HomeMy WebLinkAbout08.19.93 Minutes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 REPORTER: PAUL SCHILLER, CSR #1268
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
ON
EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN
Thursday, August 19, 1993
8:10 p.m.
Municipal Services Building
33 Arroyo Drive
South San Francisco, California
SCHILLER'S REPORTING SERVICE (415)759-1477
1
1 PLANNING COMMISSION:
2 MARGARET WARREN, Chairman
3 ROBERT MANTEGANI, Vice Chairman
4 MICHAEL DE ZORDO, Commissioner
5 JOHN LUCCHESI, Commissioner
6 LEO PADREDDII, Commissioner
7 ALAN ZELLMER, Commissioner
8
9 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO:
10 STEVE SOLOMON, Chief Planner and Interim
11 Director of Economic & Community
12 Development
13 STEVE CARLSON, Senior Planner
14
15 BRADY & ASSOCIATES:
16 DAVID EARLY
17
18
19
20
---000---
21
22
23
24
25
SCHILLER'S REPORTING SERVICE (415)759-1477
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
LARRY DORSEY
HARVEY LEVINE
DOUG THOMAS
DAVID BALDWIN
MICHAEL DE ZORDO
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Paqe
4
6
23
29
COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS
30
---000---
SCHILLER'S REPORTING SERVICE (415)759-1477
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
EXCERPTS
LARRY DORSEY: My name is Larry Dorsey, and I
am with McDonald's Corporation at 2480 North First Street,
Suite 220, in San Jose.
It is a pleasure to be here and to
participate in this review of the Area Plan and the EIR.
In going over the policies, one item is of
particular concern to us, because -- let me say it before
I get to that -- within the area, McDonald's has long felt
that the area could well support a use such as ours.
There is more than adequate people that work
there, shop there, visit there, so it's a viable
marketplace for us.
There are a few areas that we can locate it,
the ones that provide half good accessibility. The areas
that we feel we can locate in are areas that provide good
accessibility for traffic, customers coming off the
arterials, good, solid traffic flow.
It is important to have good ease of traffic
in and out of the site; good visibility is also important.
Now, as far as the specific item that we're
concerned about, it's in the Land Use Element, the policy
LU-20 on page V-38; and the policy reads:
"Drive-through restaurants may be built as
components of commercial centers in the east of 101
SCHILLER'S REPORTING SERVICE (415)759-1477
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
area, which should not be built as stand-alone uses
on single parcels."
In trying to locate over the past years, we
looked at various parcels and also looked at really what I
think is the only center at this point that maybe fills
this definition, although I'm not sure what a definition
of a commercial center is, that center being the Price
Club project.
We would be delighted to develop a restaurant
within a commercial center, but we find it very difficult
and somewhat limiting to confine ourselves to only
commercial centers. We are very sympathetic to the
architectural and aesthetic development process that is
envisioned for this area.
The years of corporate architecture are
somewhat behind us, and I feel confident that any
development that we would develop, architecturally,
landscaping-wise, can more than satisfy you in your
desires for a good, representative development in that
area.
From a practical standpoint, it's going to be
very difficult for us to develop only in shopping centers
or in a commercial center. We certainly would like to do
so, but we encourage you to develop some guidelines or
some parameters, some goals, that we might try to achieve
SCHILLER'S REPORTING SERVICE (415)759-1477
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
jointly in the site selection process, rather than
confining this to a commercial center only.
That's it for me. If you have any questions,
please ask.
HARVEY LEVINE: My name is Harvey Levine,
5000 Hopyard Road, Pleasanton, California, law offices of
Hallgrimson, McNichols, McCann & Inderbitzen.
I am here representing Sierra Point
Associates Two, the owners of the property which, in the
East of 101 Plan, is called the Koll property.
I have a letter and some attachments which I
will give to you at the end.
I will try to be brief and summarize it
before it gets too much.
Sierra Point Associates Two have a number of
objections, complaints, concerns. Those of you who have
been here long enough probably heard them before. I am
sure they will come up and remind you of them again.
The basic overall complaint we have is the
one, in fact, in the beginning of this process, which is
the airport has bought a zoning change here, or we are
in the process of having a zoning change produced, and we
don't think it is appropriate in this matter, and your
responsibility as a city is to exercise police power in
the airport's appropriate behavior.
