Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-11-20MINUTES November 20, 2008 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO RF;GULAR PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER /PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL /CHAIR COMMENTS ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioner Moore, Commissioner Oborne, Commissioner Prouty, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Zemke, Vice Chairperson Teglia, and Chairperson Giusti. ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Chief Planner Susy Kalkin, Senior Planner Carlson, Senior Planner Beaudin, Associate Planner Gross, Administrative Assistant Aguilar, Senior Civil Engineer Bautista, Sergeant Kallas, Fire Marshal Da Silva, and Assistant City Attorney Grossman. AGENDA REVIEW Chief Planner Kalkin noted there were no changes to the agenda. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS CONSENT CALENDAR Approval of meeting minutes of November 6, 2008. Motion Commissioner Prouty 1 Second Vice Chairperson Teglia to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion approved by the majority voice vote. Commissioner Sim -abstaining. PUBLIC HEARING 2. Sign Ordinance Zoning Text Amendment City of South San Francisco/applicant Citywide P08-0093: ZA08-0006 Text Amendment -Sign Ordinance text amendment to section 20.76.170 Special Circumstances, to allow employee oriented signs for multi-building campus-like facilities in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.76 & 20.86. Senior Planner Beaudin presented the staff report. There being no speakers the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Sim noted that he had no issues with the zoning text amendment. Commissioner Prouty was concerned that the text amendment would cause a slew of signs on many of the small campuses in the City. He explained his concern with setting a precedent when Genentech applied for November 20, 2008 Minutes Page 1 of 10 these types of banners, although the Assistant City Attorney assured him that the banners were only being approved for large campuses that met the criteria outlined in the proposed text amendment. Commissioner Sim noted that the Commission has discretion over where the signs are approved. Commissioner Prouty was especially concerned with not being able to deny these signs if they met all the requirements both on the east and west sides of 101. Susy Kalkin, Chief Planner clarified that staff is being responsive to the City Council's request to allow this for other campuses. She provided additional criteria that would apply to banner sign programs such as minimum campus size and a multi building campus requirement. Commissioner Prouty was supportive of using multiple buildings as a threshold in order to minimize the number of applications for signs of this type. He added that a 400,000 thousand square foot building could have a banner under the current standard. He observed that the City has made a conscious effort to reduce the amount of advertising and does not want to create a sign problem. Commissioner Sim stated that the staff report explains that the signs are only for multi building campus scenarios. Commissioner Prouty noted that a minimum number of buildings can create a shield from the public view. Vice Chairperson Teglia noted the Genentech Master Plan amendment was only for internal streets and stated that by looking at staff's proposed language the sign could not face the public right-of-way. He further noted that a single building would not qualify even if it meets the square foot requirement. He opined that the language is good to protect against Commissioner Prouty's concern and questioned if additional requirements such as increasing the square footage should be included. Chief Planner Kalkin added that staff looked at square footage thresholds and more than one building to determine where these signs could be discreetly placed. Commissioner Prouty agreed to have the signs in a discreet location and did not encourage them on the west side of 101. Senior Planner Beaudin commented that the language is stronger than what was used with the Genentech Master Plan Amendment. Vice Chairperson Teglia recommended having an additional condition that the sign be of a size that can be hidden from public view. Chief Planner Kalkin noted that this type of sign program is discretionary and it is not intended to be used for general advertising purposes but employee oriented. Commissioner Prouty stated that if the Commission does not like a certain application, the applicant may have cause of action because they are not being treated fairly. Chief Planner Kalkin explained that 400,000 square feet is a substantial size business in the community. Commissioner Moore stated that the language states the Commission may deny the project. Commissioner Oborne clarified that a "discretionary" application also applies to location, aesthetics and other items and is not limited to size. Commissioner Zemke questioned if there was a size limitation on the signs. Senior Planner Beaudin stated that there is not a size limitation on the signs because the variables are very broad and the site opportunities are very different which is why the Type C sign permit process requires staff, Design Review Board and Planning Commission reviews. Vice Chairperson Teglia stated that the Genentech signs benefit the employees and excite the public. He added that the aesthetics need to be bold and vibrant, yet