Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-10-18MINUTES October 18, 2007 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION TAPE i CALL TO ORDER /PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Moore, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia, Commissioner Zemke and Vice Chairperson Giusti ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: CHAIR COMMENTS AGENDA REVIEW Chairperson Prouty Planning Division: City Manager: Building Division: City Attorney: Engineering Division: Police Department: Fire Prevention: ORAL COMMUNICATIONS CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Park & Fly -Use Permit Mod. Park NFly/Owner Park NFly/Applicant 101 Terminal Ct P06-0064: UPM06-0004, PUD07-0002 , SIGNS07-0045 & DR06-0050 (Continue to November 1, 2007) No Changes None None Commercial Planned Unit Development Permit allowing 20,500 square feet of off-site landscaping on an abutting portion of US Highway 101 in addition to providing 17,776 square feet of on-site landscaping in-lieu of providing all of the minimum required on-site landscaping; Use Permit and Design Review allowing an existing commercial parking facility with a total of 1,232 parking spaces in an open at-grade on-site parking lot to add new one-story parking carport canopies covering 596 parking spaces equaling an area of 91,044 square feet, a new one-story 1,632 square foot office building, a new 20 foot tall 140 square foot entry canopy, and new on-site and off-site landscaping, including the project frontage within a portion of US Highway 101; Type C Sign Permit allowing three flag poles 35 feet in height located at Address: 101 Terminal Susy Kalkin, Chief Planner Girard Beaudin, Associate Planner Chadrick Smalley, Associate Planner Patricia Cotla, Planning Technician Bertha Aguilar, Admin. Asst. II Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager Jim Kirkman, Chief Building Official Sky Woodruff, Assistant City Attorney Dennis Chuck, Senior Civil Engineer Sergeant Jon Callas, Planning Liaison Lieutenant AI Normandy Tom Carney, Code Enforcement Officer Planning Commission Meeting of October 18, 2007 Court (APN 015-113-240) in the Planned Industrial (P-I) Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.32, 20.81. 20.84 & 20.85. 2. Parc Place HOA Quality Management, LLC/applicant SSF Parc Place HOA/owner Corner N. Canal & Orange Ave P07-0090: Signs07-0033 Type "C" Sign Permit to allow a new monument sign to be installed in the common area at the corner of N. Canal and Orange Avenue for the Parc Place Subdivision in the Medium Density Residential (R-2-H) Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.18 & 20.86. Motion Teglia /Second Zemke to approve the Consent Calendar. Approved by majority vote. Chairperson Prouty -absent. PUBLIC HEARING 3. New Single Family Residence Javier &Elvira Valencia/Owner Javier &Elvira Valencia/Applicant 648 Commercial Ave. PUD07-0001 (Continued from September 20, 2007) Planned Unit Development application to allow the construction of a new single-family house on a 7,000 square-foot lot located at 648 Commercial Avenue, with a 9'4" front yard setback within the R-3 Multiple Family Residential Zone District (R-3) in accordance with SSFMC Sections 20.20 & 20.84. Public Hearing opened. Associate Planner Beaudin presented the staff report and gave a PowerPoint presentation. David Silverman, representing the Valencia Family, submitted photographs into the record for the Commission to review. He noted that the Valencia home is nearing completion. All structural framing, windows, roof and sheer walls are in. He pointed out that the problem with the front setback was discovered when Mr. Valencia inquired about the size of the driveway. He stated that construction began in 2006 and several inspections were conducted. He pointed out that a year later in September 2007 the setback issue was discovered. The Valencia family wants to cooperate with the city and met with staff on October 4th and they came to an agreement on how to address the situation. He pointed out that in light of the advanced stage of the construction, staff agreed that a combination of a redesign of the front fagade by changing the front extension to a bay window, reducing the front balcony, and demolishing 3/4 of the building in the rear of the property that is currently a music room for the Valencia's handicap child. He added that the architect submitted the revised plan as required and was surprised that the staff report was written without any consideration of the agreed upon resolution. Mr. Silverman continued by stating that condition of approval #9 could cause a significant safety hazard for the Valencia family because it requires the front wall of the third floor be demolished and rebuilt three feet back from its current location. He noted that tearing out the front bearing wall would compromise the seismic safety of the building and create a safety hazard for the Valencia family. He further noted that the shear walls are calculated by size and placement by the building engineer to meet safety requirements. He also stated that reconstruction of the wall and setting it back three feet does not make sense from a design standpoint. He pointed out that the roof overhang would block out light to the third floor and present an awkward