Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2008-03-26~~~YI sAN~, o`{~ ~~ ="~~91 F=. "'~ - r ~ o --- ~-~'`" r'~LIFOR~~`' iiIII 1 .Jr,E~ CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICE BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2008 CALL TO ORDER TIME: ROLL CALL: 7:31 p.111. Present: Councilmen Addiego, Galbarino and Mullin, Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto and Mayor Gonzalez. Absent: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: INVOCATION: PRESENTATIONS None. Led by Mayor Gonzalez. Pastor John Cantley, Grace Covenant Church. Cancer Awareness Fundraiser: "Yearn South City Cares presents GO PURPLE!"- presented by Je1111ifer Obina, South San Francisco High School Senior. South San Francisco High School Senior Jennifer Obina appeared to promote a Cancer Awareness fundraiser and related events, including GO PURPLE and the American Cancer Society's relay for life. Ms. Obina explained that a lunchtime GO PURPLE event would take place at South San Francisco High School on April 10, 2008 and Council and residents were encouraged to wear purple on the same day. Relay for Life would take place on April 11 & 12, 2008 at Stanford University and would be a 24 hour relay beginning at dusk on the 11th. Ms. Obina encouraged anyone wishing to participate in GO PURPLE to send pictures to southcit c~~gmail.com. Donations relating to the Relay for Life event could be made at wwvv.cancer.org. AGENDA REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS ITEMS FROM COUNCIL None. None. Announcements Committee Reports Councilmembers reported on attendance at community meetings and events and announced upcoming programs, including a presentation on. Global Warming by Dr. Andrew Gunther that would take place on Monday, Apri128, 2008 fiom 6-7:30 pm in the Community Room of the Municipal Services Building. Council further spoke regarding public improvements, including a possible loan art piece froth Tangle Toys, and noted staff efforts, including the Fire Department's worm to assist a resident on Tyrone Ct. Specific items for further action and/or consideration were set forth as follows: Councilman Mullin reported that the CCAG Legislative Committee, which he sits on, took formal action. opposing Proposition 98 and supporting Proposition 99 appearing on the June 8, 2008 ballot. He further reported on a meeting he had with PG&E executives regarding the Westborough power grid, which had experienced frequent outages. He plazuled to participate in two meetings a year with the representatives. Finally, he wal-~Zed that if the County Board of S?~pervisors' position on the Cow Palace comes to fruition, the City may lose TOT revenue based upon decreased occupancy in South San Francisco Hotels. Councilman Garbarino sought and received Council's consensus to agendize a discussion related to reducing Board and Commission term limits to permit a total of 12 years of consecutive service as opposed to the current 16 year limit applicable to most Boards and Commissions. Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto reported on a proposal relating to mandates that cities clean certain water that ultimately flows into the bay. She noted that state legislators need to be brought in to address funding issues related to the proposal. She further requested a semi-annual report on the City's sustainability efforts and programs. Mayor Gonzalez reported that members of the Styrofoam Industry wish to address Council prior to the time a Styrofoam Ordinance is adopted. Discussion and decision on whether to join in. Mayors' letter against illegal. guns. Mayor Gonzalez explained that the Council had been invited to join a letter by the Mayor's Coalition Against Illegal Guns. The letter aimed to bring national attention to the issues of illegal guns and gun violence and focused on crime control as opposed to gun control. Council determined to join the letter. Consideration of Sub-committee recommendation to close the Farmer's Market for the 2008 Season. Assistant to the City Manager Kennedy explained that since Council's direction in January, staff and the Farmer's Market Subcommittee had been considering options for relocating the Farmer's Market for the 2008 Season. Due to various issues, including site -related rental costs, the subcommittee recommended closing the Farmer's Market for the 2008 Season while keeping discussions of options and alternatives relating to the 2009 Season active. She then deferred to the Subcommittee members, Councilman Garbarino and Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto for additional comments. Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto noted that the decision to pursue a new location was necessitated by dwindling attendance. She recommended continuing to pursue the option of working with REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 26, 2008 MINUTES PAGE 2 the South San Francisco Unified School District to obtain use of one of the High School or Elementary School sites in the City for the 2009 Season. Councilman Garbarino reported that the Subcommittee would continue to pursue options for the 2009 Season, including approaching the School District. Councilman Addiego thanked Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto for bringing the Farmer's Market concept to the Council several years ago. Ike noted that by attending the Farmer's Market, he became reacquainted with residents. He encouraged the Subcommittee to continue pursuing options far the 2009 Season and to refrain from permitting a modest site-related rental fee to discourage pursuit of a promising location such as the BART Plaza. Motion- Mayor Pro Tem Matsummoto/Second-Councilman Garbarino: to close the South San Francisco Farmer's Market for the 2008 Season and continue pursuing options for the 2009 Season. Unanimously approved by voice vote. CONSENT CALEI~IDAR Motion to approve the lminutes of March 12, 2008. 2. Motion to confirm expense claims of March 26, 2008 in the amount of $1,723,607.42. 3. Motion to accept the 130/148 Beacon Street Trench Repair Project as complete in accordance with plans and specifications. Item pulled from Consent Calendar by Councilman Mullin. 4. Resolution No. 31-2008 authorizing the acceptance of $120,401.00 from the State under the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF) Program and amending the Police Department's fiscal year 2007/2008 Operating Budget. 5. Resolution No. 32-2008 updating designation of positions and applicable disclosure categories for the City of South San Francisco. 6. Resolution No. 33-2008 opposing state legislation. to permit the towing of triple tractor trailers on state highways in Califorlia. Motion- Councilman Garbarino/Second- Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto: To approve Consent Calendar Items No. 1, 2 and 4-6. Unanimously approved by voice vote. Item No. 3: Councilman Mullin questioned why the City was required to fund an additional $444,000.00 relating to the cost of backfill on the trench. City Attorney Mattas advised that the City's additional contribution was agreed upon as a result of litigation and mediation related. to the project pr. edating Councilman Mullin's installation to the Council. Motion- Councilman Mullin/Second- Councilman Addiego: to approve Consent Calendar Item. No. 3. Unanimously approved by voice vote. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 26, 2008 MINUTES PAGE 3 PUBLIC HEARING 7. Richard Avelar & Associates/Applicant Petroni Jr., Robert P oz M F/Owner Moonlight & Sunrise Ct. P08-0007: PUDM08-0001 & DR08-0004 Modification of Planned Unit Development and Design Review allowing the replacement of the exterior siding with different material tJ1an originally approved for 45 dwellings, situated on Moonlight and Sunrise Courts, in the Medium Density Residential (R-2-H-P) Zoning District, in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.18, 20.78 & 20.85. Public Hearing opened: 8:33 p.m. Senior Planner Carlson explained that this item, which had been reviewed by both the Design Review Board and the Plazuling Commission, was before Council because it proposed a modification to a unit development approved by the City Council. in 1988. Although construction was completed in 1995, the exterior siding failed and litigation ensued. As part of the lawsuit, the applicants and property owners were seeking to replace the original exterior siding. Sr. Planner Carlson stated that the replacement product would perfol-m better, but would impact the overall development by producing a slightly different look and/or feel. He further noted that the Home Owners' Association ("HOA") and its legal representative assured him that the building presently painted a different color would be painted to match the Majority of buildings. Finally, he advised that the Architect and the President of the TIOA were present to answer Council's questions, if any. Mayor Gonzalez recognized Joe Garcia, the Architect on the project, who had submitted a request to address Council. Mr. Garcia encouraged Council's approval of the project. He noted that the improvements were the result of litigation and were necessary to address water intrusion problems plaguing the units. He further stated that the replacement product had a 50 year warranty. Mr. Garcia opined that once the units with the new siding wore painted, the development would regain its uniform look. Public Hearing closed: 8:38 p.m. Councilman Addiego questioned the number of homeowners participating in the project. Mayor Gonzalez also raised this question. Sr. Planner Carlson. explained that half of the 38 homeowners participated in the litigation and 7 were willing to replace the siding at this time. Accordingly, staff recommended a condition of approval that would require any other homeowner who wanted to replace siding to use a profile similar to that proposed for this project. Councilman Garbarino pointed out that the photos of the development showed unfavorable attempts at temporary repairs, including critical joints held together with L brackets and deteriorating balconies. