Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-02-15MINUTES February Z5, 2007 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION TAPE 1 CALL TO ORDER /PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Moore, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia, Commissioner Zemke, Vice Chairperson Giusti and Chairperson Prouty ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: CHAIR COMMENTS AGENDA REVIEW None Planning Division City Manager: City Attorney Fire Prevention: Engineering Division Police Department: Resolution Commending Marty Romero for Planning Commission Service No changes Motion Honan /Second Sim to approve Resolution 2661-2007. Approved by unanimous voice vote. Chairperson Prouty presented the commending resolution to Marty Romero. Commissioner Honan felt honored to have worked side by side on the Planning Commission with Mr. Romero. She felt that when he served as the Planning Commission Chairperson, his leadership was fair and thoughtful. Commissioner Zemke expressed his appreciation to Mr. Romero for encouraging him to join the Planning Commission and his years of devotion to the Commission. Vice Chairperson Giusti echoed Commissioner Zemke's comments. Commissioner Teglia noted that Mr. Romero brought up details on projects that he or other Commissioners missed and added that it was a pleasure working with him on the projects. Commissioner Moore stated that although he did not get a chance to work beside Mr. Romero, he did get an opportunity to see his appreciation for the City. Commissioner Sim pointed out that he appreciated former Commissioner Romero's passion for the City. Chairperson Prouty expressed his appreciation for Mr. Romero's preparation for the meetings and in pointing out the details that were important in various approvals. Former Commissioner Romero thanked the Commission for their comments and noted that it was an honor to serve on the Commission. He stated that the Commission members work hard on projects for the love of the City and to make it better. He encouraged the Commission to scrutinize future projects to make sure that it is something that they want to vote for or support. He noted that the Commission has a great staff who do a large amount of work which helps make the Commission look good. Susy Kalkin, Chief Planner Mike Lappen, Senior Planner Girard Beaudin, Associate Planner Patricia Cotla, Office Specialist Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager Steve Mattas, City Attorney Tom Carney, Code Enforcement Officer Sam Bautista, Senior Civil Engineer Sergeant Alan Normandy, Planning Liaison Planning Commission Meeting of February 15, 2007 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Kaiser Use Permit Time Extension Kaiser Permanente/Owner Kaiser Permanente/Applicant 230 Oyster Point Blvd P04-0131: UP04-0031 & PCA06-0008 Request for a One Year Time Extension for a Use Permit to allow the construction of a single-story medical office building on Oyster Point Boulevard in the Planned Commercial (P-C-L) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.24 and 20.81. Commissioner Teglia asked that item number 1 be removed from the Consent Calendar. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Kaiser Use Permit Time Extension Kaiser Permanente/Owner Kaiser Permanente/Applicant 230 Oyster Point Blvd P04-0131: UP04-0031 & PCA06-0008 Request for a One Year Time Extension for a Use Permit to allow the construction of a single-story medical office building on Oyster Point Boulevard in the Planned Commercial (P-C-L) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.24 and 20.81. Commissioner Teglia noted that there is an oversight with this approval related to the sidewalk and landscaping on Oyster Point Boulevard. He noted that the design change should be considered at this time to bring this project in line with the rest of the Master Plan fronting Oyster Point Boulevard. Chief Planner Kalkin noted that this item can be continued and agendized it for a minor modification be considered at a future hearing. Motion Teglia /Second Zemke to continue P04-0131 to allow staff to notice for a modification of the Use Permit. Approved by unanimous voice vote. PUBLIC HEARING 2. T-Mobile USAlapplicant SSC Property Holdings/owner 2679 Meath Dr P06-0041: UPO6-0012 (Continued from February 7, 2007) Use Permit and Design Review allowing a wireless communication facility consisting of two (2) antennas mounted inside a 40 foot tall flagpole and four (4) indoor equipment cabinets at 2679 Meath Drive in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.81, 20.85 & 20.105 Public Hearing opened. Associate Planner Beaudin presented the staff report. Bill Stevens, T-Mobile, presented his project to the Commission. 