Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2010-03-24°~~x,,sAN~~ MINUTES ~~ - - ~ CITY CO~T~TC'I]L ''""""" CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ~gLIFOR~``~P REGULAR MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM 33 ARROYO DRIVE WEDNESDAY, MARCH :?4, 2010 CALL TO ORDER: 7:01 P.M. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmen Garbarino and Gon:za ez and Councilwoman Mat>umoto, Vice Mayor Mullin, and :M;~yor Addiego. Absent: None. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Led by Patrick Rosenthal, Commander VFW Post 4103, MMC (SW) U.S. ]navy (ret). PRESENTATIONS • Proclamation in honor of World Health Day Open Streets accepted by Prudencia Nelson, Parks and Recreation Commissioner. Parks and Recreation Commissioner Prudencia Nelson accepted the Proclamation and announced that the City would participate with cities across San Mateo County on April l lth to transform public streets and outdoor spaces with events promoting health, wellness and family fun. Red Cross Month Proclamation Mary Bates - Chair of San Mateo County Leadership Council, Tricia Clement -Member of the Council. Mary Bates and Tricia Clement of the Red Cross accepted the Proclamation. Ms. Clement provided statistics relating to disaster preparedness and. Health support. She further announced several upcoming Red Cross events, including the Heroes Breakfast. • Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day accepted by Patrick Rosenthal, Commander VFW Post 4103, MMC (SW) U.S. Navy (ret). Commander Rosenthal accepted the Proclamation formally recognizing and welcoming home local veterans of the Vietnam War and declaring Mal•cri 30, 2010 as Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day in the City of South San Francisco. Council thanked the veterans for bravely and faithfully serving our Country. • Proclamation honoring National Library Week presented to Library Board President Francisca Larios Hansen. Councilman Mullin presented the proclamation honoring ]national Library Week. which would be celebrated during the Week of April 11th through April 17th 2010. Library board President Francisca Larios Hansen thanked Council for the recognition and announced that the renovations to the Main Library would lie celebrated at an event on April 24, 2010. • Certificate of Recognition for long-time resident of South San Francisco Levia Mangini, presented to :Lola Migliore. Item not heard Postponed to regular Meeting of April 1'4, 2010. AGENDA REVIEW No changes. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL • Announcements. • Committee Reports. Councilmembers reported on attendance at community meeitings and events, including Congresswoman Speier's telephone town hall meeting, a community benefit for Mills Peninsula Hospital and a CCAG Meeting. Announcements were made regarding a First Time Home Buyer Seminar and a College Essay Seminar that was being held. May 1, 2010. Council congratulated Sharon Ranals and staff for their work ~~n the Arbor Day Celebration and the Youth Baseball kick-off. Specific items for further action and/or consideration were set forth as follows: Councilman Garbarino requested that the meeting be adjourned in honor of JoAnn Rayo. Councilwoman Matsumoto reported on a telephone conversation she had with resident and Historic Preservation Commissioner Aldo Di Tomasi regarding a Memorial Day Remembrance Event. She requested Council's permission to pursue this event. Council agreed. Mayor Addiego requested that the meeting be adjourned in honor of Raymond Stupi and joined in Councilman Garbarino's request that the meeting be: adjourned in honor of JoAnn Rayo. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 24, 2010 MINUTES - 2 - CONSENT CALENDAR Motion to approve the minutes of March 10, 2010. 2. Motion to confirm the expense claims of March 24, 2010. 3. Waive reading and adopt an Ordinance No. 1424-2010 repealing Section 10.56.020 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, related to the- open carry of Firearms. 4. Waive reading and adopt an Ordinance No. 1425-2010 approving an amendment to the contract between the Board of Administration C~~lifornia Public Employees' Retirement System and the City Council of the City of South San Francisco to provide for atwo-tier retirement system for miscellaneous and safety members. 5. Resolution No. 27-2010 authorizing the acceptance of $12,864 in grant funding to support Project Read Services and to amend the Library Department's 2009/2010 Operating budget. 6. Resolution No. 28-2010 to accept a grant in the amount of $1,811,925.00 from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) assistance to Firefighters Station construction. to rehabilitate Fire Station 63 and amending the FY 2009-2010 Capital Improvement Project Budget.. 7. Resolution No. 29-2010 authorizing the Director c-f Public Works to execute a contract in an amount not to exceed $3.731 million with the lowest responsible bidder for the 2010 Street Resurfacing Project and amend the 2009-2010 Capital Improvement Program Budget. 8. Motion to approve a License and Use Agreement ~-etween the City of South San Francisco and Sacred Heart Cathedral Preparatory High School. Motion -Councilman Garbarino/Second- Councilman Gon:~alez: to approve the Consent Calendar. Unanimously approved by voice vote. PUBLIC HEARING 9. So El Camino Real General Plan Amendment City ofd South San Francisco/Applicant Southern portion of El Camino Real from Chestnut. Avenue to Noor Avenue (see attached map) P08-0076: GPA08-0001, ZA08-0007, RZ08-0001 & EIR08-0004 General Plan Amendment, Zoning Amendment, Rezoning and Design Guidelines for the southern portion of El Camino Real between Chestnut Avenue and the City's southern boundary to allow for high intensity mixed-use development throughout the corridor. The proposed amendment and supporting zoning and design guidelines aims to target higher intensities and densities in the southern portion of El Camino Real to stimulate revitalization and transition the corridor into a