appearance to the street. He added that the last minute change is overly aggressive and fails to take into account the seismic safety and engineering s:\MCwutes\~%wal%zed nnLwutes\2oo~\io-28-0~ Rpc n~tCwutes.doc page 2 of io Planning Commission Meeting of October 18, 2007 aspects with respect to the sheer walls. He felt that if staff would have consulted with the applicant or architect they could have been informed of the technical and engineering problems that would have caused. He pointed out that staff acknowledges that the condition of approval is proposed for visual impacts only and not to satisfy the FAR requirement. Mr. Silverman also submitted additional photographs of the neighborhood that have little or no front setback. He questioned condition of approval #7 which proposes elimination of the front bay window. Mr. Sullivan felt that the area of the bay windows can be met by the demolition of the rear building and the depth can be reduced by three feet as discussed with staff. He emphasized that staff has done a good job despite the difficult situation. He concluded that the Valencia family is prepared to move forward with modifications to the proposed conditions of approval. He added there currently is a stop work notice and asked that it be removed because they would like to weatherproof the building. He asked that all the members in the public who were in favor of the project stand up and be recognized. Mark Bucarelli, new project architect, noted that the residence has been overbuilt in terms of setbacks and FAR. He added that the total footprint area of the three structures on the site is within the 65% lot coverage threshold and that the setback error occurs on A2.0 of the original construction document package that was approved by Planning, Engineering and Building Divisions. He pointed out that the preparer assumed that the back of sidewalk along Commercial was also the front property line and the survey produced by Carlos Dominguez clearly shows the property line five feet in from the back of sidewalk. He added that Mr. Valencia, while acting as his own contractor, unknowingly used the erroneous print setback and the 12 foot 6 inch setback from the existing residence on the site as his working points. He noted that it was not the Valencia's intention to add approximately 600 extra square feet and build too close to the right of way. He pointed out that they want to comply with the requirements pertinent to the construction. Mr. Bucarelli noted that the initial friction between the City and the Valencia's has been over the substantial level of completion versus a set of City approved documents that has a gross error and have been informed by their counsel that there is case law supporting the owners right to complete the work as is. He pointed out that they have also been advised to pursue an area reduction solution with planning because of the timing issues. He pointed out that over 75% of the music /storage room attached to the garage would be removed and additional square footage would be taken out of the street facing second floor rooms of the house under construction. He added that the second floor will be pulled back to the line of the third floor. He noted that it would be cost prohibitive to move the two steel frame lines and the Building and Planning Divisions suggested that the partitioning be placed relative to the steel frame lines. Mr. Bucarelli added that all areas applied to the FAR would add up to 8,750 square feet which is exactly the maximum entitled area fora 7,000 square foot lot with R-3-L zoning and understands that a PUD cannot move forward if the FAR exceeds the maximum for the lot. He pointed out that the bow effect on the front elevation is being maintained per the Design Review Boards suggestion, however, the staff report states that not enough of an effort has been made to reduce 94 ft from the main residence and therefore he is proposing that the second floor facade be pushed back to the line of steel frame. He also noted that the staff report calls for the third floor to be pushed back a minimum of three feet and cutting the balconies back by two feet which would make the house more suitable for the site. He added that the reduction will make a small master bedroom. He further noted that it would be difficult to move the third floor wall because it is a bearing wall and there are two sheer walls framing into it, and by reducing the length of these the lateral resisting system will be impacted. He added that a three feet roof overhang would darken the two front rooms. Commissioner Teglia was initially concerned with how the aesthetics of the home would be impacted by pushing back the front. He pointed out that the Commission needs to see this and the architect needs to produce the intended drawings with two options which would be staff's option and the applicant's option. Mr. Bucarelli noted that he asked if something similar should be produced and was not asked to do so. Associate Planner Beaudin noted that they discussed the materials needed for the Planning Commission to review and staff recommended a full set of plans needed to be submitted. He added that due to time constraints the decision was made to go through with the plans that were submitted, but it was made clear that the Commission