Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/06/2001 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE September 6, 2001 CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 7 :30 D.m. ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioner D'Angelo, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Ochsenhirt, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia, Vice Chairperson Romero and Chairperson Meloni MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Planning Division: Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Steve Carlson, Senior Planner Steve Mattas S gt. Mike Newell Mike 0' Connell City Attorney: Police Dept.: Bldg./Fire Prevo AGENDA REVIEW Chief Planner Sparks A technical change: Item # 7 is listed on the agenda for a continuance off-calendar. We recommended that you continue that to a date certain which would be September 20,2001. There are a number of continuances on the consent calendar; I think we should call each one and act just so there is no ambiguity. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NONE CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of August 2, 2001. Approved 2. Tularik, Inc.lCarlos Mena-applicant Grand/Roebling Investment Co.lStan Mattison-owner 217 E. Grand Ave PUD-93-023/MODl & Negative Declaration ND-OI-055 (Recommend continuance to September 20, 2001) APPROVED Modification of a Planned Unit Development allowing a multi-tenant complex comprised of research and development uses and a warehouse conversion of217 East Grand Avenue, an 6,000 SF warehouse building to office generating in excess of 100 average daily vehicle trips situated at 213-233 East Grand Avenue in the Planned Industrial (P-I) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.32, 20.78 and 20.84. Motion Sim /Second Te2lia - Majority voice vote with Chairperson Meloni abstaining from item #1 COlnmissioner. Unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEMS 3. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance City Of South San Francisco-owner/applicant CONTINUED TO 09/02/01 Citywide ZA-OI-067 (Recommend continuance to September 20,2001) The City of South San Francisco proposes to an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that will ensure that all residential development, including all master planned and specific planned communities provide a range of housing opportunities for all identifiable economic segments of the population. The project includes: a. Establishment of an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and associated Density Bonus Ordinance (Chapter 20.125,) related to establishment of a minimum level of all approved residential development that will be restricted to and affordable to lower-income households, and requiring that all developments consisting of four or more units provide affordable units on site. b. Modifications to Chapter 20.16, R-l Single-Family Residential District Use Regulations, Chapter 20.18 R-2 Medium Density Residential District Use Regulations, and Chapter 20.20 R-3 High Density Residential District Use Regulations for consistency with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Motion Sim /Second Te2lia to continue to September 20, 2001. Unanimously approved by voice vote. 4. Metro PCS/R. C. Riley-applicant CONTINUED TO 10/18/01 California Water Service-owner Avalon Water Tank! Avalon Drive UP-OI-064 & Categorical Exemption Class 32 Section 15332 In-Fill Development Projects Use Permit allowing a wireless communication facility comprised of 12 four foot tall antennas mounted on a 30 foot tall pole and ground mounted equipment shelter, situated at a water tank on Avalon Drive in a Single Family Residential Zone District, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.10. Senior Planner Carlson gave the staff report: A project back in June 15,2000 for another vendor, CellOne, was approved at the site and actually installed. A small pole, about 13 feet, is closer to the Highway. 280 side of the tank site, and two panel antennas are mounted on the pole with a single equipment cabinet approximately 6 feet in height. Landscaping was installed on that project to screen views of the equipment from the residential area to some extent from the freeway. The proposed project includes the installation of three bipolar antennas that will be mounted on a 30 foot tall pole. There will also be 6 equipment cabinets which will be ground mounted near the existing cabinet that will be roughly 8 by 6 as indicated in the use permit. The antennas would be painted to blend in with the area. The views of the equipment cabinets from the neighborhood should be minimal. We did receive a letter of opposition from the neighborhood yesterday. The views from the pole would be visible from the freeway and partly obscured by some of the existing trees and the same for the neighborhood. It should be screened to some extent by existing trees on the westerly side of the site. Should the Planning Commission desire further screening the cabinets could be enclosed with a 7 foot tall wooden fence equaling the height of the tallest cabinet and base planting could be added around the pole and equipment cabinets. The pole itself could be reduced in height. The exterior could be improved by landscaping the slope between the street and the fencing. All