HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/02/2001
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING
33 ARROYO DRIVE
August 2, 2001
CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Commissioner D'Angelo, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Ochsenhirt,
Commissioner Teglia, and Vice Chairperson Romero
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Chairperson Meloni and Commissioner Sim
City Attorney:
Police Dept.:
Bldg./Fire Prevo
Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner
Michael Lappen, Senior Planner
Kimberly Johnson
Sgt. Mike Newell
Barry Mammini
STAFF PRESENT:
Planning Division:
AGENDA REVIEW
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of June 21, 2001.
Motion Commissioner Honan /Second Commissioner Ochsenhirt Voice V ote/Unanimous
PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEMS
2. GPA-99-061/MOD2, DSEIR-99-061/MODl & ZA-OI-021
Project Proposal: The City of South San Francisco is proposing to establish the East of 101 Area
Transportation Improvement Plan, which includes specific infrastructure improvements, a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance and program, and traffic fees. The program will include:
Changes to the Transportation Element. Specifically, the Supplemental EIR and Amendment to the
Transportation Element will list specific transportation and roadway improvements. The Element and
Supplemental EIR will also increase focus on alternative transportation modes (for example, shuttles) and
transportation demand management.
Changes to the other elements for consistency. For example, the Planning Sub-areas Element needs to be
amended.
Changes to the East of 101 Area Plan. The East of 101 Area Plan will updated to reflect the General Plan
policy direction.
TDM Program and Ordinance. The document includes a comprehensive and enforceable TDM Program.
Traffic Fee. The City is currently preparing a nexus analysis to support the implementation of a traffic fee.
(Continuedfro11l July 19,2001)
Page 1 of 10
Senior Planner Lappen gave presentation and staff report. This is a continuation of the previous Planning
Commission hearing which introduced the General Plan Amendment, the East of 101 Traffic Improvement and
the proposed TDM Ordinance Plan. At the last meeting there were a number of suggestions from the Planning
Commission regarding modifications to the TDM Ordinance and a presentation of the issues to the Chamber of
Commerce/Joint Economic Development and Transportation Committee meeting that was on July 20th. Briefly
review the proposal and summarize the Chamber meeting and summarize the modifications to the Ordinance as
was discussed on July 20th.
Michael Dyett, City Consultant, gave the remainder of the presentation. The Draft of the TDM Ordinance was
revised based on Planning Commission comments plus the Chamber meeting
Senior Planner Lappen The proposed Moderate TDM Program is doable and recommend that the Planning
Commission recommend to the City Council to adopt the SEIR, General Plan Amendment which is the
infrastructure improvements, the Transportation Demand Management Ordinance which is the zoning
amendment.
Joanne Dunec, Ellman, Burke, Hoffman and Johnson, representing Roger Stuhlmuller, 180 Oyster Point
Blvd. project, commending on effort to reduce traffic but to suggest that in all instances when there is a change in
ordinances and a change in the General Plan there is always a continuum as to who the change and new
ordinance should apply to. There is always the instance where there are projects under construction so clearly
they don't apply to that. Then there are projects that no one knows they are going to do that. They haven't even
thought of that or haven't made the application yet. As a result those parties when the ordinance is adopted and
the General Plan is amended they will have to comply, there is no question. But what you have always is a
middle ground as to who is in the process, whose made applications in the City whose actually gone way down
the road under existing ordinance, under existing development standards and under existing General Plan
amendments. When you have situations where you have projects that have already gone through Design Review
Board approval and you have a small number here, three that I'm aware of. Our project, the 180 Oyster Point
project and Malcolm's project at 200 Oyster Point, the two projects of which have gone through extensive
redesigning and have met with the City's approval in terms of the Design Review Board approval. These projects
have already been designed. The design is built on existing standards with documentation indicating that they do
comply with existing standards. In all fairness, these projects should be allowed to go forward under the existing.
The City has the power in order to determine when a new ordinance is adopted, a new general plan is amended,
whom it actually applies to. In the continuum, those parties that have expended a substantial amount of
expenditures and have complied with City requirements and have fully designed their projects should certainly be
allowed to go forward. All I am suggesting is that if the Planning Commission adopts this new ordinance and
general plan amendment they should make the adoption conditioned on letting projects who have already gone
through Design Review Board approval go forward under existing standards.
Vice Chairperson Romero Chief Planner Sparks could you clarify at what point this ordinance would affect
existing and future developments?