thriving, pedestrian-oriented area with a mix of uses. The existing General Plan Land Use Designation is largely REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 24, 2010 MIMJTES - 3 - Community Commercial and the Zoning District is primarily (C-1) Retail Commercial. The existing land use designation and zc-ning promote and support low intensity, single-use development. The proposed South El Camino Real Land Use Designation and (ECRMX) El Camino Real Mixed-Use Zoning District promote and support revitalization by allowing buildings 80-120 feet tall (with incentives), requiring a minimum amount of development for sites larger than 20,000 sq.ft., and by requiring active uses to be positioned at ground level. The proposed Design Guidelines illustrate the proposed zoning regulations to ease understanding and implementation. Resolution making findings and certifying the Environmental Impact Report, including adoption of the Statement of Ovc;rriding Consideration for the South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment and related Zoning and Design guidelines. Resolution making findings and adopting the South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment (GPA08-0001 } and related design guidelines to allow and establish regulations for mixed-use development iri 1:he South El Camino Real Corridor. An Ordinance making findings and amending the City of South San Francisco Zoning Map (RZ08-0001) and adding Chapter 20.25 to the South San Francisco Municipal Code (ZA08-0007), related to the South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment, to allow and establish regulations for mixed-use development in the South El Camino Real Corridor. Public Hearing Opened: 7:46 p.m. Senior Planner Gerry Beaudin presented the staff report. He began by describing the portion of the City at issue between Chestnut Avenue and ~1oor Avenue in the El Camino Corridor. He presented a map of the area. He opined the; area was underutilized and explained staff was recommending more intense mixed-use development zoning. Senior Planner Beaudin further explained recommended plans for the area encouraged amendments that would assist in meeting regional housing needs. City endorsed Grand Boulevard Initiatives were also supported by the proposed General Plan Amendment. The proposal also promoted walking and transit oriented development to support an improved quality of life in the area. Senior Planner Beaudin advised the most common comment staff had heard. regarding the proposal was a complaint from commercial property owners regarding the FAR requirement. He provided examples of cities with similar and/or more stringent FAR requirements that had been successful at building out portions of the El Camino and other thoroughfares. Vice Mayor Mullin commented the FAR requirement dial not appear to be as stringent as in other nearby cities. Mr. Bhatia of the Consultant Group Dyett and Bhatia proviided a Power Point Presentation summarizing the basic components of the proposal, including addition of a mixed use designation and increased FAR requirements for properties meeting certain square footage ratios. Local business owners and their representatives appeared to make comments regarding the proposal. Letters submitted in opposition to the proposal ~~re attached hereto. Specific comments submitted at the meeting are summarized below: REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 24, 2010 MINUTES - 4 - Jeff Diodati representing Fred Bravo, Elizabeth Puccinelli, Jessica Loeffler representing Steven Silvestri, the owner of the Dollar Tree site, Darinn Srriith representing Sywest and Robert Atkinson of Sywest and representing the owner of the Lazy Boy property appeared and urged Council to revisit and/or decrease the proposed FAR requirements. Robert Atkinson opined the proposed requirements would prevent development. Vice Mayor Mullin expressed support for the proposed FAR. requirements ar~d stated he believed it would help build up and approve frontage along E1 Camino Real. Various members of the public appeared and expressed suppc-rt for the proposed changes, including Chris Mohr, Serena Ip and Corinne Goodrich. The individuals spoke of the benefits of affordable housing to the community. Mayor Addiego questioned whether the Costco on El Camino Real could be replicated under the proposal. Chief Planner Kalkin responded it could not, but noted a project such as the mixed use IKEA development in Emeryville would work. Councilman Garbarino questioned the issue with the easement on the Bravo property. lVlr. Diodati responded the easement cut along the back portion of the property. Ms. Puccinelli again asked Council for flexibility . She stressed that if the proposal were to be enacted, the El Camino may freeze in time with little ne~~ development. Vice Mayor Mullin pointed out that even under current standards the movie theatre property was sitting empty and had not been improved. He opined the new requirements would encourage development of this property. Public hearing closed: 9:46 p.m. Recess: 9:46 p.m. Meeting resumed: 9:54 p.m. Councilman Garbarino expressed his support for staff's recc>mmendation. Councilman Gonzalez expressed support for the project and noted his belief that it would encourage affordable housing in the area. Councilwoman Matsumoto opined that without vision, the City would not continue to improve. She noted the importance of this proposal to development in the City and along its most prominent corridor. Vice Mayor Mullin asked Senior Planner Beaudin whether the proposal included anything that would disincent a property owner from making improvements. Senior Planner Beaudin confirmed there was no such disincentive. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 24, 2010 MINUTES - 5 - Vice Mayor Mullin then expressed his support for the proposal and noted it would bring the City up to date with current times and bring it closer to compliance with Grand Boulevard Principles. Mayor Addiego expressed support for the proposal and stated his belief in the dream that the El Camino Real Corridor could be a grand area in South San Francisco. Motion- Councilman Gonzalez/Second- Councilman Garbarino: to approve Resolution No. 30-2010. Unanimously approved by voice vote. Motion- Councilman Garbarino/Second- Councilwoman. Matsumoto: to approve Resolution No. 31-2010. Unanimously approved by voice vote. Motion- Councilman Mullin/Second- Councilman Gar~-arino: to waive reading and introduce an Ordinance making findings and amending thf; (:ity of South San Francisco Zoning Map (RZ08-0001) and adding Chapter 20.25 to the South San Francisco Municipal Code (ZA08-0007), related to the South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment, to allow and establish regulations for mixed-use development: in the South El Camino Real Corridor. Unanimously approved by voice vote. LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS 10. Waive reading and introduce Ordinances repealing sections 2.18.020 and 2.18.030 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code Section to dissolve the Surplus Property Authority and the Industrial Development Authority. City Attorney Mattas presented the staff report recommending that Council waive reading and introduce two ordinances. The first would dissolve the Surplus Property Authority and the second would dissolve the Industrial Development Authority as neither entity was necessary any longer. Motion -Councilman Mullin/Second- Councilman Gonzalez: to waive reading and introduce an ordinance repealing section 2.18.020 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Unanimously approved by voice vote. Motion -Councilwoman Matsumoto/Second- Councilman Garbarino: to waive reading and introduce an ordinance repealing section 2.18.030 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Unanimously approved by voice vote. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 11. Transmittal of Annual Financial and Audit Reports. Finance Director Steele presented the staff report and advised staff was required to present the report for review and filing. He highlighted several of the items identified by the auditors as well as recommended resolutions, including but riot limited to lasses related to the San Mateo County Investment Pool, external security benchmarks, and compliance with grant requirements. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 24, 2010 MINUTES - 6 - Motion - Councilwoman Matsumoto/Second- Councilman Garbarino: to approve Resolution No. 32-2010. Unanimously approved by voice vote. 12. Transmittal of Mid-Year 09-10 Financial Report arAd Resolution amending the 2009- l OBudget. Budget Manager Colleen Tribby presented the proposed budget amendment to Council. She pointed out changes to the amended budget noting that general fund reserves were up and that the ERAF refund was down $312,000 due to variances in departmental revenue. She further mentioned that certain general fund expenses came in lower than budgeted, including, the City Clerk election budget, which demonstrated a savings of $54,000 and $300,000 relating to revised benefits packages for employees. Motion -Councilman Garbarino/Second- Councilman Gonzalez: to accept and file the annual financial and audit reports. Unanimously approved by voice vote. CLOSED SESSION Closed Session entered: 10:27 p.m. Opc;n Session resumed: 11:24 p.m. 13. Conference with Legal Counsel -Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9) Cuadra v South San Francisco Baykeeper v South San Francisco. Report out of Closed Session by Mayor Addiego: Direction given in both matters. 14. Conference with Labor Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code Section 5497.6) Unrepresented Employees: City Manager and City Attorney. Report out of Closed Session. by Mayor Addiego: Direction given. COMMUNITY FORUM None. ADJOURNMENT Being no further business, Mayor Addiego adjourned the meeting at 11:25 p.m. in honor of JoAnn Rayo and Raymond Stupi. Submitted by: Approved: ~~ ,~ l~ Kris a ~ e li-Larson rty lerk ~ M k N. A cfiego, ayor City of South Fra i co City of South San Francisco REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 24, 2010 MINUTES - 7 - t~. C©N5ULTING GROUP ~~~aa ~;e ~ c~r~~rir:ra~~~r ~r.a~~a~~~ ~ ~~r3~~s~i~~r~~r~or~ March ZZ, 2010 Mark N. Addiego, Mayor Members of the City Council City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 Dear Mayor Addiego and Councilmembers: i would like to take this opportunity to thank each of you for taking the time from your busy schedules to meet with Elizabeth Puccinelli and ! to discuss the proposed South EI Camino Real Genera( Plan Amendment (GPA). The City is fio be commended for undertaking long range planning with regard to this important corridor. The letter we presented to you not only outlined SyWest`s concerns but alsooffered an alternative approach far you consider when you deliberate on this important matter. i will not reiterate the contents of that letter here, except to note the fallowing. Rs we indicated, vve believe the GPA as presently structured may effectively discourage property owners from reinvesting irz their properties, thereby undermining the policy objectives articualted in the GPA, To avoid such an unintended. consequence, 5yWest has offered an alternative that both. recognizes the underlying principles of the GPA, while at the same time is sensitive to market conditiiorrs. We trust the Council will give this alternative careful cor~sideratian. Finally, it was my intent to accompany Ms. Puccinelli to the meeting to present SyWest`s position. A scheduling conflict has emerged which prevents me from attending, however. What is tl-ie conflict? The day after our meeting, I was selected among a pool often candidates to fill a vacancy {occissioned by a mid-term resignation) an the Hayward Unified School Distrir_t Board of Trustees. I will be taking the oath of office this Wednesday evening, around the same tune you wilt be convening your meeting. I regret f will be unable ~;a attend your meeting. Once again, thank you for taking the time to meet with us>. Sincerely, ~,,,,an.