SCHILLER'S REPORTING SERVICE (415)759-1477
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
Leaving that aside for a moment, there are a
2
number of things about the Plan we're also concerned
3
about:
4
One of the things that we feel the Plan does
5
is make it more difficult to market properties like the
6
Koll property in the Plan. The reason for that is the
7
Plan uses are segregated between the planned commercial,
8
planned industrial, light industrial, and categorized so
9
that properties like Koll, the 27-acre property that will
take some time to build out, will be stuck with a
designation when, in fact, there are lots of appropriate
uses that could be built on that site, and, in fact, there
is lots of people over time looking at that site for those
uses.
Office uses, of course, you're familiar with.
Some people have looked at it and have not decided to
build. That includes VISA.
We have talked about residential uses with
the City staff, and we brought in information showing how
very high density use on that site would work.
Industrial uses, we have been talking and
trying to get UCSF to bring its biotechnology project to
-
that site; and we have talked to a number of other places
as well, so there is a number of opportunities over time
that I think are injured by a very Euclidian zoning
SCHILLER'S REPORTING SERVICE (415)759-1477
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
approach, just saying, "we're going to have on this
particular 27 acres planned industrial."
It makes it much more difficult for the owner
of the property and the developer to market it and bring
in a project, and it limits in some ways the City's
opportunity to capture good development as it comes
through.
So that is a general concern about the
overall approach that this Plan takes.
Existing zonings are much broader, allow more
combined uses, and an easier opportunity to market.
Some people said, when we made that argument,
"well, when you have the right project, don't worry, just
bring the use in, and we will change the General Plan
zoning for you, if we like him."
The difficulty with that is that the user
can, in fact, go to places that have more flexible zoning,
that does not take 18 months of planning, so not only does
the landowner lose out ultimately, but so does the City.
Going to the Plan itself and its details, we
were much taken with a couple of things in the Plan which
we think speak volumes:
One of them is found at II-284a, and that is
the discussion of the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District Guidelines and Indirect Source Regulations, some
SCHILLER'S REPORTING SERVICE (415)759-1477
8
1
of which have not gone into effect yet.
2
A brief review of that single page explains
3
why banning residential from East of 101 is a bad idea. I
4
will just read a little bit from it:
5
BAAQMD calls for "residential and workplace
6
densities sufficient enough to support cost-effective
7
public transportation systems."
8
Calls for: "Mixed land uses, residences,
9 workplaces, and services located closely enough that
10 private motorized transit between them would not be
11 necessary."
12 It recommends that "Cities and counties will
13 be encouraged to cooperate with the transit agencies in
14 planning for high density, mixed-use, cluster development
15 near BART, Caltrain and light rail stations."
16 All of those concepts, we think, should be
17
applied to the East of 101. You are making major
18
long-term decisions for the l,700-acre property. That is
19 exactly what was not done in the Plan, except for one
20 -policy that says "at 20% density, if you are a
21 quarter-mile from a transit stop."
22 The strength of having mixed uses with
-
23 residential in your Plan goes not just to my client's need
24
to develop its land
of course, that is why I'm here --
25
abut it also helps the overall development of the project
SCHILLER'S REPORTING SERVICE (415)759-1477
9
1
area.
2
One of the things that is hurting Silicon
3
Valley now, as you all know, is the lack of affordable and
4
reasonably priced housing to the massive development that
5
is coming on line. Companies are going out of Silicon
6 Valley rather than going into it, and it is because of
7 exactly the things that this Plan does; it bans housing in
8 the nearby areas and does not deal with the burgeoning
9 problem of the commuters from the East of 101 area getting
10 home.
11 A survey, which we will submit to you along
12 with documentation, points out that between 40 and 50% of
13 all the workers east of the 101 area now commute to
14 outside the county.
15 The freeway today is not in too bad a shape,
16 but as the airport expansion moves ahead and its 30,000
17 new workers in the next 15 to 20 years, it will bring with
18 it congestion, which is going to go up; and that is even
19 without your Plan.
20 So I think it is going to be important for
21 the PI~n writers to be sure that they have estimates of
22 the Airport Master Plan effects on 101, so that these
-
23 estimates are correct.
24 The problem that the Bay Area Air Pollution
25 Management District is addressing goes to two issues:
SCHILLER'S REPORTING SERVICE (415)759-1477
10
1 It goes to, one, the impact of community on
2 the system of air quality; and two, the lack of housing
3 near work when you drive longer and longer commutes.