Chief Planner Sparks This would affect the development that she is representing. She is correct that has been
through design review, as has the Malcolm application, which is adjacent. We are sensitive to her suggestion. In
fact, we have a meeting next Wednesday with the Stuhlmuller group to talk about these very issues. This not a
surprise to these applicants. They have been waiting for development of this ordinance for quite some time. It
may be appropriate to make some sort of adjustment for some of the projects that have been waiting in the wings.
There are several that have been awaiting this process rather than go forward with there own environmental
documents. Given the traffic impacts those probably would have had to be EIRs, fairly expensive and somewhat
fruitless undertaking because they would be duplicative, but under these circumstances they would be required. I
would suggest that it probably isn't appropriate for you on an adhoc basis to direct that we exclude specific
classes of applicants. But, I think you would have no objections if you suggest as a sidebar that we look at the
issue and make sure that we are treating everyone equitably. It is our desire certainly that we move this forward
failure to do that will delay these applicants and some of the others longer. They have been waiting a long time.
Vice Chairperson Romero That is a completely separate issue and I don't think it should become part of this
particular discussion at this time.
Page 2 of 10
Chief Planner Sparks I agree.
Vice Chairperson Romero Suggest to staff to discuss this amongst you and see if this is something that can be
brought forward at a later date.
Chief Planner Sparks We will be working with the applicants in any case. Weare sensitive to there suggestion
that they are being treated unfairly. I'm not sure I would agree with that, but there's certainly room for
discussion.
Vice Chairperson Romero Where they forewarned that this ordinance was going forward and there was a
possibility of that happening?
Chief Planner Sparks Yes.
Mike Conner, BT Commercial, have represented tenants and landlords looking space/buildings up and down
the Peninsula, including South San Francisco, Burlingame, neighboring cities and Brisbane. I represent Roger
Stuhlmuller, 180 Oyster Point, looking for potential tenants. I was at the Chamber of Commerce joint meeting
with Economic Development and Transportation. Of the summary, there were some things left out that were
discussed there. There were some good ideas from many of the people relating to other items that might be
placed on the menu. I thought there maybe there would be subsequent meetings or discussion sessions were
some of these things might be added, daycare centers or the business car, people with used cars. The most
important thing relating to that meeting was that as one of the participants I certainly didn't feel that my opinion
was quality enough to make some determination on this. I didn't see any representatives from some of the major
companies there. I would be concerned that something of this magnitude might be impacted by a less than a full
number of opinions that would be expressed from some of the major employers in that area or major HR
departments of the employers. There were few but not many. There were a couple of politicians there; a couple
of real estate brokers like myself couple of loan brokers. I couple of people of the west side that were concerned
about spending so much time with the east of 101 versus the west side. I don't know that there was a real
collection of the important business people out there. The other concern I would have as someone who is
representing Roger Stuhlmuller in South San Francisco is the tenants that live up and down the Bay Area don't
necessarily focus on South San Francisco as their primary desired location, but they open up a little bigger
geographical area. Maybe they would look in Brisbane and Burlingame. I think there just needs to be some
concern over creating a tight class amongst you where tenants would be handicapped taking space in South San
Francisco versus Brisbane or Burlingame or some of the other neighboring cities. You have to be careful about
scaring away some of the businesses. I know it was a major concern expressed there that certainly we don't want
to chase businesses away. That needs to be looked at. While I think it is admirable to try to change the culture
there needs to be concern over putting yourselves on such a pedestal that businesses go elsewhere and you end up
creating a vacuum. As long as those kinds of concerns are met and property owners and business owners
concerns are taken care of then the efforts are certainly viable.
Doug Cefali, Malcolm Drilling, I have been working on the development project. One of the primary
differences for us from when we started this process to the TDM that you see today are potential for the fines for
the landlord verses compliance, a voluntary good faith effort on behalf of the tenant. The landlord gets stuck
with the compliance and enforcement issues as opposed to the tenant who really has control over how his
employees get to work. That the biggest difference from what we were told when we started verses the TDM
program that is being proposed.
Commissioner Honan Senior Planner Lappen, you mentioned that they might choose the FAR bonus. What
happens if they choose that and after the survey they find it is impossible to maintain it? Can they step down?
