Serena Ponzo, Planner II made a presentation and answered questions of the Commissioners.
Commissioner Thompson inquired if Biotechnology or Laboratory uses are defined in the San Carlos Municipal Code.
Serena Ponzo, Planner II indicated that the code only has a definition for Research and Development uses.
Commissioner Divney questioned if Condition #9, which requires removal of waste by Allied Waste should be revised to address future waste removal companies should Allied Waste no longer be the primary waste removal company.Commissioner Divney questioned Condition #11, which requires a re-review by the Planning Department for changes in tenant space allocations.
Serena Ponzo, Planner II explained as associated with a staff level review for new tenants.
Commissioner Divney questioned Condition #15, which requires Planning Department review for exterior improvements and requested clarification on what “exterior improvements” refer to.
Greg Rubens, Deputy City Attorney stated that the referenced improvement is intended to include construction improvements.
Commissioner Iwasa inquired on Condition #14, which requires Planning Department approval for all new signage, and requested confirmation if the Planning Commission would review the new signage.
Serena Ponzo, Planner II, replied that the San Carlos Municipal Code lists specific types of signage to be reviewed by the Planning Commission, including Pole Signs; however, typical building signage and monument signs are permitted to be reviewed at a staff level.
Mr. Greg Bunton, applicant, made himself available to answer any questions of the Commissioners.
Commissioner Divney questioned if any noise impacts will exist with the new biotechnology and laboratory uses.
Greg Bunton, applicant replied that there are no anticipated noise impacts associated with the uses.
Commissioner Divney inquired on the loading for the facilities and where the loading will occur.
Greg Bunton, applicant, indicated that both buildings have loading areas at the north and south ends of the buildings. The applicant then clarified the reason for the request is to broaden the range of allowable uses for the site with a streamlined timeline.
Chair Royce opened the Public Comment.
Scot Marsters, San Carlos resident, asked are there guidelines for chemicals and hazardous uses associated with radioactive substances.
Greg Rubens, Deputy City Attorney highlighted Condition #9C, which requires each new tenant to comply with policies and regulations of regulating agencies for Laboratory and Biotechnology uses.
Serena Ponzo, Planner II noted that each new tenant is required to be reviewed by consisting with the Municipal Code requirements including the Belmont – San Carlos Fire Department requirements to insure all safety requirements are met.
M/S Phillips/Divney to close Public Comment.
Commissioner Thompson commented that the proposal would be a good use for the property.
The Commission discussed staff to make changes to the Draft Use Permit as follows:
Amend Condition #1 to remove “within the building”.
Amend Condition #6 to include “for purposes of this use permit” after defined.
Amend Condition #9b to include “or its successor” after Allied Waste.
Amend Condition #11 to remove “re-review” and insert “approval”.
Commissioner Divney directed staff to make changes to the Draft Use Permit as follows;
Amend Condition #15 to remove “improvements” and insert “changes/alterations”.
Amend Condition #9f to include “and all other applicable regulatory agencies”.
Commissioner Thompson questioned concerning Condition #6, which includes definitions for laboratory and biotechnology uses, and where the language came from.
Stephanie Bertollo Davis, Planner III, stated that Staff derived the language of Condition #6 based on research conducted on the industry standards, the applicant’s proposal and definitions from other municipalities in the area.
M/S Phillips/Thompson to approve the Conditional Use Permit Amendment with revisions to Conditions #1, #6, #9b, #9f, #11 and #15 as discussed.Motion passed 5-0.
Stephanie Bertollo Davis, Planner III made a presentation on the item and answered questions of the Commission.
Commissioner Divney asked whether Condition #9, pertaining to requirements of the Public Works Department, was a standard condition.
Stephanie Bertollo Davis, Planner III indicated this will be to address any future requirements of the Public Works Department associated with the project proposal.
Commissioner Thompson asked if Condition #7, pertaining to the recycling ordinance, was a standard condition.
Stephanie Bertollo Davis, Planner III stated this is a template condition used if the project triggers the recycling requirement.She then added that the proposal has been reviewed by the Building Department for preliminary comments and was included as a condition based on this review.