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 26, 2008 MINUTES PAGE 4 Sr. Planner Carlson agreed that the units must be brought to sound condition. He further noted that as a result of anticipated changes to building requirements, the balconies on the units may no longer be necessary. Mayor Gonzalez questioned the extent of proposed repairs. Sr. Planner Carlson responded that in some cases, and depending on the extent of dry rot, walls would be removed to perform the repairs. Motion- Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto/Second- Councilman Garbarino to approve Resolution No. 34-2008. Unanimously approved by voice vote. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 8. Consideration of a Resolution No. 35-2008 making findings and adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Miller Avenue Parking Structure Project. Associate Planner Smalley presented the staff report on the Mitigated Negative Declaration ("Ml~TD") for the Miller Avenue Parking Structure Project. Ho explained that the initial l~~® was first presented to Council on December 12, 2007. Due to a database error, an adjacent property owner did not receive the required notice for the project. Accordingly, staff repaired the database error and re-circulated the MND. After receipt of January 8, 2008 continents from the adjacent property owners at 321 Miller Avenue, the MND was revised and re-circulated. The comment period for the re-circulated MND ran from February 5, 2008 through February 25, 2008. He advised that on February 25t~', the owners of the 321 Miller Avenue Apartment Structure submitted written comments relating to the aesthetic impact of the project and traffic circulation concerns. Associate Planner Smalley further reported that staff prepared a written response to the February 25th comments and noted that both the comments and the Planning Department's response were attached to the staff report. He summarized and addressed the comments as follows: Associate Planner Smalley explained that the primary aesthetic comments raised concerns over views and shading. Regarding views, he commented that courts generally find obstruction of a few private views to be less than a significant impact. He further stated that current circumstances are such that any potential views are largely obscured by existing structures, and thus, would not be impacted by the project. Regarding shading, he noted that existing conditions are such that first floor windows are already shaded by the 6 foot tall solid wood fence on the property line. He stated that the West- facing second floor windows would be subject to increased shading due to the height of the proposed structure. He noted that the Design Review Board recommended the 4.5 story proposed height, which complies with the General Plan's policies for the Downtown. Associate Planner Smalley next reported that the comments received from the owners of the 321 Miller Apartment Structure Complex further suggested partial undergrounding of the structure and an increased set back from the east property line in order to address aesthetic concerns. Staff concluded that even substantial set back and undergrounding modifications would yield insignificant improvements. Additionally, as a result of such modifications, the project would lose economic efficiencies and the proposed REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 26, 2008 MINUTES PAGE 5 commercial space and green features incorporated in the design. Undergrounding would further cause vehicular access point Complications due to traffic circulation requirements. Regarding traffic conceals raised in the comments, Associate Plam~er Smalley explained that the comments challenged the analysis prepared for the project concerning the vehicular circulation characteristics of Fourth Lane. He noted that the structure would likely reduce vehicle traffic on Fourth Lane because entrances and exits to current parking lots adjacent to the lane would be eliminated. Associate Planner Smalley opined that the proposed project would provide significant benefits to the City, eliminate an underutilized lot, increase parking space, increase parking revenue and tax revenues and allow consideration of intensive uses in the Downtown. He concluded that the project would have no significant impacts and recommended that Council adopt the Resolution. City Attorney Mattis explained that present consideration of the MND far the parking structure project was not a public hearing but advised that Council could entertain comments relating to the agenda item. Shel-ri Boismenu, District Manager for Starbucks