Senior Planner Lappen It is a triennial report. They have three years to work out ways of achieving their
performance projected. If they don't achieve it at that point, the City allows them another three years to try to
make changes so that they can achieve. There is actually a six-year period. If they don't do it after that then
there is a fine. The City Council can then choose to either fine them or to have them use the money of that fine to
put into the TDM program, for example, direct funding to the shuttle system. The fine is not to be going into the
City's general fund. It is basically to be used to help finance or support the existing TDM programs that are in
place in the East of 101 area. The fine is just to make sure that the applicants go forward with the program that
we would like to see.
Commissioner Honan Six years have passed and they have been fined. Are they still in the FAR bonus program
or do they demote themselves?
Page 3 of 10
Senior Planner Lappen We have tried to introduce some flexibility in the program.
Commissioner Honan Eventhough, six years have passed and you're fined and you can't make your building
any smaller this problem is still going to exist. Do they go another three years and pay another fine?
Chief Planner Sparks It isn't a matter of six years have passed and nobody has been paying any attention. The
objective of this is to get TDM programs put together that actually work in operating our transportation capacity
more efficiently. We will be working with developers, owners, tenants along the way to the extent that we can.
The fine is just because anything that doesn't have a hammer attached really has no meaning. Why would
anyone pay any attention to it? The objective is not to fine people and extract money. Even if we do the
expectation is that we would use those fines to enhance public transportation or undertake other efforts that
would lure those employees out of their single occupant automobiles. We discussed at the last meeting some of
these very issues. I believe I characterized this as a work in progress. Weare not positive that we have all the
answers here and we hope people will have really positive suggestions as we move into implementing it. The
fines are there as a last resort. The worst case that you raise getting somebody uncooperative who really isn't
accomplishing anything and we are six years out and they're fined. We are probably going to have a real tough
time with those. There sometimes are not real positive results, but we'll work at it. Don't expect we will run into
that with very many people. Those people we're talking to think this is necessary. They aren't in love with it,
but willing to participate and try and make it work. The alternative is either extremely expensive improvement to
our roads or really unbearable congestion that will go much further toward chasing away development than we
think this program would.
Senior Planner Lappen Just for a basis, we didn't pick these numbers or just pull them out of the air. What we
have been doing over the last few years is to work with assisting developers, Boston Properties, Slough Estates
and Hines. Slough Estate and Hines especially in the Bay West Cove Project in a lot of ways are the role models
for the percentages that we are choosing. They are required to achieve a 35% mode shift on their projects right
now and they have willing agreed to that. They also have penalties assigned to their programs. They aI"e both
developers and they know they are working in the same tenant market that other developers will be looking at.
When they came in with their projects over a year ago, it was a different market than it is today. But they still
haven't come back to the City and asked to remove these requirements. They are willing to work with us on
these requirements. So what we are looking at is a TDM program very similar to what has been initiated in the
City at a 35% mode shift for high PARs. The 28% mode shift is the San Mateo County average now. This is
based on our consistent transportation system. When BART comes in, the county is going to be looking at these
percentages. They should start going up a little bit more. So our base is not radical compared to what's
happening in the county. We are not anti-business. That is the last thing we want to be. We have nurtured the
biotech industry in this area and we are the center of the biotech industry as a result. There were two employers
at the last meeting, Genentech and Elan Pharmaceuticals who have fairly aggressive TDM programs as well.
Michael Dyett, City Consultant, The in-lieu fee is an additional provision that could come in well before any
penalty phase. Por those wanting PAR bonuses, a reasonable fee might fund quite an expansion of TDM and
shuttle service. Other jurisdiction's fees are significantly higher than what is before you.
Assistant City Attorney Johnson Would like to clarify that the penalty if it is imposed is limited to be used by
the City towards implementation of the final TDM plan for the project. Any fee collected would be used by the
City to help the project applicant or at that time project owner fulfill the obligations of their existing TDM plan.
Commissioner D' Angelo The last speaker brought to us the question of the ultimate responsible person in the
case of a facility that has tenants. How is that expected to be resolved?
Chief Planner Sparks Our attorney, Assistant City Attorney Johnson, pointed out that the owners and tenants
can work that out as matter of lease terms. That can be shifted. Prom our perspective, tenants can change
instantly and without notice. So it is virtually impossible for us administratively to look at the tenants as being
the ones responsible. Although clearly they are the ones who have to implement it, but it is the owners we have a
handle on and can track.
Commissioner D'Angelo You are saying there are other legal ways between the tenant and the owner that they
can resolve that issue easily.
