Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2008-02-20 MINUTES SPECIAL JOIl'~T G CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION OF TI-IE CITY OF SOUTI-I SAN FRANCISCO Meeting held at: lVIlJNICIPAL SERVICES BlJILDING CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY ROOM 33 ARROYO DRIVE WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 20,2008 1. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CALLED TO ORDER: 6:30 p.ln. MEETING OF TI-IE PLANNING COMMISSION CALLED TO ORDER: 6:31 p.m. 2. CITY COUNCIL ROLL CALL: Present: Councihnen Addiego*, Garbarino and Mullin, Mayor Pro T eln Matsumoto and Mayor Gonzalez. Absent: None. * Counciln1an Adcliego arrived at 6:35 p.ln. PLANNING COMMISSION ROLL CALL: Present: COlmnissioners Moore* * , Obon1e, Prouty, Sim and Zemke, Vice Chainnan Teglia*** and ChairwOlnan Giusti. Absent: None. * * Commissioner Moore was present until 8:37 p.m. *** Vice Chainnan Teglia arrived at 6:38 p.m. 3. Public C0111111ents. None. 4. Discussion - Council and the Planning Con1lnission will provide direction to statT on key issues relevant to a Zoning Ordinance Update. Chief Planner Kalkin introduced representatives of Dyett & Bhatia, a consulting finn hired to assist with the proposed Zoning Ordinance Update. She explained that the firn1 had prepared an issues and outline report for policy input. Upon completion of this phase, the Consultants and Planning COlnn1ission would begin a series of workshops to consider the technical details of the update. Consultant Vivian Kalm opened Dyett and Bhatia's presentation as follows: Purposes of proposed zoning update: Ms. Kalm explained that the zoning update is intended to bring the zoning code consistent with the General Plan. Additional purposes include: (1) ensuring that zoning meets state' and federal law requirelnents; (2) creating a document that is easy for users to find their way through; and (3) developing a pennitting process that provides balance between certainty and discretion. Tasks COlnpleted: Ms. Kahn stated that Dyett & Bhatia had interviewed code users, conducted a field trip with staff, pm~icipated in a previous study session with Council and the Con1mission, performed a teclmical review of existing code and identified key issues and options relating to the proposed update. Basic COlnponents: Ms. Kahn described the con1ponents of the update to include mnendments to text and maps. Zoning text includes use regulations, developn1ent regulations, administrative provisions, land use classifications, and general terms and definitions. Ms. Kahn explained that before lnoving to the next phase of preparing an annotated outline/skeleton of what the ordinance would eventually look like, the consulting tean1 required specific input from Council and the Cornn1ission on the following issues: (1) preserving neighborhood character; (2) compatibility of infill residential development; (3) parking standards and regulations; (4) approaches to design quality goals; (5) design review thresholds; (6) regulation of non-confom1ing uses; and (7) re-thinking General Plan policies. Ms. Kahn then opened discussion relating to ~ach of these topics. Ms. Kahn explained the topic of preservation of neighborhood character as an examination of what neighborhood character means to South San Francisco. ' She further noted that the discussion should focus on the specific neighborhoods and/or areas warranting preservation. She explained that during the interview process, the consulting team heard a lot about preserving SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 20,2008 PAGF? what n1akes certain neighborhoods special and addressing the "n10nster house" issue. Mayor Pro Teln Matsnn10to cautioned that when defining neighborhood character, policy makers should take into consideration areas where infill is expected. For exan1ple, she noted that the Grand Boulevard Initiative 111ight create a neighborhood within itself. Councilman Addiego opined that the consultants would need the City's policy n1akers to identify neighborhoods with unique characteristics worth saving. Planning Con1mission Vice Chain11an Teglia observed that the Con1n1ission had experienced difficulty administering the General Plan due to ad hoc planning. He noted that problems arise when home additions create parking difficulties. He cautioned the City's policy lnakers should consider past mistakes and pr~vent SUC~1 occurrences in the future. Mayor Gonzalez requested City Clerk Mmiinelli-Larson to read a letter fron1 Mr. Mel Wolfe into the record. City Clerk Mmiinelli -Larson explained that resident Mel Wolfe sublnitted a letter for consideration as a public comment iten1 on the 'Agenda. She proceeded to read Mr. Wolfe's letter, Attachment 1 hereto, which addressed concen1S over additions to single family residences resulting in large hOlnes that do not fit with neighborhood character, encroach upon properties of neighboring owners and negatively impact neighbors' ability to enjoy their properties. Councilman Addiego questioned whether the zoning update'could address concerns over issues such as monster home additions popping up in the middle of blocks in an area like Brentwood. He noted that such additions might not have the same affect if located on a comer lot in Brentwood. Counciln1an Garbarino echoed these concen1S peliaining to the Brentwood area. Vice Chairman Teglia noted COnCelTIS over m,onster homes related to a planning concept or tenn of art referred to as "mansionization." Councihnan Mullin questioned whether the n1ansionization phenon1enon observed in the City was the result of changes in the plmu1ing approval process. Chief Plmmer Kalkin responded that second story additions are and have always been handled by plmu1ing staff. Consultant Bhatia noted t0at as part of the update process, the consultants are considering volume n1etric standards on a neighborhood-specific basis. Con1illissioner Prouty observed that neighborhood character is easy to define in areas that were built