4 This Plan talks about adding tens of
5 thousands of workers to this area, providing no housing.
6 We understand why that happens in this
7 particular Plan, but we think it is a bad policy, and it
8 is bad for the City, and we think the positive things that
9 are spoken of in the Plan, the expected income and
10 revenues that are going to come from the third
11 alternative, are not going to come.
12 The reason they are not going to corne is that
13 you're not going to get the new business you think you
14 are, as the freeway gets worse and the transportation
15 times get longer, and there is no housing.
16 So we think not only by not following the Air
17 Quality and Management Board's recommendations it will
18 hurt us, but it will hurt your Plan as well, and the
19 delays, the likelihood of getting what you think you will
-
20 get out of the Plan; and it makes the increased tax base
21 less.
22 There is also in the Plan -- it indicates
23 "Market Study Section, if you're following this, 111-123
24 to 149 -- an extensive discussion of the demand for uses
25
in the Plan area. And our suggestion, in particular, is
SCHILLER'S REPORTING SERVICE (415)759-1477
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
for rental housing, which is the very last section.
When you look in there, you will see that, by
conservative estimate, 2-1/2% capture rate, over 2,000
units would be expected to come east of the 101 area.
That is a conservative need that we're looking at by this
decision.
At a higher cap rate of 5%, it is 4,600 units
that can be expected.
There is a reason why they are expected,
because people want to live near their workplace. That's
what people would prefer to do.
What is more, enjoy -- I'm sorry, I gave you
a wrong number.
CHAIRMAN WARREN: You kept saying, I think,
3,000 units; and I'm sort of troubled, because I keep
seeing twenty-two to twenty-eight hundred.
MR. LEVINE: I'm sorry, you're correct. The
3,000 adds the owners as well as renters. That is the
19 total. The total on multi-family housing is 2,000 to
20 4,600; and it breaks out multi-family and home family.
21 While the market study is not expected to
22 show great demand for owned multi-family condominiums, it
23 is a serious problem out there for multi-family rental
24 housing and to create a demand for that and a high capture
25 rate, and there are virtually no projects on the horizon
SCHILLER'S REPORTING SERVICE (415)759-1477
12
1
in our county for that type of housing.
2
We think that the City makes a big mistake in
3
not considering that type of project for the East of 101
4
Area. That is the kind of project that would also enhance
5 all of the business development that you are seeking, not
6 to mention the business development that is going to be
7 driven by the airport expansion.
8 In this particular area of the county, South
9 City and the airport, we are looking at a significant
10 number of jobs.
11 The tax benefits that are discussed in the
12 Plan on the Alternative Section, we think underestimate
13 the value of residential and overestimate the value of
14 commercial and industrial.
15 That happens two ways:
16 From office space, for instance, which is
17 valued for assessment purposes at $152 per square foot. In
18 fact, we think, in San Mateo County, it is more like $75
19 per square foot, roughly half of what the Plan says.
20 The way the Plan gets there is by overstating
21 the rents that are available and understating the expense
22
ratios, using overly aggressive cap rates. It inflates
23
-
the value of the commercial and industrial, and the
24
numbers are too high.
25
On the other hand, it properly assesses the
SCHILLER'S REPORTING SERVICE (415)759-1477
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
value of residential but then does not recognize the cost
factors involved in reduction of public services.
When you do a high density residential
project, as opposed to single-family or low density
projects, you are able to build in a number of cost
savings factors -- private security, full sprinklers, not
to mention use of use districts and capital school costs
and library costs. There are ways, if you have sufficient
density, to make multi-family pay for itself and not
depend on the City.
So I think it is worth looking at the numbers
you have that make commercial and industrial greater and
not residential for the tax purposes, and we don't believe
that is the case.
Also, those numbers don't include
redevelopment revenues. Between the alternatives, it
makes it far less desirable, not more desirable, than
either the planned commercial alternative or the market
alternative.
There are some other things that we don't
quite ~nderstand in terms of the reasoning of the Plan.
I'll discuss just a few:
The one that struck us, I thought, made us
really confused, was the treatment of Shearwater versus
the treatment of the Koll property on the preferred
SCHILLER'S REPORTING SERVICE (415)759-1477
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
alternative.
If you take a look at that, you will see that
Shearwater is nicely striped; it has mixed planned
commercial and planned industrial zoning under the General
Plan; and then, when you get to the Koll property, you
simply find industrial.
