Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-03-01MrNUrEs March 1, 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: Engineering Division Police Department Fire Prevention. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No Changes James Chang, representing Senator Leland Yee, invited the Commission to a townhall meeting being held on March 10th at 1:30 p.m. to hear some of the public's legislative ideas. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Stonegate Estates Planned Unit Development Modification Stonegate Home Development/Owner -Applicant Stonegate Estates & Hillside Avenue P07-0010: PUDM07-0001 8- MND-01-012 (Continue to March 15, 2007) Modification of a Planned Unit Development and Design Review allowing exterior window and door changes to several dwellings situated on the Southeast corner of Hillside Avenue and Stonegate Drive in the Medium Density Residential (R-2-H-P) Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.84, 20.85 8~ 20.91. Mitigated Negative Declaration (previously approved by the City Council on July 14, 2004). Susy Kalkin, Chief Planner Mike Lappen, Senior Planner Girard Beaudin, Associate Planner Bertha Aguilar, Admin. Asst. II Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager Steve Mattas, City Attorney Ray Razavi, City Engineer Sam Bautista, Senior Civil Engineer Sergeant Alan Normandy, Planning Liaison Brian Niswonger, Assistant Fire Marshall Motion Teglia /Second Sim to approve the Consent Calendar. Approved by unanimous voice vote. Planning Commission Meeting of March 1, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING 2. Jad & Nawal Jajeh/Owner Robert WilliamsApplicant 418 Linden Avenue P06-0147: UP06-0034 St DR06-0109 Use Permit & Design Review to allow the construction of a new one-story multi-tenant retail commercial building, including landscape improvements and eight on site parking spaces, at 418 Linden Avenue in Retail Commercial (C-1-L) Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Sections 20.22, 20.73, 20.74, 20.81 and 20.85. Public Hearing opened. Associate Planner Beaudin presented the staff report. Robert Williams, Architect, stated that they are replacing an old building with a new one and have accommodated onsite parking for tenants as well as required accessible spaces.. Commissioner Teglia noted that on sheet A.4 the mechanical equipment is visible and noted that it needs to be screened. Mr. Williams pointed out that the equipment will be screened and will not be visible from the street level. Commissioner Sim asked if the parapet bends in to fully cover the corner and was concerned that it may look fake. Mr. Williams noted that this will be stealthed. Commissioner Sim suggested that Mr. Williams add more detail to the back elevation. Mr. Williams noted that he could add eyebrows above the doors and include additional articulation. Commissioner Sim asked if lighting was being proposed on the site. Mr. Williams noted that there will be recessed can lights at the entry ways of the building. Commissioner Zemke noted that the staff report implies that the City is entertaining residential uses at the site without the consideration of additional parking. He stated that he is in favor of adding residential to the site but was concerned that additional parking would not be considered for this. Associate Planner Beaudin noted that the property is in the Parking District. He added that the applicant chose to provide onsite parking and at this moment is not interested in adding residential to the building. He pointed out that there would be significant site redesign to incorporate the parking required for residential use if this is pursued in the future. There being no speakers the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Honan stated that the project will improve the area but was concerned with the lack of parking. She asked if the adjacent parking lots are permit or metered parking lots. Associate Planner Beaudin replied that the lots are a mix of metered and permit parking. Chief Planner Kalkin noted that the parking exceptions are in the purview of the Parking Place Commission. Vice Chairperson Giusti stated that two of the three parking lots are underutilized. Chairperson Prouty echoed Vice Chairperson Giusti's comments. Commissioner Honan asked if the site will have retail or restaurant uses. Associate Planner Beaudin stated that the application is for retail and commercial uses. Chief Planner Kalkin pointed out that the Parking Place Commission would need to review the application if a drinking or eating establishment is proposed. She added that a limited service restaurant would require a conditional use permit. Mr. Moore stated that parking enforcement is a big factor in keeping the parking available if one space is tied up for more than the allowed time. Commissioner Zemke asked that staff supply information for the Commission on what the plans are to resolve