5:\Miv~.utCS\~iwGil,izBd M%v~,utES\200\02-I6-D~ RFC Mi,wutCS.doc Pggg 2 p f9 Planning Commission Meeting of February 15, 2007 Commissioner Honan asked if the flag is raised up everyday or if it is permanently raised and who is responsible for that. Mr. Stevens noted that the function of the flag will not change and the owner of the property is responsible for raising it. There being no speakers the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Teglia stated that the Telecommunications Ordinance was created to make wireless sites more aesthetically pleasing. The ordinance requires the antenna to be stealthed and associated equipment undergrounded. He stated that the proposed flagpole appears to be a smoke stack with a flag on it. He added that the pole could look better if the height of the antenna inside the pole could be lowered so the pole could be tapered off. He felt that the application does not comply with the Telecommunications Ordinance. He suggested that the applicant submit a revised design for review. Commissioner Honan reiterated her concern with regards to the responsible party for raising the flag at the site and if the lighting on the site meets current requirements. Associate Planner Beaudin noted that this information is not available at the time. Commissioner Honan asked that this be addressed. Commissioner Sim was troubled with the detail of the flagpole and felt that the base looks strange and the white pole will stand out in a natural setting. He stated that the pole, compared to other poles on the street, looks significant in size. Commissioner Moore shared the same concerns as the other Commissioners and felt that the aesthetics need to be revised to meet the ordinance requirements. Chairperson Prouty echoed the comments of the Commission and noted that other cities have cell sites that are properly stealthed. Commissioner Teglia asked if the applicant is willing to redesign the wireless telecommunications. Mr. Stevens stated that they considered a tree pole but it would have to be at least 60 feet tall to reach the projected service area at Westborough and Callan. Commissioner Teglia pointed out that the facility needs to be stealthed and the applicant could entertain placing micro cells in different locations to cover certain areas. Mr. Stevens noted that he would like the opportunity to reconsider their proposal. Commissioner Sim clarified that he is concerned with the scale of the pole's size and base. Motion Teglia /Second Sim to continue P06-0041 off calendar. Approved by unanimous voice vote. 3. Lisa Sullivan/applicant Genentech,/owner 1 DNA Way P05-0141: MP05-0001, TDM05-0006, RZ05-0003, ZA05-0001 and MPEIR05-0004 (Continued from February 7, 2007) Rezoning request to reclassify ten (10) parcels totaling 38 acres from P-I Planned Industrial Zone District to Genentech Research and Development Overlay District; Zoning Text Amendments to SSFMC Chapters 20.39 (Research and Development Overlay District) and 20.40 (Genentech Research and Development Overlay District); Master Plan update to address the long-range plan for growth and development in the expanded overlay district covering 200+acres; Transportation Demand Management Program to reduce drive alone vehicle trips; and review of Draft Master Environmental Impact Report; in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.39, 20.40, 20.87 and 20.120. Public Hearing opened. Senior Planner Lappen gave a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the Planning Commission comments from previous meeting and the changes in Zoning Ordinance. s:\M%wutes\~CwaLtzed n~Cv~.utes\zoo~\o2-is-off Rpc r~iwutes.doc gage s of9 Planning Commission Meeting of February 15, 2007 Traffic comments: Cyrus Kianpour, CSG Consultants (for SSF), gave a presentation of the traffic study for Genentech. Commissioner Teglia noted that the flyover cannot have the two lane exit off of 101 and asked if it couldn't be reconfigured to fit two exit lanes in the future. Mr. Kianpour noted that it cannot be done. He explained that a design exception was requested when the flyover was constructed because it is physically impossible to have the two lanes. However, from a capacity and queuing perspective the flyover has a large volume. Commissioner Teglia asked if a flyover from Oyster Point Boulevard to 101 North had been explored. Mr. Kianpour noted that there were preliminary discussions and prepared an exhibit for the Commission to consider. He noted that from a civil engineering perspective everything is possible if the money is present. He pointed out that in order to get from Oyster Point to Highway 101 vertically the two obstructions have to be cleared. He added that introducing a third element of traffic on Oyster Point may cause some operation issues that need to be discussed with CalTrans. He stated that there is already large area from a queuing perspective and this never came up as an area that needs to be addressed. Chairperson Prouty stated that widening Oyster Point Boulevard to Veteran's is a small way