Chief Planner Sparks Would have something that indemnifies the owner.
Commissioner D'Angelo Did any other suggestions come up in terms of alternatives from the Chamber
meeting?
Page 4 of 10
Chief Planner Sparks One of the speakers noted that somebody could talk about daycare centers, which the City
is already talking about.
Commissioner D'Angelo That's not what we are trying to address.
Chief Planner Sparks Shared vehicles, for example, a company owns individual vehicles so that employees
could take transit to work and in the middle of the day rather than trying to take public transit and spend 4 Y2
hours on a 20 minute trip there is a car available. We do have on our list a fudge factor, other measures. We are
open to anything that we think might work. We want to make this program work, but we can't define everything
in advance. There are too many unknowns. We will have to see how it plays out and adjust it as appropriate.
Commissioner Ochsenhirt We do have a section in the Ordinance that talks about waivers and minor
deviations, if Ms. Dunec were to approach after the Ordinance were in place. Would this be the section that she
would come and ask?
Chief Planner Sparks I guess that would be an approach.
Commissioner Ochsenhirt It's 21.20.80 Waivers and Minor Deviations. Or would that just be for new
applicants?
Chief Planner Sparks I' 11 let the attorney figure that out.
Commissioner Ochsenhirt I attended the j oint meeting of Planning and the Chamber of Commerce. I was there
as a Board of Director for the South San Francisco Chamber of Commerce. I thought it was very informative and
well run and represented. There were important business people there. It was hosted by one of our largest, the
South San Francisco Scavenger Company. Another comment is that this morning I attended a meeting where the
speaker was the Director of Economic for the City of Millbrae. He was speaking on housing and fees being
adopted. They have a fifteen-dollar a square foot fee for businesses around their new BART station in Millbrae
for development. We are not the first. Since AB1600 in 1988, most cities are looking to others to pull their fair
weight when comes to developing our city and the effects it has on us. Commend staff for the draft of this
Ordinance. I think we are on the right track.
Assistant City Attorney Johnson In terms of waivers and minor deviations, while the first sentence states that
the applicant may request a waiver, the second sentence modifies the discretion in that the only determination is
whether a particular requirement is not applicable to the development or whether it can be reduced or other
measures imposed. It doesn't allow for a complete waiver from the Ordinance if the development is otherwise
subject to this chapter. It does call for approval of a use permit by the Planning Commission and the
determination at that time, whether the proposed plan meets the requirements of this chapter. It does not
specifically exempt or provide means of waiving the requirements of the TDM Ordinance.
Commissioner Teglia How does our Ordinance compare target-wise with some of the other cities? Would like
to see our target a little below other cities to encourage. South San Francisco is usually aggressive in compliance
with all the regional requirements and the rest of the cities aren't. Tends to be a detriment to our City. We have
a nice connection right onto 101.
Chief Planner Sparks I don't know what their TDM programs look like. From these numbers we have just
heard, their approach is to build their way out with street improvements. That is a judgement call for this
Commission and the City Council to make to go that way or the way we are recommending which is to go
aggressive TDM and use fewer single occupant vehicles. Put down less asphalt and use what we have more
efficiently. It's cheaper and more environmentally sound. Being in the forthrun, doesn't put us at a disadvantage
it probably can add substantially to the quality of life and the effectiveness of the transportation system East of
101. Pushing for TDM rather than road expansion will be advantageous to the City.
Senior Planner Lappen We are the first city to institute a shuttle program in the county. We have the most
extensive shuttle systems.
Joanne Dunec The in-lieu fee that I'm familiar with generally a one time fee that is requested of the developer at
the time of the development. It is not generally an operational fee over time. Are other cities adopting in-lieu
fees that are operational or are they adopting in-lieu fees that are one time fees that is paid at the time of
development or are they establishing transportation assessment districts?
Michael Dyett, City Consultant, The concept is that the in-lieu fee would be a one- time fee and not be an
annual. The fee is needed to ensure the program.
Commissioner Teglia Mr. Dyett, how do we compare to other cities around here? Bottomline economic impact
to the businesses.
Page 5 of 10
Michael Dyett, City Consultant, I think you are ahead of other cities which put you in the right position to
succeed and accomplish your economic development objectives.