the cable routing will be placed underground and there is a receptacle for an emergency generator. Similar to other facilities, it is only used during possible power outages and of course need to comply with the City's noise ordinance. Access to the site is provided by Avalon Drive. Parking for service vehicles provided adjacent to a gate and an access gate from Avalon Drive, so it shouldn't adversely effect any street parking. A Radio Frequency Study was not prepared for this particular project, however other Radio Frequency Studies that we have done for similar facilities determine that these types of facilities don't have harmful amounts of radio waves to the public. Such studies generally recommend that there be a sign placed near the antennas and the base of the antenna to advise workers of prolonged exposure to the antennas. Note that condition nUlnber three in the first sentence should be revised to state that the number of panel antennas would be three bipolar antennas rather than 6 panel antennas and that should the Commission desire to have a screen around the cabinets that we could modify it to include an enclosure to the height of the cabinets. S :\Minutes\09060 1 RPC.doc Page 2 of 10 Franklin Dancy, R. C. Riley, have no problem with the staff report and the conditions of approval, but would like to work with staff in tenns of the landscaping condition in that we are the tenants on this site. To fully landscape we would have to work with the property owner to make sure that the site is adequately landscaped. Romanie Rajhboy, 63 Waverly Court, I am a resident that shares fence with the water tank and I am here to request that you do not issue the permit. I have been living here in South San Francisco for 30 years and in this particular residence for 20 years. We bought our homes in this residential area with the understanding that the water tank was already there. However, now 20 years later there is an indication and an application to have a wireless transmitter antenna 30 feet high with 12 antennas hooked up to it. I truly believe that this is going to be a hazard to the environment, to our neighborhood, to our residents. I do share a common fence with the water tower and I do have concerns about whatever transmission or radio-active emissions that come from these antennas. As a long standing resident, I would like to know your opinion on it and to see what benefit it is to the City of South San Francisco and to us as neighboring residents in the area. We have children. Weare concerned. It is an eyesore. Our property value would diminish by having commercial equipment in our area. As a cell phone user myself, I would truly be willing to give up a clearer reception and hear the static than to have our neighborhood violated by unnatural equipment and antennas in that area. Strongly urging you to deny the permit. Chairperson Meloni Steve clarify the application. There are only 3 antennas right? Senior Planner Carlson There are 3 bipolar antennas, yes. Chairperson Meloni There are 3 antennas not 12. Senior Planner Carlson That's correct. John Chan, 64 Waverly Court, I am a neighbor of Romanie Rajhboy. I was shocked when I heard about the planning of the antennas, especially 12 of them. I'm very particular in terms of health and I have read articles that transmission lines would be harmful especially to small children. There have been studies that children who are near to transmission lines will eventually develop cancer. I have 2 children at home and I am very concerned about their health, especially by virtue of the exposure to the transmission lines. I also have a 90-year old mother who is having cancer. I really urge members of the Commission to consider about the benefit of these 12 antennas and how they would generate any benefit to the community or just to a particular company. I'm also concerned about the value of my home. If I was to sell my home in the future, any prospective buyer would have second thoughts about purchasing a home with antennas close to it. My property is about 10 yards from the water tank. This is quite close to the water tank and a nuisance and an eyesore for me and my family and my neighbors. I really urge members of the Planning Commission to obj ect this proposal. Edwina Wong, 60 Waverly Court, I live on the other side of John Chan. I am an original owner of the home for 20 years. To my dismay when I returned from vacation I didn't have time to review my mail and when I did I was surprised to see this letter. I didn't have time to check all the details. I had some concerns that were also stated by Romanie and John about the environment and I don't have to repeat it. I live on the other side of Avalon and my yard also borders the water tank The maintenance as you said would be done by people coming through and I fell very uncomfortable with it. It is not just an eyesore, but again I have a lot of concerns that have not been presented and I don't think I could make a decision at this time. I must say I have more negative views as well. On behalf of my family members also we are very strongly opposed to this issue and proposal. I hope you all take that into consideration. In addition, let me say if this was your home and someone was doing the same in your backyard. Would you go for that? Would you allow that to just