to reduce impact on Oyster Point Boulevard and asked if this would mitigate congestion on Gateway and Veteran's. Mr. Kianpour replied affirmatively and explained that the synchro analysis indicates that the third lane will upgrade the operation levels of the intersections from F to D. Chairperson Prouty asked if Gull going to Oyster Point would be widened. Mr. Kianpour pointed out that Mitigation Measure 4.7-3 speaks to that effect and calls for widening Gull drive and providing two left turn lanes onto Oyster Point. Chairperson Prouty asked for clarification on the suggestions for Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue. Mr. Kianpour noted that the East of 101 traffic plan identified the widening of Grand Avenue. It also identified that by adding an exclusive right turn lane at the intersection of Airport and Miller would help queuing and operational issues. He added that at Airport and Grand there is one exclusive left turn, a short left through, one through and one exclusive right lane and suggested that two of those lanes be exclusive left turns, one through lane, and one short through lane which would help the intersection operate more smoothly. Chairperson Prouty asked what the projected date of completion for all these improvements was. Mr. Kianpour noted that the improvements in the report will be coordinated with the development on the Genentech campus and other developments on East of 101. He added that all these items will come up in the Implementation Plan for the East of 101 Study to establish triggers as to when certain improvements are needed. Chairperson Prouty stated that Veterans Boulevard improvements need to be done quickly because of the traffic issues at that intersection. Chairperson Prouty noted that City Attorney Mattas was present to aid the Commission in the decision making process. He informed the public that the review process has taken approximately two years and is not an item that is being accelerated. Sanitary sewer system comments: City Engineer Razavi gave a presentation on the sanitary sewer system impacts and mitigations for the Genentech Campus. Commissioner Honan questioned if the improvements would require an increase in staff levels for the sewer treatment plant. City Engineer Razavi noted that wastewater treatment is a separate entity but the plant does have enough capacity for an additional 3 million gallons per day that will accommodate the City needs through 2025. He pointed out that staff is paid through the sewer maintenance fees that are paid by all the users of the sewer system. Commissioner Honan noted that since the number of pump stations is being increased, then more staff is needed. City Engineer Razavi noted that more support may be needed in the future as the City adds onto the system and funding for those salaries are collected through the sewer fee. s:\M%wutes\~Cwal%zed nniv~,utes~2oo~\o2-2s-off iz~c n~iv~.utes.doc Page 4 of9 Planning Commission Meeting of February 15, 2007 Commissioner Teglia suggested that pump station #8 be looked at when improvements are planned to aesthetically improve the looks of the station considering the location of the pump. Chairperson Prouty asked if the improvements are for the existing pipes. City Engineer Razavi replied affirmatively and noted that the improvements are a variety of pump stations, pipelines and gravity mains. Chairperson Prouty noted that the State increases their standards and asked if the increased capacity was going to go away if the State changes the standards. City Engineer Razavi noted that staff has explored future actions but at the moment there are no changes to the standards. He pointed out that past 2025, when the criteria is set to change the plan will change. Chairperson Prouty asked if the taxpayers were going to be responsible for meeting standards that change. City Engineer Razavi noted that there was not an answer to this question but if it does occur, a period of time for compliance will be allotted. Senior Planner Lappen noted that the Commission received a color version of the Zoning Ordinance changes to chapters 20.39 and 20.40 of the Municipal Code related to Genentech. City Attorney Mattas noted that there is a one page document in the Planning Commission's packet with proposed language regarding the removal of property from the R & D overlay district. He noted that the provision was put together in the event that a property within the district was requested for removal from the district noting such property, would need to fulfill parking, vehicular access, pedestrian access, utility access and TDM requirements that would apply in the underlying zoning district, and the amount of development (FAR) allowed in the overall campus would be reduced. He noted that the applicant can request a waiver of the requirements if they meet the standards that are identified at the end of paragraph "C", which