Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03/20/2003 MINUTES March 20, 2003 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TAPE 1 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS PRESENT: Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Meloni, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia and Chairperson Romero ABSENT: Commissioner Giusti and Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt STAFF PRESENT: Planning Division: City Attorney: Engineering Division: Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Steve Carlson, Senior Planner Mike Lappen, Senior Planner Bertha Hernandez, Admin. Asst. II Kimberly Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Richard Harmon, Development Review Coordinator Chairperson Romero noted that Commissioner Giusti and Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt were attending the League of California Cities Planners Institute. AGENDA REVIEW No Changes ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of February 20,2003 and March 6,2003 None Chief Planner Sparks noted that the minutes for March 6th were reviewed with regard to the reorganization and they were correct as drafted. Motion Meloni / Second Honan to approve the minutes with Chairperson Romero abstaining from approving the February 20,2003 minutes due to absence. Approved with majority voice vote. PUBLIC HEARING 2. 345 East Grand Sand Hill Property Company/Owner Sand Hill Property Company/Applicant 345 East Grand Ave. P03-0016 (Recommend continuance to April 3, 2003) Planning Commission Action for time extension of previous freight forwarding business S: \MLlI\,utes \fLlI\,lil LLzecl\2003 \03-20-03 RPC.. cl De Plilge i of !} Approvev! 011\, Apr~L iT, 2003 and warehouse use in the Planned Industrial (P-I) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Section 20.97.070. Motion Te2:lia / Second Honan to continue the item to April 3, 2003. Approved by unanimous voice vote. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 3. Items from Staff a. STUDY SESSION Levitz SL San Francisco, LLC-owner Klaff Realty, L.P .-applicant 900 Dubuque Ave. P02-0082 (Use Permit) and Negative Declaration ND02-0082 Held Use Permit allowing two research and development buildings (3-story & 4-story) with combined floor area of201,436 square feet with at-grade parking and a 5-1evel parking garage on a 7.62 acre site in the (P-C) Planned Commercial Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.79. Senior Planner Carlson presented the staff report in detail to the Commission. Tim Hackman presented his team. Nelson Lau, Dowler Groman Architects, presented a PowerPoint presentation on the proposal. He noted that some of the property around the site is single story and some uses are biotech related. He showed the materials board and how they tried to use the material to create a verticality and denote a movement. They tried to make a wave motion with the landscaping and created an interior courtyard. The garage is in the rear. He showed several elevations of the buildings. He noted that they have complied with all the requirements of the Public Works Department. Mr. Hackman noted that this project is an excellent opportunity for the City to showcase the East of 101 area. He noted that South San Francisco calls itself "The birthplace of Biotechnology" and this project will create a gateway to all the biotech development in the east of 101 area. He noted that staff has recommended to maintain retail at 900 Dubuque. He disagreed with this recommendation and felt that the P-C zoning and the East of 101 Area plan support and encourage the development of Research and Development uses at the site. Planned Commercial, which permits research and development establishments also provides for other retail uses such as restaurants and related uses. Mr. Hackman noted that the General Plan sets four guiding policies for the East of 101 plan. The plan supports campus style biotechnology, high technology and Research and Development uses. It does not promote retail in the guiding policies. He noted that Section 2.2 of the General Plan identifies specific locations along 101 for regional commercial or big box retail uses like Levitz. These are south of Mitchell and along South Airport Boulevard. There are four elements that are relevant to the Economic Development in the General Plan: · Link economic development with land use in the context of industrial development in the General Plan. It is emphasized as "evolution of South San Francisco's economy from manufacturing to warehouse and distribution and now high technology and biotechnology is an opportunity for the City to strengthen its economic base. Research and development and biotechnology have replaced older industries, which will continue to play an important role in the future of South San Francisco. · Promote business attraction retention and expansion. The two buildings are in a gateway expansion and have been designed to have a large tenant to allow any company a high profile location with great visibility. The design also allows for multi-tenant use. s: \/V\LII\,lAtes \fi-II\,Cf LLzeli!