~~l, Jesus Armas 22~G1 Main St., Srz. 200 • I-i.ayvrard, ~:A 94>~l. • i'hon~: SIU.G90.04I0 • Fay: 510.690.0470 • t'ixmasc~,~sl~cglobal.ner avfarch 22, X01 U Mark Inf. Addiega, Maybrt 1Vle~tnbers of the City Council pity of Swath San Francisco 40Q Crrar~d Avenue Sa~rtkx ~~ ~ranciseo, CA 9~08~ Ite: Saa~kh El ~$mino ~exa.l Pt~n A.~endm+~ai Mayor Addxega and Councilmer~bers: Ivly family owtls tk~e property at $S1~S~3 ~1 Ca~inQ ~ in S'auth ~~ a~'fan~tsGC~. We ~ very concerned with the proposed changes nx~der review by tbie pity Council for the South El Camit~a meal area_ In paxdcular, we ~'+~ concerned ab~-ut the nevv mire nenmt wifl 'Aim act a~u P pe y for all praperkies 20,004 square feet and ,gzEater. 'I`fiis new regtn p We understa~'-d ~e City's desire to create Saxe density aped improve the appearance af' El Carnir-a. We also ere in support of irnpxpving the.lar~g tarn viability afthe neighborhood. I3awever, we do got believe fat institnti~ng a mm.unum .b pA~ ar farcin,~ all t~uildiungs Co be vertir,~lly mixed use is the way to accomplish this goal. iiNe ask that you respect the pique Harare of the varit~t~ properties in this corridor that are 24,404 sq~~ feet and larger and not have ~ "one s~ flts all" salutiari of a minimutr~ .~ ~AIt. ~e k~eliev~e the City should allorhr l'ox more flexibilsty rn theme general Flan sa that development and improvement is encovr~.ged not disca~r~ed. QVe ~e in support of SyWest's request to provide greater flexik~iiity for tlxe pr~gpcrty awraers in this C4TIiClaT. Unfortunately, no represe~tt~.tiwe from t7ay f=amily is able to attend oncerns rewarding y~ ~g in pars~an. Please accept this letter ~ ~ expression of my ft~~ly ~ $ proposed ~ene~ Plan Ax~endment. ~ineerel 'rim Rogers Attachrt~ents rc: Bsrty Nagel, City Manager lviarty,V'an ]duyna Assist~xt City Maita$er 5usy Kallcin, Chief ~lannet~ 3490 Old San Jose Rd Soquel, CA 95073 831-464-1281 March 23, 2010 Mark N. Addiego, Mayor Members of the City Council. City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 12e: Soutli El Camino General Plan Amendment Dear Mayor Addiego and Councilmember's: My family owns the property at El Camino Real and Chest71ut i:n South San Francisco. We would like to improve our property in the short-term but are concerned that this will be impossible if the City Council passes the proposed South El Camino General Plan Amendment. Our property is greater than 20,000 square feet so we fall under the new proposed Mixed-Use requirements, including the minimum .6 FAR. We lalow that this Amendment does not work for our property as we have a very large gas line running through the property which, along with the shape and size of the property makes meeting the FAR requirements impossible, We can't build functional mixed-use on the site because you can't struct~.lre parking (above or below ground) due to easements. The inability to structure parking functionally eliminates the ability to go vertical. The currently proposed General Plan Amendment does not take into consideration any of the specific issues that relate to our property. We ask that you further study this General Plan Amendment: with respect to the viability of achieving the recommendations from your planning consultant. Rather than encouraging development it causes us to think that we are better off with the status quo which is both an eye sore as well as an under utilization of the property. We urge you to please give us greater flexibility so that we can improve our property. We are in support of SyWest comments and specifically in agreement with the language proposed in Elizabeth Puccinelli's letter of March 16, 2010, and. the flexibility suggested in that correspondence; Additionally we would- like to suggest modification of the key principles set forth in the Land Use Framework (p. 2-2) as follows: "Encouragement of mixed-use development along principle corridors, such as EI Camino and South Spruce Avenue. However, mixed use is not mandatory for all parcels along principle corridors. Decisions regarding the appropriate use, or mix of uses, for parcels along principle corridors will be made by the Director of Economic and Community Development, subject to the decision of the City Planning Commission and/or City Council, as appropriate." Conforming changes should be made throughout the text as appropriate. We thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, _/~P~ Fred Bravo General Parh~er Attachments cc: Barry Nagel, City Manager Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager Susy Kallcin, Chief Planner March 22, 2010 1Vlarlc N. Addiego; Mayor Merr~bers of the City Council City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San l~rallcisco, CA 944&3 Re: South )'ul Camino Rea( General Plan Amendment Dear Mayor Addiego and CouncilmeYnbers: My family owns the Souiliwood Center along El Cariz:i~io lZeal iri South San Francisco. rt has recently come to our attei~itio~i that tl~e South El Camino Real Cxener~ii Plan Ainendmc;nt would change our lan8 use and require new development to be at a greatly increased density level, most Iilcely requiring underground our structured parking. We question the economic reasonalilei~ess of this proposal and would like it furtliei• studied, at a minimum. We think it is a mistake to limit the flexibility that propei=ty ovyvners Dave to redevelop their properties in this area. Vile would support SyWest's recent pr~opo:~al for greater flexibilitywith density along this con`idar: Please take additional time to tmdersta:nd the ramifications of this General flan Amendment or male the necessary charges to provide greater flexibility for the liraperty owners: Th`e prapert'.ies along this con-idor are unique and may not Ue suitable for the vision outlined in yor.ir Gelieral Plan Amendment. S' cerely, Joe Welch Attachments cc: Barry Nagel, City Manager Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager Susy Kallrin, Chief Planner SILVESTRI SILVESTKI & MIALOCQ 'Philip S. Silvestri, Esq p h it ~sitvestrilaw.com `~ A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, ATTOffNEYS &COUN5ELOR5 AT LAW 550 Price Avenue, Suite A Redwood City, CA 94063 Steven P Silvestri, Esq. s teve ~s i Ivestr i law, co m 'Slajonne M. Mialocq, Esq. stajo n ne~si I veslrilaw.com 'Certified Family Law Specialist State Bar of California Board of Specialization March 22, 2010 Mark N. Addiego, Mayor Members of the City Council City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 Re: South EI Camino General Plan Amendment Dear Mayor Addiego and Council members: Reply by Mail lo: Box 8022 Redwood City, CA 94063 Tel 650 367 0442 Fax 650 367 0556 My name is Steven Silvestri, I am one of the owners of 555 EI Camino Real (Dollar Tree Store site), the other owners are members of my immediate family. I am also the attorney/manager for the property. I am fending you this letter to express our concerns regarding the General Plan Amendment. I was at the planning commission meeting on Thursday February 4, 2010 and I spoke to the commission to express my concems which I'm again doing in this letter. Unfortunately, I am out of town and unable to attend the meeting on March 24, 2010 so I am submitting this letter which I hope will either be read at the meeting or considered by you prior to any vote. Our property at 555 EI Camino Real is greater than 20,000 square feet. If you approve the proposed General Plan Amendment as it stands, any new development on my properly will require us as property owners to hive a minimum .6 FAR. While I am not apposed to allowing property owners to have greater density on their properties, I have serious concerns about forcing property owners in the corridor to meet this level of density as a minimum. My concems can briefly be summarized as follows: (1} As a property owner, I was not even aware that this change to the general plan amendment was being proposed. I pointed out to the planning commission on February 4, 2010 that the notices sent out to property owners did not clearly state nor could it even be inferred that a dramatic minimum FAR requirements were being applied to property lots of 20,OOi0 sq. feet or larger. It is my understanding that this change was made a,1~`erfinal comments were taken on the environmental impact report in mid January, just a week or two before the February meeting. March 23, Z€l1~ P.2 (2} As a property owner, the expense of creating a multi use property together with building a separate parking garage structure is not economically feasible. There has been absolutely no study regarding the economic costs this amendment will shift onto the land owners to meet the city`s proposed .6 FAR minimums. Furthermore, there f7as been no economic study done to show that there is even an existing demand by small business owners for commercial property space in the manner which meets the .6 FAR. requirements. (3) I have first hand knowledge of the cost it takes to .build a parking lot (not a parking structure which is a much larger construction and financial undertaking} add a new roof, add a new HVAC and do earthquake retrofitting. These were major projects which were very expensive, all of which are minuscule in comparison to what it would take far us to redevelop .our property under the proposed .6 FAR requirements. The mandatary minimum .6 FAR will force myself and I believe nearly all .farad .owners who would be effected by this plan, to maintain status qua and not make any signiifican~ development changes because it is simply cost prohibitive. The owners of 555 F1 Camino Real are in support of SyWest's request to provide greater flexibility for the property owners in this corridor,.. I verbally gave my support to the planning commission on February 4, 20.0 and. I'm again .giving ghat support directly to you. T would ask that you please consider the needs and economic reality of the business and property owners in South San Francisco. The financial costs of the minium .6 FAP, to the property owners is not economically fusible and I believe it will discourage change/development in the corridor rather tha'r7 encouraging it. T am sorry that I am not able to attend the City Council meeting but I am going to be out of the state on Wednesday night and unable t+a attend. Thank you very much far taking the time to consider our concerns. cc: Barry Nagel, City (Manager Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City manager Susy Kalkin, Chief Planner Philip & Dianne Silvestri (via e-mail only} Lauren Silvestri (via e-mail only) Karin Silvestri (via e-mail only) ..~ i*' U R i`~•I i T U R E G ~. L_ L E R. i. E S San Francisco-San Jose Bay ~~rca ~1arclh 24, 2010 I~'Iarl; N. Addiego, Mayor Members of the Cit}l Council Cir<~ of South San hrancisco 400 Grand Avenue South San 1~rancisca, CA 94083 Re: South 1-~l Camino Ger~etal Plan Amendment Dear Mayor Addiego and Cauncilmembers: I m the owner of the Lazy I3o}' business and underlying property: I recently became aware of some of the changes proposed for the South rl Camina Real aria and would like to eLpress m}' concerns. M}~ propcrtp is greater than 20,000 square feet and as such if you approve tl?e proposed General flan Amendment as it stands, an}~ new development on my property will be required to hate a minimum .G FAR. ~Xjhile I am nat apposed to ullulving greater clensit}' I believe the requirement for this level of densit~~ will force manta propert}~ owners in tlxis corridor, including rn}rself, to put limited investment into their properties rather than meet this significant development requirement. I am in support of Sy~}Vest's request to provide greater Ele~:ibility- for the property owners in this corridor. I have attached the letter the}- recently subinittcd to~ City Council. Please consider the needs of the business and property 4~vners in South San Francisco. I am sorry that I am not able to attend the Cin~ Council meeting but ~ am out of the country. "I'haiilc you ver}' much far }'our consideration of my concerns,. Sin el}', an I vingedal Attachments cc: Barry Nagel, Cit}~ Manager ~-Tarty Van Duyn, Assistant Cin~ Manager Sus}~ Malkin, ChieF Planner i March 2~1, 2G 10 The Honorable Mark Addiego, Mayor 1\~tembers of the City Council City of South San Francisco ~k00 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 9-080 Re: SOU1:11 EI CaI1111I0 RCa1 Gellei'al PlaI1 Atttelldllletit Deal' Major Addicgo and City Councilmelnbers: VIA EMAIL Please accept this letter in support ofthe proposal as outlined by SyWest development in their letl:er from JJlizabetll Puccillelli dated March 16, 2010, Ms. Puccillelli advocated au alternative resolution to the currently proposed General Plan Amenclrnent (GPA) ~~~11ic11 would allow staff more flexibility dealing with develolxnent issues on nxdividual properties. We are concerned about the proposed GPA's stt~ingellt requirements tivitl~out flexibility for 5ltllatl011S ~v1t11 Slte constraints being applies to such a wide aI•ray of properties along the Il Camino Real Corridor. LandMarlc Retail Group represents CVS Pharll~ac}~. ~Witll our consultant team, tive have been ~vorkillg with Cit}~ staff since March of 2009 to develop a site plan acceptable to all parties for a ne~v CVS Pharmacy to replace an existing car wasll al~cl vacant lot at the southwest corner of El Camino Real alld. Chestnut. Our team engaged. in several informal meetings and exchaliges duriu 2009, and eve attended GPA tivorksliops and hearings. V~~e met rvitli IvSarty Va1lDuyn, Suzy Kallcill, Steve Mattas, and Mire Lapin o1Y October 14, 2009 v~~here eve discussed specific ellcumbrances impacting our site, including public utilities easements, setback restrictions, and the adjacency of the BART linear park, all of tivhicll severely limit the development oppol•tllnities -and reduce buildable area on this property, At t11at meeting, eve agreed to continue to work together oil a site plan that implemented as much of the vision of the ne«7 GPA as possible once a lease vas executed between CVS alld the property owner, The lease has no~v been signed, and eve al•e prepared to reengage with City staff to develop a quality project. ~'~Te are coneerlied that tl7e proposed GPA will jeopardize the viability of this and. other projects by restricting staff's flexibility in addressing individual sites «fith respect to physical constrains, and encumbrances that limit development flexibility. Like the City of South San Francisco, both LaI1dMaI.1~ Retail Group and CVS/pharil~acy tivallt a successful project that benefits the City and its residents. ~~re look forward to ~vorl.ing with w•YrvJJ~~r~cimarkE~etailgrouh.ron~ - Gtr OUP i\:SmC Company Vfarch 2~i, 2010 Page 2 of 2 Council and staff to aciclress the spirit anti goals of the GPA, ho~i+ever, we must also advocate for guidelines and a process that will balance the vest possible design ~~>ith site coiistrainis. Very tru y o ~r ; i ~' ;% -~i '~ ;~ / 11 (~ it ./ ~ ~ /4 f f Holly ,~i~zywacz~`~~~~ ~ ,~ I` , ` r Director of Devch~p~>,1`ent 1~aidMark h,t;ta'il G~.oup,. %. /f`~ i` _`~ ~- L.' cc: Marty Van Duyi~, Assistant City Manager Slizy Kallcin, Chief Planner Fred. Bravo, Owners Repa•esentative Judy Davidoff, Sheppard Mullin Elizabeth Puccinelli, SyV}~est Development David Greensfelcler, LandMarlc Retail Group Joe Oertel, CVS/pharmacy Edward Cook, CVS/pharmacy Joe Vieira, CV5/Pharmacy l3eveCo~menfT E[.lztiur°rl( Pucc(rvcl,l,l March 1 G, 2010 ~jYA IIArID DEI~Z'VJr;R~' The HoI>.orable Mal'lc Addiego, Mayor Members of fine City Council City of South Sall. Frallcisca X00 Grand Avenue Soutl3 San Francisco, CA 94080 ~2e: Sol>itli EI ~aTi11T10 r2:et1I Gener~~I Plan Ameudnxei~t Dear Mayor Addiego and City Coullcilmenlbers: Dnlec-rD1nL (als>aas•s-iG) I•AC$lhii[.G (•115)254-3aG1 The City Council is being asked. to approve a Gclleral Plan Ai:nelldnlent (GPA) and. related 1'C',gUlatC)1'y dC)G11111C11tS t0 11elll SOLltll SaI1 Fl'allclsc0 1'eallLe a VIS1oI1 for' the SOlltll ~I CaI111I10 Real COrr1C1C)1'. 111 illany Ways, the Cll:y 1S fo b0 c0111111eIlded fUl' r~Tt1C%lllating aI1Cl foI'nllllatlllg a VISIOII for this important and critical corridor. in your community. The vision cannot, llowuver, be realized simply through the pl"U!1]ulgatlOn Of doCUIllUntS of the adopt10I1 Of 1'egulat1o11S. ReallZat10i1 of the V1510n requll'Ci5 ~1d11erellce to sound economic principles, appreciation of certain market forces and ultimately t11e willingness of property Owllel'S t0 aSSllllle the eC0110I111C r1S1C associated with developing their properties in accordance with the City's vision. Our greatest concern with the GPA, as presented, is with fihe :proposed El Camino Real Mixed Use (ECRM~} tolling district. As «~ritten, the 1C1~ nlalldates that properties lal•ger than 20,000 square feel satisf}~ a rnirzizzzarnz floor al•ea ratio (FAIL.} of 0.6. Under present market conditions, acid foI- the foreseeable firture, this level and intensity of developlxlent is not economically viable for all. parcels along this corridor. It is also inlportallt to dispel a myth in]lerent in the GPA, v loch is that every property should be developed at its most intense level. Ill reality, developing properly to its most intelise level increases the cost of developmelt. Depending on the project, t:hc cost of doing so may reach file point where the lIIVeSt111L'Ilt 1S Ilot wat-1'allted. Indeed, il'tl7e GPA is adopted as presented, the end result may be fhat property owners Will elect to forego any development risk and instead err on the side of maintaining the status quo. Hardly what the City would like to happen, 1'nl sure. 150 f'E1_ICAIa ~~nY O SAhJ It,~l:.1si., C"; ~ 94901 The Honorable Marlc Addiega, Mayer Members of the City Council March 16, 2010 Page 2 Understanding the City's desire to tl~al~sform the f;l Calnil~o Cori-iclor, we propose an incentive-based alternative (see at-fiaclunents) for your consideration. essentially, our proposal does tlll•ee things: (1) it maintains the 20,OU0 square-foot threshold, (?