subtle. He pointed out that these types of signs need to be discretionary and questioned if staff needs to add more requirements based on the Commission's discussion. He asked if the City could require that the message be of a general public or private benefit that meets the aesthetic approval of the Commission. Assistant City Attorney Grossman replied that the City has limited authority to regulate the copy of the signs and only restrict the sign to be associated with the business or entity. Vice Chairperson Teglia questioned if the City could require the sign be of pleasing aesthetics. November 20, 2008 Minutes Pagc 2 of 10 Commissioner Sim recalled that the Commission encouraged a gallery effect on the Grand Avenue Comerica bank and noted that the Commission cannot dictate what they put on signs, but they don't want the signs to be commercialized. Vice Chairperson Teglia noted that all the campuses are on the East of 101 area and inquired if the Ordinance can be limited to the East of 101 area. Chief Planner Kalkin replied that this could be limited in this manner but added that these types of programs have been used in hospitals or similar facilities. Commissioner Prouty asked if the City could restrict advertising on the signs or not. Assistant City Attorney Grossman clarified that there is a requirement that the copy relate to the entity that is requesting the permit. He added that the company could have a sign that promotes their products but not one that promotes another business. Commissioner Sim questioned how the sign ordinance would relate to a sign that is on the inside of an atrium window and can be seen by the public. Chief Planner Kalkin stated that if the ordinance regulates the sign the Commission would have purview over it and added that the issue arises on defining a sign versus a backdrop in the lobby. Motion vice Chairperson Teglia /Second Commissioner Zemke adopting resolution 2678-2008 recommending that the City Council approve P08-0093: ZA08-0006 with the additional recommendation that it be limited to the East of 101 business area. The motion approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Moore, Commissioner Oborne, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Zemke, Vice Chairperson Teglia, and Chairperson Giusti NAYS: Commissioner Prouty. 3. Type "C" South Campus Banner Program Genentech, Inclapplicant HCP Life Science Estates/owner 470 E Grand Avenue P08-0080: DR08-0039 & Signs08-0049 Type "C" Sign Permit to allow employee oriented signs at the Genentech South Campus located 450 & 640 East Grand Avenue in the Planned Industrial Zone (P-I) District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.32, 20.76, 20.85 & 20.86 Public Hearing opened. Senior Planner Beaudin presented the staff report. Commissioner Prouty questioned if the overlay district included this site. Chief Planner Kalkin clarified that the overlay district includes Genentech owned properties and this site is leased by Genentech. Shar Zamanpour, Genentech Inc., commented that Geraldine O'Connor and Andrew Keller were also present. She provided a presentation on the South Campus banners to the Commission. There being no speakers the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Prouty noted his support for the project and said that he would be in support of future sign applications that reflect the standards that Genentech has set. Commissioner Zemke and Ms. Zamanpour discussed repairing the signs if there is wear and tear on them prior to the annual change. Ms. Zamanpour replied to Chairperson Giusti's question with regards to having multiple pictures on the sign that the composition will remain the same but the content will change and only one individual will be featured on each sign. Novcmbcr 20, 2008 Minutes Pagc 3 of l0 Commissioner Moore and Ms. Zamanpour discussed the colors and meaning of the photos and the elements involved. Commissioner Sim questioned how the signs look at night. Ms. Zamanpour replied that the signs disappear because they are lit from the interior and many lights are off or dim at night. Motion Vice Chairperson Teglia I Second Commissioner Sim to approve P08-0080: DR08-0039 & Signs08-0049. Approved by unanimous voice vote. Commissioner Moore recommended that future applicants should follow these signs as an example 4. Parking Comp of America Airport/applicant Hanna, Elias S/owner 160 Produce Ave P06-0088: PUD 07- 0003, UP06-0020 & DR06-0072 (Continued from October 16, 2008) Commercial Planned Unit Development Permit allowing a combined on-site and off-site landscape area of 14,113 square feet instead of the minimum requirement of 47,350 square feet. Use Permit and Design Review allowing a new canopy entry and landscaping, 24-hour operation, generating in excess of 100 average daily vehicle trips vehicles, fences greater than 3 feet in height within the minimum required street setbacks, and expanding the existing commercial parking use on several lots adjacent to San Mateo Drive(APNs 015-113-210, 015-113-290, 015-113-330 thru 350, 015-113-440, 015-114-390, 015-114-420, 015-114-450 thru 500), in the Planned Industrial (P-I) and the Industrial (M-1) Zoning Districts, in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.30, 20.32, 20.73, 20.81, 20.84 & 20.85 Senior Planner Carlson presented the staff report. Commissioner Prouty questioned if a combination of the three concepts can be used to create a new concept plan. Senior Planner Carlson stated that this