Commissioner Teglia On the additional measures regarding paid parking and reduced parking, we are not in San
Francisco. People moved down the Peninsula because they didn't want to pay parking in San Francisco. Paid
parking tends to penalize the wrong people. I am all for incentives, transportation. I know we have a great shuttle
system, but it is not very high profile. A lot of people don't know about it. Need to do a better job of
communicating to the people out there about the shuttle system. There is a lot of room for the promotional and
incentive alternatives before we start getting into some of these punitive ones. I am adamantly against paid
parking and reduced parking. Can't see reducing the amount of parking for someone to put up a larger building,
which is probably going to increase the need for parking. Any plan is changeable. We could probably change
this next year if we find it's not working. Right now I would like to see those two items taken out of there.
Chief Planner Sparks We added the in-lieu largely in response to concerns we heard from interested or affected
parties. There is enough uncertainty about this program that they were worried. Wanted to know for sure what
they might be facing. If we propose an in-lieu fee the give them that certainty, it has to be a one time shot. The
C/CAG buyout is $20,000.00 a trip. Knew that might be a little steep, but the notion is we should be able to
come up with number and use that sort of money to go ahead and implement the program in ways that we hope
will entice employees at that location into mass transit kinds of alternatives. In response to the paid parking,
according to our TDM consultant is the single most effective disincentive to employees driving single occupant
vehicles. It works better than anything does to getting people to take transit. It isn't fun, but it is an effective
trade off. Reduced parking works somewhat the same way. It does increase hassles, but it reduces paving and
the amount of land to the CAR (Car Area Ratio). We give over 25% of our total land area to personal
transportation, streets, and parking lots. Reducing parking in undertaking a program like this where we are
looking to use what we have more efficiently rather than widening the streets is all part of that program. The
Commission certainly has the discretion to recommend any or this entire program to the City Council. We think
what we have is not all fun and games by any means, but as a piece we think it will work. We can use what we
have East of 101 far more effectively and not cost us all that much.
Commissioner D' Angelo What would the City's reaction be if they were the first to implement paid parking for
their own staff before they ventured out? It's easier for us always. I work for a government too. We always
seem to feel we are exempt. In support of what Commissioner Teglia says we have to step up to the plate to be
a model. Don't disagree with the comments you've made, but you have to set the example sometimes. If you aI"e
going to be the first to do the paid parking for other employees then you have to be the first to do it to yourself.
Assistant City Attorney Johnson I would like to clarify that the paid parking and the reduced parking are not
required elements of the TDM program. They are additional measures that the City Council at its discretion can
impose or substitute if proposed in the TDM plan. If the project came before you, you could in fact take out the
reduced or paid parking as a measure and substitute another measure the Commission felt more appropriate for
that project.
Commissioner Teglia True, but I don't like the idea of even going there. Part of it has to do with our
transportation infrastructure. Somebody who lives locally in town, there is not a connection from the residential
to the commercial. It's a short trip and you can't make it without a car. Your mass transit is working better for
people who are living along the BART/CalTrain corridor. That's why we build transit villages around mass
transit. Paid parking is one of those incredible nuisances, expensive one. Not something I want to see happen in
our industrial area. There is enough room out there and other alternatives before we get there. It can be an easy
alternative for somebody who wants to put it on the employees as opposed to some more expensive alternatives.
For somebody who has no other choice they are stuck. It's not going to be a disincentive either way. If you live
locally in South San Francisco and work in the industrial area there is no other choice. It's bad all the way
around and 1'm all for pulling that out.
Vice Chairperson Romero Is the penalty provision for non-compliance something that is to be considered later
by City Council?
Chief Planner Sparks That's part of the program from the beginning.
Vice Chairperson Romero But there are no specifics as to what the penalties would be. How are we supposed
to recommend something unless we know specifically what we are recommending?
Michael Dyett, City Consultant, It isn't quite correct that we set up the enabling provisions here because of
Page 6 of 10
concerns raised and the City Council would set subsequent by resolution the actual penalty schedule based on
project size and percentage. The actual amount would be the subject of subsequent deliberations by City
Council. This is often done with ordinances that you remove the fee amounts. Take the specific fee amounts as a
separate action. We did pull out the $5,000.00 fee in order to allow time for more deliberation and more
comment on how the specific penalties would be assessed.
Vice Chairperson Romero Makes it difficult for us to know what type of penalty recommendation we are
making to City Council and also for the public to know what potential penalty they could face if it is not
discussed at this level and perhaps later.
Chief Planner Sparks Those levels will have to be set in public session, so it will be back.