is a decision that the Commission or Council need to take. Senior Planner Lappen noted that the Commission received a copy of the Conditions of Approval and changes to the Implementation Plan. He added that the Zoning Ordinance requires that Genentech update the City on the mobile vendor services with the annual report. He pointed out that the sign program was clarified but a conclusion was not reached on the banners and displays, resulting in a condition of approval for Genentech to incorporate these in the proposal for future Planning Commission action. He summarized staff recommendation on the Master Plan. Genentech Executive Vice President -Chief Compliance Officer, Stephen Juelsgaard, thanked the Commission for all the time and effort they have put into the Master Plan. He added that they have listened to the Commission's recommendations and concerns and have addressed those as best they can. He noted that Genentech will stand behind this Master Plan and are committed to follow through on the public concession and public art. Public Hearing closed. Commissioner Teglia stated that although the Planning Commission has been working on this for the past two years, there have only been two Public Hearings including this one and felt that the information was overwhelming. He felt that the Implementation Plan was provided to the Commission the night before and they did not have an opportunity to go through the document in much detail, and noted that it was being rushed through. He felt that the Statement of Overriding considerations is warranted. He noted that he was uncomfortable with height requirements, proportionality and the entrances. He stated that the access road to the "Point" needs to be planned and the best route might be through Forbes. He added that most of it can be approved and asked if a study session needs to be scheduled on specific issues. Chief Planner Kalkin stated that a Condition could be added to have it come back to review further details of project entries, park design and any others. Commissioner Teglia stated these need to be tied to the Master Plan because once it is approved it will not return to the Commission. Commissioner Teglia felt that the 5 year phasing of the entryway in the Implementation Program was too long to take effect. Lisa Sullivan, Genentech, noted that one entryway was tied to the redevelopment of Buildings 1 and 4 and planning staff recommended that a date be set because there were some loopholes, so Genentech proposed a 5 year deadline. Commissioner Teglia noted that the Commission has not had the opportunity to discuss this issue nor the configuration of the park. He noted that the access to the Point appears to be going away from the street and it needs to be kept on the shoreline for public access. Ms. Sullivan noted that a condition can be added according to Chief Planner Kalkin's recommendation, and tie it to Buildings 1 and 4. She noted that the plan has made sure that the infrastructure and framework is there. s:\M%v~.utes\F~wa~%zed MCv~,utes\2oo~\o2-is-off iz.PC Mw~.utes.doc page s of9 Planning Commission Meeting of February 15, 2007 Commissioner Teglia stated that the public improvements on a building by building status weren't working for the City and the Master Plan calls for the public improvements. He noted that the other Commissioners have questions on parking for the Bay Trail and access through the Founders Research area. Commissioner Sim noted that this is a far reaching plan with infrastructure, capacity and environmental impact issues. He noted that there need to be more specific of commitments. He asked if there was an opportunity to protect the Commission's and the City's wishes and concerns at the next phase. Chief Planner Kalkin assured the Commission that t Conditional Use Permits will be required for these projects and specific issues, such as the location of the interior road can be addressed at that time. She added that the Commission can make it clear that the roadway needs to be reconfigured. Ms. Sullivan noted that this is a concept plan and there are opportunities that will give the Commission options to add more detail when they look at projects in the future. Commissioner Sim noted his concern with gateways, midpoints and terminations of the spines. Chairperson Prouty asked if there will be ample opportunity for the Commission to specify details on each of the projects that are going through and that their hands will not be tied to specific items. City Attorney Mattas clarified that the Commission is at the Master Plan level and subsequent approvals are discretionary for Conditional and Minor Use Permits and Administrative Reviews that are appealable to the Planning Commission. He pointed out that the Commission might want to consider including into the annual review an update on the public amenity and design aspects so that they can see the current