Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12.16.99 Minutes CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE December 16, 1999 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 Baldocchi, Commissioner D'Angelo, Commissioner Meloni, Commissioner Teglia, Vice Chairperson Sim and Chairperson Honan MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Romero STAFF PRESENT: Planning Division: Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Steve Carlson Susy Kalkin Adam Lindgren Cyrus Kianpour, City Engineer Sgt. Mike Massoni Barry Mammini City Attorney: Engineering: Police Dept.: Fire Prev/Bldg.: AGENDA REVIEW Chief Planner Sparks noted that item 5 would be continued due to reasons beyond the Planning Division's control. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of November 18, 1999 and December 2, 1999 Regular Meeting Minutes. Motion Teglia / Second Sim to approve the November 18, 1999 minutes and a continuation of the December 2, 1999 minutes to January 6, 1999. Unanimously approved. 2. Oyster Point Business Park-Shelton Investments International/owner AMB Investment Management, LP/applicant 375-389 Oyster Point Blvd. UP-99-093 and Categorical Exemption Class 1 Section 15301 Use Permit allowing off-site parking at a multi-parcel industrial park at 375-389 Oyster Point Boulevard, in the Planned Industrial (P-I) and Planned Commercial (P-C) zone districts, in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.24, 20.32 and 20.74. (Recommend continuance to January 6, 2000) Motion Sill / Second Teglia to continue the item. Unanimously approved. APPROVED AT THE JANUARY 20, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING \\MULDER\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\121699.doc Page 1 of 10 3. SamTrans/Jim Kellner/owner/applicant 301 North Access Rd. UP-99-079 and Categorical Exemption Class 1 Section 15301 Use Permit to allow improvements to an existing bus maintenance and storage facility located in the Planned Industrial (P-I) zone district, in accordance with SSFMC Section 20.32.030(c). Motion Teglia / Second Baldocchi to approve the item. Unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEMS 4. Oakmont Vistas/Thomas Callan, Jr., Gilbert Anda, Owner Hansen, PSC, Applicant Oakmont Drive @ Westborough Blvd. UP, GP, RZ, PUD, PM, SA & ND-98-054 The proposed project consists of the construction of three separate developments on a vacant 10-acre site located at the southwesterly comer of Westborough Boulevard and Oakmont Drive. Parcel 1, approx. 4.9 acres located in the n011heast portion of the site, is proposed for a mini -storage facility with a resident caretaker's unit. Parcel 2, approx. 5.02 acres, is proposed for a 33-unit single family residential subdivision, with associated parking, private streets and common (open space) area. Parcel 3, located on the southwestern comer of the project site (comer of Fleetwood Drive and Westborough Boulevard), consists of a . 173-acre single family lot. Since the entire project site is currently zoned "R-I-E-P" (single family residential), and since the proposed mini -storage use is not allowed in an "R -1" area, the development of the proposed mini- storage facility will require the adoption of a General Plan Amendment and a rezoning of the property. (Continued from November 18, 1999 Planning Commission meeting.) Senior Planner Kalkin presented the staff report. John Hansen and consulting team gave a presentation. Public Hearing opened. Recess called at 8: 10 p.m. Recalled to order at 8:20 p.m. Ronald Davis, 3673 Georgetown Court, was in favor of the project. He noted that the project would eliminate an eyesore in the area. He added that this would bring property values up and that the trees would act as a noise barrier. Jerry Twentyman, 2415 Bantry Lane - Westborough Homeowners Improvement Association, noted that the area has been zoned R-l for 30 years and cannot be changed because it was included in the master plan. Secondly, he added that staff had previously recommended denial of the storage facility. He noted that the Commission has to protect the interests of the neighborhood. He mentioned that the 400 residents of their neighborhood don't want this is the neighborhood. Chairperson Honan asked if the Association has additional comments with regard to the new renderings on the storage. Mr. Twentyman noted that the project is better than it was a month ago and a year ago. He noted that it is still a commercial project, though a better rendition. Chairperson Honan asked what the Association preferred alternative would be for development of the site. Mr. Twentyman noted that the association had not been focusing on giving the Commission that information. He mentioned that they would formulate such a recommendation for the Commission if they wanted it. He noted that there is a sincere belief that this should have