Michael Dyett, City Consultant, The thing was to establish two criterias, project size and target the set of the
uniform fee. You are providing guidance to stand on how to come back with a healthy program.
Vice Chairperson Romero It would be a little more specific if we knew exactly what type of penalty provisions
were going to be implemented when this does get to City Council if the City Council approves it. The Density
Bonus provision that is being recommended if applicants implement this. The goal of the TDM program is to
reduce traffic. By allowing density bonuses for applicants or property owners who want to develop, you are
allowing them to build larger buildings with less parking and larger buildings generate more traffic, more vehicle
trips. To me that is counter-productive. This is a trade off that seems to be a wash. I looked at this from the
perspective of a potential applicant. Example, a few employees apply for a position in the East of 101 with a
company that has to implement this TDM program. One lives in San Jose and is going to take public
transportation. The other lives in South San Francisco and going to drive to work. The employer is going to
choose the one living in San Jose because he going to help him meet that TDM requirement. Putting the South
San Francisco person at a disadvantage. I don't think that is fair.
Chief Planner Sparks Our public transit as with most cities in California isn't all that well developed. We do
have to start somewhere. Suggest that the employee from the local area is probably going to be able to find a list
of other employees looking for a caI-pool if the employer is aggressive enough about really making this work and
will manage to participate in this program somehow. There are a lot of alternatives. We want to make this work.
We're trying to be flexible. Don't doubt there are going to be some inequities there always are, but again we
have to start somewhere.
Vice Chairperson Romero I agree with the goals. It's the means that I'm questioning.
Chief Planner Sparks We're open to suggestions.
Vice Chairperson Romero I think this needs some work. I think you're on the right track. Trying to come up
with some solution to a very difficult situation that needs to be corrected. The means to make those corrections
are not going to be easy to find. I don't think the Density Bonus provision is the way to go.
Chief Planner Sparks We would have some trouble backing off the FAR increases. They are adopted as part of
the General Plan. This is the means of dealing with the transportation there. This is an implementation program
called for in the General Plan. It was anticipated that allowing that level of development would lead to
transportation issues. This is one of the efforts to deal intelligently with what we projected would be happening.
Vice Chairperson Romero This wasn't part of the General Plan process that we went through in that two-year
period.
Chief Planner Sparks The policies about bonus F ARs and about putting together TDM programs were part of
the General Plan. They are adopted and your findings site those.
Vice Chairperson Romero Those were not automatic. They would have to meet certain criteria to qualify for
those bonuses.
Chief Planner Sparks Participating in the kinds of programs we are outlining here constitute a large part of
those criteria.
Vice Chairperson Romero We already have an existing problem and all of these intersections are at level F.
Weare compiling the problem by allowing these density increases. Perhaps it was a mistake when the General
Plan was adopted. I don't know.
Chief Planner Sparks On a strictly technical basis, those intersections are not now all by any means operating at
LOS F. That's our projection for the future at existing permitted levels of development. We have to do
something. We know with what is already there that we are going to run into a problem.
Senior Planner Lappen Items and measures that try to get traffic off of peak hours. The intersections operating
Page 7 of 10
at unacceptable levels are at peak hour periods not 24-hour periods. For example to use the case of the South San
Francisco employee verses the San Jose employee, the South San Francisco employee could use flex schedule,
telecommuting. Not looking at one solution alone. Trying to give employers or property owners enough
flexibility to initiate a program that works. The base requirement for basic FAR is at the same level of what we
see throughout the county, which is 28%. We are trying to ensure we are doing what everybody else is doing.
The higher FARs we've gone up to a level that we have already asked two developers, Slough Estates and Hines,
to do that is 35 %. It's pretty aggressive what we are trying to achieve but it's nothing new. Slough Estates and
Hines are not looking at reduced parking. They are looking at supporting the shuttle system.
Vice Chairperson Romero In the General Plan Amendment submitted, there are a lot of items being crossed out.
Improvement proposals for the area including Railroad extension from So. Linden. Why is that being deleted?
Chief Planner Sparks It blew the budget. It cost three times as much by itself as everything else combined. The
value to circulation East of 101 is not clearly defined. It would help, but a 43 million-dollar item is not cost
effective to get that single connector.
Vice Chairperson Romero This would serve the South San Francisco residents. It would be an excessive cost;
perhaps there's ways to reduce those costs. We're spending over 40 million dollars to fly people over 101 from
Brisbane and San Francisco. Yet we are eliminating something that would have a positive impact for residents of
the City.