iteration. He pointed out that the Commission can address issues that are relevant to the Conditional Use Permit and then, to address the timing of the public amenities, a condition can be added that, as part of the annual review, they update the Commission on the plans to implement these. Chairperson Prouty noted that some of the language for Minor Use Permits has changed and asked that City Attorney Mattas expand on this item. City Attorney Mattas stated that there are standards for Administrative Review and Minor Use Permits which are more restrictive because fewer buildings comply with those. He noted that section 1.4 of the Master Plan requires a Minor Use Permit for anything below 50,000 square feet and this language will be required to comply with the Zoning Code. He stated that at the end of section 1.4 under the sentence that says "unless the Chief Planner determines that a project does not involve significant design issues" should be followed by a period rather than a semicolon. He stated that anything after the period would be deleted because the Zoning Code speaks to the Minor Use Permit and Administrative Review standards. He added that the Minor Use Permit would be limited to an addition of 20 to 30 thousand square feet and not exceeding 30% of the gross floor area, which would be the same in the Master Plan's final version. Chief Planner Kalkin noted that this is how the code is currently written and staff is not proposing any change to the current standard. Commissioner Honan asked if the Master Plan is approved will the City be tied to the parking requirements as stated in the Master Plan. Chief Planner Kalkin confirmed this and noted that the annual review requires a review of the parking standard to make sure that it is still working and the Commission can adjust it up or down according to how it is being utilized. Commissioner Honan stated her concern on parking. She asked for an update on the history museum. Ms. Sullivan noted that this was proposed as part of the B1 and B4 development and is considered as an amenity and included in the overall development plan. She added that this building will be reviewed by the Commission as a project in conjunction with the parking structure and is part of the development of the lower campus. Commissioner Moore stated that this is a big plan and Genentech has been working with staff and felt that the plan can be conditioned at the time the individual project comes before the Commission when they work out the details. He commended staff on the detail of the traffic study presentation. Commissioner Teglia stated that the Master Plan is before the Commission because the focus was on individual approvals while the infrastructure was forgotten. He stated that a principal impetus for the Master Plan was the Commission's and City Council's concern that the public amenities, improvements and the project entrances go hand in hand with the development. He noted that the Implementation Plan needs to be discussed and asked if the City is committing to the amount of open space or will this be done at the Commission's annual review. s:\M%wutes\~i.wct~~zed r~Cwutes~2oo~~o2-is-off izpc M%wutes.doc page 6 o f9 Planning Commission Meeting of February 15, 2007 City Attorney Mattas noted that the amenity concepts discussed can be put off until the annual review or as part of a discretionary permit entitlement. He added that the Implementation Plan will be presented to the City Council as part of the Master Plan with trigger dates and mechanisms that would guide the Commission. He stated that if the Commission wants to further discuss the Implementation Plan they could take action on the resolution and review those four or five topics that the Commission has identified in the annual review to look at the progress and where the development is compared to the Implementation Plan. He suggested that if the Commission desired, they could discuss and recommend the Implementation Plan aspect at the next meeting and have the final recommendation on the Implementation Plan be presented as part of the City Council's consideration of this item. Chairperson Prouty asked if the Commission can bifurcate the issue and approve the resolutions and zoning changes with review of the Implementation Plan at the next meeting. City Attorney Mattas confirmed this because the Commission would be discussing one point and would allow staff the time to make a recommendation to the City Council for the Public Hearing, which has been noticed already. Commissioner Teglia asked if the Commission can address amounts of public parking, dedicated public access and amounts of open space at that time. City Attorney Mattas stated that configuration is a determination for the next phase and there are standards for parking within the Master Plan that the Commission has some discretion on. Commissioner Teglia pointed out that he was