Coffee Company, appeared before Council to encourage support for the proposed parking structure. She stated that as a merchant and proud member of the Grand Avenue Business Community, Starbucl~s believed the structure was a much needed improvement that wrould stimulate commerce along Grand Avenue and provide convenient parking for patrons. Peter Daniel of the Hannig Law Finn and Attorney for the owners of the 321 Miller Apartment Complex appeared on his client's behalf to request that the MND not be approved. He stated that CEQUA decisions must be made on actual facts and reasonable assumptions not on speculation or conclusion. He further commented that the 4.5 story structure looming one foot off his client's property line would cause certain tenants to lose any and all sunlight during the day. He acknowledged that a shadow study was done after the December 12t~' hearing, but opined that it should have been done before Council approved design schematics. He referred to Exhibit B of the Tv1N]D, and stated that it shows sunlight to certain units at 321 Miller Avenue would. be reduced from 6 hours 10 minutes to 35 minutes per day during the simmer solstice and from 2 hours 50 minutes to 30 minutes per day during winter. He further commented that any and all views would be eliminated. Mr. Daniel next commented on staff's position that property set back and structural ramp adjustments respectively were not feasible modifications. He opined. that an analysis and report relating to these proposed modifications should be performed by the designer in order for Council to make a decision. He further commented that despite some of the modifications made, his clients were still concerned about a bottleneck in Fourth Lane as a result of the project. Accordingly, he requested some sort of control over delivery trucks to keep the Fourth Lane side of the structure clear of traffic bottlenecks. He further opined that a traffic study of Fourth Lane was needed. Mr. Daniel next commented on a series of notice problems related to the project, which began with his clients not receiving notice of design meetings. He opined that anytime there is a problelm with notice the public is less likely to be involved in the process. He concluded by opining that the significant environmental impacts of the project should be mitigated. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 26, 2008 MINUTES PAGE 6 Nancy Zammuto, a co-owner of the 321 Miller Apartment Complex appeared before Council to oppose approval of the MND. She read the letter attached hereto as Attachment 1 which made the following points: The proposed structure would only net a gain of an additional 149 parking spaces while adding 13,700 square feet of colninercial space on the ground floor creating a net loss of parking. Ms. Zammuto further stated that traffic consultants had not addressed traffic flow issues related to placement of the structure and opined that customers would still go around the block hoping to find metered parking on Grand Avenue. She further stated that the structure could be a bal-rier to future high density housing development. She opined that current parking in the Downtown District was not properly utilized. She noted that the original Downtown Parking District from the 1950s was still in existence; and further, that pursuant to such regulations, downtown merchants are responsible for deficiencies for parking improvements. She concluded. that correspondence to the public regarding the MND had been poor and recormnended an economic feasibility study of the project. She volunteered her services tc the City for its future and betterment. Mike Pariani a co-owner of the Apartment Complex located at 321 Miller Avenue appeared to request that the MND not be approved. He commented that when he was first made aware of parking structure he was appalled at both the size of the project and the related process. He noted that he was born and raised in South San Francisco and cares about what happens to the City. He stated that he recently spoke with a member of the Historical Society who was disappointed with the plan to raise the historical house located adjacent to the 321 Miller Apartment Complex, which was one of the original boarding houses that housed inen from the steel mills and stock yards. He further questioned whether the Planning Commission and Council had considered rezoning the Downtown area to encourage mixed use residential strictures to increase revenue for the City. He opined that such zoning would yield built-in customers within walking distance of the Downtown District. He filrther opined that workers in the Biotech industry would be attracted to live in South San Francisco if it had a more convenient Downtown area. He encouraged the public to be involved in local politics and to write or e-mail Council with their opinions. James Leung, an accountant at 235 Grand Avenue appeared to