been a park and would like the City records reviewed to find out how valid that belief is. He added that the Association members believe the residential portion is good for the area but are against the storage, which is against the master plan and zoning regulations. APPROVED AT THE JANUARY 20, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING \\MULDER\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\121699 .doc Page 2 of 10 Anthony Charvet, 3475 Oakmont Drive, dropped his opposition to the project. He mentioned that everyone is afraid of change. He added that the building size has been reduced, landscape easements have been set, and sound walls have been provided. He noted that the storage area will not generate as much traffic as the 7-Eleven generates. He mentioned that the office building is designed to be compatible with his house, which is better than an empty lot. B. J. Goltiao, 3440 Oakmont Drive, opposed the project and sees that it is a losing battle. He mentioned that the project's economic impact was not addressed. He believes that the sun-ounding property values would be affected by the rezoning of the property. He wanted to know if the developer was going to pay for the potential loss that the nearby property owners might have. He mentioned that the residents are subsidizing the project by absorbing the cost of the economic impact due to negative externalities that are not being addressed by the project. He asked that the Commission hire an economic consultant to address this issue. He added that the Commission was entrusted to protect the public and in the end would betray them. Kathryne Campbell, 2515 Tara Lane, noted that the property owner has the right to develop the site but not to rezone the R -1 area. She did not think that the wishes of one property owner should oven-ide or outweigh the wishes of the majority in the area. John Ward, 792 Willborough Place-Burlingame, noted that there are now 7 property owners, which are adjacent to the development, that do not oppose the project. He noted that the 400 signatures in opposition to the project were gathered in October of 1998 and it should be taken into perspective because they were collected prior to the release of the environmental document. Jerry Yee, Director of Westborough Way Homeowners Association, noted that his association is in favor of the project because a development is better than having an empty lot. Public Hearing closed. Commissioner Meloni and Mr. Harvey, Project Landscape Architect, discussed the sizes of trees for the proposed site and the landscaping that would be put along the wall. Mr. Harvey noted that there would be shrubs behind it. Commissioner Meloni recommended that the trees would be 24-36 inch box size and not 15 gallons. Commissioner Baldocchi asked how long it would take the vines to grow in order to cover the wall. Mr. Harvey noted that it would take about 2-5 years to really cover the wall. Commissioner Teglia noted that the vines would mitigate the graffiti and soften the wall. He also noted that gallons of the same color paint be provided to the caretaker to clean any graffiti problem that may arise prior to the time the vines completely cover the solid wall. He agreed with Commissioner Meloni's recommendation to require 24 and 36 inch box trees. Commissioner Teglia and Senior Planner Kalkin discussed a letter from the property owner to the City regarding potential sale to the City for parkland. It was noted that the City Manager had responded that the City had no cun-ent plans to acquire the property for parkland. Chairperson Honan noted that the site is zoned R-l, but it cannot have homes built on it because of the San Andreas Fault. She questioned the historic zoning of the site and why the site was zoned for something that could not have been developed on it. Dr. Jean DeMouzae, Garza Systems Consultants, noted that the Alquist-Priolo Act governs building any structures for residential use or human occupancy on an identified active fault. She noted that the fill was put in the 1960s before the law was passed in 1972, which made it illegal to put houses on it. Commissioner Baldocchi asked if there were any graffiti problems at Goldilocks' , which is across the street from the proposed development. Sergeant Massoni noted that there is some occasional graffiti on the walls. He agreed with the vines being added onto that facility and recommended security planting, such as thorn bushes, that would make it hard to get near the walls. Chairperson Honan asked if there were any records of fires, or any problems on the vacant comer lots. Sergeant Massoni stated that there were two dumping complaints since 1995. APPROVED AT THE JANUARY 20, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING \\MULDER\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\121699.doc Page 3 of 10 Chairperson Honan asked why