looking at public access to the Bay Trail, similar to other campuses around the Peninsula that have some wide open public areas. He noted that Oracle has large amounts of open space and dedicated public access to the Bay Trail and issues like these haven't been discussed fully. He was concerned that with building by building approvals things would never happen. He questioned if the Commission can go ahead with this Plan and identify that all these issues still need to be addressed and decided upon. City Attorney Mattas noted that this is correct and can be decided upon at the annual review or, if a conditional use permit is before the Commission, in the first year prior to the annual review. Commissioner Teglia noted that some buildings may not be relevant to other areas of the campus and felt that the whole purpose of the Master Plan is to address all those issues comprehensively. City Attorney Mattas noted that if the Commission wants to focus the policy level discussion on the Implementation Plan they can do. Chairperson Prouty asked if the Commission has leverage at that time. City Attorney Mattas answered affirmatively since it is addressed at the Planning Commission's March 1St meeting the whole plan will not have gone to the City Council for action. Chairperson Prouty was concerned with the amount of parking spaces for the public and recommended that Implementation Plan be reviewed at the next meeting. City Attorney Mattas noted that this can be done and added to the Council's recommendation with the Commission's issues on the plan. Shar Zamanpour, Genentech, noted that there will a total of 21 parking spaces and noted that Genentech has proposed new signs to provide several additional parking lots open to the public after hours and weekends. Chairperson Prouty added that the signs should go in as soon as possible and there should not be a trigger on those at all. Commissioner Honan requested assurance that the Master Plan would not go to Council until after the Commission has discussed and approved the Implementation Plan. City Attorney Mattas noted that this is correct and if the Commission acts at the next meeting it would provide adequate time for staff to incorporate that information into a report for the City Council meeting, which has been tentatively scheduled for March 14th, 2007 for consideration. He pointed out that the Commission has specific issues that they would like to discuss related to the Implementation Plan; therefore the Commission can act on the other items and clearly indicate in a condition that the Commission will focus on the Implementation Plan at the next meeting and make recommendations. He stated that those can be incorporated in the City Council report for their consideration. Chairperson Prouty commended Genentech on crosswalks on the streets and asked if Genentech will address those in the future projects. Ms. Sullivan requested that the Commission refer to the Bay Trail amenities as a separate project. She asked if the Commission is concerned about the Implementation Plan, especially the trigger dates and completion of the amenities project, and the Commission's ability to review s:\M%wutes~FCwctl%zed r~Cwutes~2oo~~o2-zs-off R.pc r~ttwutes.doc page ~ of9 Planning Commission Meeting of February 15, 2007 these. Commissioner Teglia noted that the Bay Trail is a separate issue. He pointed out they are also concerned with the implementation of the entrances, public amenities separate from the Bay Trail, and how much much open space is dedicated and the configuration of it. Ms. Sullivan asked for input from the Commission on the trigger deadlines they are looking for. Commissioner Teglia noted that it would be best to discuss the Implementation Plan at the next meeting. He noted that most developers put in the entrances before building a campus and since Genentech is planning a large expansion, it is better that the entrances early are built before the other projects, and noted that this could also be done in phases. He noted that the other items can be addressed with specific approvals, but did not want to wait a long time for completion. He asked for a comparison of what is available on the campus and what is available on the Peninsula at other campuses. Commissioner Teglia wanted to make sure that the Commission has the opportunity to properly negotiate and implement these improvements. Chairperson Prouty felt that it was appropriate to separate the Master Plan from the Implementation Plan at this time. Motion Teg{ia to approve the Over{ay District expansion and the Master Plan update, with the understanding that the Implementation Plan will return to the Commission for review. Also that the next annual review be more focused on to the campus entrances, public amenities, and the full scope of those improvements. City Attorney Mattas noted that the Commission can entertain a motion to adopt the