happen? I lmow this is just in the proposal stage and that is my last question to all of you. Would you like that in your backyard? People say that all the time, but I really feel that is something we should all think about. Chairperson Meloni I'd like clarification again. There are only three antennas, right? Senior Planner Carlson Yes and I apologize for the notice that said twelve. There are only three and two existing on that site, so there will be a total if you approve this of five on the property. Chairperson Meloni One quick question to the applicant, did you meet with the surrounding neighbors on this matter prior to coming to this meeting? Franklin Dancy, R.C. Riley, There was a meeting between staff and noticed a community meeting but there was no attendance. S :\Minules\09060 1 RPC.doc Page 3 of 10 Senior Planner Carlson He is confusing the project with another that we have up as well. This one we didn't have a community meeting because there was a previous cell antenna on the site and there no one attended the meeting so we made the assumption that there might not be the need for one. Chairperson Meloni The other one we approved in June of last year. Did we have opposition at that time? Senior Planner Carlson No. That is what I was saying. That is the basis in which we decided not to go forward and request the applicant to conduct a neighborhood meeting. Romanie Rajhboy, For last year, June, we did not get noticed. Commissioner Teglia I know when cell antennas come up I tend to harp on these. I spent a lot of time with Commissioner Baldocchi, Councilman Mullin and Councilman Fernekes to put together a Telecommunications Ordinance for South San Francisco. We realize that the sites are very lucrative. You can expect a great deal of quality and it's not a major financial impact on the applicants. In the ordinance, we tried to put incentives that would be beneficial to the City, such as co-location. The definition of co-location is a single pole to eliminate multiple poles. You have the option of extending an existing pole to co-locate more antennas. What has missed everyone's attention is the stealthing provision of the Ordinance. At the time and unfortunately we have really never distributed to the commission and the Design Review Board, we had examples from the Telecommunications industry of how they go about stealthing sites. These are not extravagant requirements. They go a long way to improving the quality of the installations. We have a number of installations that went in prior to this Ordinance. That is why we have a lot of these antennas that don't have any stealthing. As more applications come to co-locate, we tend to allow the original standards of the application. I believe we have an opportunity to improve the sites and reduce the impact of the existing site. Keeping in mind, it is not just the applicant who is putting up the site, you have the property owner who would be enjoying a financial benefit from the leases. Specific suggestions for this particular project, the exploration of the co-location on a single pole, so we don't have to have double poles. Does it need to be 30 feet? Can we chop that down a little? The other is only 8 feet with the antenna to come to a total of 13. I'm curious if this is a macrosite or a microsite. The cabinets could be cut installed in a pit at grade. They don't have to be covered but even depressing them into the ground halfway significantly reduces the visual impact. Putting in a hedge, a fast growing plant. Doesn't need much maintenance. You can actually get a site in here with almost no impact whatsoever. What caught my eye in the staff report was how they talked about partial screening. The Ordinance, which is law in this City, specifically requires stealthing and we need to COlne in compliance with the law. Commissioner Sim We need a topo survey. We don't lmow what elevations. Need a site plan to show where the tank is relevant to the residential properties so we can do a good job to evaluate what the balance of this project should be. I need more information to make a decision. Commissioner Honan I actually do not believe that we should assume that it is okay with the neighborhood. I believe the neighborhood needs to have a meeting because the neighborhood needs to be informed. They need to lmow. They have a lot of questions and they need answers. I agree with Commissioner Sim we need further explanation of this. The way that this is presented to us tonight I cannot approve it. Commissioner D'Angelo I support all three comments. I'm disappointed that the staff allowed this to come in without any stealthing at all. I realize that there are existing facilities there that preceded the Ordinance. But unless we start making a stand and start someplace. I know it has been mentioned we can do better stealthing. It's only a matter of insisting on it before it comes before the Commission that will get it started. In response, to how would I like it in my neighborhood, just stick around you will find out. It is going to be brought up again tonight in another location. In balance, let me say this if I took a count in this room and perhaps yourselves of how many of us have cell phones we may say we depend on but it's a balance of where we put how well we camouflage it. I'm not trying to degrade the