storage buildings 4 and 5 were going to be two story buildings and buildings 1, 2 and 3, one story. Mr. Davis noted that there was a change in slope, which is being used by allowing the buildings to be stepped into the hillside so they appear as two stories on one side and one story on the other side. Chairperson Honan stated that the Commission has two choices for the proposed storage site: leave it vacant or approve the storage facility. She questioned weather the storage site could have a private recreation/open space facility with a portion being a storage facility. She asked how this could be explored. Commissioner D'Angelo noted that this could be a good compromise and there could be a dedication of a park by the homeowners. Chief Planner Sparks noted that there is already a recreation area built into the residential portion of the development to serve the homes that are being built. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren noted that there is a distinction between requesting the developer to dedicate land for private or public recreational purpose and a decision to leave them with some open space or recreational use that would have some revenue generating potential. He added that the Quimby act, which allows fees to be paid to cities in-lieu of the dedication of parklands, applies in the City's subdivision ordinance. He noted that there is a connection between a residential project and a park but there may not be a connection between a commercial project and parklands. He concluded that there may be difficulty in imposing a requirement for dedication of parklands in connection with the development of the commercial non-residential component. Judy Davidoff, Land Use Attorney for applicant, pointed out that the parkland issue was explored in the Negative Declaration. She noted that there was a letter that stated that there is no current plan identifying the project site for any public use. She stated that the existing General Plan, the Capital Improvement Program, and the Park Master Plan do not identify the vacant site as a proposed site for public uses. She added that development of residential uses have been identified in the General Plan and the conversion of the site from open space to urban development is not considered a significant impact. She added that the development of the site would not create any loss of open space in the area because there are three parks in the Westborough area. She noted that the Negative Declaration states on pagel12 that the project meets the Quimby Act requirements. She added that the developer has provided open space and park area far in excess of the Quimby Act and she agreed with the City Attorney that there is no legal basis to allow the City to require additional open space. Commissioner Teglia asked if the developer had approached Staff about a private recreational facility. Senior Planner Kalkin noted that the developer has never proposed any kind of recreational use on the site. She added that they did look at alternatives in the environmental document that included the potential for a recreational type use. She mentioned that a combination of storage and recreation were not looked at in the environmental document. rFAiRE2 Commissioner Teglia noted that this project will be recommended to Council and they in turn would have to come up with money if they wanted to acquire it for parkland. He added that the homeowners association would have to be willing come up with some money to support a private recreational facility. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren noted that the Commission could explore what private recreational uses there might be. Ms. Davidoff pointed out page 133 of the Negative Declaration which shows the specific alternatives addressed, one of which was a neighborhood recreational facility. She noted that the evaluation of the alternative made it clear that there is a limitation on structures for such a use because of the geological conditions. Chairperson Honan noted that the storage facility has 110,700 square feet with 5 buildings totaling 927 storage units. She added that the applicant has done a good job in presenting this project to the Commission but is concerned with why the storage has to be so big, and why the idea of additional parkland couldn't be further explored. Commissioner Teglia noted that funding was a problem but that the Commission could recommend that the City Council consider this site for a park. He added that the next recommendation could be in favor of the project as it was presented to the Commission. Commissioner Meloni noted that it is eventually up to the City Council if they want to explore this idea. APPROVED AT THE JANUARY 20, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING \\MULDER\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\121699.doc Page 4 of 10 Chief Planner Sparks