the downtown parking issues. Chief Planner Kalkin noted that staff will provide this information. Commissioner Teglia stated that the Parking Place Commission administers the parking district but the overall planning in the area is subject to Planning Commission review. He asked if there could be a yearly s:V~Cwutes~~Cwal~zed Mi,wutes~2oo~~os-oi-off Rpc M%v~,utes.doc page 2 o f ii Planning Commission Meeting of March 1, 2007 review of parking in a joint meeting with the Parking Place Commission to inform the Commission of their goals and visions. Chief Planner Kalkin noted that this meeting could be arranged. Commissioner Teglia stated that some of the items discussed could be having the correct number and mix of parking and to help for retail turnover. Commissioner Sim questioned if the Parking Place Commission has a master plan for the downtown area in the event that there is a build out. Commissioner Moore stated that he would like to find out what the criteria the Parking Place Commission uses to grant exceptions through a dialogue and would not want it to appear that the Planning Commission is telling them what to do. Commissioner Teglia suggested addition of a condition to the project to require the applicant to look at the Linden frontage to explore a short term 10 or 15 minute green zone. Motion Teglia to approve P06-0147: UP06-0034 & DR06-0109 with additional conditions that the applicant stealth the parapet where it turns, add eyebrows on the doors on the rear elevation, and review of parking by the Parking Place Commission. City Attorney Mattas clarified that the parking is within the purview of the Parking Place Commission and suggested considering this with the Zoning code update. He noted that the Commission can direct staff to schedule a joint meeting with the Parking Place Commission to have a common understanding of what the vision for Downtown is. He added that staff can use those guidelines to establish policies through the General Plan and Zoning Code. Second Sim. Roll Call: Ayes: Commissioner Moore, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Zemke, Commissioner Zemke, Vice Chairperson Giusti, and Chairperson Prouty Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Approved by roll call vote. 3. Ms. Sullivan/applicant Genentech,/owner 1 DNA Way P05-0141: MP05-0001, TDM05-0006, RZ05-0003, ZA05-0001 and MPEIR05-0004 (Continued from February 15, 2007 Motion recommending that the City Council approve the Genentech Master Plan "IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM" and revised Conditions of Approval. Senior Planner Lappen gave a Power Point presentation. Lisa Sullivan noted that some deadlines in the Implementation Program seem to be very ambitious and suggested some additional deadlines on a variety of items. Commissioner Teglia noted that these deadlines can be extended if the developer shows a good faith effort to meet them. He pointed out that the City will work with the developer if the project is delayed and deadlines are not met. Local Sfreef Improvemenf Ms. Sullivan stated that the Implementation Program covers Public amenities, campus design and local street improvements. She pointed out that the local street improvements should start as soon as possible and they s:~rnCwutes~~Cwa~ized M%wutes\2oo~\os-os-off izpc n~Cwutes.doc Page s of i2 Planning Commission Meeting of March 1, 2007 felt that the December 31, 2007 deadline met this need. She added that the removal of on street parking is an issue because the centerline of the street would be moved and they will need more than three months to redesign the lanes with the City. She suggested extending the deadline to six months to allow them to fulfill this requirement. She noted that if the Commission is willing to allow the removal of parking in 6 months they would also schedule the shuttle pullouts at that time which would result in an earlier delivery date. Consensus to allow the removal of on street parkins at six months. Street Lisrhtin_a Ms. Sullivan noted that the bike lanes and sidewalks will be completed within two years and the City has suggested the street lighting also be completed within two years. She stated that Genentech is in agreement with this timeline. Internal Campus Pedestrian Connections a (/andscape improvements submitted with 650) Ms. Sullivan noted that within the campus there are three pedestrian connections that have been tied to project approvals in the Implementation Program. She stated that the City has requested that the landscape improvements be extended to the north between Building 6 and Building 7 with the Building 50 submittal. She noted that Building 50 has already been submitted and they are requesting to submit the landscape design improvements within three months, and completed with occupancy of B50. Commissioner Teglia asked if this is separate from the Building 50 landscaping requirements. Ms. Sullivan replied that this