is within the purview of the Planning Commission and added that staff had suggested a Planned Unit Development to allow the Commission some latitude with the plan. Vice Chairperson Teglia was concerned with the vehicle entry and asked if the City had approved the current site entry on Produce Avenue. Senior Planner Carlson replied that there was an entry approved when the lots were merged. Vice Chairperson Teglia reiterated his traffic safety concern with the entry on Produce and noted that without a traffic deceleration lane, the entry would not work. Marty Olrick, Counsel for Parking Companies of America Airports (PCAA), clarified that they are a different entity from the previous business owner. He pointed out that the traffic safety issues are due to high speeds of cars on Produce. He suggested that the buses enter through Terminal Court and that the customers enter through Produce Avenue. He pointed out options to reduce parking including speed bumps, traffic signals, stop signs, and lowering the speed limit. He noted that he can provide detailed information on the number of cars that enter the site in lieu of a traffic study. Mr. Olrick continued by stating that any of the three plans will reduce the parking spaces by 7-10% which is a significant loss for them with the current economy. He further noted that they will request a Variance to minimize the 10% landscape requirement resulting in quality, neater and cleaner landscaping. He informed the Commission that they are still in negotiations with the current owner to make an investment in the community. Steve Kikuchi, Kikuchi and Associates, showed the Planning Commission 3 concepts that they are proposing. He noted that concept A achieves the 10% minimum requirement, but is over landscaped and noted that landscaping needs to be placed strategically rather than to simply reach a percentage requirement. He further noted that concepts B and C have a 90 degree entrance and a larger queuing area resulting in a reduction in landscaping and loss of usable parking spaces. Vice Chairperson Teglia stated that the flattening out the entrance could help and pointed out that the main traffic safety issues have not involved buses but rather small cars. He pointed out that option B was a favorable choice for him with a flat driveway. Senior Planner Carlson pointed out that the driveway does not meet City standards and noted that neither options B and C would change the traffic safety of the driveway November 20, 2008 Minutes Pagc 4 of 10 entry. He further noted that the proposed traffic study would focus on the flow of street traffic and not the volume of cars coming in and out of the property, and that without a study, staff cannot advise the Commissioner. He concluded that a traffic study would not be required if the entry were relocated to Terminal Court. Commissioner Prouty agreed with staff and also understood the applicant's concern with providing landscaping and a traffic study while they are negotiating lease extensions. He also looked favorably upon concept B because it would make ingress easier but the egress still looks difficult. He suggested including the perimeter landscaping and aisle 2 landscaping from concept A, as well as the stealthing of the maintenance building with landscaping. He concluded that the use permit needs to require the buses to enter and exit through Terminal Court. Senior Planner Carlson observed that the applicant seeks to re-establishing the entrance on Produce, but it may be a more effective solution to use the funds on the Terminal Court entry. Commissioner Oborne questioned if there is a cost assessment for the modification. Mr. Orlick noted that there has been some discussion to do so but was not aware that it had occurred. He informed the Commission that the proposals made for Produce are the most effective because Terminal Court cannot handle the volumes leaving and entering the site. Commissioner Sim stated that the option is conceptual and encouraged the applicant to show other potential options and reasons as to why it doesn't work, and added that there is no evidence that it does not work. He further noted that a licensed engineer needs to ensure that this is an entry that will work. Mr. Orlick stated that their traffic engineers are licensed and qualified and indicated that they will provide a conceptual study for Terminal Court. He explained that the parking lot needs upgrades because the surface is not suitable for one of the top parking companies in the Country. He was concerned about creating landscaping to fulfill requirements but felt more comfortable beautifying for functionality. Commissioner Sim and Commissioner Prouty requested that the plans show dimensions and aisle widths. Commissioner Prouty reiterated his safety concerns with regards to the entrance and added that he is willing to waive the traffic study if the entrance is moved to Terminal Court. He felt comfortable with reducing the 10% landscaping requirement as long as there is perimeter landscaping. He reiterated his recommendation to combine the option B entry with the perimeter landscaping from option and screening of the maintenance building. Commissioner Oborne stated that the Commission would like to see viable options to move the entry to Terminal and encouraged the applicant to show how some of the concepts will work rather to concentrate on how they will not work. Vice Chairperson Teglia stressed the importance for the applicant to work