\2003 \03- 20-03 RPC-.li! DC PCfge 2 of .3 AppY"oved Oil\, ApY"LL rr, 2003 · Retain existing retail commerce designations and encourage commercial development. They will be removing the big box retail and replacing it with a biotech campus. Levitz would have the opportunity to stay in the City if the site remains big box retail. · They concluded that they are will to include retail development within the proposed biotech campus. He added that the E 1 0 1 area lacks the retail to serve the office structure and it is something that they can address by adding such retail uses to the proj ect. The E-10 1 area land use policies need to be discussed also and specific criteria needs to e laid out such as: · First Criteria - New developments enhance property values which increases property tax revenues. The revenues would go from $15 million to $80 million and local construction work force would be used. · Second Criteria - New construction should not have a negative physical impact on the City and should pay for all ongoing services it requires. Mr. Hackman added that biotechnology has a positive impact on the City. · Third Criteria - New landuses that are similar or compatible with surrounding economic development are encouraged. This biotech campus will enhance the predominance of biotechnology in the E-10 1 area and complete the transition from freight forwarding to biotechnology. · Fourth Criteria - New development approval should reflect market conditions. A tenant will be on board prior to any construction. · Fifth Criteria - New development should visually enhance to the aesthetic character of the E-101 area and this proposal achieves that criteria. · Sixth Criteria - Trip generation of new landuses should be within the projections of the area plan. Mr. Hackman noted that they will create a TDM plan. · Seventh Criteria - The demand for sewage treatment for each development should remain within the projections of the area plan. He noted that staff addressed this and a preliminary sewage study was conducted for the capacity of the sewage line behind the site. He concluded that Research and Development should be allowed at this site. Mike Halbert, A TC Partners, noted that staff supports the design. The issue is the conversion from retail to biotech. He noted that the General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan permit biotech uses. He added that Levitz may not be at this location for a long time because of economic issues. The current proposal will benefit the City and South San Francisco will be proud of it. Commission discussion: Chief Planner Sparks suggested that the policy issues should be discussed prior to design issues. Assistant City Attorney Johnson reminded the Commission that the General Plan sets forth the principles for developments in the east of 101 area. In any area that has a litany of uses that is a permitted use or not in the area is determined through zoning. The Commission will need to make a General Plan consistency finding and it is to the Commission's discretion to evaluate individually the policies and goals to make that determination. She added that once a Use Permit is granted for this type of use it will be a legal non-conforming use and will not return to the Commission because they have been permitted. Commissioner Meloni asked for an explanation on how this use would boost the economic outlook of the City. Mr. Hackman noted that there would be an increase in property revenues from the $16 million to $80 million. He added that during construction there would be local labor workers used for 18-24 months. There would also be sewage fees and other fees that the City has. He also pointed out that the employees would be local and Research and Development will have a larger number of employees which will have more dollars spent in the City. Commissioner Meloni asked to see an economic study to show this increase. Mike Halbert agreed to conduct a study. Commissioner Meloni asked what type of retail would be incorporated into the development. Mr. Hackman stated that they would be restaurants, sundry shops, coffee shops, and business serving amenities. Commissioner Meloni asked if local union labor would be used for the building stage. Mr. Halbert noted that a general contractor has not been hired for the project but they will make sure that it is a company that uses local union labor. Mr. Hackman noted that they would have to discuss s:\/V\LlI\-utes\fLII\-IilLLzecl\:w03\03-20-03 RPG.c1OC Plilge 3 of !) Approvecl Ov\, AprLL iT, 2003 the details of the building stage. Commissioner Meloni asked Development Coordinator Harmon what the impact on the sewer system would be from this proj ect. Development Coordinator Harmon noted that his concerns is that the sewer line currently is an 8-inch line that would accommodate sewage from Levitz and the other businesses. He stated that the sewer line would not be able to accommodate the proposed biotech facility. He added that the developer was going to analyze the sewer system and its accommodations but he has not seen any results. Mr. Lau noted that they did a preliminary study and found that the 8-inch line could accommodate the two new buildings. He added that they also analyzed all the properties that are served by the same line and found that the 8-inch line will not be enough if they all were biotech. He concluded that they then need to upgrade the sewer line. Commissioner Meloni asked to see the report and its documentation. He asked that there be a full EIR on the project. Commissioner Sim would like to see in the economic study a comparison of what the economic gain would be from a big box retail. He was concerned that this new building would become another empty building along the freeway