requirement refers to the enhancements to the area between Buildings 6 and 7. Commissioner Teglia asked for clarification on the three month extension being after the completion date for B50 or if it would coincide with the occupancy of B50. Ms. Sullivan stated that the three month extension is from the approval of the Master Plan. Senior Planner Lappen added that the implementation measure's intent is to include all improvements between the parking garage and 67. Consensus to allow the landscape improvements to be submitted 3 months from the approval of the Master Plan Infernal Campus Pedestrian Connections b _ (landscape improvements in conjunction with 691 Ms. Sullivan stated that the improvements on the south side of the central spine are tied to the redevelopment of Building 9. She noted that the Master Plan states that with the demolition of Building 9 the central spine would be improved. She added that City has also suggested adding the text "or within 6 years" to this implementation measure. She explained that in the event Genentech is unable to deliver, the loading docks would still be in place and was concerned with adding a date certain to this implementation measure. Senior Planner Lappen pointed out that staff does not know when Building 9 will be redeveloped and the master plan does not give a date. He added that staff felt six years was an appropriate number being that it is a project that will be undertaken near the end of the life of this Master Plan. He added that the focus of this improvement is the area around the intersection of Kauffman Court and the central spine where B6 and B9 and future Building 50 will meet. Ms. Sullivan added that they plan to develop a new plaza and enhance the landscaping on the central spine but the intention is that it would be done in conjunction with the redevelopment of Building 9. She explained that the Master Plan calls for enhancement of the central spine when Building 9 is demolished for redevelopment. She noted that their request is to change the language to "when Building 9 is redeveloped the enhancements will be done" and noted her concern with what will be done if the building is still standing in six years. s:~MLwutes\~~v~.alLzed r~Cwutes~2oo~\os-oi-off RpC n~tCwutes.doc Page ~ o f ii Planning Commission Meeting of March 1, 2007 Commissioner Honan questioned if specific dates were being added to Building 9. Ms. Sullivan noted that staff is asking for a definitive date and Genentech is requesting that it be linked to the project only without a definitive date. Commissioner Teglia questioned if staff felt this was a reasonable request or if they felt that Building 9 would remain undeveloped. He added that if this might occur a trigger date should be kept in the Implementation Program. Senior Planner Lappen stated that this building was converted (from Non-Bio Manufacturing to R&D) and it would be nice to see improvements on Kauffman Court fronting Building 6 and seven. He pointed out that they are redeveloping a portion of that site with Building 50 and are adding some hardscape changes. He stated that the Planning Commission might want to see these improvements extended to the front of Building 6 and the existing Building 9. He pointed out that Staff is aware of the loading docks being at this location and the improvements for the central spine were divided mainly because of these. Chairperson Prouty stated that the Commission can leave the wording "completion of the improvements within 6 years or redevelopment of Building 9" and if in 4 years Genentech thinks they will not be redeveloping the building, it can be addressed at that time. He felt that the language should remain as suggested by staff. Ms. Sullivan was comfortable with this option and noted that they need to outline what the scope will be if the building is still standing at that time. Commissioner Teglia noted that the Commission would be reviewing individual applications and they may be considered depending what part of the campus is being built on. He added that some of the items might be able to be phased in and the Commission needs to see that Genentech is showing a good faith effort to reach them. Ms. Sullivan noted that they can change those items that can be changed now. She noted that they are willing to tie some of the improvements with Building 50; and wait until Building 9 is demolished to do those other improvements. Senior Planner Lappen clarified that staff is currently in a preliminary design review phase with Building 50; the application has been submitted, they have been through Design Review Board once and they are returning to them for another review. He noted that the Commission will not see the project for a couple of months which gives Genentech an opportunity to add some additional improvements to the area around Building 6 and B50. Chairperson Prouty asked if the Commission can review these items during their annual review