with staff and allow them enough time to review the concepts because they are relied upon to determine whether these concepts will work or not. He recommended moving the entrance to Terminal Court and maintain an exit on Produce Avenue. He also noted being open to the reduction of the landscaping requirement if it were removed from behind the gas station and placed in strategic areas such as the corner of Produce and Terminal. Vice Chairperson Teglia suggested that the applicant work out the lease agreements as soon as possible. Mr. Orlick reported that it is not simple because they are dealing with different owners and when family members are involved negotiating leases is difficult. Commissioner Sim stated that the site can be seen from the freeway and is concerned how the landscaping will look on the site. Mr. Orlick stated that they intend to beautify the site from the exterior and they will provide safety, functionality and security inside the lot. Commissioner Sim noted his preference to landscape the corner and pointed out that the applicant can contribute to the cultural arts fund. Mr. Orlick reassured the Commission that they will provide the landscaping given that they are allowed some flexibility. November 20, 2008 Minutes Page 5 ofi 10 Vice Chairperson Teglia questioned when the applicant plans to work with staff on the project modifications. Mr. Orlick noted that he is moving forward with the leases and will have Mr. Kikuchi work on the Terminal Court vision. He added that they will provide specific details and dimensions if staff needs them. Commissioner Prouty clarified that there need to be some trees in the parking lot but does not want to either over landscape or under landscape the site. He pointed out that there seems to be enough space on Terminal Court to use as an entrance. He added that entering the site from Produce is causing the problems and exiting from the site is not. Commissioner Sim question what comments the Design Review Board (DRB) had on the project. Senior Planner Carlson replied that staff took the item to the DRB for comments on the landscaping plan and not on layout because it was not an agendised item. He suggested to have one tree for every 12 cars on the lot and asked the Commission to clarify if they want the applicant to meet the 10% landscaping or if going below that requirement is supported by the Commission. Vice Chairperson Teglia noted that the Commission is open minded and the density of plan A can be reduced but can also increase the density on the corner of Terminal and Produce or in areas that need to be screened, like behind the Shell station and other unenjoyable areas. Commissioner Sim pointed out that he will be looking for macro scale (corner treatment) and micro scale (freeway) treatments. Senior Planner Carlson suggested that the Commission could phase the landscaping requirements so that a variance would not be required. Motion--Commissioner Sim (Second--Commissioner Moore to continue P06-0088: PUD 07- 0003, UP06- 0020 & DR06-0072 to December 18, 2008. Approved by unanimous voice vote. Kais Broadway/applicant LBA, REALTY FUND III - WB/owner 800 DUBUQUE AVE P08-0057: UP08-0008, DR08-0026, VAR08-0006 & TDM08-00004 Use Permit and Design Review allowing an outdoor emergency generator at an existing multi-tenant building, Transportation Demand Management Plan to reduce vehicle trips and parking, and a Variance to reduce parking to a total of 293 spaces instead of the minimum requirement of 325 spaces, situated at 810 Dubuque Avenue (APN 015-021-030), in the Planned Commercial (P-C) Zone District, in accordance with SSFMC Sections 20.24.070(b) and Chapters 20.81, 20.85 & 20.120. Senior Planner Carlson presented the staff report. Public Hearing opened. Vice Chairperson Teglia expressed his dislike for the current generator on the site. Paul Thometz, site manager, noted he had only recently been made aware of the intensification issue. He was concerned that adding traffic impact and other fees would be an issue because they do not have tenants at the moment for two vacant spaces. He pointed out that they are committed to the TDM plan. There being no speakers the Public hearing was closed. Commissioner Prouty concurred with Vice Chairperson Teglia with regards to the generator and its being visible from Lowe's. He suggested moving the generator to a different location and added that picture 6 shows a beautiful fence with landscaping while picture 7 shows a generator box which is not fair to Lowe's. Senior Planner Carlson clarified that the new generator is going to be adjacent to the building but will still be visible from the Lowe's site. Mr. Thometz added that the enclosure will fully stealth the generator. Commissioner Prouty questioned the possibility of putting the generators together. Mr. Thometz noted that they will address screening the existing generator with additional landscaping. Novcmbcr 20, 2008 Minutes Pagc b of I 0 Senior Planner Carlson noted that when the owner fills the vacant spaces they will need a Use Permit and suggested that at that time the plans include the utility yards. Vice Chairperson Teglia stated that multiple generators do not seem to be workable and suggested having one generator for the entire building. He also suggest storing the generator within the building in the vacant space to support entire building and is open to a short term solution. Mr. Thometz Mr. noted that the property owners cannot provide generators