expects complete plans with any application. Commissioner Teglia stated that he was sympathetic to the applicant's situation but needs to see complete plans. He pointed out that he was under the impression that both sides had negotiated an understanding and sees that this is not the case. He added that the request to weatherproof the house can be allowed, but it is difficult. s:\M%~n.utes\~iwalCzed Mtwutes\2oo~~o-ig-off RPC MCN,utes.doc page s of io Planning Commission Meeting of October 18, 2007 Associate Planner Beaudin clarified that the stop work order has been issued for substantial construction work but the applicant has received permission to weatherproof the home pending a decision by the Commission. Mr. Bucarelli concluded that the issue is mainly on the third floor and asked if the Commission decides to go with Planning's recommendation the floor area reduction occur at the back building (storage/music) Commissioner Sim concurred with Commissioner Teglia and noted that the Commission needs to look at the entire project and to do so they need to see a visual representation of the elements that the applicant is trying to have approved. Rita Fontana noted that the item was agendized as a Planned Unit Development and the language is misleading because it sounds like there is no structure on lot. She pointed out that the home exceeds the density requirements. She noted that the there were no prior notices for hearings for the project when building permit 604-1839 was issued and notices were not sent for the Design Review Board's review of the project in 2003. She pointed out that the setback error is said to have been discovered in 2007 but she had made several visits to the Building Division and sent correspondence discussing the setback issue in 2006. She further noted that Mr. Valencia has a State contractor's license and a City business license and should be capable of reading blue prints and noting deficiencies, and regardless of staff's recommended changes, the site is overbuilt. She appreciated that Mr. Valencia was willing to reduce the size of the music room in the back but there was no permit for that building and she was unable to find one other than the original permit indicating a square footage of 150. She added that her father's property is affected by this project. Betty Reyes, Anita Arellano, Hector Huerta and Joseph Oates spoke in favor of the project. Their comments were: • The new construction is a beautiful building. • It is better to have a structure on the lot rather than it being empty. • The home is a display of what the future holds. • The approved permits and foundation are for the current floor plan of the house. Brenda Valencia noted that her parents own the home and added that the plans presented may not be correct but they are not familiar with the process and that can be intimidating to some residents. She pointed out that her father has been putting his heart and soul into the home and she feels that the foundation of her home is being taken down. Dianne Nide spoke against the project and noted that it is blocking light and air from entering her apartment. Public Hearing closed. Commissioner Honan asked what the house would consist of once it is complete in terms of number of bedrooms. Associate Planner Beaudin replied that the house consists of 5 bedrooms, 5 bathrooms, an indoor pool and a 3 car garage. Commissioner Honan questioned if the components of the home will remain if the owner complies with staff's recommendation. Associate Planner Beaudin replied affirmatively and noted that the third floor rooms would be reduced in size but would still be functional. Commissioner Honan asked if the Design Review Board (DRB) approved this in 2003 with the additional 600 square feet. Associate Planner Beaudin replied that the DRB did not approve the additional square footage. He pointed out that the added square footage and design changes have not been reviewed by the City. He clarified that the aesthetics and design of the home were reviewed and approved by the DRB but the existing size, window locations and some of the smaller details have been changed. Associate Planner Beaudin pointed out that 600 square feet were added to the home without any additional review, and staff is not clear as to where this square footage was added to the floorplan. He added that staff does not have "as built" plans for the home at this time. Commissioner Sim pointed out that a topographic survey is usually required of certain projects and asked if a horizontal topographic survey prepared by a licensed surveyor is required for all residential projects as part of the application. He noted that the additional is 600 square feet, which Planning Staff does not have specific information about, should be identified by the Building Inspector who has a checklist to go through during the s:\r~l%wutes\~Cwal~zed r~twutes\zoo~\io-ig-off Rpc r~~wutes.doc page ~ o f zo Planning Commission Meeting of October 18, 2007 construction process. He pointed out that the building inspector checks to see if the project has been executed according to the building permitted drawings. He questioned if this is done in South San Francisco in order to catch this type of issue. Associate Planner Beaudin replied that a topographic survey is not required for every