if the language is not changed, and make adjustments accordingly. City Attorney Mattas suggested adding language stating that the Commission will look at this during the annual review, leaving the six year trigger, with the caveat that the Commission can extend the timeline if by the end of year 4 Building 9 is still existing. He recommended that the Commission add this to the Implementation Program to make their wishes clear in the future. Consensus of the Commission to add the lanpua_ae to the lmplementation Program as recommended by City Attorney Mattas. Campus Entries Ms. Sullivan noted that the Commissioners would like the campus entries designed as soon as possible in the Implementation Program. She added that a subcommittee will be working on the design concepts which will be finalized by the first annual report. She noted that several improvements have been tied to certain projects, such as the Forbes campus entry with Building 1 and the Grandview campus entry tied to the West Campus project. She further noted her concern with the completion requirement of 5 years because they project this implementation to be in phases. She suggested submitting the design concepts and phased construction details for the campus entry on the annual review for the Master Plan. Commissioner Teglia felt that this was unacceptable and noted that Genentech's goa{s could be achieved through sub phasing. He pointed out that a study session should have been held for discussion on this item because it is key to the s:~NlLwutes\~Cwaltzed M~wutes~2oo~~os-oi-off R.PC M%wutes.doc page sof ii Planning Commission Meeting of March 1, 2007 Master Plan. He stated that the issues of grading, road design, parking and landscaping need to be addressed. Ms. Sullivan clarified that this request applies to monument signs, fountains, public art and the plaza. Commissioner Teglia stated that five years for these improvements was a long period of time. He added that the annual review was delayed for 6 months and it is being pushed out to 12 months from the approval of the Master Plan. He suggested tying the improvements in front of the Building 50 to the submittal of the project to staff and add a three month extension to it. Ms. Sullivan noted that they could return to this item shortly. (TC 1385) Public Amenities - Bay Trail sis~ns Ms. Sullivan informed the Commission of plans to open the Bay Trail in March 2007. She noted that there will be Bay Trail signs in and around the campus and that a total of 200 additional parking spaces will be made available for the public's use of the Bay Trail on evenings and weekends. She stated that the City has requested this improvement to be completed three months after the approval of the Master Plan, but Genentech felt that they couldn't meet this deadline. They proposed having this installation completed on December 31, 2007 or allowing this to be delivered 6 months after the Master Plan is approved. Chairperson Prouty felt that the 3 month deadline could be met by Genentech. Ms. Sullivan pointed out that there are at least four signs for four different parking lots. She added that there are also different signs for the Bay Trail access, which the City has also requested to be completed 6 months after the Master Plan is approved. She suggested that the Bay Trail parking and access signs be installed within 6 months, with the intention of completing this as soon as possible. Commissioner Teglia noted his willingness to allow the installation of the signs at 6 months. He noted the need to have an in-depth discussion on parking. He clarified that the installation of the temporary signs should be done immediately and stressed a need to have an in-depth discussion on the mix of parking, potentially increasing the dedicated parking, the configuration of the landscaping and open space prior to the annual review. Chairperson Prouty felt that the signs could be installed immediately. He noted that there sufficient time to order the signs and Genentech should have them by the time the Master Plan is approved. He added that if an additional 3 months is needed, this can be addressed at that time. City Attorney Mattas pointed out that in the zoning ordinance there is a lag time of 30 days after City Council approval occurs until the ordinance takes effect. He pointed out that the applicant can commence their process during this 30 day period and have an additional month before the deadline. He added that another option is to break down the installation to the signs that could be put in within three months and the others that can go in after. Senior Planner Lappen noted that staff wants designated parking and this can be accomplished by temporary signs also. Chairperson Prouty pointed out that temporary sings could also be incorporated and stated that the Commission wants to see the public parking properly identified. Ms. Sullivan agreed to install temporary signs. (TC 