argument of home values, but I've heard that expression a lot before this and I haven't seen any depreciate. I don't think it is a depreciating thing, but you certainly do have a right to expect more from the City to support you and I do agree with the other Commissioners. Commissioner Ochsenhirt I support what's been said also tonight. I think it's important to go to the comlnunity, especially when you have the homeowners butting up to within 10 yards of a facility that is going to go in. What's needed here is for the applicant or for our staff not just to state that the experts say it is not harmful. We need to get that information into the hands of the people who are going to be affected by this. Let them read the studies that have been done that say there is no harmful affect. Not just get a letter saying there's no harmful affect. Give them the actual studies that have been done that have shown that there will be no harmful affect. S:\Minutes\09060 1 RPC.doc Page ,t of 10 One thing I do disagree with some of my fellow Commissioners on this stealthing item. I think these facilities will be well hidden. I don't hear the neighbors complaining about a new ugly structure right in front of their face. With the majority of the trees up there, if you can tuck them into that area, I think you can do the stealthing. You think you can hide these antennas so they are not so obtrusive to the neighborhood or to someone going down Hwy.280. I still think it is necessary to get the information to the people who are most going to be affected and that is the neighborhood. Vice Chairperson Romero I agree with what everyone has said so far. The height of the pole seems to be a little excessive, but what I am also concerned about is the emergency generator that is proposed. Does the prior applicant also have a generator that is going to be used if there is a power outage? Senior Planner Carlson I believe so. Vice Chairperson Romero This is going to be 2 generators that are going to be running. Senior Planner Carlson Conceivably. Vice Chairperson Romero In a residential area within 10 feet of a person's home? When we are putting more than one business on a particular site, I think some type of arrangement needs to be made for a shared use if there is an emergency power outage and they need to have a generator. I can't see putting 2 generators up there for more than 6 hours. If the power is out for more than 2 or 3 days, these people are going to have to deal with that on an ongoing basis, continuously. That's ridiculous. A generator isn't going to become an issue until power goes out and then that's going to be a real problem for the people who are living there. The other issues should have been addressed with the neighborhood. I agree with my fellow Commissioners. If you are in a residential area, you need to bring to the public. We need to hand that radio frequency study to them to alleviate their concerns. Chairperson Meloni I'm not going to belabor the point with what has been said. I agree with it. I sense we do not have a consensus for approval on this Commission. Would it be wise to continue this off calendar or what? Chief Planner Sparks We suggest October 18th. Motion Te2:lia / Second Sim - Unanimously approved. 5. United Ng's LTD Partnership-owner Best Design & Construction Co.-applicant 243-249 Hillside Blvd. SC-00-047 & Categorical Exemption Class 11 Section 15311 Accessory Structures APPROVED Type C Sign Permit allowing a sign program consisting of building signs and a pole sign, at 243-249 Hillside Boulevard in the Retail Commercial Zoning district (C-l-L), in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.86. Senior Planner Carlson presented the staff report. Dennis Young, Best Design, gave a presentation. Public Hearing opened. There being no speakers the Public Hearing was closed. The Commission was concerned with the pole sign height and lighting. They asked the applicant to have a monument sign instead. The monument sign would be placed between the two entry driveways. The Commission asked for visuals and plans of what the monument sign would look like. They commended the applicant for the improvements made on the building. The Commission discussed the possibility of keeping the pole sign and having the applicant work with the DRB with regard to the pole height Staff noted that the DRB concluded that 30 feet was an appropriate height Charles Ng, applicant, mentioned that they have had to work with a difficult building shape, its conditions, the cracked parking lot, zero landscaping, and with a very limited budget. The signs existing structure is bad and they S:\Minutes\09060 1 RPC.doc Page 5 of 10 explored the options of taking it down or replacing it. They decided to keep the sign and added that they do not have any issues with the sign being conditioned to a certain height by the Commission. Motion Teglia / Second D' Angelo to approve the item with the conditions to keep the sign at a maximum height of 30 feet, with internal lighting. Unanimously approved. 