AlToyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA. S:\Minutes\040600 RPC.doc Page 9 of 9 Approved at the April 20, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting.