Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/19/2001 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE April 19, 2001 CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioner D'Angelo, Commissioner Ochsenhirt, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia, Vice Chairperson Romero and Chairperson Meloni MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Honan City Attorney: Engineering: Police Dept.: Bldg./Fire Prevo Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Mike Lappen, Senior Planner Kimberly Johnson Richard Harmon Sgt. Mike Newell Rocque Yballa STAFF PRESENT: Planning Division: AGENDA REVIEW - No Changes ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Sprint PCS/The Alaris Group/Talin Aghazarian-applicant Sellick Park/City of So. San Francisco-owner Appian Way UP-OI-023 and Categorical Exemption Class 32 Section 15332 In Fill Development Project Use permit allowing a private wireless communication facility at Sellick Park. Chairperson Meloni pulled Sprint PCS off of the consent Calendar to allow for public to comment on the proposal. CONSENT CALENDAR - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Sprint PCS/The Alaris Group/Talin Aghazarian-applicant Sellick Park/City of So. San Francisco-owner Appian Way UP-OI-023 and Categorical Exemption Class 32 Section 15332 In Fill Development Project Use permit allowing a private wireless communication facility at Sellick Park. S:\Minutes\041901 RPC.doc Page 1 of 7 Public Hearing opened. Talin Aghazarian, The Alaris Group, gave a brief overview of the proposal. Chairperson Meloni: Is the fence around the equipment a dark green or black? Ms. Aghazarian: The fence can be any color the Commission wishes, but the Design Review Board asked that it be black. Commissioner D'Angelo: Why didn't the applicant consider monopoles? Ms. Aghazarian: A light standard was the best design option for this site. Commissioner Teglia: Ms. Aghazarian is a consultant for Sprint and is not familiar with the City's telecommunications ordinance, its provisions, and its requiring stealthing techniques. More can be improved on the proposed site with regard to stealthing. Manuel Ojeda, 57-A Appian Way: The proposed antenna is in a park where small and older children play. Why was this park chosen? How would the radiation affect the children and pregnant women? What is the antenna type and height? Commissioner D'Angelo: There is lighting in the area and it will be the same height as the other lights. The signal areas, coverage requirements, and ability to transmit is needed. Mr. Ojeda: What interference will the antenna have on TV and radio reception? Chairperson Meloni: What are the health effects from the antenna? Ms. Aghazarian: A report was submitted that describes the emissions. There is a 1.0 threshold. The site is .0079 under exposure limit. Commissioner D'Angelo: How was the site selected? Ms. Aghazarian: There were dropped calls along Junipero SelTa and 1- 280 and in order to continue service an antenna was needed at this location. Commissioner Sim: Encouraged a master plan for antenna towers. Faisal Kahn, 39 Buena Vista Road, representing the St. Francis Heights Homeowners' Association, voiced the Association's concerns: Do not want to see an eyesore of the antenna. The antenna represents visible blight. What are the health impacts? Threshold was at 1., but is it kilowatts? The transmission is .79% and he does not believe units are correct. Does a medical authority say that the installation of the antenna is a safe one? An empty parking lot is a better location. It does not fit in with the need for dropped calls. The antenna could be further south on 1-280 where there is a higher number of dropped calls. How will the antenna help the situation when the lights are at the same level? Why can't the antenna be installed at the corner where there are EMF emissions from the street lights? Ercie Johnson, 2226 Barrington Court: Sellick Park is the only park in the Westborough area. She is baffled with the suggestion of an antenna in the area. There may be possible health issues. Does not wish for the nicest park in the area to be filled with wires and antennas. Sandra Salazar, 43 B Appian Way: What type of equipment will be installed? It is dangerous for her children. This is only an antenna, but in the future it may become satellite dishes or other telecommunication equipment. Wants to keep the area as a standard park. Public Hearing closed. Commissioner Romero: Did the applicant receive telecommunications ordinance? The ground unit is 10 by 22 square foot area which is large. The application is incomplete because the Commission normally receives photomontages showing how it fits into the site and this time they did not receive any items that give the commission a visual perspective. He suggested holding a community meeting to address the residents concerns. The cabinet would be less intrusive if it were set into the hill rather than above ground to make it less visually intrusive. This is not a complete application and it should returned to Planning Commission with additional information. Will this be a revenue producing use for the City? Will the revenue go into the general fund or parks fund? What happened to the possibility of a skate park at Sellick Park and will the funds be utilized for that purpose? S:\Minutes\041901 RPC.doc Page 2 of 7 Commissioner Teglia: Ms. Aghazarian has been put in a hard position. The City has visual standards that must be met by having visuals at the site requesting complete undergrounding. The application is incomplete. Why not request undergrounding the antenna and photomontages to make the application complete? The telecommunications ordinance needs to be given to the applicants because the Commission has standards and the Commission expects the applicant to comply with them. Chief Planner Sparks suggested deferring the item back to the Park & Recreation Commission. They can look at the application taking into consideration the community concerns. Commissioner Teglia: Agreed. Staff relies on judgement and are not experts for the public. The technical aspects for the application are beyond the Park and Recreation Commission. When applicant returns a Master Plan could be given to show how the site fits in with other cell sites. Commissioner Sim: The Commission should continue the item. Chairperson Meloni: The applicant needs to work with the Planning Division, have a community meeting with experts present, return to the Park & Recreation Commission, and finally return to the Planning Commission with photos of antenna and equipment. Chief Planner Sparks: Continue the item to June 7,2001. Commissioner Teglia: There are alternatives for stealthing of antenna. Commissioner Ochsenhirt: Thanked the community for attending the meeting. Is familiar with Sellick Park. The antenna is situated on the down slope facing 1-280 and is hidden from everyone living above it. If the Park & Recreation Commission approved the antenna it is because it met stringent requirements. The St. Francis Homeowners Association member's comment mentioned that the antenna would be a health concern and putting the antenna on an empty parking lot. The Engineering conditions show that it would be better where people do not spend all day in the area. If the antenna were not beneficial to Sprint it would not have been proposed on the site. Motion Sim I Second Teglia to continue the item to June 7,2001 and referring it back to the Park & Recreation Commission and Design Review Board. Approved by unanimous voice vote. PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEMS 2. DRAEGER'SIField Paoli Architects, applicant Tom Lai, owner, 291 Utah Avenue UP-OI-024 and Categorical Exemption Class 32 Section 15332 In Fill Development Project Use permit allowing conversion of an existing apparel manufacturing facility to food preparation and a use generating in excess of 100 average daily vehicle trip ends in a Planned Industrial zoning district (P-I).) Chief Planner Sparks presented the Staff Report. Public Hearing opened Richard Draeger, Draeger's: Gave a description of the project. Public Hearing closed. Commissioner Teglia: The Design Review Board comments noted that the revised landscaping would be submitted to the Commission. Where is the revised landscape plan? Chief Planner Sparks: The conditions of approval stated that the landscaping plan be to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner. If the Commission wishes to delegate this to the Chief Planner, the DRB' s wishes will be complied with to his satisfaction. S:\Minutes\041901 RPC.doc Page 3 of 7 Motion Sim/second Romero to approve UP-01-024. Commissioner Ochsenhirt: Draeger's headquarters will be in South San Francisco. What brings Draeger's to the City? Mr. Draeger: It is a well situated site. It is next to San Francisco Intelnational Airport and behind the produce terminal, whom they purchase fresh produce from. It also is in the center of the area they want to operate in. Approved by majority voice vote. 3. Grosvenor Hotel-owner Michael Heckmann Architect/applicant 3S0 South Airport Blvd. UP-OI-00S and Categorical Exemption Class 32 Section 15332 In Fill Development Project Construction of facia modifications, new west entry, a new spa, porte cochere, and utility area screens. Chief Planner Sparks presented the Staff RepOlt. Asked that the Commission delete condition 6. It does not present any impact to City's agreement with Conference Center and does not damage any cross agreements. Public Hearing opened. Michael Heckmann: Presented the project. Commissioner D'Angelo: Will there be a visible difference in the landscape of the building from the freeway? Mr. Heckmann: No. The strongest visual effect will be the tower. The palms along Airport Boulevard will have some visual effect. They are restricted in height on the parking area because of a PG&E easement. The blue band on the tower is gone and the signage will be reduced. Commissioner Sim: Is there a color scheme? Mr. Heckmann: Yes. He proceeded to distribute these to the Commission. Commissioner Teglia: Are there color elevations and landscaping plans? Commissioner Sim: Would like to see all the colors proposed and how the views are being changed from the freeway. Mr. Heckmann: The colors are a combination of scheme A & C of the booklet and will have warm tones. Commissioner Teglia: There is a lack of visual aids. Mr. Heckmann: Presented images. Showed planting areas were to remain the same and the landscaping layout was not to change. Commissioner Teglia: Will there be berming along Airport Boulevard? Mr. Heckmann: Yes and they will serve as a shield for the cars from public view. Commissioner Teglia: The DRB commented on reducing the signage. Does the plan take the DRB comments into account and does it have their approval? Mr. Heckmann: The DRB comments were applied by removing a double face sign that is 35 feet high. They have included simple signage, and have reduced the sign by 12%. Vice Chairperson Romero: Agrees that the color renderings need to be seen. Would like to send the item forward and review the color drawings at a later date to allow the applicant to start working on the project. Chief Planner Sparks: This could return to the Commission under Administrative Business and at that time staff can follow up on detail in terms of renderings. Mr. Heckmann: We will be glad to work with staff and give the Commission what is being requested. Commissioner Sim: Needs to be convinced by a color palette and the City is upgrading design and this is a great opportunity to work on these. Please bring photomontages. Mr. Bishchoff: The Building was designed in the 60s and they are trying to remove the eyesores of the building by bringing back the simplicity. Commissioner D'Angelo: Does the Best Western sign have to be there? It is an eyesore. Mr. Heckmann: This is a franchise sign. There is a franchise agreement under negotiations and if there is an opportunity to reduce the sign they will request that this be included in the agreement. S:\Minutes\041901 RPC.doc Page 4 of 7 Public Hearing closed. Commissioner Ochsenhirt: Appreciates the Commission's high quality standards. The applicant needs to return with color models as with other applications. The color scheme has been toned down and is neutral and the hotel will not be noticed. Why is the hotel not going into the Conference Center's parking agreement with the other hotels? Motion Romero to approve UP-01-008, excluding the Grosvenor from being incorporated into the Master Use Permit for the Conference Center [condition 6], and requiring the applicant to return at a later date for review and approval of the landscape plan and color scheme. Assistant City Attorney Johnson: The Commission can approve the item and add a condition of approval. The condition will state "landscape and color scheme shall be brought back to the Commission and be subject to further approval". This way the Use Permit is given and the condition of approval requires that these two items be brought back to the Commission. Vice Chairperson Romero amended motion to include Assistant City Attorney Johnson's language. Commissioner Teglia asked that staff return with information regarding side agreement with Conference Center. Chief Planner Sparks: The recommendation is to maintain the existing side agreement. Assistant City Attorney Johnson: All language referencing the Conference Center can be struck from the conditions. The recommendation will be ending with, "and the landscape upgrades based on the attached findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval". This does not draw attention to the Conference Center Use Permit in any manner. Second Teglia. Approved by unanimous voice vote. Recess called at 8:45 p.m. Recalled to order at 8:51 p.m. Recess called at 8:53 p.m. for technical difficulties. Recalled to order at 8:58 p.m. 4. Genentech Inc., owner/applicant 1 DNA Way RZ, PM, ZA -01-022 & ND-OI-022 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Annual Report: 1) an amendment to the zoning ordinance of the City of South San Francisco, Chapter 20.40; 2) an amendment of the Zoning Map to change to "reclassify" five existing parcels from Planned Industrial (P-I) to Genentech Research and Development Overlay District; and two proposed tentative parcel maps. The combined parcel map application, the amendment to the zoning ordinance and the amendment to the Zoning Map are referred together herein as the project. Senior Planner Lappen presented staff report. Commissioner Meloni: Would the buildout be increased if the buildings were to be rebuilt? Senior Planner Lappen: No. They will rebuild at the existing square footage. Genentech will comply the requirements and growth will be looked at in 2020. They propose to remove the growth ceiling. Public Hearing opened. Peter Yee presented the project to the