} it establishes a FAIL range of between 0.4 and 0.6, and (3) it provides a two-tier review process; Under our proposal, projects That can satisfy the 0.6 FAIL and also conform to file design gtlidelincs would be candidates for approval at the administrative Level. On the-other hand, f'c~r those projects with a lower FAR., say O.h or 0.5, our proposal calls for those projects fie be subjected to the conditional use process and a public hearing, thereby granting decision-makers, ~vlletllcr it is the COn11111S51o11 Ol' file Clty ColtI1C11, the discretion to approve or deny rile proj eet. We are prepared to work with you and City staff to achieve the underlying lnlrpose of this amendment. The only tiling we ask is that the City provide flexibility in the best way to achieve the desired results. Our suggested revi.5ions presented hereon are offered with this spil•it in mind. Sincerely, ~~ ~~ Llizab 1 Puccinelli Fi'/sw Attaclirnents CC: Slisy ICalklll, Chief Planner Frorri GPA, chapter 2, Page 2~~ For sites larger than 20,000 square feet, the minimum FAR for ali uses, exclusive of substantially abave~ grade structured parking, shall be between 0.~-and O.G, of whicP~ a minimum of 0.2 to 0.3 FAR shall be active uses. ~(•he requirement for a minimum of 0.2 to 0.3 FAR of active uses does not apply to projects whore 30% of the units arc restricted and affordable to low- or low-mocerate-income I~ouseholds. From GPA, Chap#er 2, ~'aqe 2~'1 D 7. For sites larger than 20,000 square feet, the minimum 1=AR for all uses, exclusive of substantlally above-grade structured parking, shall be Between 0.4 and O.G, of which a Minimum of 0.2 to 0.3 FAR shall be active uses. The requirement for a minimum off' 0~2 tote a.3 FAR of active uses sloes not apply to projects where 30% of the units are restricted -and affordable to low- orlaw-moderate-income housel7oids. From GPA; Chapter 2, Page 2~'i'1 3. For sites larger than 20,000 square feet, the minimum F{~R for ail uses, exclusive of substantially above-grade structured parking, shelf be brltween _0~4~gnd 0.0, of which aminimum of 0.2 to 0.3 FAR shall be active uses. The requirement for a minimum of 0.2 to 0.3'FAR of active uses does not apply to projects where 30% o~ the units are restricted and affordable to low-~ or low-moderate~~income households. From GPA, Chapter 3, Pacte._3-~ 3.4-~ _~ g Require any development/redevelopment on sites larger than 2Q,000 square feet at a FAR of no less than between 0.~ t:o 0.6, exclusive of substantially above grade structured parking, of which a minimum of a.2 to 0,3 FAR shall be devoted to active uses. The requirement for a minimw~i of 0.2 to 0.3 FAR of active uses does not apply to projects where 30% of the units are restricted and affordable to low- er low moderate-income households. Erorri GP/~ ~oning Section, Page'} PURPOSE The purposes of the CI Camino Real Mixed~Use district are ta; ~ . Develop the South Ef Camino, ~~rea as a vibrant corridor with a variety of residentta! and nonresidential uses to foster an economicatlV sustain~bl~.~ tivall<able and pedestrian- scaled environment; 2. Ensure that active uses are located along and oriented towards EI Camino E~eal to provide an engaging pedestrian..scaled environment; 3. Ensure ti7at new mixed-use development is designed to minimize traffic and parking impacts on surrounding residential neight~orhoods and is appropriate to the physical characteristics of the site and the area where tl7e projectis proposed; ~. offer addit}oral opportunities for boos}ncg for residents as well as improve access to a greater range of facilities and services for surrounding r!esidenti~l neighborhoods; and 5. Encourage the development of mixed-use projects tl1~t incorporate environmentally sensitive features and amenities to bei7efit the public as well as meet the needs of project occupants. From Ca['A ~onir~ct ~oo~ion, Pale 5 1*I Camino Real Mixed~Use L7istrict Draft for Review and Discussion I 4~ ~,9 ,., U ANUS-i:~>~ C~ANflNO1fi~AtijNtk~©r > SE~pl~r7RIC~' r P~l1~NT ~TA-N~ TsA~3t~ ~ ~3J~1f~l~C) , . .r,$i. ~ ~. 04? , _.. f. .3.J7r.r _ s r} ~ w ( ~.5 x cam' S. It.~4C r i "~/ t~ t / s ,. t.~ ,. ~, s'~~ rd 3 ~~rf$~a ~l~F rf~I ~f s ~~ ;~ n~a iArldtf`t n ~CRMX "`'h , ~ ,, 3 _,, ~ Stanc~grtl > ~ . ~ :~` y r 5.. F ~^ r H ~~~ ! { t L'=otat~cl~r3tet~ity(d~i~s~ty~~~ahdards _, z., .,..~,.r ..._ s ._'<<;,.,... r>... _.~_: Tlie consolidation of substandard parcels is Minimum I_ot Size (sq ft) 20,OOD oncouragcd even iF the consolidated parcel size is loss than the minimum lot size. Minimum I_oi Width (ft) 50 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) J b.4 to 0.6 exclusive o For the pw'poses of ibis chapior, "site" is defined of areas devoted to a$ a tot or group of lots on the same Ulock that is Mirtirnurn Floor Area Ratio, sites parking, of tivhich a proposed for concurrent dovolopment approval in Larger Phan 20,000 square feet minimum of t):2 to accordance with the provisions of this ordinance 0:3 FAR shall be and is in a single ownership or under unified active uses control. a Fgr sites with BAR of 0.4 or 0.5, a CUP shall j~ required For sites with FAR of 0.6, an AUP (3.5 for mixed- 2.5 slhall be required. . use buildings with e The requirement for a minimum 0.2 to 0.3 FAR Maximum Floor Area Ratio incentive program of active uses does not apply to projects where (A}} 3p% of the units are restricted and affordable to low- orlow-moderate-income households. a Siee Section Mules of Moasuremoni Maximum Density (dwelling unlislnet acres _.. 