1511) Public Amenity Imarovements -Forbes Terminus Ms. Sullivan noted that they have been working on the design concepts and are hoping to have those to the Commission with the first annual report, with study sessions, prior to the review. She added that they would like to have these improvements done within 5 years while staff is recommending 3 years. She clarified that Genentech would also like to look at these improvements as a phased project with Phase I being the west lot and phase II the east lot. She stated that they want to further breakdown phase I by developing the food concession, followed by the recreational field thus balancing the parking adjacency issues that they foresee. She pointed out that they intend to replace the surface parking with structured parking by 2011. She clarified S:\M%wutCS\~F%wAl,%zCd MCv~,utCS\20D~\03-01-D~ RAG Mivi.utPS.dDC PGt9C 6 of 11 Planning Commission Meeting of March 1, 2007 that the parking quantity is not a problem but the adjacency is what creates the issue. She noted that this could also be done in conjunction with Building 50 construction. She stated that the phased construction schedule would go before the Commission with the annual review. Commissioner Teglia pointed out that Genentech has an extensive shuttle system throughout the campus that solves the adjacency issues. He felt that part of the issue was how cars were parked and backed into the lots, which is not a good reflection on the City or their campus. He reiterated the need to have a discussion on this item and felt that the Master Plan should have some language requiring that Genentech should construct the campus entries before they construct any future buildings. He suggested that the design concepts and phased implementation be submitted within 6 months. City Attorney Mattas noted that these items will be discussed in detail and the Commission can determine if the 6 month timeframe applies to some of these elements and which apply to the annual review. Commissioner Teglia voiced his concern with the Master Plan going to Council without these items. He felt that within 6 months, details such as the location of parking, landscaping, location of roads, exact configuration of the field and location of the food concession should be in place. Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Moore and Commissioner Sim concurred with Commissioner Teglia's comments. Chairperson Prouty also agreed with these comments and noted the importance of the process to have the improvements completed promptly. Ms. Sullivan asked if the Commission was requesting the Forbes terminus, east and west lots, design concepts finalized within 6 months. Chairperson Prouty replied affirmatively. Camaus entries Ms. Sullivan noted that they would like to include the landscape improvements in 3 months and at 6 months the construction schedule will be agreed upon. She pointed out that Genentech would like to submit the design concepts for the campus entries at the one year review because this includes a full understanding of the art program and they would be better able to deliver quality solutions that they feel cannot be fulfilled in 6 months. Commissioner Honan noted that the Commission should determine if Genentech's proposals are the quality the City is looking for and felt that in 6 months the Commission could see some options. Commissioner Sim concurred with Commissioner Honan's comments. Chairperson Prouty felt comfortable with phasing this implementation measure and with finalizing the concepts in a year, but would like to see these concepts in six months to make the appropriate changes. Commissioner Teglia agreed with the other Commissioners and noted that the concepts and scope should be looked at soon. Ms. Sullivan asked if the Commission wanted to review the campus entries and amenities at six months, with all other facts and figures to be reviewed at the annual review. Chairperson Prouty replied affirmatively. Public Hearing closed. Commissioner Honan asked who would maintain and open the public restrooms for Bay Trail and food concession use. She noted the importance of keeping the restrooms available for use 7 days a week but was concerned with leaving them open all night. Ms. Sullivan replied that they will work out this issue. Commissioner Teglia stated that the Commission's recommendation needs to be drafted stating that the Master Plan is moving forward with the public amenities and entrances being subject to a 6 month extension to be completed at which time a determination will be made regarding the implementation and phasing schedules. s:\M~v~utes\~%walCzed r~~wutes\2oo~\os-os-off 2PC MCwutes.doc page ~ o f ii Planning Commission Meeting of March 1, 2007 City Attorney Mattas suggested going through the Implementation Program item by item in order to provide clarity for the Council. He pointed out that the Commission has received, in addition to the Implementation Program, a two page document with corrections to some typographical errors and some non-substantive changes that would be part of the final action. He noted that the first change in the Implementation Program is the language that was added at the beginning and the staff provision that talked about Genentech's compliance with the implementation triggers and the Commission`s ability to add compliance issues as conditions on buildings. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN -Chancres . Land use and Structure Time period to be changed from 3 to 6 months Temporary signs to be installed within 30 days of City Council approval, subject to the review and approval of the Chief Planner. Commissioner Teglia asked if this also requires that the final configuration and designation of the public parking will be reviewed in 6 months. City Attorney Mattas noted that this would be added. Ms. Sullivan stated that this was acceptable. City Attorney Mattas noted that the two parking lots would be part of the six month review on the public improvements. Commissioner Teglia stated that this would also include the point up above, all the shoreline parking and its location City Attorney Mattas stated that this was discussed earlier in the meeting and if the Commission wishes this could be included as part of the 6 month review. Consensus of the Commission to include Commissioner Tecrlia's recommendation. Ms. Sullivan noted her concern with being unable to deliver the temporary signs in 30 days and requested that the Commission change this to be implemented in four months. City Attorney Mattas clarified that the signs would be installed four months from Council approval. He added that a provision will be included into the Implementation Program going to Council that speaks to the six month review of the designated parking spaces. Chairperson Prouty noted that the implementation for both items should be at four months. City Attorney Mattas noted the change to four months for both items. Improvements of food concession 8 public restrooms Specific design concepts will be submitted for Commission review within 6 months. Implementation of the design concepts and the phasing for the implementation would be identified as part of annual report. Commissioner Teglia clarified that at the six month review the Commission will make the determinations as to the specifics including the phasing and the implementation and added that preliminary study sessions will be needed in order to provide Genentech feedback on their proposal. City Attorney Mattas noted that the change would indicate that the phasing of the Implementation Plan would be decided by the Planning Commission as part of their consideration and approval the design concepts at the six month review. Commissioner Teglia added that the direction is that the Commission feels an aggressive Implementation Program schedule should be pursued. Enhanced landscaping adjacent to the Bay Trail Commissioner Teglia stated this should be the same as the other improvements. City Attorney Mattas noted the change. s:\M%vtiutes\~twalCzed r~Cwutes\2oo~\os-oz-off Rpc n~Cwutes.doc page g o f 22 Planning Commission Meeting of March 1, 2007 • Urban Design -Enhanced landscape and pedestrian connectivity along the lower campus central spine City Attorney Mattas noted that the Commission accepted Genentech's request to extend this for three months. Central spine improvements with regards to the six years following the effective date The following statement to be added: "That the six year timeline may be extended by the Planning Commission as part of the annual review in the event that Building 9 remains in its current use after 4 years." Commissioner Teglia noted that this would be done at the discretion of the Commission. City Attorney Mattas confirmed this statement. Commissioner Teglia was concerned with the language and noted that this may be a problem if the development moves towards a different direction. City Attorney Mattas noted by using the word "may' fulfills the Commission's concerns because it is within the discretion of the Planning Commission to move the timeline. Commissioner Teglia asked that some additional language be added that in the event this could be phased in. City Attorney Mattas noted that Ms. Sullivan identified the problem of the building still existing with the docks and if that's the case the Commission can look at it while keeping the timeline and grant an extension if need be. • Lower and West campus connections - No Change Ms. Sullivan asked for clarification with regards to Building 9 if this gave the Commission the discretion to enforce demolition of that building. Commissioner Teglia noted that it will not but it is a factor that could hold up specific applications. Ms. Sullivan noted that their business plan may call for the building to continue existing and felt that they could not accept the change. She explained that the