Commissioner Thompson feels Condition #7, pertaining to the recycling ordinance, is not written well.
Commissioner Iwasa asked why full size plans illustrating the layout of the existing residence were not submitted for this project since an architectural review was part of the application.
Stephanie Bertollo Davis, Planner III detailed the location of the proposed improvements in relation to the existing residence.
Commissioner Iwasa asked where the rear wall of the addition is in relation to the house.
Stephanie Bertollo Davis, Planner III stated that the addition will not be accessible from the interior of the main residence and utilized the elevation drawing to describe where the addition is to be located.
Commissioner Thompson asked whether the stone work would go completely around the house or only on three sides.
Stephanie Bertollo Davis, Planner III indicated that the stone work is proposed for all exposed finished facades.
Commissioner Thompson noted it will be difficult to make a decision on this project without the colors and materials.
Stephanie Bertollo Davis, Planner III suggested staff will make note of this for future applications.
Commissioner Phillips mentioned the uniqueness of the site and that the addition cannot be seen from the front of the home. He further stated he believed that it is a quality house and that the applicant is proposing a quality addition.
Chair Royce asked the applicant to speak on behalf of the project.
John Stewart, applicant explained the addition, and referred to the rock color submitted. He answered questions of the Commission and stated he did not anticipate five tons of debris resulting as outlined in per Condition #7. He asked if a soils report was required for this project
Stephanie Bertollo Davis, Planner III responded that the plans were routed the Building Department for the preliminary review in which it was determined that the project was subject to a soils report.
Commissioner Divney questioned whether Condition #8c was redundant to #8a.
Stephanie Bertollo Davis, Planner III responded yes.
Commissioner Divney discussed if Condition #7 or 8c should be deleted and concluded that he felt Condition #7 should be deleted.
John Stewart, applicant asked if Condition #8a could have a change in the language.
Commissioner Phillips suggested the use of “may be” instead of “shall be.”
Stephanie Bertollo Davis, Planner III explained that Condition #8a was subject to the review and approval by the Chief Building Official who had the discretion to amend the requirements.
M/S Divney/Royce to close Public Hearing.
Commissioner Iwasa asked what the lot coverage regulations were for adjacent lots 21 and 23.
Stephanie Bertollo Davis, Planner III indicated the regulation for lot 21 is 24% and is 25% for lot 23.
Commissioner Iwasa asked if any of the neighbors have come forward to speak on the project.
Stephanie Bertollo Davis, Planner III confirmed no public comment nor inquires have been received to date.
Commissioner Iwasa questioned how the lot coverage numbers came about.
Stephanie Bertollo Davis, Planner III replied the consistency with surrounding zoning regulations, General Plan designations and any physical site constraints.
Commissioner Iwasa asked how large the house was.
Stephanie Bertollo Davis stated the home was 2,512 square feet, which is below the floor area threshold.
Commissioner Thompson indicated that colors and materials are very helpful for all future applications and he is in support of the project.
M/S Iwasa/Phillips to approve the Conditional Use Permit with the deletion of Condition #7 and revisions to Conditions #8 the deletion of the text tenant, #8a the deletion of geological and geotechnical reports and #9 the addition of in conjunction with this application as discussed.Motion passed 5-0.
Stephanie Bertollo Davis, Planner III presented the Commission with City Council action from the September 24, 2007 City Council meeting, including the appointments made to the General Plan Advisory Committee.
Commissioner Divney discussed formalizing a definition of “biotechnology uses” within the San Carlos Municipal Code.
Stephanie Bertollo Davis, Planner III responded that an appropriate time might be during the Planning Department’s annual Clean Up Ordinance to the Zoning Title.
Stephanie Bertollo Davis, Planner III informed the Commission that the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting is October 15, 2007 for consideration of three (3) items: a Conditional Use Permit at 920 Buckland Avenue for additional cellular antennas on an existing cellular pole, a Conditional Use Permit at 165 El Camino for the education instructional facility “Kumon” and a Conditional Use Permit at 920 Industrial Road for a “Quizno’s Sandwiches”.