6. Metro PCS/R. C. Riley-applicant P.G. & E./Robert E. Schlegel-owner 1274 Mission Rd. UP-OI-052 & Categorical Exemption Class 32 Section 15332 In-Fill Development Projects DENIED Use Permit allowing a wireless communication facility situated at 1274 Mission Road in the Commercial (C- 1) Zoning District, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.105. Senior Planner Carlson gave the staff report. Conducted a neighborhood meeting on July 25th and nobody came. A Radio Frequency Study was done. The project would not generate any harmful amounts of waves to the public. The applicant went door to door and they reported that there were no apparent concerns from those in which they were able to contact. Design Review Board reviewed this both in June and July and suggested the landscaping be added along Mission Road frontage. Franklin Dancy, R. C. Riley and Associates, reviewed the staff report and the conditions of approval and are in agreement with them. Once again as far as the landscaping condition is concerned that is something we would have to negotiate with staff and P. G. & E. because as a tenant we do not have the clear authorization to landscape over their right-of-way to the project site. Commissioner D'Angelo Earlier we heard from residents about I don't know ifit was 10 yards or 10 feet from their house and now we're talking about it right over somebody's house having these antennas. There is a lot of misunderstanding about theIn. But from my perspective, was any consideration for mounting the antennas just across the street away from the residents on the pole near BART. Franklin Dancy, R. C. Riley and Associates, I don't think that was taken into consideration at the time. In light of the fact that the search that was established, it was determined by the engineers that this was the most appropriate and convenient site. Commissioner D'Angelo You don't see it very well but when you look down the hill you see the pole or the structure that is being proposed and across the street you see another pole away from residents. If a generator has to come in it wouldn't affect residents nearly as much. Not likely to have any frequency interference or less. Seems that there is a lot better location than what is being proposed. It may not be technically what the engineers would want but I might be a better site for the community. I would suggest that for consideration and ask the applicant to investigate that before we make a decision. Commissioner Teglia The comment on the relocation idea. It has nothing to do with the engineer's study and the footprints of the transmissions. I could tell you that. The difference is that this particular tower is the larger tower and is easier to mount antennas. So locating it across the street or here won't affect transmission. It is more convenient mounting. I agree with you. That's a good point. Vice Chairperson Romero What I'm concerned about is that we had worked on the BART Transit Oriented Development project and part of the project included this strip of land. We were going to hopefully approve between that area that residents can walk through as a linear park This is going to cause a problem with that particular aspect of the project because we are going to have equipment cabinets now right in the middle of our walkways. Did anyone talk to the other project leaders on that particular aspect when this particular project was submitted? Chief Planner Sparks Our consultants didn't feel that an addition of something like this to a P. G. & E tower foundation would have any particular affect one way or the another. They were more concerned at what it would ultimately look like rather than the location. It was very informal discussion. They were more concerned about the screening if that right-of-way is developed as a green area and a walkway. Vice Chairperson Romero I'd prefer a green area. Chief Planner Sparks Yes, I'm sure. S :\Minutes\09060 1 RPC.doc Page 6 of 10 Vice Chairperson Romero Where is the equipment cabinet going to be located? Is it going to be within the structure? I really can't tell from these renderings. In other projects we have approved with P. G. & E the equipment went right in the middle of the tower. Senior Planner Carlson It is within the base of the tower, if you look at sheet A-I. Chief Planner Sparks Our consultants suggested that wasn't a very likely place to be routing pedestrians anyway if we do get a green area up there. Vice Chairperson Romero The type of screening around the outside is it going to be similar to other proj ects? Senior Planner Carlson No because we were relying upon the screening out by the street frontage. But were there to be a linear park constructed then certainly we would need to provide some screening around it. Would have to have some type of security. Would have to be a wood fence because they usually don't allow metal fences within 20 feet of the towers. Vice Chairperson Romero I think that should be something that should be discussed and determined now rather than later. The project that we discussed with the linear park is already something that we would like to go forward with. So if this is now going to become attached to that then the conditions should be established that will enable the other project to go forward without being adversely affected. Chief Planner Sparks Yes. That also was part of our brief informal discussion. The difficulty is that we have no idea what the landscaping regimen would be along that area so anything we come up with might or might not fit. While it is important to have this appropriately screened now, it is our