residential project and if there are questions it is within the City Engineers purview to require a survey for a residential project. Senior Civil Engineer Chuck added that it is not a requirement to have a registered surveyor lay out the site and added that if it is a typical single family home on a flat lot they would not require it. He pointed out that they are currently considering it, but it will add a substantial cost to a homeowner for improvements such as adding a room or building a new house. Commissioner Sim pointed out that with this project the Commission is working backwards and are trying to find a fair resolution to the matter and it would have been beneficial to have a survey. Commissioner Teglia noted that a surveyor does not really need to be out on the site and a tape measure can be used from the edge of the sidewalk to know where the foundation should go. Senior Civil Engineer Chuck stated that there are subdivision plans that show where the property line is in relationship to the sidewalk, but this would not reflect any changes after the subdivision map was finalized. He agreed that a tape measure could be used from the center of the road and get within 6 inches of the property line. Commissioner Teglia noted that this has been an issue before and wondered why a survey was not a requirement. Assistant City Attorney Woodruff stated that these are natural questions for the Commission to want answers to, but the issue before the Commission is the PUD application and if the findings can be supported. He added that the Commission is within its purview to questions, but suggested that the focus return to the application before the Commission rather than the how the mistakes or construction occurred. Commissioner Sim felt that it is relevant to the overall context to be fair and look at both sides of the story. Commissioner Teglia noted his frustration by having the Commission look at the project, and his frustration with the fact that the Valencia family and Mr. Fontana have to go through this process. He pointed out that the Fontana's have been writing letters since 2006. He recalled Park Way, the Giorgi Building and Fairfield having the same issues and was concerned with the job being done right. He added that if foundations are poured and are 5 feet off, it should be noticeable. He is discontent with things not being caught before they are built and with the fact that the Planning Commission has to make a decision that is difficult. He noted that this is a problem that he is tired of. He pointed out that Mr. Valencia needs to seriously consider his consultants and needs to work with staff to give the Commission some simple drawings of the options. He added that the Commission is fair, follows the law and wants to be respectful of property rights, but that the Commission cannot make any decisions on the item at this point. Chief Building Official Kirkman explained that the Building Division has been to the site to inspect the foundation eight times because it was done in segments due to the terrain and depth of the footings. He further explained that the rear of the structure was measured off of the existing building and the inspector used the information on the plans to confirm the front yard setback. He added that the Division usually measures from the front to the back of the entire foundation, but because of the terrain, this did not occur. He pointed out that Mr. Valencia was aware the building was 5 feet larger during the construction when those that were doing the framing brought it to his attention. He further added that Mr. Valencia did not inform him directly, but did informed one of his inspectors and this came to light when he inquired about the driveway approach with the Planning Division. He stated that when the setback was identified as incorrect, the Building Division measured from the center of the street to determine the properly line and it was determined it was not sitting in the right spot. He continued by stating that the building is not sitting in the right location because pulling from the minimum setback at front and rear of property does not necessarily leave the approved building dimensions. Commissioner Teglia asked when the Building Division found out about the problem. Chief Building Official Kirkman stated that this was done just recently and the earlier mentioned letters from the Fontana's were with regard to the rear structure and an enclosed porch. He added that the Building Division did make site inspections and require the applicant to provide a survey verifying that he was on his property relative to those improvements. He further added that there were encroachment issues with scaffolding on the neighbors properly because he could not access his house to apply stucco but the building is entirely set on the applicant's property. As far as the storage room, the Building Division directed the applicant to remove the electrical and plumbing so it could be used s:\rniwutes\~CwalCzed M%~n.utes\2oo~~o-i8-off Rpc r~Cwutes.doc page s o f io Planning Commission Meeting of October 18, 2007 as storage. He pointed out that aerial photographs from 1964 show a structure behind the existing single story garage. Commissioner Teglia questioned if the correct setback is in front of the house at this