This is particularly disturbing. The Koll
8 property is uniquely located in the Plan. In fact, it
9 looks like it falls off the map, but the map and the
10 jurisdiction lines don't reflect the actual geography.
11 The Koll property is at the freeway off-ramp;
12 it's next to a development that is partially developed and
13
has a marina. It has a lot of things going for it, rather
14 than just the end of the world.
15 One of the things that we're asking for is,
16 whatever else happens about residential, that you give us
17 the flexibility to try to meet the market on that site;
18 and clearly somebody in defining the property thinks that
19 the Shearwater site has some possibility; they striped it
20 for different uses.
21 In our real world of business, we would like
22 to see it striped with a third use, that we call mixed
23 uses; and that is what is lacking in this Plan; and mixed
24 use development would include residential, would include
25 commercial and retail, all of those things working hand in
SCHILLER'S REPORTING SERVICE (415)759-1477
15
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
hand.
2
A wonderful example of mixed use are the
3
developments that are being built now in San Francisco;
4
and we think that the Plan lacks that notion; and we think
5
that would be very appropriate on the site.
6
Circulation Policy No. 5 is a particular
7
problem for us, and I direct your attention to that. It
8
has an odd statement, odd to us, at least, at this general
9
level of planning. It seems to have almost conditions,
and I will just read it:
"Roadway access to the Koll site shall be
provided via a bridge across a portion of the Bay
between the site and the Shearwater site or flyover
ramps from the site to Bayshore Boulevard. If the
bridge is built, it shall not allow access from
Brisbane into the East 101 Area."
I'll read it again:
"If the bridge is built, it shall not allow
access from Brisbane into the East 101 Area.
Improvements shall be completed by the project
_sponsor at the time of development of the Koll
site."
--
If you read on, it says that the reason for
that kind of bizarre notation is that there is a fear that
you'd get so much traffic from Sierra Point that it will
SCHILLER'S REPORTING SERVICE (415)759-1477
16
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
overwhelm the Oyster Point interchange.
2
Well, aside from the legal and technical ways
3
of people driving their cars from Brisbane to a project on
4
the same side of the street as into the City, into the
5
East 101 Area, it suggests a number of problems with the
6
Plan itself.
7
The Plan does say in the Financing Section
8
that improvements should be paid for by all the users, and
9
fairly restrictive, but by saying that you're going to
build a bridge across the Bay to get Koll connected to the
rest of the 101 Area and, "oh, by the way, no one can use
it except those 27 acres," you're virtually telling Koll
to put their books away and not play the game on the costs
the land value has, and you're forcing the entire cost of
the bridge on them.
The alternative to the Plan is a flyover
to Bayshore Boulevard, which my guess is probably more
than the bridge; but at least we could distribute that
cost among several users, as Sierra Point builds out; and
certainly it would be a major competitor to any
development on the site.
The question becomes, what happens with the
-
existing roadway structure that exists, albeit in
Brisbane, adjacent to the property?
You have clearly an interface property. It
SCHILLER'S REPORTING SERVICE (415)759-1477
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is adjacent to Brisbane; it's adjacent to development in
Brisbane; it's owned by the same owner that owns
development in Brisbane; it's the kind of property that is
going to require, I think, common and careful working out
through the two jurisdictions.
This Plan seems to suggest that South San
Francisco wants to turn its back on Brisbane, and we don't
think that is correct for this site.
Jumping to the Land Use Policies 4a, 4b, and
5a and 5b, those are the ones which describe the planned
commercial and planned industrial uses, and the ones that
set forth the FAR's.
I want to briefly comment on the FAR's.
The fact that Genentech's Plan exceeds FAR's
in the Plan is not surprising, because they are rather
low, and one of the things that interested parties that
came and had looked at our site for development have said
is that "the density restrictions in South San Francisco
are far too low, that we can't build any appropriate kind
of projects that make sense for us because of those
restrictions."
Now, that goes back to the Bay Area Air
Quality Management which suggests the density, we think,
of the FAR's should be increased and it should not be on a
case-by-case basis. If you want to attract the kind of
SCHILLER'S REPORTING SERVICE (415)759-1477
18
1 development you want, I think you should figure out what
2 those folks need, rather than having artificially high
3 priorities set and FAR's that people have to fight.