and would not want to inflicted on the City. He stated that he would not consider anything other than retail on the site unless it were the headquarters of a large Research and Development corporation. He asked staff to clarify the reference to big box retail on Mitchell by the applicant. Commissioner Honan asked how much retail would be going into both buildings. Mr. Hackman noted that there would be service-oriented retail instead of destination retail locations. Commissioner Honan would like to have a detailed description of what uses will be out in the retail area. She asked if they will market for both retail tenants and Research and Development tenants at the same time. Mr. Hackman noted that they will need to fill the buildings before building them. He added that a nucleus retail cannot survive in that area because it is all biotech. He added that the only retail that would survive is 9- 5 businesses. Commissioner Honan disagreed with Mr. Hackman's comments. She pointed out that many residents of South San Francisco have asked for retail in that area. She added that the City, the employees and residents need retail on the site. Mr. Hackman asked what types of retail Commissioner Honan has been asked for in that area. Commissioner Honan stated that some are a grocery store, a Long's drugstore, bookstores, florist and what people use. Commissioner Teglia noted that policy issues have to be looked at for the entire area and what this project will do for the City. He noted that Mr. Hackman pointed this out as the framing to the entire biotech area. He stated that Levitz has languished in that area, Office Depot did not last in the area and Project 101 is also talking about biotech uses. He stated that the whole strip is languishing. He does not think that retail is the correct use for this site. He stated that a Research and Development use brings a population to the strip and may stimulate retail on the other areas. He added that there should be retail in the area. Chairperson Romero noted that this proj ect is not consistent with what the General Plan envisioned for that site. He added that this area would be giving commercial support to the East of 101 employees but also to the residents on the west side of the project. This area will not have good accessibility because of the Oyster Point Flyover. This project will be in direct competition with those projects. He asked for a consensus of the Commission to support retail or Research and Development and direct the applicant. Commissioner Meloni agreed with Chairperson Romero and it does not fit with the General Plan. He added that combining Research and Development with retail may not be a bad idea and they need to know what amount of retail would go in. He was concerned with setting precedence and having a non-conforming use. He wants to see how the whole are will work. John Muller noted that he is familiar with the east of 101 area and rarely goes to the other side of the freeway. He stated that it would be great to have amenities, but to make it retail would not benefit that area unless it is supportive retail. s: \M ~lI\,lAtes \fi-II\,Cl L~zecl\2003 \03- 20-03 RPC. cloc "PClge -4 of .3 A"p-provecl 011\, A-pr~L -r;r, 2003 Commissioner Meloni noted that Terrabay residents don't have anywhere to go for retail shopping and a restaurant can survive in the area. Chairperson Romero asked Mr. Muller ifhe lived in South San Francisco. Mr. Muller replied that he did not live in South San Francisco. Chairperson Romero added that the Commission was concerned with the entire City and Mr. Muller's concerns were for the East of 101 area only. Mr. Muller noted that one small are cannot be retail only because there is nothing else that would attract other retail. Commissioner Teglia noted that if a developer chose to buy the entire strip, retail could be done because they all compliment each other. He suggested to populate the strip to get other businesses established. Commissioner Honan noted that the Research and Development buildings are still empty in the East of 101 area and that is reality also. Assistant City Manager Van DuYll noted that this 7 -acre is limited if the use is Research and Development. If retail is put in it will be a token amount that will be incorporated. These could be a mixed-use project with retail and Research and Development if there were enough land to do it. The exposure and access is good for both uses. He pointed out that the City needs to maintain as much retail space as possible. Retail is below average in South San Francisco in comparison to other cities. The City is being outsold, out taxed and out revenued by Colma and San Bruno. That is why the General Plan called for protection of retail sites. The applicant was advised that staff would not support retail on the project and will still recommend against. The area has gone through many changes but retail is still seen as a need in that area. Commissioner Meloni stated that the EIR could show the impacts in that area and this is why he wants to see one done. Commissioner Teglia noted that the reality is that the strip is languishing. He asked if there is hope in that area for retail. Assistant City Manager Van DuYll noted that there has been interest on that property and they have been big retail companies. Keith Brown, KlaffRealty, noted that they were aware of what staffs position is on this proposal. He added that Levitz tax revenues are $100 to $120 thousand per year. An economic analysis would clear up. He added that they were present to try to understand how the East of 101 and General Plan fit in. He added that it is highly unlikely that Research and Development would be supportive of large retail. He noted that large retail corporations want a strong retail trading area, wide-open space, complete access and density and population that fit their demographics. The highest and best use for this place is Research and Development. Chairperson Romero stated that he supports staff s recommendation and does not want to see the staff sand the applicant's time and money spent on a project that he is not inclined to support because of land use. Commissioner Sim also supported staff s recommendation. Commissioner Honan noted that this is a risk that the City is taking if it is made to have Research and Development on the site. She also supported staff s recommendation. RECESS b. STUDY SESSION Zoning Amendment City of South San Francisco-Owner/Applicant Citywide P03-0007 9:10-9:20 STUDY SESSION-Amendment to the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.79, Residential Second Unit Regulations, to amend the existing development standards for second units for consistency with the Housing Element and State Law. Senior Planner Lappen presented the staff report and PowerPoint presentation. He asked that the Commission direct staff to prepare an amendment to South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.79 Second Unit S: \Mi.lI'vutes \fi.II'vCl Li.zec!\2003 \03- 20-03 RPC-.c! DC, 1>Clge 5 of .3 Approvec! Oll'v Apr~L iT, 2003 Regulations. Chief Planner Sparks asked the Commission to focus on three specific issues being that the subcommittee has worked hard on these requirements: Size of units Parking Review procedures He pointed out that the requirement for Design Review may conflict with ministerial approvals. Public Input Joe D' Angelo, former Planning Commissioner, stated that the state has declared that second units are a valuable form of housing and that they provide homes at below market prices. The State Legislature has decided that a second unit ordinance should not be burdensome as to restrict homeowners to create second units. As a member of the subcommittee, the subcommittee addressed, reviewed and recommended numerous criteria which made more feasible to encourage homeowners to create second units. The owner occupancy criteria will help keep the neighborhood in the manner that it should be and allowing a second entrance is a good requirement. He felt that a satisfactory formula for establishing the size of the second unit is important. He pointed out that the minimum of 400 square feet is not enough for an addition. Rick Gomez, 208 Armour Avenue, stated that there is an issue of too many people living in a small unit and causing parking issues. Commissioner Meloni stated that the ordinance is requiring the homeowner to have parking and they will sign a document stating that the garage will not be converted to living space. He stated that it is difficult to regulate overcrowding. He pointed out that the size would be controlled because of large houses and that would limit the second unit to 900 square feet and not less than 400 square feet. Commissioner Honan informed Mr. Gomez that the second unit is limited to one bedroom. Chief Planner Sparks related Commissioner Giusti's concern about limiting the units to only having one bedroom to the Commission. Mr. Gomez noted that the Commission is sensitive about regulating the size of units increase with overcrowding and parking issues and was appreciative of Commissioner Honan comment that there will be a limit in the number of bedrooms. Commissioner Teglia suggested that Mr. Gomez review the information because many requirements are going to be helpful. Commissioner Honan noted that she understood that the unit would be limited to a minimum would be 400 square feet and a maximum of 900 square feet. Commissioner Meloni noted that the minimum would 400 square feet and the 30percent requirement would limit a large house from adding more than 900 square feet. Chief Planner Sparks stated that the Commission can choose a different percentage or just limit it to a 400 - 900 square feet unit regardless of the primary unit. Commissioner Honan was concerned with an R-1 zone becoming an R-2 zone because of a larger unit. Chief Planner Sparks noted that staff does not want to double zones. Commissioner Sim asked if this ordinance also included the Westborough area. Chief Planner Sparks replied affirmatively and stated that it is a citywide ordinance. Commissioner Sim asked is the hill factor and two story homes were considered in the formula. Chief Planner Sparks stated the second unit will require compliance with city codes. Westborough may require some type of review procedure and may be part of normal review the added that all residential additions do go to Design Review Board. Assistant City Attorney Johnson clarified that the legislative intent of the bill was to eliminate the public process for review of the second units. The State noticed that second units were not being pursued was because the review process was onerous and public opposition prohibited the development of these units. Commissioner Meloni asked if under Section H the Commission can specify that the zoning regulations for their area has to be met. Assistant City Attorney Johnson