Chief Planner Sparks But we are also looking at fees in the buildings we want to keep out there. They are in
the order of a $1.00 a foot. Retail is more like $6.00 a foot if we were to throw that back in the mix. We would
be looking at 4 to 6 times as much money on a per foot basis.
Vice Chairperson Romero The cost is high, but like you said if you don't put it in you will never get it.
Chief Planner Sparks That's true and you are more than welcome to recommend it to City Council.
Vice Chairperson Romero It's already part of the General Plan. Why would we recommend taking something
out? To me this is a benefit that may never happen.
Chief Planner Sparks It isn't going to be removed from the General Plan if it isn't adopted as part of this
program. We would anticipate greater funding capability as the nature of Lindenville changes or large parcels in
that area. It was our judgement on this one that it wasn't going to fly and would sink the whole program.
Vice Chairperson Romero Weare indicating that ongoing monitoring and enforcement programs to ensure that
TDM measures are actually implemented. But what about to ensure they are achieving the goals that are
established? I would like to see stronger language in making sure that people to obtain the density bonus they are
going to be achieving a certain goal and not just implementing the program.
Chief Planner Sparks If we design the right program, implementing it will achieve what we are after. I think
one of the things you are talking about here is that some of the language has been rephrased rather than changed.
There is a requirement proposed to be added. It says there is an ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to
ensure TDM measures are actually implemented as one of the components. I think that refers to what you are
talking about. It is our intention to make sure that we have the means to enforce this as necessary, but we don't
want to be arbitrarily punitive about it. We want to work with people to achieve success. The fine is a matter of
last resort. This is not about trying to force people into compliance. That's not worthwhile. We want to set out
examples that they can use and programs they can adopt that suit their own needs. Weare not going to be
designing the programs unless this works very differently than we anticipate. The owners or the tenants will be
according to what best fits their own needs.
Vice Chairperson Romero If you are going to be allowing these density bonuses and not have an ordinance
that's going to have teeth to it, it's going to be difficult to enforce. Being flexible and trying to work with the
individuals is one thing. Giving somebody a bonus up front and then telling them later on they mayor may not
have to earn that bonus.
Chief Planner Sparks They will have to submit their program along with their request for the FAR bonus. It
isn't a matter of you can have the bonus and three years hence please bring us a program. That will be part of the
approval submitted up front and worked out with staff and adopted as part of their program.
Commissioner Honan Why is requiring projects larger than 25 employees to provide preferred parking for
carpools and vanpools crossed out?
Chief Planner Sparks It's because of our approach. Our program is not based on numbers of employees but on
trip generation anticipated from the kinds of uses out there. Different employment densities in different buildings
Page 8 of 10
so we're trying to make the program responsive to the kinds of trips the use will generate. Therefore better suited
for what they actually have to reduce.
Assistant City Attorney Johnson To clarify this section would be required to be removed to achieve
consistency between the General Plan and the Ordinance before you for recommendation because the
methodology is different from what the General Plan use and what is being implemented in the TDM Ordinance.
Commissioner Honan Is there going to be supporting services on the east side of 101 ?
Chief Planner Sparks We certainly hope they will develop. They are not there at an adequate level at the
present time. The Chamber sponsored a program of book in advance cab rides, the Downtown Dasher, to try to
set up program so employees could reserve a cab at a specific time go to any of several destinations downtown
and be picked up in a timely manner and get back. Marginal participation. We went through an effort to
publicize it. I was troubled by Commissioner Teglia comments tonight that many of his compatriots where he
works are unaware that there is any transit available in the east of 101. We need to redouble those efforts to get
the word out. We don't have all the solutions right now.
Commissioner Honan Don't believe that employees should be held captive and that is what I see happening.
Supporting services needs to be brought over there.
Chief Planner Sparks You are right about that.
Commissioner Honan The employee should have the flexibility to go to the west side. They should have the
option.
Chief Planner Sparks If all the employees have single occupant vehicles and all want to go to the west side,
we'll have huge traffic jams at lunch hour that will force that possibility unless they have 2 hour lunches.
Commissioner Honan This is implemented for the east side of 101, correct?
Chief Planner Sparks That is correct.