moment. Chief Building Official Kirkman stated that it is not per the Planning Division's requirements. Commission Teglia noted that this problem has occurred on Park Way and with the Giorgi Brothers building and the Commission has been putting the City on notice to fix the problem and hire the experts. He added that as a resident he wants to hear from City Manager Barry Nagel, to see what he plans to do about this problem. Chief Building Official Kirkman stated that the City Engineer is implementing some procedural measures because they need to check setbacks, easements and other items. He clarified that the building inspector is there to ensure that what is on the plans is correct because the building code allows a building to be built on property line. He added that the Engineering Division has not made site inspections in the past but is now changing this because of the recent problems. Commissioner Teglia reiterated that he would like to hear from City Manager Nagel about whether or not if there is enough staff, experts and if the proper systems are in place to know where the property lines are. Chief Building Official Kirkman clarified that when the plans were submitted in 2003 the setbacks were shown correctly and during the plan check process the property line information changed on the drawings. Commissioner Honan found it difficult to understand how the owner, who must know how to apply to the City for the proper permits, did not go back to the City when he noticed the additional square feet. She was bothered that the owner could do this because it meant that other residents could also do this. She noted the Planning Division is taking this through as a Planned Unit Development and found it difficult to approve it as such even with staff's recommended changes. She added that is wrong and needs to be corrected. She pointed out that the house was designed beautifully, but for the City's safety and all citizens everyone has to be treated equally. She stated that she could not support the application and noted her frustration because the Commission is being put in the "bad guy" position. Commissioner Sim stated that a professional licensed contractor in the State would know what the rules and regulations are. He concurred with Commissioner Honan with regards to setting a precedent. He was concerned with the neighbor's views being blocked and has seen how the building projects out. He added that the applicant needs to show adjacent context in the application. He also noted his frustration with the current situation. Commissioner Moore noted that there is frustration on all sides. He pointed out that the Commission sets standards and most of the time concurrence is reached, but in this situation there are different points of view. He pointed out that the house is huge and if he were the owner, he would be worried about economical impacts if the house were to be sold in the future. He pointed out that things should be done the right way and at this point there is confusion throughout and the Commission is not happy. He urged the applicant to work with the City. Commissioner Zemke shared the Commission`s frustration and felt that they do not have the level of detail necessary to make a decision on the project. He was concerned about whether or not a PUD is the right approach to take. He added that the building has a good design and felt that the projection of it out on the street changes the character of the neighborhood and really need to see some visual representation of what it will look like to meet staff's and owner's concerns. Commissioner Teglia concurred and noted that he is still open to helping the Valencia's because it is not clear where the problem occurred. He added that the Commission directs Mr. Valencia, Planning, Building and Engineering staff to meet and try to reach a solution. He also suggested that the architect provide the plans that the Commission needs. He pointed out that a solution needs to found to build the home as legally and easily as possible. Motion Teglia /Second Moore To continue the item to a date set by the Chief Planner and directing staff to work with the applicant to find a mutual solution. On the question: Commissioner Honan asked if 400 square feet were being removed from the storage area and 200 square feet s:V~.iCwutes~~Cwal~zed M~wu~es\2oo~~zo-7g-off R.pc n~twi.utes.doc page 6 of io Planning Commission Meeting of October 18, 2007 would be removed from the house. Associate Planner Beaudin replied that there will be approximately 200 square feet that will come off the front of the second story of the house. Commissioner Honan asked if the entire 600 square feet could come off the house since it was not approved there. Associate Planner Beaudin pointed out that this is the conversation that has occurred during the meetings with the applicant. Staff's concern is that the home got bigger and that the impact of the reduced front yard setback is on Commercial Avenue and the front of the house is where square footage modifications should be made. He pointed out that there are implications, such as the steel framing and that they are trying to work out a solution that will not cost the applicant a significant amount of money, but at the same time are trying to meet the City's needs in terms of design. He added