because of liability issues and added that they could have an architectural concept to screen them with future tenants. Vice Chairperson Teglia noted that he does not have any issues with approving the application before the Commission but also pointed out that the current owner needs to be put on notice that any future applications will require moving the generator on page 8. Motion--Vice Chairperson TeglialSecond--Commissioner Prouty to approve P08-0057: UP08-0008, DR08-0026, VARO8-0006 & TDM08-0004. Approved by unanimous voice vote. On the question: Commissioner Sim noted that some of the parking spaces were lost and noted that there needs to be landscaping there. Senior Planner Carlson noted that this could be added. Motion--Vice Chairperson TeglialSecond--Commissioner Prouty to amend the previous motion to include possible landscape strip directly adjacent to the new generator enclosure. Approved by unanimous voice vote. ADMINSTRATIVE BUSINESS 9. Study Session Susy Kalkin, Chief Planner requested that item #9 be continued to the December 4 meeting due to the full agenda at this meeting and no agenda on the 4th. Chairperson Giusti noted that the Commission was in concurrence to do so. PUBLIC HEARING 6. Type "C" -Master Sign Program S&W Signs/applicant Citi Garden Hotel/owner 245 S AIRPORT BLVD P08-0039: DR08-0018 & Signs08-0024 Type "C" Master Sign Program for the CitiGarden Hotel and Beijing Buffet at 245 So. Airport Blvd. in the Planned Commercial Zone (P-C-L) District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.24, 20.85 & 20.86 Senior Planner Beaudin presented staff report. David King, SFO Goodnite Inn counsel, stated that they have made a good effort to upgrade the facility and are committed to correct remaining issues identified by Code Enforcement. He was concerned with the sign on the brick fascia being classified as redundant because it is visible from the freeway exit and added that the westerly facing banner cannot be seen due to the PG&E electrical towers. He stated that staff is requesting that the monument sign be removed but added that there was a sign there at one time and understood that the corner, which is blighted, needs to be addressed which is why they have proposed a monument sign. He added that the signs being recommended for approval do not provide adequate visibility. He concluded that the code calls for the property owner to show that there are special circumstances for an abandoned sign. There being no speakers the Public Hearing was closed. November 20, 2008 Minutes Page 7 of 10 Vice Chairperson Teglia suggested that the mound with a monument sign on the top could be aesthetically pleasing. Chief Planner Kalkin noted that staff does not object to working with the applicant on adequate signage for the hotel but have had difficulty on redesigning certain signs. Mr. King noted that they would not have any issue with working on the signs with staff. Commissioner Prouty felt that the pole sign does not meet the requirements of the sign ordinance and agreed that the monument sign could be worked on. He pointed out that banner signs need to be removed and added that he was also comfortable with the brick fascia sign. Commissioner Zemke agreed with Commissioner Prouty with regards to the pole sign not being needed and supported having the monument sign removed. He pointed out that sign A denotes the facility and concluded that the pole sign is not needed. Mr. King addressed the Commission's comments and stated that his photographs show the pole sign is the only one that can be seen from Mitchell and So Airport Boulevard. He also stated that the pole sign is a significant structure that would be very expensive to remove. Commissioner Prouty stated that the pole sign was identified as abandoned and needed to be removed after 90 days. He pointed out that the Commission has approved monument signs and encouraged the applicant to work on its design. He suggested that the item be continued to allow the applicant to work with staff on the monument sign design. Mr. King stated that one Commissioner was looking favorably on the brick fascia sign and encouraged the rest of the Commission to look into the sign. He pointed out that the proposed lettering on the brick fascia is more attractive and identifies the location of the hotel. He requested that the Commission allow the additional sign. Commissioner Sim stated that he had issues with the look of the fascia sign on the brick element and noted that he could support most of the signs if other hotels in the City have similar signs. He pointed out that he was not in favor of the pole sign and could work with the applicant on the monument sign as long as details are submitted. He noted that a spot elevation needs to done and submitted to the Commission to establish the recessing height for the monument sign. Senior Planner Beaudin added that there is flexibility on the sign program and stated that staff has requested information from the applicant for several months and are willing to work with them to achieve the signage needed for the site. Commissioner Sim agreed with staff's conclusion that the brick sign is repetitive. Senior Planner Beaudin stated that the brick sign is also a concern because it is obscured by trees and power lines. Mr. King requested that the Commission give them the opportunity to document their position with additional photographs. Commissioner Prouty suggested continuing the item to allow the applicant to provide a better presentation. Vice Chairperson Teglia commented that there is no logo and the hotel name is so long that it gets reduced due to the amount of space available on the sign. Mr. King responded that a logo was proposed but staff requested that it be removed from the signs. Senior Planer Beaudin clarified that staff requested that the sign program be consistent throughout and have quality design. Motion--Commissioner Prouty /Second--Commissioner Sim to continueP08-0039: DR08-0018 & Signs08- 0024 off calendar and have the application return to the DRB. Approved by unanimous voice vote. Senior Planner Beaudin clarified that the changes are as follows: the pole sign needs to be removed, the monument sign is to be modified and the two facade signs colors need to be reviewed. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS County of San Mateo/applicant County of San Mateo/owner 1050 Mission Rd P08-0094: PCA08-0006 November 20, 2008 Minutes Page 8 of 10 General Plan Conformity finding for a proposed transfer of real property interests in the County of San Mateo north county court facility to the State of California, situated at 1050 Mission Road (APN 011-302-250), in the Multi-Family Residential Zone District (R-3-L), in accordance with provisions of the State of California Government Code Sections 65402 and 70301-70404. Senior Planner Carlson presented the staff report. Vice Chairperson Teglia stated that the County Health and Human Services are not part of the General Plan conformity finding and questioned if the holding facility was part of it. Senior Planner Carlson noted that he was not aware that it was but would look into it. Chairperson Giusti questioned if the Commission can request that the landscaping be improved in front of the building. Senior Planner Carlson noted that the Commission could request this separate from this General Plan consistency finding. Vice Chairperson Teglia expressed concern with the holding facility and pointed out that the City has been adamant that it not become a full time jail facility. He questioned if the Commission should be looking out for certain things that could help or hurt this. Senior Planner Carlson noted that the County is trying to conform to state law and have the State maintain the court facilities. Commissioner Prouty also expressed concern with the holding facility turning into a jail. Senior Planner Carlson explained that the Commission is only being asked to determine if the site conforms to the General Plan. Vice Chairperson Teglia asked Assistant City Attorney Grossman if the Commission could include something in their finding that a jail would not be in keeping with the residential character of the area. Assistant City Attorney Grossman replied that the policy can be reiterated to the County, but the Commission is only being asked to take a limited action stating that the prospective property transfer conforms to the General Plan. Motion--Vice Chairperson TeglialSecond--Commissioner Zemke to approve P08-0094: PCA08-0006 with clarification that the policy as stated by Vice Chairperson Teglia be reiterated. Approved by unanimous voice vote. 8. Use Permit -Medical Services Smith, Kathleen/owner Chas Jones/Applicant 91 WESTBOROUGH BLVD P08-0064: UP08-0009 & DR08-0028 Review building exterior of color scheme and "green screen" details for the generator enclosure. Associate Planner Gross presented the staff report. Commissioner Sim noted that he was pleased with the details as submitted Vice Chairperson Teglia questioned which color was preferred. Associate Planner Gross replied that the preferred color is sea pine. David Spurgs, project architect, stated that the building color needs to be compatible with the landscaping. He noted that the sea pine is a good color selection for the entire building. Motion--Commissioner ZemkelSecond--Commissioner Sim to approve the color scheme and "green screen" details P08-0064. Approved by unanimous voice vote. Mr. Spurgs requested that they reserve the option color. The Planning Commission noted that there were no issues with doing so. November 20, 2003 Minutes Pagc 9 of l0 Study Session Zoning Ordinance Update Citywide P07-0136: ZA07-0007 Zoning Ordinance Update Use Regulation Module #1 -Base District regulation discussion including the land use for each of the base zones. Continued to December 4, 2008. STEMS FROM STAFF ITEMS FROM COMMISSION Commissioner Sim requested that staff look at the window sign requirements specific to the Washington Mutual in the Fairfield Development. Commissioner Prouty also questioned if staff had spoken to Washington Mutual with regards to the awning issue to which Chief Planner Kalkin noted that staff is looking into that and the tree issue previously brought up. Commissioner Sim questioned if there was an ordinance in place to restrict the number of dogs. He also observed that the trash bins at the Transit Village project seem to stay out all day and requested that staff look into having them placed them inside the lot. Vice Chairperson Teglia added that the property management staff should place them in the trash enclosures after the trash has been picked up. ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Giusti adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m. _~ -~< Susy Kalkin /- Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco Mary G' sti, Chairperson Planning Commission City of South San Francisco SK/bla November 20, 2008 Minutes Page 10 of l0