noted that this is a matter of money and there is not a mechanism to fund a park on the site. He added that any use active enough to generate revenue to support itself would be less acceptable to the neighborhood in terms of traffic, noise, and potentially not even allowable on an earthquake fault. Chairperson Honan asked if a park facility was allowed in the area. Ms. DeMouzae noted that the Alquist-Priolo Act allows for the construction of single family dwellings one at a time, or structures not intended for human habitation. She added that a barn, garage, or storage facility could be built on it but not a clubhouse or anything of that SOli that will have people in it. Ms. DeMouze added that parkland / recreational use could be ok as long as there are no structures / enclosures intended for human occupancy. John Hansen, Project Development, mentioned that they had initially explored a lot of alternatives, some of which were golf driving ranges and single family residences. He added that these uses would have a larger impact on the neighborhood and it would create an undesirable situation. He mentioned that the storage facility is secured on the whole perimeter, with an electronic coded gate entry. He added that the City will not allow any access along Westborough Boulevard for any part of the development. Ms. Davidoff added that there are no legal standpoints or impacts generated by the project that could allow the Commission or the City to require any park dedication. Chairperson Honan stated that she would like to see a dedication of parkland, and not have the park located behind the gates that will be shut, rather to have it alongside the storage facility. She noted that it could be placed in between the residential portion and the storage to allow the homeowners some open space. Mr. Hansen noted that in other cities where they have done storage facilities they have included landscape areas between the uses. He added that these spaces are often targeted for crime because they are not visible for the police vehicles. He mentioned that they have explored private use of additional landscape area between the storage and the residences. Commissioner Teglia noted that the package will go to Council and they are the final deciding body. He added that the application can be recommended for approval or denial, and the Commission can send the Chairperson to the City Council meeting to relate the Commission's desire to consider the site as parkland. He added that the Commission's recommendation is to 1) consider it as a public park and the City can explore that; and 2) approving the entire project as is. Chairperson Honan noted that she has a problem with approving the project the way it stands. Commissioner Teglia noted that he would suggest making a motion and having the Chair vote for or against the project, whichever she desires. He added that the driveway aprons be left at 20 feet to uphold staffs recommendation. Senior Planner Kalkin noted that the Commission should add a condition of approval to have the runoff scepter underground. Mr. Tronoff noted that they have reviewed the configuration of the project requirements, and they suggest that the runoff can be taken by enlarging the pipe system, as well as adding underground lines. Motion Teglia / Second Meloni recommending approval of the item to the City Council with the following conditions: · Landscaping trees shall be a minimum of 24 inch and 36 inch box. · The developer should secure additional paint to the caretaker for the solid wall in case of graffitti. · The detention basin be underground to the satisfaction to the City Engineering Division staff. · To uphold staff's recommendation with regard to the driveway lengths. The motion received affirmative votes from Commissioner Baldocchi , Commissioner Meloni and Commissioner Teglia. The motion received negative votes from Commissioner D 'Angelo, and Chairperson Honan. Vice Chairperson Sim abstained. The vote had the unusual effect of recommending that the City Council approve the residential portion of the application, but failing to recommend approval of the storage portion of the application, because of a requirement that General Plan amendments be recommended by an absolute majority. This issue is explained further below. APPROVED AT THE JANUARY 20, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING \ \MULDER\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\ working\minutes\1999\121699 .doc Page 5 of 10 Motion Teglia / Second D'Angelo to have the CUlTent Chairperson relate the wishes of the Commission to have a public recreational use on the site. Approved by majority voice vote with Commissioner Baldocchi voting nay and Vice Chairperson Sim abstaining. Recess taken at 9:50 p.m. at the request of Assistant City Attorney Lindgren Recalled to order at 10:00 p.m. Assistant City Attorney Lindgren stated that there is one situation, other than an urgency action, which requires an absolute majority vote, and that is approval of a General Plan Amendment. He noted that an affirmative vote needs to be nlade by four members even if there are absences or abstentions. He added that the decision that the Commission just took, in effect was to deny the storage facility because they did not have a majority vote on the final decision. He noted that the residential portion was approved because it did not require a General Plan Amendment. 