that staff's intent was to get as much of the square footage removed from the front of the new home as possible. Commissioner Honan reiterated that 600 square feet should be removed from the house. Vice Chairperson Giusti noted that the shed is attached to the garage. Associate Planner Beaudin clarified that the reason why the square footage was taken from the storage room is due to the total site square footage which is considered for FAR General Plan consistency. He pointed out that the applicant feels they have met the maximum floor area set in the General Plan with what they have done, but this is contrary to staff's direction to remove the floor area based on physical suitability concerns for the building related to the Planned Unit Development required findings. Commissioner Honan clarified that the applicant is allowed a certain amount of square footage for the lot and to achieve this they have taken it off of the storage area. She was not satisfied with this solution and felt that the square footage should come off the house and stay the way it was approved. She stated that when the item returns to the Commission she would like to see the 600 square feet removed from the house. Roll call: Ayes: Commissioner Honan*, Commissioner Moore, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia, Commissioner Zemke and Vice Chairperson Giusti Noes: None Abstain: Chairperson Prouty Absent: None * During roll call -Commissioner Honan requested the Design Review action from 2003. Approved by roll call vote. 4. Luminous Day Spa Alice Kwong/Owner Dee Scharff/Applicant 204 Grand Ave P07-0107: UP07-0018 Use Permit to allow Massage Therapy at Luminous Day Spa at 204 Grand Avenue in the Downtown Commercial (D-C-L) Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 10.16, 20.26 & 20.81 Public Hearing opened. Associate Planner Smalley presented the staff report. Dee Scharff-Popielak, noted that she has been a 10 year resident of the City and decided to open her business in South San Francisco. She pointed out that her business has been welcomed into the community and read some comments given by her clients to the Commission. There being no speakers the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Honan was pleased to hear that a business of this type is in the downtown area. Commissioner Teglia and Commissioner Zemke echoed Commissioner Honan's comments. Motion Teglia /Second Sim to approve P07-0107: UP07-0018 subject to the Findings and Conditions of s:v~iwutes~~iwalCzed r~~wutes\2oo~~io-i8-off iz.PC r~lwutes.doc gage ~ o f so Planning Commission Meeting of October 18, 2007 Approval. Approved by unanimous voice vote with Chairperson Prouty being absent. 5. Access Properties, LLC/applicant Penna, John R/owner 435 Grand Ave P07-0093: AP07-0002 Appeal of the Chief Planner's determination to disallow an outpatient medical surgery center at 435 Grand Avenue due to inconsistency with the General Plan in accordance with SSFMC chapter 20.90. Public Hearing opened. Chief Planner Kalkin presented the staff report. John Penna, building owner, noted that business owner Cynthia Jensen and David Berman the project architect were present to answer any questions the Commission might have. He pointed out that they are appealing the Chief Planner's decision because this is an out patient facility and that the proposed project provides incentives for Grand Avenue by having people come to the downtown area. He pointed out that there currently is over 20 thousand square feet of empty space in downtown South San Francisco. There being no speakers the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Teglia noted that the building's layout does not allow for a restaurant or retail. He pointed out that it looks like a dental office. He added that there is another medical service facility in the downtown and questioned if the City is trying to discourage this type of use in the downtown area. Chief Planner Kalkin pointed out that staff would similarly find these other uses inconsistent with the General Plan and would recommend that they be on upper levels. She added that the entry could be modified to install a storefront system in place of the existing front window to allow for a retail store at the front with offices in the back. Commissioner Teglia stated that Grand Avenue is deteriorating and wondered if this type of use could be considered a transitional use and thought that those individuals accompanying the patient might shop and eat on Grand Avenue. Chief Planner Kalkin stated that type of use provides very little opportunity to promote the type of multiple stop activity that is envisioned in the General Plan. Commissioner Honan felt that Grand Avenue is not in a demise and if she were the accompanying someone for a procedure her mind would not be on shopping but on the patient. She concluded that they should uphold the Chief Planner's decision. Commissioner Sim pointed out that the applicant has a compelling reason for wanting this use but it is clear in the General Plan that retail is encouraged in the downtown area. Motion Honan /Second Sim to deny appeal AP07-0002 and uphold the Chief Planner's determination. On the question Commissioner Teglia noted that the General Plan encourages retail, restaurants but it also allows office and banks. He pointed out that the City is looking at rehabilitating the downtown and the parking garage is a step towards that but it is not there at this time. Commissioner Sim pointed out that Comerica is a good example of giving a bank a store front and if this application had something to engage the street in that manner, he would be more open to the use. Roll call: Ayes: Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Moore, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Zemke and Vice Chairperson Giusti Noes: Commissioner Teglia s:\M%wutes\~~walLzed M%h.utes\2oo~~zo-28-0~ RPC NtCwutes.doc page 8 of 20 Planning Commission Meeting of October 18, 2007 Abstain: Chairperson Prouty Absent: None Approved by majority roll call vote. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 6. Fumio Suda/applicant Timmy Kan/owner 390 Swift Ave. #10 P05-0041: UP05-0013 6 Month Review -Use Permit to allow a seafood processing business to operate in a 5,512 sq. ft. tenant space in the Planned Industrial (P-I) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.32 and 20.81. Associate Planner Smalley present the staff report, noting there had been no issues with the use during the review period. Motion Teglia /Second Moore to accept the 6 month review as fulfillment of the condition of approval. Approved by unanimous voice vote. Chairperson Prouty -absent 7. Study Session Founders Research Center III (FRC III) GENENTECH INC/applicant GENENTECH INC/owner 330 Point San Bruno Blvd P07-0091: UP07-0015 & DR07-0057 Study Session to discuss a new five story, 275,000-square-foot research and development building (FRC III) located at 330 Point San Bruno Boulevard. Associate Planner Beaudin presented the staff report. Shar Zamanpour and the Genentech development team presented the project to the Commission. Commissioner Teglia noted that the building design was nice and appreciated that Genentech kept the building low. He questioned where the cast concrete would be placed. Ms. Zamanpour noted that it would be at the base of the building and would range from 34-36 inches in height. Commissioner Teglia suggested painting the cast concrete. He suggested that in the future the parking be hidden or tucked under the building similar to what was done with FRCI. Commissioner Honan and Commissioner Moore felt that he building was nice and the landscaping was beautiful Commissioner Zemke noted that the service entrance was along the Bay Trail and questioned how it would be screened or softened in order to make the public on the trail more comfortable. Michael Painter, Landscape Architect, noted that there will be a berming around the service yard. Commissioner Teglia noted that screening the service yard is beneficial to the City and Genentech and asked to see a view of the yard with the proposed landscaping. Associate Planner Beaudin asked if the Commission is comfortable with the building design returning to the Commission without additional Design Review Board input. s:\M%v~.utes\~%wal~zed M%wutes\2oo~~o-i8-off Rpc r~tCwutes.doc ~Age9 of so Planning Commission Meeting of October 18, 2007 Consensus of the Commission to review the aoy/ication without further invut by the Design Review Board, ITEMS FROM STAFF None ITEMS FROM COMMISSION Commissioner Zemke complemented South San Francisco High School and the Westborough Middle School for the large presence they had during the Bay Trail cleanup. He added that the warehouses along Haskins Way have a landscape contractor that blows the trash into the Bay Trail and asked that the City make it clear in requirements for landscaping maintenance for the uses in the area that the trash is not to be blown into the Bay Trail. Commissioner Teglia added that there are rules on cleaning and maintenance of the Bay Trail and there are businesses that have received clean up notices from the City. He pointed out that clean up only takes place when a notice is received and suggested implementing fines on subsequent notices. He added that this could fund an additional employee to monitor the clean up. Commissioner Zemke stated that some companies like Genentech take ownership of their portion of the Bay Trail but where there are multi tenant warehouses there isn't one specific person who takes ownership for the Bay Trail portion theyare responsible for. Chief Planner Kalkin acknowledged the Commission's comments and stated that she would have Code Enforcement follow up on the clean up issue. Vice Chairperson Teglia recalled that Parc Place paid for a section of Colma Creek which was well maintained for several years but has then deteriorated and there is a sink hole around the area. Chief Planner Kalkin noted that she would have the Public Works Department follow up on this request. Vice Chairperson Giusti wished Commissioner Moore a safe trip to see the Pope. Commissioner Honan formally resigned from the Planning Commission effective December 31, 2007. She thanked the City Council for allowing her to serve on the Commission for it years. ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC ADJOURNMENT Motion Ho /Second Si to djourn the meeting. Sus alkin Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco SK/bla Adjourned by John City,6f Scjutfl` San Francisco None 9:40 P.M. s:\M~wutes\~iwal,%zed rnCwutes\:zoo~\so-i8-off Rpc Mtwutes.doc page so o f io