assumption that we will have to do something in addition to make it consistent with that entire walkway once we create it. I'm not disagreeing with you, it is just a little premature. We don't know how it'll be designed when we get the walkway going. Vice Chairperson Romero Another thing, is the enclosure going to be opened on the top? Is it just going to have walls surrounding it? Franklin Dancy, R. C. Riley Yes. Vice Chairperson Romero This is going to be close to El Camino High School and I would hate to see any kids climbing into it. It should be completely enclosed. Senior Planner Carlson That may something you want to ask the applicant. Some of those facilities are designed to be enclosed and some can't be. Chairperson Meloni Are you going to build an enclosure around or a fence or any type of enclosure around these cabinets? Franklin Dancy, R. C. Riley The cabinets would be within a secured area. Chairperson Meloni The security on that site is not going to be gained by the gate on that front because if you go on Edge Court there is no gate or anything that keeps the kids or pedestrians to go down and play with that equipment. What Commissioner Romero brought up is very true. If you are going to have screening in front along Mission Road, you are going to be hiding for somebody to go on top of that thing and getting hurt. I agree it would have to be totally enclosed. That area is not going to be lit at night. Franklin Dancy, R. C. Riley The cabinet's screened area cannot be totally closed over the top because of the heat generated. Chairperson Meloni I beg to differ with you sir because we have other sites in town that have cabinets that are completely closed in a building. In fact we just approved one on Spruce Avenue. Franklin Dancy, R. C. Riley Then I would defer to the Commission. Chairperson Meloni Thank you. The second question is about the landscaping on Mission Road. It says there is an existing 8 foot high chainlink fence that is to be replaced with new wrought iron and painted black I think the wrought iron gate is going to be an open gate and the shrubs that you are showing here if you go down and look at this site the gate opening is going to take up a third of that area. Where the gates are you are going to have a plain view of up into that area. Senior Planner Carlson You would have to put some kind of backing on the wrought iron of some sort whether it is metal or plaster so you can't see through it. Chairperson Meloni I agree with Commissioner D' Angelo because he saw the same thing that I saw with that other pole. I can't support this installation at this site right now the way it is. There are too many questions involved. They have to prove to me that this a completely secure site and screen appropriately. Commissioner Ochsenhirt I'm quite surprised after what we worked with Rick Williams for this site for our TOD and this forecast to be such an open space, walkway. Enhance the area there up to Edgewood. That was S :\Minutes\09060 1 RPC.doc Page 7 of 10 exciting. Now I have a project in front of me that is going to shut off the whole front. What happened to the nice walkover from the open space across Mission Road up our neighborhood? That's all gone because we are asked to approve something like this. It is totally out of character for what we see as a future for this neighborhood. I'm not in support of this at all. Commissioner Honan Our report stated that prior to the Ineeting the applicant went door to door to the residents immediately adjacent to the site. How many doors did you go to? Where the people home? What were some of the comments that they stated? Steve Lewotsky, R. C. Riley We went out to the site to hold a neighborhood meeting. In the course of our exploration of the site and the area around it. We were approached by 2 individual gentlemen I believe on the Edge Court the street just above Mission. He had a direct view of the site from his house. His major complaint was P. G. & E vehicles coming and stopping on his street so that they can make access to the site. His comments really had nothing to do with our site at all. He was interested in it but didn't care one way or another. Had no other opposition. The other gentleman that we talked to was adjacent to the site and he would like to have landscaping in front of the entire fence because he does not like the way it looks. He had no objections to the site itself. Commissioner Honan Did you actually go door to door? Steve Lewotsky, R. C. Riley We did not go door to door. These gentlemen approached us. Commissioner Honan You did not go door to door as it stated in this report? Steve Lewotsky, R. C. Riley Actually we did approach the men. They were in their yards. In one case we did approach the individual and the other did approach us. Commissioner Honan So basically you only spoke with 2 individuals. Steve Lewotsky, R. C. Riley We had neighborhood meeting scheduled and noticed on site and no one showed up. We were there for 45 minutes along with Steve Carlson. There was an opportunity but there didn't seem to be much opposition to the site. Commissioner Teglia Not to belabor too much but it seems that this one is pretty simple. There are better locations. I would suggest that we simply deny it but we were talking about equipment cabinets and one of the other things