5. SEECO/E.C. Torr-owner Gary Thompson/applicant 930 Linden Ave. UP-99-075 and Categorical Exemption Class 1 Section 15301 Use Permit to allow storage of an 8' x 20' metal container in the Commercial (C-l) zone district in accordance with SSFMC Section 20.22.070(b). Motion Baldocchi / Second Teglia to continue the item. Approved by unanimous voice vote. 6. A vis Rent- A -Car/owner-applicant 230 Harbor Way UP, RZ and ND-99-092 The project involves a Rezoning of a 4 acre parcel on 230 Harbor Way (APN 015-123-270) from Planned Industrial (P-I) to Light Industrial (L-I) and a Use Permit allowing an automobile rental facility leasing up to 15 vehicles on a daily basis, in accordance with provisions of South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapters 20.31, 20.32, 20.81 and 20.87. The property owner is Avis Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc. Senior Planner Carlson presented the staff report. Mike Brandy, Development Manager for Avis-Rent-A-Car, noted that the facility is used to store cars. Their company would like to service hotels by being able to take the cars to their customers instead of taking shuttles to the airport to pick up a car. Commissioner D'Angelo asked if there would be other cars brought into the area to make available to the hotel patrons. Mr. Brandy noted that this is the purpose of the change and that they ah"eady store their cars at the site. Public Hearing opened. Public Hearing closed. Motion Meloni / Second Teglia to approve the item. Approved by unanimous voice vote. 7. Trammell Crow-Oyster Pt. Tech Center/Phase 3/applicant RWL Investments-owner 335 Oyster Pt. Blvd. UP-99-065 and ND-99-065 The project involves the construction of two 2-story office/research and development buildings totaling APPROVED AT THE JANUARY 20, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING \\MULDER\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\121699.doc Page 6 of 10 108,000 square feet on a 13.9 acre parcel and requires approval of a Use Permit, in accordance with provisions of South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapters 20. and 20.81. The property owner is RWL Investments, Inc and the project sponsor is Trammell Crow Northern California Development, Inc. Senior Planner Carlson presented the staff report. Dean Givas, Trammell Crow Co., gave a brief report on the previous building phases. He noted that the grading plan has been upgraded and they will be balancing the site instead of exporting the soil. He proposed some changes to the Conditions of approval. . Page 3-Condition 14 that relates to the 100 year flood zone and asked that the condition be removed because the site will not be raised above the flood plain. . Page 5-Condition 22 that refers to the outgrowth with the demolition being done and the hazardous matelials remediation. He noted that there are two items, the sewer pump and storm sewer pump, that don't apply as source areas for environmental contamination and the applicant is planning to use these for the project, therefore they would like these two items to be removed from the condition. . Page 8-Condition 1 C which requests that they install an emergency vehicle access road. He added that the possiblity has been explored with the Police Department and it is not possible, and asked that the condition be deleted. . Page 14-Condition 5 needs to be clarified because the separate sewer lines are within the building and then one out of the building. He added that this condition was clarified in a letter and would like this reflected in the conditions. . DRB issue in regard to exploring the metal canopy. He mentioned that they have explored this and the canopy would go from the first floor to the second floor and to penetrate they would have to go into the floor slab, which makes it impossible to do. Public Hearing opened. Public Hearing closed. Chairperson Honan asked Sergeant Mike Massoni how he felt about removing the emergency access condition. Sergeant Massoni noted that he would like to have something like this but it is not feasible. He noted that the Police Department does not have to have this access and agreed to remove the condition. Chairperson Honan asked some clarification on having access through a shared driveway. Senior Planner Carlson noted that the access would be shared with Cost-Plus and this