Commission. S:\Minutes\041901 RPC.doc Page 5 of 7 Public Hearing closed. Commissioner Romero: The proposed parking requirement is 1.6 parking spaces per square feet for all buildings. It is currently at 2.5 spaces per square feet. The average between 1.5 and 2.5 is 2.0. A reduction to 1.6 is large for the parking ratio. Peter Yee: A parking study is done for all lots every 6 months. The 1.6 ratio comes out of that study using employee count as a gauge. The parking structures allow for employees to park and take a shuttle to their building. Commissioner Romero: The applicant is recommending removing the caps and if the Commission recommends this to Council for approval, this will cause parking problems in the future. He recommends averaging the parking ratio. Peter Yee: Genentech is required to conduct a traffic analysis for all new projects. The 1.6 ratio provides a cushion for growth and Genentech believes that it will work out for them. They have surplus parking beyond 1.6 with the parking in the new buildings. The shuttle program is increasing. They will readjust parking requirements. There is a 10% cushion. Should the Commission see any overflow, Genentech can return and adjust the requirements as needed with their annual review. Commissioner Meloni: What is the current parking requirement for projects in the E-10 1 area? Senior Planner Lappen: It was 2.86 for Terrabay and for Bay West Cove. Commissioner Meloni: What was the approved parking requirement for Britannia? Chief Planner Sparks: It was 3.1-3.3 and this is because there was not a TDM requirement. Genentech monitors parking aggressively and staff is comfortable with the proposed numbers. Commissioner Teglia: The current standards dictate the mix of use for the area. The 1.6 parking requirement will not work with a large office project and there is no incentive for Genentech to hold the mixed uses on their property. Peter Yee: They feel that the campus, at 2 million square feet has reached its maximum proportion and the averages are balancing with regard to parking. Genentech has never made a decision that will impact their business. They understand the Commission's concerns. He asked that they be allowed to have the parking requirement at 1.6 for 12 months. Towards the end of that period they will return to the Commission to discuss the parking ratio and if there is a need to revert it back to 2.5. Commissioner Teglia: The parking for the Bay Trail is limited. What is the possibility of putting visible public parking that allows access to the shoreline by the public in lot 4b? Peter Yee: They are looking at the BCDC extension. There is parking at buildings 4 and 5 parking which is the first choice for the employees. They will work out public access with the current Bay Trail. BCDC has asked that they install arrows directing the public to parking for the Bay Trail. They will be redesigning Phases 1 and 2 as well as enhancing the new areas in the upper campus. Commissioner Teglia: Will there be a timeline? Peter Yee: They expect to have some type of time frame in June or July, at which time they will be speaking to Planning staff, DRB and the Planning Commission. Commissioner Teglia: Why are limits being taken off? He gathered that something else may be coming forward in the future. Why now and not earlier? Peter Yee: The concerns and issues were different at that time. The ratios and numbers were established at a time that a large amount of growth was not imagined. The limitations are sitting with each project that goes forward for review. Removing the parking requirement allows Genentech to develop parking where it is needed. Commissioner Ochsenhirt: Is comfortable with the proposal and does not foresee a problem with the parking. Motion D' Angelo / Second Sim to recommend approval if item to Council. Commissioner Teglia: Asked staff to inform the Council to consider going above the 1.6 parking requirement proposed. Commissioner D'Angelo: Would like to take the applicants recommendation of reviewing the parking in 12 months. Approved by unanimous voice vote. S:\Minutes\041901 RPC.doc Page 6 of 7 ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 5. Items from Staff - None 6. Items from Commission Vice Chairperson Romero: Aegis Assisted living has a sign that they will be closing the rear access to the parking lot of the medical building. Was this approved by staff? Development Specialist Harmon: Has not seen any plans nor approved closing the entryway. They do not have the right to close it unless the medical building approved this to be done because they have an access easement. 7. Items from the Public 8. Adjournment Motion Teglia / Second Romero to adjourn the meeting The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco Michae -.Meloni, Chairperson Planning Commission City of South San Francisco ~~kr:~~ 90~~ NEXT MEETING: . Regular Meeting May 3, 2001, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA. TCS/bh S:\Minutes\041901 RPC.doc Page 7 of 7