60 (80 with incentives See Affordable blousing Regulations Mixed-Use Duildings roc ram A _ - Residontlal-only Buildings 40 SQa Affordable Housin Rec ulatlons 9 •J k - _ _ 13uild(tig Forrr~ a~d~;l"acaf(an, ~ " Height (ft) Minimum Height 25 ([3} a0 (I3} (120 for mixed-use buildings See i-laights and f-leighi Cxceptions and Maximum Heighf with incentives Supplemental Standards ro ram A Yards (ft} Front (El Camino Real Frontage Minimum 12, Building See Building Projections info Yards is alvrays considered the front of Avorage: 't6 (C) the lot; measured from curb Minimum Interior' Side 0, 10 when abutting a See Building Projections into Yards (moasured from ro ert line residential district _ Minimum Sfroc~f Side (measured .10 See Building Projections into Yards {rom prope~~y lin~_ _ Minimum Rear (moasured from 15 (B)(D) See 13uildintd Projections into Yards roperty lino Maximum Lot Coverage (% of lot} 90 See Rules of Measurement William. T. Mitchell 7.954 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite A, t Walnut Creek, CA 9459 + 925-9$$-8033(1) 925-988-80320 Match Z4, ZOIp Via Fax 650-8z9-6609 ~' 9SZ-5693 City Council of South San Francisco c/o City Hall Opp Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 Re: South EI Camino Real. Genexa~ Plan Axr~e,~rrd~ea,~.t, South San Francisco, CA bear Councilrnember's, It is my personal. opinion after 30 years of con~excial zeal estate e~cperience that the proposed axne~drnent and suppozting toning and desib b idelines aimed at fostering higb.er intensity and density of development along the 1-~l Caxz~O will, not achieve the stated goals.. I have e~pxessed my opinion to youz staff in the past and wish to reiterate that opinion to you before you tape action on the matter. I currently believe that if passed the city council will come to zegret the decision. By requiring a minimum FAR as the general plan mandates instead of the norm of a znaxixnum FAR the free market will no longer dictate what density of deve~loprnent will be undertaken, the ordinance will. It. maybe ten years before the density of development required by the ordinance ~vi11. become econoxnical,~y feasible. his vain prevent properties that otherwise would be redeveloped at less density from going forward 7 he FAR's that are mandated require that structured or subterranean laarkizag be pzovi.ded in order to provide the z~arket dictated parking ~:atios to support healthy business. I caution you that a yes vote nay shut down redevelopment along the El Camino in the subject area for the n,e.tt five or ten years (xxzaybe longer). ~f the free market would support the type of projects being mandated by the ordinance why wouldn't they be moving loxwazd on their o~vn without it? .e ordinance before you has the power to adversely impact the creation of new construction, jobs in the subject area fox many years to come. Generally I support the stated objectives and have shazed that support with you and youz staff ixz the past. Hotivever, the oxdiz~an,ce before you this evening is not a desizable means to chose objectives. Thazal* you, for allowing me to voice xny personal opinion.. From: Janice Tasista [[email protected]] Sert: Monday, March 15, 2010 7:47 PM To: Soto, Irene; Webmaster; Martinelli-Larson, Krista; [email protected]; Grossman, Brian [Oakland]; Nagel, Barry; VanDuyn, Marty; All Council; WEB-ECD; Massoni, Mike Subject: In response to the City of South San rrancisco's Notice of Public Hearing scheduled for March 24, 2010: In response to the City of South San Francisco's Notice of Public Hearing scheduled for March 24, 2010: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT I, Janice Tasista, object to the South El Camino Real General Plan in its entirety. I preserve my rights to challenge in court any actions taken by the Council regarding any and all projects that may adversely effect me or my property value, inchlding, but not limited to, the General Plan, General Plan Amendment, Zoning Amendment, Rezoning and Design Guidelines and any other development projects. I do not believe that the interests of the residents of South San Francisco are being considered. Of great concern to me is increased traffic, lack of adequate parking, lower property value and loss of the quiet enjoyment of one's property. This has already become an issue in the Brentwood area due to a nightclub being allowed to operate in a residential neighborhood. Considering the poor decisions made regarding the Brentwood area, I do not have faith in the City of South San Francisco's decision-makers. I have lived here 23 years and it is very disturbing to see what is happening to the Brentwood area. I do not believe the City is intentionally targeting this area, but have great concerns over its lack of judgment. I cannot possibly believe that these upcoming projects will be anything but a detriment to the area. South El Camino Real should not be developed. It would not serve any purpose to construct giant buildings in the area. If my little view of San Bruno 1Vlountain goes away I will be very upset. There are already too many people, cars and traffic in this area. It would be nice to renovate and perhaps enlarge Safeway, but that's about it. Nodling that has been added to this area has benefited the residents (i.e. Dialysis Center, Goodwill, CVS, Intramuros). San Bruno has a large shopping center (near Brentwood) in addition to Tanforan with many vacant shops in both. There is no demand for more retail shops in the area. South San Francisco has an industrial area and there is no need to bring more of the same to South El Camino Real. There are vacant offices ail over the City, so we do not need more of these either. In theory the redevelopment sounds great, however it will instead adversely effect the current residents in area. We cannot possibly tolerate any more traffic or people in the area. Therefore, I reiterate my objections and notify the City of South San Francisco City Council, City Manager, City Attorneys and the Planning Commission that I do not intend to give up my right to sue in court for issues that may arise from any and all plans to renovate South El Camino Real, whether known, anticipated or unknown at this time, or for the poor decision-making of its officials. I hope that the City of South San Francisco does not take its responsibility lightly in determining what needs to be done for the benefit of its current residents. sincerely /s/ Janice Tasista 153 Brentwood Drive South San Francisco, CA 94080 (650) 873-0163 3i 18/2010 7 i~/~j /~~ ~~ ~ ~7 ~~ i T ~ ~'~'.~' /~ ~= ~ s r l~ ~. ~~~'} 7~ ~~~ /~ _ ~`/°7 ilk ,:L-i /-~ ,~~..U L. ~ ~~~' ~/~/` _ _ ~ ~ /~ Imo, /~/ ~%`~~ ; ` ~'~/U .~ _ ,~_ /j ~°.~, , .5~~% ~ L~ ~. ~~ % // / ks l~ ~ ~ /lam' G-- ~ ~" .~ ,