stated that this was correct. S: \M LlI\-lA.tes \fi.II\-Cl LLzed\2003 \D3- 20-03 R'PC.. d DC- 'PClge G of j A"p-proveGl 011\- A"prLl iT, 2003 Commissioner Meloni asked if there could be a zoning amendment and have a hillside requirement. Chief Planner Sparks suggested putting a performance standard that addresses a specific size of slope. Commissioner Meloni felt that designating a certain area of the city may cause more problems in the future. Chief Planner Sparks asked if the Commission wanted to eliminate the 30 percent criteria for a second unit or have a specific square foot number. Chairperson Romero asked if an existing 3,500 square foot home would be able to convert a portion of that home to a second unit. Chief Planner Sparks stated that it would be allowed with all code requirements and parking standards being met. Senior Planner Lappen noted that the parking, ownership and separate entry requirements would have to be met. Commissioner Meloni asked if a 4,000 square foot house was allowed the second unit addition, but the house does not meet the existing parking requirements and then the additional unit is not desired. The homeowner removes the kitchen and adds the square footage to the house. Then it turns out to be an extremely large house with tow parking spaces. Chief Planner Sparks stated that a 4,000 square foot house will need to have three parking spaces to comply with city standards. He noted that there are homes that have non-conforming garage space and asked if they could meet code first and then add the parking space. He recalled that the existing would be non-conforming and then add the required space for the second unit. Chief Planner Sparks noted that with a ministerial approval the City cannot demand retrofit of the existing dwelling. He noted that the Commission wants to have a maximum of a 900 square foot unit under any condition and the unit would not be any larger than the specified square footage. Commissioner Meloni noted that in this case the percentage would not work but with a small house the percentage will come in handy. Chief Planner Sparks stated that the lot coverage requirement allows that half the lot be covered. Commissioner Meloni asked if lot coverage refers to footprint or FAR. Chief Planner Sparks replied that it is with regards to footprint and FARis not being addressed. Commissioner Meloni asked if cantilevering is counted as a footprint. Chief Planner Sparks stated that this would probably be lot coverage. Commissioner Meloni asked if working on lowering the FAR would work. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the General Plan FAR is limited and it also counts garages. Commissioner Meloni noted that FAR counts the lot size and it would not look so intrusive with a bigger lot. He added that with a 25 percent FAR would not work either. Commissioner Honan noted that she would prefer 400 square feet as a minimum. Commissioner Teglia asked if the Commission would consider raising the 400 minimum square footage. Commissioner Honan stated that it is the choice of the applicant. Chief Planner Sparks stated that Assistant City Attorney Johnson has noted that there is a possibility that units at 150 square feet will qualify. Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that it is defined by the health and safety code with regards to efficiency units and they cannot regulate a minimum or maximum size for efficiency unit. Commissioner Meloni noted that this creates a problem when the minimum size of the room is spelled out in the building standards. He asked if the State building code or housing code would take precedence in these cases. Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that city's have to take a detailed look. She added that Health and Safety code 17958.1 allows a city to permit by ordinance efficiency units of a minimum of 150 square feet and limit the occupancy to two people. She added that this is evolving and some direct contradictions still need to be resolved. Commissioner Meloni asked to see which of the two state codes would take precedence over the other. Chief Planner Sparks suggested that 400 square feet be established and if state policy changes the Commission change it at that time. Consensus of the Commission to delete the 30 percent FAR and have the 400-900 squarefoot minimum with one bedroom. s: \M ~Voutes \f~VoCl L~zec!\;:2003 \03- 20-03 RPG. c! OC PClge T of .3 A-p-provev! OVo Apr~L iTI ::2003 Chairperson Romero asked where the second entry would be situated. Chief Planner Sparks noted that it is not specified. Chairperson Romero asked about Government Code 65852.2 Section 5E that indicates parking requirements for second units shall not exceed one space per unit but allows for an additional parking space only if it used for the second unit. He added that off-street parking is permitted in setback areas unless it is not permitted anywhere else in the jurisdiction. He concluded that there is parking in setbacks in the City. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the zoning code does not count parking in the setback and staff is not proposing the change that standard for the second unit. Chairperson Romero pointed out that the assembly bill looks like parking can be allowed to encroach into the setback. He asked that this be looked at and reviewed. He added that the opportunity to encroach into the setback should be given to the applicant. Chief Planner Sparks noted that there needs to be a standard because this has to be done ministerially. Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that there are a lot of legal implications to amending the ordinance. She suggested returning with a memo outlining what the City is dealing with on a legal side. Chief Planner Sparks note that the parking requirement is for on enclosed space, tandem parking would be allowed for the primary unit if it needs tow spaces. Chairperson Romero asked why the parking space needs to be enclosed rather than providing an off-street parking space. Commissioner Honan and Commissioner Meloni explained that this would keep the cars off the street. They pointed out that tandem parking would be for the primary use because this would not disrupt the person that lives in the house or the one that lives in the unit. Chairperson Romero asked if the one car garage that had a car in the driveway would the applicant be able to add another space next to the driveway and have the existing setback. Commissioner Meloni stated that if the driveway is in the setback it cannot count as a required space. Chief Planner Sparks noted that there are not many properties in the City that do not have the driveway in the setback. He noted that it would be hard to limit it to only second units. Chairperson Romero noted that the primary unit does not have to have the extra parking space if it says less than 1800 square feet. But if it were a second unit the extra space would be required. Chief Planner Sparks replied that this is correct. Chairperson Romero asked that this be reviewed to make sure that it is legal. He noted that if off-street parking can be provided then the second unit can be allowed. Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that the parking requirements were not changed. Joe D' Angelo asked if the two-car garage satisfy the requirements for the second unit. Commissioner Meloni noted that if the house has a two-car garage and is 1800 square feet or less, one space would be for the primary unit and the other for the secondary unit. Chief Planner Sparks noted this was not staff s understanding and would need guidance from the Commission on this issue because staff interpreted this as if any second unit would require a new space. Commissioner Sim thought that this could be better for aesthetics. Commissioner Honan stated that she felt the intent was to have an enclosed parking space for each new unit. Commissioner Honan and Chairperson Romero noted that in this case not many people could have a second unit. They felt that they wanted to keep the cars off the street. Chief Planner Sparks stated that staff will draft something for the Commission. Commissioner Sim felt that Design Guidelines be drafted for second units. TaDe 2 Chief Planner Sparks noted that state requirements show that any review procedure isn't allowable, but this is not consistent with General Plan requirements. He recommended to require Design Review for second units to have the Board look at compatibility with the neighborhood. The Commission agreed with Chief Planner Sparks'recommendation. Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that safety factors do not mean design review. They are things that get taken care of during the building permit process. She cautioned the Commission that what would happen is that someone will say that something was not built to code and they want to enforce something. She added S; \MLvclAtes \fi-VClil LLzeCil\2003 \03- 20-03 R:PC. Cil DC PliIge f? of 3 Approveli! ovc AprLL 1}L, 2003 that the statute allows for architectural review and does not define it. Commissioner Sim noted that there is a public impact for smaller addition. He added that there is a health safety and welfare issue for the public good and this impacts the neighbor. Assistant City Attorney Johnson stated that the cities can impose standards but have flexibility and the limits of that flexibility need to be determined before July 1 st. She added that the Commission can impose requirements that the unit be compatible with the neighborhood and address issues such as massing. If the City does not approve standards, the second unit will be approved ministerially and the State guidelines will be used. Commissioner Meloni suggested establishing guidelines for the second unit housing. Chief Planner Sparks stated that he was comfortable taking this to Design Review Board. Commissioner Honan felt that the second unit could go to Design Review Board. Assistant City Attorney Johnson stated that she would provide a memo that would better articulate the concerns from a legal perspective and then the Commission can make a decision. She wanted to make sure the Commission was aware of the liability they were about to undertake. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the Public Hearing is scheduled for April3rd. Commissioner Meloni noted he would not be in attendance on April 3rd. 4. Items from Commission None 5. Items from the Public None 6. Adjournment Motion Sim/Second Honan to adjourn. 10:58 P.M. ~~-~~ Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco 0J.~0l~ William Romero, Chairperson Planning Commission City of South San Francisco NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting April 3, 2003, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA TCS/blh S: \/VILI/'vutes \fl-I/'vlil LLzed\::2003 \03- 2.0-03 RPC-. d DC- Plilgej of j Ap-proveDl Ol/'v A-prLL iT, 2.003