4 Well, Policy LU-ll, which says to prohibit
5 residential, was the reason for this Plan, aside from the
6 Bay Area Air Quality Management Guidelines, which I think
7 speak volumes on the subject.
8 It's clear to us that to maximize the
9 business benefits you're going to expect, you're going to
10
11
12
13
14
15
need some residential there. It is the synergies created
with mixed use that gets you better business product, and
that's a base that you're not getting much, in our view.
San Francisco Airport has a responsibility to
take care of their noise problem. They have the
responsibility. For them to say to the City of South San
16 Francisco, "well, if you need to get rid of any particular
17 problems we're going to have in the future, we will then
18 give you money to take care of the problem we create," we
19 think is silly.
20 The Airport Expansion Master Plan is now out.
21 The EIR has been done and certified. It has been adopted.
22 It calls for $120,000,000 to be spent on retrofitting the
23 insulation, plus the importance of your 10,000,000 now
24 that has been promised.
25 Finally, if you look at the actual noise
SCHILLER'S REPORTING SERVICE (415)759-1477
1 q
1
issue, I'm not going to spend any more time on this
2
tonight, but if you look at the actual noise issues, the
3
Koll property has no problem, using current knowledge and
4
current design, in avoiding airport and, more
5
significantly, freeway noises.
6
There is no problem in meeting those goals,
7
and the concern was raised in the Plan about Biotech not
8
coming, it was too close to residential, we think has some
9
general validity. But because the Koll property is so far
10 away from the rest of the Plan, we don't think that
11 residential noise is as great with the Koll property.
12 Finally, as I mentioned before, Land Use
13 Policy 25 calls for a density bonus from your commuter
14 transit station, and we think you should add to that, "or
15 the Plan provides shelter or other services to transit
16 stations."
17 We want to encourage transit as much as we
18 can, and you can do that by expanding that policy.
19 There is a couple of detailed things with the
-
20 consultant, which I won't repeat here; but let me make a
21 couple-of final comments:
22 One, there is no housing element in this Area
23
Plan. And there is a smaller density in the Plan; there
24
is no housing element in the Plan; and the housing element
25
of the General Plan applies to the East of 101 Area. That
SCHILLER'S REPORTING SERVICE (415)759-1477
20
1
is the only housing plan of the General Plan that applied
2
to the East of 101 Area.
3
We think that is done without fully analyzing
4
the impact of removing residential and without looking at
5
the jobs-to-housing balance in an honest and good way.
6
We think you should have a housing element in
7 your General Plan for this area, and the housing element
8 should explain all you should be talking about -- the
9 variety of housing, what's going on.
10 And I would simply like to request that the
11 following additional documents be added to the initial
12 record for this process:
13 First is a document by Charles Salter, called
14
Sierra Point & Environs; Accoustical Issues. I will leave
15
a copy of that tonight. I don't know that you have it in
16 your files.
17 Number two, a document by Sedway and
18 Associates, called Prolect and Fiscal Analysis re:
19 Residential Development at Sierra Point.
20 Number three is the EI Camino Corridor
21 General Plan and Redevelopment Plan Draft and Final EIR.
22 Number four is the Multi-City TSM Aqency,
-
23 Traffic Survey, which I have a copy to leave with you.
24 Number five is a Caltrain Site Alternatives
25 Study for 101, which you have.
SCHILLER'S REPORTING SERVICE (415)759-1477
21
1 And number six is San Francisco International
2 Airport, Master Plan Draft and Final EIR.
3 It is important that you add those to the
4 record, because I don't think the numbers jibe with your
5 numbers, the two biggest projects almost adjacent to each
6 other, with your project with the same number and impact.
7 Number 7 is the San Francisco Airports
8 Commission-City of South San Francisco Aqreement for
9 Airport Noise Mitiqation. That's why we're here, and that
10 will be part of the record.
11 And, finally, the SAMCEDA, Top Business
12 Issues, which is a small document from Wall Street.
13
CHAIRMAN WARREN: You mentioned some study
14
about the number of people who live outside the county. I
15
am wondering if you have copies of that study and if that
16
indicates what income level those people make, what their
17
income level is for those that are living out of the
18
county?
19
MR. LEVINE: I think that Multi-City TSM
20
agency has the data you're talking about. They won't make
21
it public to us; they just give the general numbers; but
22
the City can probably get the general information.