that first came up when we were doing this is that all equipment cabinets can be put below grade in a vault. Completely invisible and you don't have to screen. So if it does go across the street I would suggest staff works with them to go below grade. Commissioner Teglia Motion to deny this application with the findings that there are more appropriate sites. Would staff prefer that this be continued so that they can return with the proper findings or are they happy with this motion? Chief Planner Sparks Actually we don't have a clear sense. I think we can get a consensus of the commission and continue it to the next meeting so that we can perfect those findings. Motion to deny this application based on the fact that there are more appropriate locations Commissioner Teglia/Second Commissioner D'Angelo Voice vote/Unanimous 7. GP A-99-061/MOD2, DSEIR-99-061/MODl ZA-OI-021 & ZA-OI-021/MODl East of 101 City of South San Francisco-owner/applicant (Recommend continuance off-calendar) CONTINUED Project Proposal: Approval of the East of 101 Area Traffic Impact Fees Ordinance. Motion Honan / Second Sim to continue the item to September 20,2001. Approved by unanimous voice vote. Recess called at 8:51 p.m. Meeting recalled to order at 9:07 p.m. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 8. Items from Staff S :\Minutes\09060 1 RPC.doc Page 8 of 10 a. Study Session SandHill Property Co., 345 East Grand, LP-owner/appl. Dowler-Gruman Architects 345 East Grand Ave. UP-OI-034 and Negative Declaration-Ol-034 DIRECTION GIVEN Use permit allowing a new 210,560 square foot research and development facility with a multi-story parking garage for 600 vehicles, an outdoor service yard, operating 24 hours per day and generating in excess of 100 vehicle trips situated at 345 East Grand Avenue in the Planned Industrial zoning district (P-I) in accordance with SSFMC sections 20.32.060 , 30.32.070 (a) and 20.32.070 (b). John Tze, John Ludlow, Marinda Chow presented the project and to the commission with a PowerPoint presentation. They concentrated on the changes that were made since the last study session. A curved surface was added to enhance the entrance of the building. A stairway and two elevators mark the parking garage entryway for pedestrians. The two buildings were linked with a trellis arcade that is a reddish yellow colorJ.E~1'm2 Chairperson Meloni noted that in looking at the exterior of the buildings the drawings did not match with the colors. Mr. Tze noted that the drawings are taken from different perspectives and one is from the curved entryway, which does not wrap all the way around. Commissioner D' Angelo complimented the applicant in their efforts to respond to Commission concerns from the last study session. He noted that the structure adds a lot of character to the area, but the color schemes don't blend in with the area. Mrs. Chow noted that the intent was to move towards warm colors rather than using gray, with the exception of the garage. She added that they wanted to add interest to the building, which is the reason why the trellis is red. Chairperson Meloni asked if the Brazilian Pepper trees were going to be used along Grandview Avenue. If so the tend to drop berries which causes the sidewalk to get slippery and someone. Vice Chairperson Romero asked if the parking garage, which appears to be going out to East Grand is the main entry. Mr. Tze noted that the main entry is on the southeast corner of the property. Vice Chairperson Romero was concerned with this being an engineering issue. Senior Planner Carlson pointed out that it is because this is a signalized intersection where a left turn would be cutting across the traffic. He mentioned that staff wanted the driveway pushed back further. Vice Chairperson Romero suggested creating an outdoor area for the employees. Mrs. Chow noted that there will be landscape benching in the area to allow the employees to have lunch outside. Commissioner D' Angelo suggested that there be some type of protection for the outdoor area because of the high winds. 9. Items from Commission . Commissioner Teglia the Chestnut expansion was abandoned because the neighborhood was losing on street parking in front of the properties. The City had accidentally eliminated parking up the hill from Grand Avenue. The residents were told that these signs were to be removed and they have not been taken out. He asked that the department in charge of these signs remove them or inform the neighborhood that they will remain there. Chief Planner Sparks will follow up on it. . Vice Chairperson Romero asked if the construction at El Camino High School and Mission could be delayed until after school begins. The trucks are utilizing a lane and this is causing a traffic jam. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the Engineering Division would look into this since it is the BART construction. 10. Items from the Public - None S :\Minutes\09060 1 RPC.doc Page 9 of 10 ADJOURNMENT 9:43 P.M. Motion Honan /Second Te2lia ~Cr~ Thomas C. Sparks Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco Michael Meloni, Chairperson Planning Commission City of South San Francisco NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting September 20,2001, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA. S:\Minutes\09060 1 RPC.doc Page 10 oflO