redevelopment of Building 9 is dependant on the facilities going to Oregon, but if they don't she cannot assume that the building will be redeveloped. Commissioner Teglia noted that Genentech can explain their constraints in four years and that they are not calling for the demolition of the building. Ms. Sullivan noted that they could improve the landscaping. Commissioner Teglia further explained that Genentech's decision making process may change and that the redevelopment of areas is something that the City needs to review. City Attorney Mattas noted that there is a provision in the first two pages of the Implementation Program that addresses Genentech's failure to comply with the plan which provides the Commission with the authority to add the improvements or the triggers to future development projects. He added that if Genentech decides to keep the building the Commission has some discretion to see how the intent of the Implementation Program can be satisfied by imposing this as a condition, thus accomplishing the City's goal and satisfying the intent of implementation. • Campus entry at Forbes and DNA Way 6 month review of design concepts • Transportation and Parking City Attorney Mattas noted that the Commission accepted Genentech's request to extend this from three to six months. Ms. Sullivan added that this was for the pedestrian safety implementation. S:\M%wutPS\~~wctf.ized MbwutCS\200~\03-Oi-D~ RFC MiwutPS.dDC vagey of ii Planning Commission Meeting of March 1, 2007 • West Campus -campus entry Change and make consistent with prior direction of reviewing at six months with a phased implementation. Ms. Sullivan clarified that the campus entries should say "design concepts" rather than "specific design concepts" and noted that this will apply only to the campus entry concepts. Commissioner Teglia noted that a scope followed by the Implementation Program and phasing details will be reviewed. Senior Planner Lappen informed the Commission that Genentech has a preliminary proposal to develop three R&D buildings and a parking garage on the area on the west side of Grandview Drive and north of East Grand. He added that a requirement to incorporate a portion of the campus entry as part of this development could be added if the Commission desired. Chairperson Prouty stated that with the 6 month review the Commission can discuss phasing the improvements. Chairperson Prouty asked to receive a copy of all the changes on Monday to allow the Commission time to review the changes prior to the City Council meeting and call a special meeting if needed. City Attorney Mattas noted that a special meeting could be called and cautioned the Commission to be careful and aware of the Brown Act restrictions associated with special meetings. He pointed out that a majority of the Commission or the Chair can call a meeting if they think it is necessary. Commissioner Teglia suggested asking the City Attorney to review the record and correct the document if necessary. City Attorney Mattas asked if Genentech was in agreement with the summarized changes. Ms. Sullivan replied that they are in agreement and would also address any issues if needed. Motion Teglia /Second Honan recommending that the City Council approve the Genentech 10 year facilities Master Plan Update, the Implementation Program, the revised Conditions of Approval based on the City Attorney's summarization. Ayes: Commissioner Zemke, Commissioner Teglia, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Moore, Commissioner Honan, Vice Chairperson Giusti and Chairperson Prouty Noes: None Absent None Abstain: None Approved by roll call vote. Ms. Sullivan thanked the Commission and staff for the hard work on the Master Plan. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS ITEMS FROM STAFF None City Attorney Mattas informed the Commission that Sky Woodruff will be assisting the Commission at their meetings. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION Commissioner Honan noted that Starbucks is dirty and needs to be cleaned up. Chief Planner Kalkin noted that she would look into it prior to their review. Commissioner Teglia noted that outdoor displays were permitted in some areas of the City. He pointed out that some businesses have illegal outdoor displays and asked staff to review these. s:~%wutes~~Cwa6tzed rn~wutes~:zoo~~os-oi-off Rpc M%wutes.doc page 20 of ii Planning Commission Meeting of March 1, 2007 Chairperson Prouty complemented staff for their hard work on projects and making sure that they are developed according to the plans. ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC None ADJOURNMENT 10:00 P.M. Motion Honan /Second Teglia to adjourn the meeting. Appro d b nan' ous voice vote. f Sus alkin John ut ; C airp on Secretary t the Planning Commission g C miss" n City of South San Francisco City f So San Francisco SK/bla S:\Mi,wutes\~%wctl%zed M%wutes\2o0~\03-01-0~ RPC Miwutes.doc PGi9e 11 0 f 11