23
-
But you do have the breakdown for each of the
24
areas, and that is what the document called Multi-City TSM
25
is.
SCHILLER'S REPORTING SERVICE (415)759-1477
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
CHAIRMAN WARREN: The income level may have a
great deal to do with it. A majority of people who live
in our county may well be of the upper income level, and
the fact that those people who live closer in pay lower
rent, that is also a guess on my part.
Another question here:
You indicated that we underestimated the
residential and overestimated the commercial. And, again,
do you have specific documents that support that?
MR. LEVINE: We explained on thing. It is in
the letter; and if you would like more than that
CHAIRMAN WARREN: I guess we have to look at
13 what is in there.
14 I was curious about the square-foot costs.
15 * * *
16
17
18
19
DOUG THOMAS: Just for the record, Doug
Thomas with Sierra Point Associates, the developer of the
Koll site.
Where I got that information is really just
20 Kind of common knowledge. Some of it comes from various
21 public~tions, newspaper articles, etc.
22 I would be happy to help you put together
23 some more specific information.
24
25
CHAIRMAN WARREN: Perhaps if you could submit
that information.
SCHILLER'S REPORTING SERVICE (415)759-1477
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The problem is, when somebody says something
like that, it is very difficult to latch onto it without
something more specific.
MR. THOMAS: Let me give you a couple of
examples, if I could.
I know the document refers to discussions
with the City Assessor. What the County Assessor comes
with is the value for office buildings of $152 per square
foot. An example of a building that just sold or is in
the process of selling is a building, the address is 577
Airport Boulevard in Burlingame. It is across the
entrance to Kincaid. It is a rather new building,
completed in 1985, foreclosed upon by the bank, now being
resold for $60 a square foot.
Okay, in terms of market rental rates around
here, the document quotes a rental rate of $1.75 a square
foot; operating expenses of 35 cents. A $1.75 times 12 is
twenty bucks, expenses of 35 cents. That is a bit on the
low side.
We will submit the various documents.
CHAIRMAN WARREN: I would appreciate, as far
as my perspective is concerned, and probably the staff as
well, where you're saying things like the square-foot cost
is wrong, we're overstating the rents, we're overly
aggressive in the cap rates -- those kinds of
SCHILLER'S REPORTING SERVICE (415)759-1477
24
1
statements -- without sufficient supporting documentation,
2
don't have any real meaning. And it would be helpful if
3
you could supply that support documentation.
4
The same thing is true of the fact that
5
you're indicating our standards for the FAR's are too low.
6
And, also, your indication that Biotech and residential,
7
as a much more general rule, are much more compatible; and
8
my personal experience is that isn't the case. But I will
9
admit I work for UCSF, so I am very familiar with that
10
kind of problem.
11
MR. THOMAS: It is sensitive.
12
CHAIRMAN WARREN: Acutely, so it would help
13 if you can provide very specific examples of where Biotech
14 and residential are similarly, at least, situated, and
15 where there has been no problem, particularly since you
16 mentioned UCSF, Biotech of the nature of UCSF, because
17 that is a very intensive Biotech use.
18 You also mentioned Mello Roos District there,
19 and I'm curious about something, because I don't
20 understand this particular item.
21 I notice that in places like Discovery Bay,
22 they have enormous signs, billboards, that say "This is
23
-
not," in huge letters, "not a Mello Roos District," and
24
there are extraordinary financial impacts to owners of
25
property, residential property, in Mello Roos Districts.
SCHILLER'S REPORTING SERVICE (415)759-1477
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. LEVINE: There was a craze among certain
growing municipalities to basically replace the loss of
the property taxes with Mello Roos taxes, and that does
not mean the vehicle isn't good. It's just way too much
money.
In Tracy, for instance, you pay what you
would have paid before Prop T; and we certainly are not
suggesting we overload the property.
MR. THOMAS: May I wrap up with a summary?
I just want to say that our desire is really
to develop this property in a successful way, that the
City could be proud of; and we really need your help
there.
Personally, I have been working on that
project for eight years. When I was first hired, we were
very optimistic about the office market. We felt we were
going to attract all of these great tenants out of San
Francisco, and our entire site was zoned for office.
Well, the tenants are not there. Do I think
they may come back? Maybe. I don't know. Over the
years, _it is hard to say.
We have had success in attracting some large
companies that wanted to be in their own kind of
self-contained environment. They wanted to create their
own campus environment.