encourage support for the parking structure project. He opined that the structure was necessary in order for businesses to thrive in South San Francisco and to reduce the time patrons spend circling around the block. He noted that any problems that might have occurred as a result of the structure will have been mitigated. He further opined that the rendering of the proposed parking structure indicates that the structure would improve the aesthetic look of the Downtown. Resident Christine Rezendez, a tenant of the Apartment Complex located at 321 Miller Avenue opposed approval of the MND. She noted that current surface parking lots in her neighborhood were not always full and/or were often underutilized. She opined that the proposed parking structure would not change this condition, because Downtown patrons would continue to drive around Grand Avenue in search of more convenient parking. She further observed that some of the Downtown Merchants she had talked with were under the mistaken impression that Genentech was covering the costs of the parking structure. She opined that the structure would not bring any revenue to the City and would cost the City in the long run. She further opined that the proposed structure would be used as a shelter by the homeless and increase problems of REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 26, 2008 MINUTES PAGE 7 vandalism in the area. She expressed sympathy for her neighbors on the West side of the Apartment Complex who would look out their windows and see the parking structure and lose sunlight during the day. Kell Qul, a DOwlltowil buslileSSmai1, appeared to encourage support for the parking structure. He opined that the project would benefit business owners and had great potential to increase South San Francisco's prestige. He opined that the structure would help to encourage people who live in the City to dine and shop in the Downtown area. He stated that without the facility, new restaurants would not be attracted to the Downtown District. He conlrileilted that the structure would not only benefit our generation but generations to come. In response to a question from Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto, he further commented that he would be willing to consider a fair assessment on business owners in the Downtown District to assist with funding the structure. City Attorney Mattas advised that the item then presently before Council related to the MND. Accordingly, public comments related to design were beyond the scope of Council's consideration at the time. He suggested that such comments would be better addressed to the Redevelopment Agency. Resident Donila Torres explained that she has been a South San Francisco resident for 27 years and recently moved to Miller Avenue. She noted concerns pertaining to traffic and related accidents in the area. While she wasn't certain of her opinion with respect to the parking structure, she opined that the traffic issue and the problems of homeless loitering in the Downtown area needed to be examined. Resident Pam Marsh explained that she has lived on Miller Avenue for the past 15 years. She noted that cars run the stoplight on the corner of Miller and Maple on a nightly basis. She raised concerns that the proposed parking structure might increase traffic problems iii the area. She further noted that surface parking lots ii1 the Downtown area are usually empty aild/or filled with City vehicles. She opined that since people are presently unwilling to pay for permit parking in the surface parking lots, they will likely be unwilling to pay for it ii1 the proposed parking structure. Before Council began its discussion of the agenda item, City Attorney Mattas advised that the item presently before Council was a determination on the 1~/fND. He noted that the second item on the agenda for the Special Redevelopment Agency Meeting that would take place later in the evening pertained to the award of the design contract for construction of the parking structure. He advised that if the Agency wished to provide additional comments on design, it should agendize that discussion for a later meeting. Councilman Addiego explained that he had listened closely to Attorney Peter Daniel. He noted that Mr. Daniel made some statements that he would like to understand better. He questioned whether staff's conclusions pertaining to setbacks and undergrounding were sufficient under CEQUA and/or whether additional studies were required. City Attorney Mattas advised that the evidence in the staff report, including conversations and consultations between the designers and staff, was appropriate and adequate evidence to permit Council to make a determination. on the MND. He further noted that CEQUA only requires REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 26, 2008 MINUTES PAGE 8 analysis of the project before Council; and further, that CEQUA does not require an analysis of a proj ect with components not before the Council. Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto expressed concerns regarding the proposed parking structure project. She conu~zented that building and/oi• new developil~erlts in the Downtown should be multi-use with a 24 hour life. She further noted that the garage would increase street and sewer maintenance requirements. She questioned the size of the proposed conullercial space and requested an analogy to a business occupying a similar amount of space. Associate Plamler Smalley responded that the commercial space was designed to be flexible and would equate to about two times the area of the Community Room at the Municipal Services Building. Assistant City Manager Van Duyn noted that existing General Plan policies encourage the type of structure proposed, including the height, intensity and density of the structure. He further noted that Council. had expressed a desire to take steps to improve the City's Downtown and that in the opinion of Council's Subcommittee and local merchants, the proposed structure would be a great stride towards this goal. Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto questioned whether a parking survey had been conducted. Assistant City Manager Van Duyn responded that a parking survey of residents had not been conducted. Councilman Addiego commented that a survey was not done because the proposed parking structure essentially presented an issue of which comes first. He stated that while today, there might not be a demand for the number of parking spaces proposed, the garage would attract businesses to the Downtown that would drive the demand for parking. He further recounted a recent study session Council had participated in with the Planning Commission at which a speaker in the city planning field had surprised the Council with revelations that 50% of developed space on the Peninsula is devoted to cars. He noted that the structure would help to remedy this problem in the Downtown District by freeing-up sL~rface lots. Councilman Garbarino noted that the new Caltrain Station bringing people to their jobs in the East of 101 Area could jump start the Downtown and motivate housing development in the area. He opined that the proposed parking structure would not be an impediment to such results. Councilman Mullin expressed his desire to add to the sentiment that housing in the Downtown District and the proposed parking structure were not mutually exclusive concepts. He opined that the concepts blend very nicely together as part of Downtown revitalization efforts; and further that he viewed the proposal as building for 20-30 years from now and for the long-term vision of converting surface lots to high. density housing and/or mixed-use developments. Councilman Mullin thanked members of the public in attendance for voicing their concerns for and against the proposed parking structure. He further corr~mented that in the end, he believed the benefits of the proposed structure outweigh negatives over the long term. City Attorney Mattas advised that the City had taken adequate measures to remedy noticing issues related to the project raised in comments that evening, including extending comment periods, re-circulating documents and making sure that there was appropriate opportunity for REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 26, 2008 MINTJTES PAGE 9 members of the public to comment on the process. Regarding comments pertaining to potential environmental impacts heard earlier in the evening, City Attorney Mattas advised that the MND was re-circulated twice to address such comments. Ike further stated that some of the specific issues relating to environmental impacts associated with file project pertaining to shadowing and views did not rise to the level of a significant impact under CE~UA and noted that two mitigation measures pertaining to the historical house were proposed. Mayor Gonzalez commented on the soundness of the M[ND. He noted that based upon his experience on the Subcommittee an overwhelming number of Downtown merchants were in favor of the proposed garage. He further commented that while there might not be a present demand for the number of proposed new parking spaces, a lesson could be learned from the BART parking lot, which in its early days sat empty but now is always fill. Motion- Councilman Addiego/Second- Councilman Garbarino: to approve Resolution No. No. 35-2008. The motion passed by the following voice vote: AYES: Councilmen Addiego, Garbarino and Mullin and Mayor Gonzalez. NOES: Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None 9. An Ordinance amending Chapter 6.78 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to Implement the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006. City Attonney Mattas explained that the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act (the "Act") became effective on January 1, 2007. The Act established a statewide franchising procedure of video service providers to be administered by the California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC"); and further prohibited cities from awarding new local franchises or regulating state franchise holders, except to the extent permitted by the Act. He advised that the proposed enabling ordinance before the Council would permit South San Francisco to implement local provisions compatible with the Act. Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto questioned why the Act had been characterized as ilnplelnenting a "sea change." She further questioned administrative costs and fee structures associated with the Act. City Attorney Mattas explained that the Act effectively transfelTed local govez-nment authority to the state through the CPUC. He noted that the City continues to be authorized to receive the equivalent amount of franchise fees from state franchise holders. He further commented that the structure of the ordinance is required by state law and was drafted to provide the greatest extent of local authority authorized under the Act. Mayor Gonzalez questioned responsibility for handling complaints. City Attorney Mattas responded that under the Act the companies continue to handle complaints. He further noted that in theory complaints for material breaches could be registered with the CPUC. In response to a question from Councilman Mullin, City Attorney Mattas advised that he would seek information to the potential impact of a provision potentially capping PEG Channel revenues at 1 %. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 26, 2008 MINUTES PAGE 10 Motion- Councilman Garbarino/Second Councilman Addiego: to waive reading and introduce Ordinance No. 1394-2008 amending Chapter 6.78 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to Implement the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006. Unanimously approved by voice vote. COUNCIL COMMUNITY FORUM Councilman Addiego requested that the meeting be adjourned in honor of Angela Marie Annanino Uccelli. ADJOURNMENT Being no fiirther business Mayor Gonzalez adjourned the meeting in honor of Angela Marie Annanino Uccelli at 10:20 p.m. Submitted by: h_rista Martine ~1i-Larson, City Clerk Ci ~ of South fan Francesco Approved: fF ... _~ ~. -: Pedro Gonzalez, Mayor ~~ City of South San Francesco REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 26, 2008 PAGE 11 ATTACHMENT 1 ri~rlc.~rabie iviayor and Council, Thank ~~ou for allowing me this time to spealL. There are some questions that need answering. V~~11y are you building this stl-ucture`~ V~~11o are you building this st111cture for? What is the can ent cost estimate? In December it was $11,814,000, that was before you made the wise decision to put utilities 1111dergr01111d, llke you would regUll"e ally other building owner to do. The proposed Miller Avenue Parking St1-ucture will have X56 parking spaces and 13,700 sf of commercial space. _. Per testimony at the December Council meeting, 200 spaces for penrlit parking, 56 for other. Of those 56 other spaces, there will be only 8 handicap spaces and 7 regular metered spaces on the ¢round floor. You are losing 60 spaces from the 3 lots it will be built on You are losing 39 spaces from the lot you have ea1-lnarl~ed to sell to help pay for this ~'ou will lose a minimum of 8 street parking spaces on Miller to widen the sidewallt a11d put in a left hand tunl lane i11ta t11e parking lot. The maxi111u1n gain of parking spaces you will have is 149, BUT YOU ARE ADDING 13,700 SF OF COMIvIER1CAIL SPACE ON THE GROtND FLOOR. PER ZONING, you call't put office on the ground floor. This area is zoned for retail or restaurant only ol1 the ground floor If you used that space for retail, it would require 69 more parkillg spaces, IF THAT SPACE WAS USED FOR RESTAURANT, YOU WOULD REQUIRE 266 SPACES. YOU ARE ONLY ADDING 149. YOU ARE NOW IN A NEGATIVE SITUATION. YOUR PARILING DISTRICT WILL HAVE 117 LESS AVAILABLE SPACES BEFORE THE BUILDING WAS BUILT. Because of the traffic, there will be a right turll only out of this stl-ucture, you are dumping more traffic onto Linden Avenue and Gralld Avenue where you are already impacted. The person who lives anywhere west of the stl-ucture in Sout11 San Francisco will now have to go around the block and most likely use the busiest streets to do so. DO YOU KNOW, IN YOUR GENERAL PLAN, TIIE CITY' S II~TTEl`rTTION VITAS TO EXPLORE ONE WAY STREETS ON MILLER AVENUE AND ON BADEN AVENUE MILLER AVENNE WOULD BE GOING WEST, UP THE STREET, BUT TI-IIS P ARI~II~G STRUCTURE HAS A RIGHT LAND TURN ONLY Vi~'FIICH ~~TOULD GO EAST, DOWN TPIE STREET.. YOU COULDN'T CHANGE THE DIRECTION OF THOSE I~TARROV~T ONE WAY STREETS BECAUSE YOU HAVE TRAFFIC COMII~TG OFF THE FREE~~TAY GOING VEST ON MILLER AVENUE AND ~'OU CURRENTLY HAVE TRAFFIC GOING EAST ON BADEN TOWARD THE FREEV~TAY. YOUR TR.