resolution, standards for removal of property and revised conditions of approval, subject to, 1) that the Implementation Plan returns to the Commission for consideration at the next meeting for further comments; and 2) that as part of the annual review process, commencing with the first annual review, that the review would include the review of the public amenities, project entrances, the discussion of the public parking spaces, and access road to the Point. He added that the Commission's direction at the next meeting might be to narrow down further some of those things that could be done in the annual review. Commissioner Teglia added to his motion that at the first annual review the Commission and Staff will work with Genentech and come up with a concrete design and phased implementation for the improvements. Ms. Sullivan noted her agreement to do so. Commission Sim asked if the Commission is reviewing the Master Plan concept and if then the specific district plans would be looked at separately. Senior Planner Lappen noted that a specific plan and precise plan process is not being followed and added that the Master Plan is unique because it provides a flexible guideline for development on campus. He pointed out that the next procedure is to review individual conditional use permits for each project coming through the process. Commissioner Sim stated that the Master Plan is being approved and other elements of the Master Plan will be reviewed in the future for a final determination. Chairperson Prouty clarified that the Master Plan is before the Commission as well as the Implementation Plan for the Master Plan. City Attorney Mattas asked for clarification on whether the motion modified by Commissioner Teglia was per his recommendation or as stated by Ms. Sullivan. Commissioner Teglia clarified that his motion was based on the City Attorney Mattas' recommendation. He stated that at the next meeting the Commission will review the Implementation Plan and by the first annual review, Genentech will provide a concrete plan for the entrances, park size, public parking and all the public amenities identified in the Master Plan. Second Sim City Attorney Mattas noted that the Implementation Plan encompasses a lot of those aspects and added that the Commission might focus on further timing aspects at the next meeting but may not entirely resolve the design aspects of the plan. He noted that the motion is consistent with the comments made by Genentech indicating that by the first annual review these aspects of the Implementation Plan will be resolved, resulting in a "public amenities Master Plan" that is tied to the development within the parameters of the Genentech 10 year Master Plan s:\M%wutes\~Cwalized n-tCwutes\2oo~\o2-is-off Rpc r~t~wutes.doc page 8 of9 Planning Commission Meeting of February 15, 2007 Role call vote: Ayes: Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Moore, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia, Commissioner Zemke, Vice Chairperson Giusti and Chairperson Prouty Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Approved by unanimous roll call vote. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS None ITEMS FROM STAFF None ITEMS FROM COMMISSION None Commissioner Teglia noted that the Commission has repeatedly voiced the need to raise the bar in terms of design of projects. He felt that the Commission can set the tempo for applications. He stated that staff needs to look further into how and in what areas the bar can be raised, especially with telecommunications applications. Commissioner Sim took the opportunity to congratulate the 2007 Chair and Vice Chair and also thanked Commissioner Zemke for his leadership in 2006. He noted his disappointment with the Design Review Board with regards to increasing the quality of the projects and felt that the Commission review should be limited to agreeing or disagreeing with their recommendation. Chairperson Prouty added that the Commission has to send a strong message to the Board that they are looking for a higher level design. He commended the Planning staff for addressing design concerns. Commissioner Teglia noted that the Design Review Board knew the telecommunications flag pole was a bad idea, but tried to improve it without denying the project. Chief Planner Kalkin stated that she will inform the Design Review Board of the Commission's comments and at some point a joint meeting with them could reiterate the Commission's position on design. ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC None ADJOURNMENT 10:12 P.M. Motion Zemke /Second Moore to adjourn the meeting. Approved by unanimous voice vote. v~~~ Sus~'Kalkin Secretar o the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco ~~~~ William Zemke, Chair rson Planning Commissi City of South San Francisco SK/bla s:\M%v~utes\~%waLLzed n~Cwutes~2oo~\o2-is-off RPC r~iwutes.doc Pa9e9 ~f9