would be the primary access point for the site. He added that there is an interconnecting road that allows access to the site from the Phase I and II area, which has a separate driveway. Vice Chairperson Sim asked if the applicant investigated the arrangement of the buildings in regard to having them face the bay side. Mr. Givas noted that the existing warehouse has a significant height difference. He noted that they would be improving the bay trail. Vice Chairperson Sim noted that the design is well done and demonstrates that the roll up door is going to be visually blocked. He noted that Oyster Point Boulevard is very important and would not like that to be visible. Mr. Givas noted that the distance from Oyster Point Boulevard is great and the project cannot be seen from the street. Vice Chairperson Sim asked if the canopy is translucent or metal. Mr. Givas noted that it is a metal canopy. Vice Chairperson Sim asked how the applicant felt in regard to the Design Review Board's comments on the canopy. He mentioned that it seems like the Board wanted it integrated further. Mr. Givas noted that there would be some problems with weather proofing if the glass would be penetrated. Vice Chairperson Sim asked the applicant if they made an attempt to address the Design Review Board's concern. Mr. Givas noted that they have made some changes from the prior phases. He mentioned that the glass front is a new feature, that pays homage to the bay. APPROVED AT THE JANUARY 20, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING \\MULDER\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\121699.doc Page 7 of 10 Chairperson Honan asked what the significance of the canopy was. Mr. Givas noted that the canopy was decorative and may act as a shield to the rain. Commissioner Teglia suggested adding a condition that the landscaping be a minimum 24 inch box trees, and 15% 36 inch box trees. Motion Teglia / Second Sim to approve the item with an additional condition previously stated by Commissioner Teglia. Approved by unanimous voice vote. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the next item would be lengthy and suggested taking up the Cellular One Use Permit before the Telecommunication Ordinance because it is not dependent on the adoption of the ordinance. THIS ITEM WAS DISCUSSED ON TAPE 3 8. City of South San Francisco, Owner/applicant Citywide Case No.: ND 98-094 & ZA 98-094 Telecommunication Communication Ordinance - Amendment of Title 20 (Zoning Ordinance) of the South San Francisco Municipal Code adding Chapter 20.77 -A establishing regulations of telecommunication facilities including siting, design and review and approval procedures, and amending SSFMC Chapter 20.77 to eliminate potential conflicts with the Chapter 20.77-A, in accordance with SSFMC Title 20. Taken after item #9. THIS ITEM WAS DISCUSSED ON TAPE 2, AND TAKEN BEFORE ITEM #8 9. CellularOneNivian Heinzel-applicant John Simpson/Cal Water-owner 480 S. Grandview Ave. UP-99-049 and ND-99-049 Use Permit to allow construction of a wireless telecommunications facility. Senior Planner Carlson presented the staff report. Vivian Heinzel, applicant, noted that she has an updated landscape plan and photo simulations. She proceeded to distribute the photo simulations to the Commission. Commissioner Teglia noted the Nextel facility is what triggered the Commission to form a subcommittee and then approve an ordinance. He mentioned that they were required to have their cabinets underground and their landscaping looked nice on the renditions. He mentioned that the ordinance talks about co-location because the number of poles needed to be minimized. He recalled restricting the height of the N extel facility to 15 feet. He mentioned that Cellular One could have micro sites and lower height. He mentioned that the applicant can co locate with reduced coverage under the Nextel antennas. Ms. Heinzel noted that they need a height requirement to receive optimum coverage and that is why they chose that site. She also mentioned that this height provides coverage to the bay and with the plans to expand the felTY service they can provide coverage. Commissioner Teglia noted that Nextel was restricted to no higher than 15 feet and the proposed 20 foot pole will be a significant impact. He mentioned that there are plenty of technological options to have Cellular One get the coverage needed. He mentioned that they need more antennas the lower they go. He mentioned that they can be artistic and incorporated into buildings. He added that in the application there is zero stealthing and recommended denial of the use permit. APPROVED AT THE JANUARY 20, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING \\MULDER\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\rninutes\1999\121699.doc Page 8 of 10 'I'APE3 Ms. Heinzel noted that they had initially proposed a wooden pole and with