~FFIC CONSULTANT HAS NOT AI~DR:ESSED THIS. At the vely least, '1'H1S STKIJC;'rU1ZE SI~UtTLD BE ACROSS THE STREET BECAUSE IT IS EASERIR TO GET IN AND OUT, TURN RIGHT TO GO HOME. The City should have close meter ~arkin~ where you now~ro~ose the stlllcture. Four customers will use the closer parking. THE PERMIT PARKING LOTS SHOULD ALL BE ACROSS THE STREET IN THE CURRENTLY EMPTY LOTS. This structure would also be a barrier, cutting off any possibility of future high density housing development in the DO~JNTO~TN COMMERCIAL 1~,REA, or adjacent to it. Do you also knout that your general plan calls for a "PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT. A DEVELOPMENT DESIGNED WITH Al_~7 EMPHASIS ON THE STREET SIDEWALK AND ON PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO THE BUILDING, RATHER THAN AN AUTO ACCESS AND PARKING AREA?" Yes, your downtown merchants have been asking for better parking for years, but NO WHERE IN ANY STAKEHOLDERS REPORT, IN ANY GENERAL PLAIT, IS A, STRUCTURE MENTIONED. IT IS MENTIONED IN THE STAKEHOLDERS REPORT THAT THE CUR.R_ENT P.A ' 'ING IS NOT USED PROPERLY. YOU HAVE A SERIOUS MISMANAGEMENT OF ~~THAT YOU HAVE THERE. How many people going to a grocery store vcJill use this garage, not many. Mr. Addiego, you owned a grocery business, you and other business people on the Council know how impol-tant convenient parking is to your customers. You have allowed a huge Chinese restaurant, an exercise facility, 2 national named coffee places to operate business in this town, WAIVING the required parking of your zoning ordinances. The restaurant and gym use parking for over 2 hours during the day and often. late at night. HOW LATE IS THAT GARAGE OPEN FOR? TINS AND MAI~T,Y OTHER QUESTIONS SI-IOULD BE ANSV`TERED NOV~T, NOT "PROGRAMED IN LATER". ~,rHAT V~TOULD YOU REQUIRE OF ME IF I WERE BUILDING DOWNTOWN? You. have 50% vacancy in culzent mismanaged lots. How does the cost of this structure and the fact that the "Or1g111a1 parlilllg d1StrlCt" Stlll ex1StS, affect OWIIerS Of property 111 t111S dlStrlct? Are the dowlltowll 111e1"Chants reSp011Slble for ally COSt if the City fails to sell bonds and/or ll.ave the Redevelopment Agency cover costs? Propel-ty owners of the Original parl~ing district agreed that they would have to pay far deficiencies far parking improvements. Have you notified evely property ouTller in the D-C of this? It is easy to talk pie in the sl~T, but your Mitigated Negative Declaration, your Redevelopment Agency Economic Staff Report, reconunending approval of this, IN CONCEPT, and all col7espondel~ce and infol~nation to the public has been poor and unacceptable for the people of South San Francisco to accept this structure , as proposed. WILY DO SOU WANT TO ADD BUSINESS ON MILLER WI-IEN THERE IS NONE Tlie Redevelopment Staff Report for Economic feasibility reports an aluzual loss to the City of $93,000 to $278,000. per year based on 2006 dollars. With costs to build increasing tluough December by 150%, the City could conceivably have $139,500 to $417,000 losses alulually. - ~_~. ~ . r~.~ ~ _ ,._ ., . - - - ,__ _.:, :... ID`Id ~~~uze~d flip ~{1-!-icle iii tl~~ ~1= ~~ ~l~lll~ii~~1r ~ih~~ut ~1~~ C`zt~. i~~ Sa» f ~1-tu~~~' ~;,:ull fore ~. reVitaiized o`~ru'? l~ril~`~ i» h~~<«i~1`~, l ~";~ lost i~1~~~n~c sup rozildillg d~~~~~. »t~i`~Tll because historically. ~,~eople llullgil,~ Lity~is a gr~atez_,sWoulec.otul~om~, tliau bszll~s~e~. ~Totz ll~te thez~1 you s11op Mere. _ __~,___~.-----~~.,.. ~~.____~ ~. __:_ .~.. _ LL~_~.~~~~_. _-_.~ __~_. ~Tou Have a~gzeatbLOtec1~~'>>dlist~-,.. c71~ tl~~ ~~l~t ~i~l~ of 101.. ~jouti~~azlttli~ p~opl~~v1~> liveltheze f~ i1~T~re ill Sout11 C'it~j. if ~ ~ti 1~~~` ~ l~iiuil~~~ art~~~~~l (-~~-~tl~d ~~~ ~Ilue, those ~Toui~'g worltcr~ willbc - -- _ ~tt1 acted to ll~Te li~i~e f~,~c~tu~~ cif the ~0~1~ ~» ie~t d~>~vnt~~`1 ~1 ~~~ as .;No~~T; if l ~vor~ed ilz SSF u ~1ot~clz, a~rcl ifI`IZad11~c c~~~I,~7~-tu~lit` t~~ l~~ly. I ~,~ wild Lt~ti iT~ S~u1 Brtilto alicll~~e ~11~r~~ ~10~~%11toti~~: _ ,_.-- 'C`Ios~ ~1~~>ti~~'I~ c~~r~ll~iu~~: 1 ~~ ~~ul~i~,t ~17-i~ e i~Iv ~~~ir,~ l~~icl: i~~ SSF- p~il~lt i~1 y~~u pul-llilz~ ~tzuotuze _ ,u C1ztz~[~ d;~vS-u tl~e ~~air_ ~I~_~ m~ ~h~~I,jin~. c1~i111 ~, ~~14 ui?e~IlC 5i~~~; _av.~ lieu delve back to.S:a1? Brullo:.~ have e~, oz ~thui~ 1 need in_ ~azl E~ru~o By the way, why is your zoning update also looking at developing housing on the East side of 10 I ? FIow would that help your downtown? Consider zoning to allow high dellslty houslllg with their own downtown, so people can have shopping and recreation where they live, IN SOUTI~ SAN FRANCISCO.. Why are you doing this? For who are you doing this? Look at the BIG picture. Is this tl~e best for South San Francisco's Future? Again, I don't want to be part of the problem, I want to be part of the solution for a tluiving South San Francisco. Again, I volunteer my sez~Tices to this Cit~T, for the future, for the betterment of this City.