SCHILLER'S REPORTING SERVICE (415)759-1477
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
I talked to Apple Computer about relocating
to our site. I talked to Oracle. I talked to VISA. And I
talked to some others.
They liked the site in many ways, and that's
the reason I think it would be a huge mistake to eliminate
the planned commercial zoning from it.
What we really need more than anything is
flexibility, the flexibility to immediately build Biotech,
if UCSF comes our waYi but if they don't, we need the
flexibility to go and attract another Oracle-type of
tenant.
The one thing that has always been a constant
problem to attract business to the area is the lack of
housing, and it's not just the Sierra Point site that is
sitting up there undevelopedi it is the HomeArt site, the
Rouse site. Our County is losing jobs, the Bay Area is
losing jobs, the State is losing jobs because of a lack of
housing.
We look at our site out there with the
20 water-oriented environment. It could be a beautiful place
21
22
23
24
25
to live in close proximity to many companies in the area,
and I really think if you would consider housing, it would
help attract businesses into the area, which fiscally
would be very beneficial to the City.
CHAIRMAN WARREN: From my point of view, if
SCHILLER'S REPORTING SERVICE (415)759-1477
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you have it among your stuff, any documentation that might
support housing in a similar locale near an international
airport, such as San Jose, Oakland, Los Angeles, San
Diego, that would be helpful.
MR. THOMAS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN WARREN: And how those areas have
dealt particularly with outdoor uses related to
residential.
MR. THOMAS: I can easily do that.
One thing I just want to point out:
We are not right at the end of the runway; we
are five miles north. We're not directly underneath the
departure route; we're near the departure route; planes
occasionally fly overhead, but rarely.
It can be done, and it can be done
successfully. It is done, and I will give you some
specific examples.
* * *
PETER YEE: Good evening, members of the
Commission.
I'm Peter Yee, Genentech.
I just want to follow up and expand a little
bit.
First, I wanted to thank Grady & Associates
for the statement made today. I think the question I was
SCHILLER'S REPORTING SERVICE (415)759-1477
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
going to ask tonight was answered.
I do have to apologize to the Commission
tonight. We don't have specific comments we want to bring
to you verbally at this particular meeting.
We are in the process of preparing a detailed
comment report back to the Commission; and as you know,
Genentech and the Commission and members of the staff have
been working over the last year on a Master Plan and also
the difficulty of the zoning regulation vehicle to allow
the Master Plan, and the clarification we have from Brady
& Associates, we will be able to evaluate some of our
concerns regarding the FAR and how it will impact
Genentech in terms of its Master Plan and in terms of the
role potential.
So I think today Brady answered many
questions we have that our Master Plan potential is fully
evaluated. We will work on the problem as soon as we can.
Thank you.
* * *
DAVID BALDWIN: My name is David Baldwin. I
am with Real Strategies, a real estate consulting company
representing HomeArt. Its address is 651 Gateway
Boulevard, Suite 100.
I have a letter to present to the Planning
Commission this evening, having to do with the Area Plan
SCHILLER'S REPORTING SERVICE (415)759-1477
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
East of 101 Study.
And you may recall I was here last week, and
I indicated that we will be furnishing comments, also, on
the Draft EIR; and those comments should be furnished
within the next week or so. We hope it will be within the
next week.
So the letter that I would like to present to
you this evening addresses HomeArt's concerns and comments
about the Area Plan element of the study.
I don't have any particular desire or need
within myself to read the letter to you, to go through the
issues that we are concerned about.
I will pass the letter out to you at this
point and just leave it with you to digest. And we stand
15 prepared to meet with staff or anyone else who would like
16 to meet with us in order to speak about some of the
17 clarifications that we're asking for, some of the
18 revisions we're asking for.
19 So unless there is some desire by the
20 Commission to have us go through some of the issues we are
21 concerned about, we will just leave the letter with you
22 and let you read it for yourself, and we are prepared to
23 have a dialogue with you at some future meeting.
24 * * *
25
COMMISSIONER DE ZORDO: There was one
SCHILLER'S REPORTING SERVICE (415)759-1477
30
1 proposal in terms of the Marina, Mr. Callan, that is a
2 very viable thing to do. I have not talked to Mr. Callan
3 about that. If we can incorporate that in the Plan, then
4 we should.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SCHILLER'S REPORTING SERVICE (415)759-1477
11