Design Review Board comments they have proposed a galvanized pole that would blend in with the surroundings. She mentioned that they need a line of sight to provide coverage and they tried to keep the antennas low enough to provide coverage. Ms. Heinzel added that they have made several attempts to screen the area. Commissioner Teglia noted that they could put cell sites up in different areas and they could have more micro-cells, which is what Nextel ended up doing. Ms. Heinzel noted that micro-cells cover a small area and they would have to put in 7 micro-cells for every macro-cell. She noted that a macro-cell is better than having 12 different micro-cell sites. Commissioner Teglia noted that it is a good business decision but a bad aesthetic decision for the City. Ms. Heinzel noted that they have made an effort to screen the area and have upgraded the landscaping that Nextel put on the site because it has not grown to its projected growth. Ms. Heinzel's associate asked the Commission to continue the item instead of denying it to allow the applicant to work out the issues with staff. Public Hearing opened. Public Hearing closed. Commissioner Meloni noted that the combination of the two antennas will not work and mentioned that this can be improved. He noted that the poles can have a tree like appearance and that the cabinets can be put underground. Commissioner Teglia noted that he doesn't have any issues with continuing the item and is concerned that the application went before the Commission in the format it was presented. Commissioner Meloni asked if staff has contacted California Water in regard to going underground. Senior Planner Carlson noted that they have not done that with Cellular One but they did have extensive conversations with regard to Nextel. He added that California Water was apprehensive in modifying this tank because the bottom was cracked. Commissioner Teglia noted that he was disappointed with the Nextel site and suggested that they review their use permit to require some improvements on the landscaping. Vice Chairperson Sim noted that they could defer this to the Design Review Board. Commissioner Teglia noted that the applicant can go the Board with some options. Commissioner Baldocchi noted that the macro-cell should blend into the area. Commissioner Teglia noted that a booklet could be used that had some well designed sites. Motion Teglia / Second Sim to continue the item to February 17, 2000. The applicant was asked to return to the Design Review Board, have some stealthing, and placing the cabinets underground. Approved by unanimous voice vote. 8. City of South San Francisco, Owner/applicant Citywide Case No.: ND 98-094 & ZA 98-094 Telecommunication Communication Ordinance - Amendment of Title 20 (Zoning Ordinance) of the South San Francisco Municipal Code adding Chapter 20.77-A establishing regulations of telecommunication facilities including siting, design and review and approval procedures, and amending SSFMC Chapter 20.77 to eliminate potential conflicts with the Chapter 20.77-A, in accordance with SSFMC Title 20. Taken after item #9. Motion Teglia / Second D'Angelo to continue the item to February 3, 2000. Approved by unanimous voice vote. ADMINISTRA TIVE BUSINESS APPROVED AT THE JANUARY 20, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING \\MULDER\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\working\minutes\1999\121699.doc Page 9 of 10 10. Items from Staff Assistant City Attorney Lindgren would like to give the Commission some options on how to run the Planning Commission reorganization at their next meeting. Chief Planner Sparks noted that there was a City Council meeting Wednesday the 15th of December, and the Council passed a 45 day moratorium on any uses in the Bay West Cove area. He added that the Redevelopment Agency denied the WalMart Specific Plan along with the Pylon sign for Bay West Cove. Commissioner D'Angelo asked if Costco was going to be on the ballot in March. Chief Planner Sparks mentioned that the City Council set an election with the primary that falls on the first Tuesday of March. 11. Items from Commission Chairperson Honan wished everyone happy holidays. Commissioner D'Angelo commended the two members of the public that were still at the meeting. 12. Items from the Public - None 13. Adjourn Motion Teglia / Second Baldocchi to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11: 15 p.m. ~JiJ~/~ {" udith Honan, Chairperson Planning Commission City of South San Francisco Thomas C. Sparks Secretary to the PI nning Commission City of South San Francisco NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting January 6,2000, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA. APPROVED AT THE JANUARY 20, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING \\MULDER\ISHADD\File Cabinet\Old PC\ working\minutes\1999\121699 .doc Page 10 of 10