Commissioner Honan There are plenty of intersections on the west side of 101 that are at F standards right now
that nothing is being done about in this documentation. The city residents are not benefiting from this. Not
doing anything for the people who live in South San Francisco. Executives don't pay for paid parking; it's the
little guy. A lot of work that needs to be done on this. If you don't implement to stop from driving you aI"e going
to continue driving. How are we going to educate the people to not drive because your employer is going to be
charged? Upsets me that it is only for the east side. I think the west side needs help also.
Chief Planner Sparks The TDM program is citywide. The improvements identified are specifically on the east
side where the fees will be gathered.
Commissioner Honan Why aren't you considering charging some of the businesses on the west side who have a
number of employees? They can carpool too.
Chief Planner Sparks The TDM program presumably will implement that with new developments or expansion
on the west side.
Commissioner Honan What about existing? We have plenty of new businesses that have gone in on the west
side and have skated right through this.
Assistant City Attorney Johnson The single answer is that the businesses that are presently in existence we
cannot impose additional fees on them as a condition of their continued existence. Only thing to do is to catch
these businesses when they seek to go beyond what present is entitled to.
Vice Chairperson Romero How many residents work in the east of 101 area?
Chief Planner Sparks It is not a large percentage. Most of the employees come from other than South San
Francisco.
Vice Chairperson Romero I thought it was in the 20% range.
Chief Planner Sparks My recollection is that it's somewhere in that range.
Vice Chairperson Romero 20% is a significant amount of people that work in the east of 101. Those are the
people we are targeting to get out of their car. No benefit for the resident of South San Francisco.
Chief Planner Sparks If we don't undertake some program, we will have serious gridlock east of 101 given the
existing permitted levels of development without any bonuses or anything.
Assistant City Attorney Johnson Given the discussion I would recommend that if the Commission is going to
recommend that the City Council consider this that we clearly delineate the changes that the Commission would
require in order to recommend adoption of the program and consider separately the General Plan Amendments,
Page 9 of 10
and the adoption of the SEIR and the TDM Ordinance so that we can be very clear about the recommendation.
Commissioner Teglia Work in progress. They are still going to be working on it. The SEIR we can approve
that. Removal of reduced and paid parking and also staff report requirement that yearly staff or a consultant
compare our plan with sUlTounding cities so we don't become anti competitive. With that I motion to recommend
to City Council the SEIR.
Motion Commissioner Teglia Second Commissioner D'Angelo role call vote unanimous
Recommend that the City Council adopt the General Plan Amendment
Motion Commissioner Teglia Second Commissioner D'Angelo voice call vote (4-1)
Recommend that the City Council adopt the TDM Ordinance modify with the understanding that reduced and
paid parking are unacceptable alternatives and that staff conduct a yearly review of the competitive nature of our
Ordinance compared to cities in our sUlTounding environments.
Motion Commissioner Teglia Second Commissioner D'Angelo voice call vote (3-2)
3. So. San Francisco Bart Station Transit Oriented Development Plan & Ordinance
City Of South San Francisco-owner/applicant
GPA-OI-041, ZA-OI-041, RZ-OI-041and Negative Declaration ND-OI-041
Proposed Project: The City of South San Francisco is requesting approval of a Negative Declaration and
adoption of a Zoning Amendment and Rezone to create the Transit Oriented Development Plan and Zoning
District for the 1/4 mile area adjacent to the SSF BART Station. The Plan and District will include specific
development and design standards. (Recommend continuance to August 16,2001)
Motion Commissioner D'An2elo/Second Commissioner Ochsenhirt to continue. Voice vote/Unanimous
4. Items from Staff
Note at the next meeting August 16,2001 bringing the Inclusionary Ordinance.
5. Items from Commission
Commissioner Ochsenhirt attended the Water Transit Authority Forum established in 1999 to look at use of
water as a means of transportation. Well attended.
Attended on Tuesday S. F. Airport Runway Expansion reconfiguration Forum at College of San Mateo
6. Items from the Public
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:23 p.m.
Motion Commissioner Honan /Second Commissioner D' Am!elo Voice vote/Unanimous
/ /~A Lfl//2)A 11
f"" ">/:__1/1...-,":.6' ,.' " ,// # \-_,~,/,/L_
Michael Meloni, Chairperson
Planning Commission
City of South San Francisco
Thomas C. Spark
Secretary to the lanning Commission
City of South San Francisco
NEXT MEETING:
Regular Meeting August 16,2001, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South
San Francisco, CA.
TCS/pc
Page 10 of 10