as a unit, such as Brentwood and Avalon. He opined that n10nster home-type additions should come before the Planning Commission and suggested that such applicants be required to post a story pole describing the proposed renovations and their impact. He noted that roof-lines and garage style might be features capable of definition in certain neighborhoods. SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 20,2008 PAGE 3 Councihnan Addiego opined that hon1e height lnight not n1atter if the affected propeliy backed up against a hillside. Vice Chain11an Teglia stressed the in1portance of involving the Con11nission and Council in the neighborhood review process. He elnphasized that Con1n1issioners and Counciln1elnbers know the history of the neighborhoods. Ms. Kahn then introduced the concept of con1patibility of intill development for discussion. She framed the topic as a discussion pertaining to how ordinances should be changed to ensure that new developn1ent is compatible with the City's character and/or plans, including a discussion of standards sufficient to elilninate the need for discretionary review by staff or by the Con1n1ission. Plmu1ing COlnlnissioner Zelnke opined that standards are good, but noted the Con1n1ission needs discretion based upon the wide range of neighborhoods. Planning Con1n1issioner Moore noted that what is considered n1ansionization in one neighborhood n1ight not be in another. Mr. Bhatia stated that a standard based upon average height on the block would address this Issue. Plmming Comlnissioner SiIn opined that standards should address issues of backyard encroaclunent which is occurring on streets lik~ Tipperary in Westborough. He further stated that policy Inakers should look to successfully planned cities for examples of effective ordinances and be open minded about history and traditions. Mr. Bhatia suggested that the City's policy n1akers m1d consultants participate in tours of the City's neighborhoods as well as neighborhoods in other Peninsula cities. Ms. Kalu1 then introduced the topic of rethInking parking standards and regulations. Vice Chairn1an Teglia noted that parking is the big issue for neighborhoods. Con1n1issioner Prouty opined that parking regulations should be considered on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis. For exan1ple, tanden1 parking Inight work in Brentwood. Mayor Pro Ten1 Matsulnoto noted that due to storage needs and space lin1itations, condon1iniun1 residents generally do not use their garages for parking. She suggested that design regulations could include storage space requiren1ents to alleviate these concerns. Councilman Garbarino suggested issuing one parking pern1it per household which would force people to utilize their driveways. Mayor Pro Ten1 Matsun10to noted that landscaping is a COnCelTI. She fUliher observed waste water flowing to the bay is going to be a n1aj or issue. Ms. Kahn noted that zoning ordinances could specify the percentage of building areas that need SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 20,2008 to be paved. Counciln1an Addiego stated that he followed son1e of the debate in San Francisco related to parking. He noted that the original intent was to build units with less parking in hopes that alternative transit n10des would be utilized. However, a project with fewer parking spaces that is far frOln bus lines and/or BART is not desirable. Mr. Bhatia noted that in son1e specific neighborhood settings ensuring adequate parking is a priority, while in others flexibility n1ay work. Ms. Kahn introduced the next concept as consideration of approaches for addressing design issues. She explained that the discussion would focus on develoPlnent of an approach that would ensure design quality goals. Vice Chainnan Teglia observed that the design guidelines established for the transit village were not adhered to. He questioned how other cities hold developers to standards. Ms. Kalu1 stated that clear guidelines coupled with strict enforcement should ensure adherence to design standards. Mayor Pro Tern Matslunoto strongly recon1111ended guidelines so that expectations are set prior to design formulation. Conlll1issioner Siln advocated better cOlmnunication between the building pennit processing staff and the plam1ing department. He then asked the consultants if they were aware of cities that had effectuated a workable design code. Ms. Kahn responded that many different approaches exist and what works for one jurisdiction Inight not work for another. Mayor Pro Tern Matsulnoto suggested that after a project hits a certain size, requiring a project Inanager n1ay be necessary. Ms. IZalu1 explained that Inany jurisdictions have codified a project manager threshold requiren1ent. She noted that in these jurisdictions, it is understood that the applicant pays the project n1anager's fees. Ms. IZalu1 introduced the next topic as a discussion of changes to design review thresholds. She explained that Inechanisn1s such as expanding the notice area and increasing appeal periods could help ensure awareness. Vice Chain11an Teglia opined that increased notification procedures would be beneficial. He noted however, that residents do not participate in neighborhood n1eetings because they are intilnidated. He observed that a posted notification sign with an artist's rendering and poles exelnplifying the proj ect heights might be appropriate. Councilman Garbarino opined that signs on the propeliy, similar to public works project SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINT TTP ~ FEBRUARY 20, 2008 PAGE 5 postings, might be a useful tool to increase public awareness of proposed projects. Con1111issioner Prouty and Mayor Pro Ten1 Matsun10to COlnn1ented on the importance of drawing the line at public input. Mayor Pro Ten1 Matsmnoto fmiher expressed opposition to establishing n1echanis111s that would pern1it the public a veto power susceptible to use on a discrin1inatory basis. Mayor Gonzalez noted the problen1 of tenant apathy in responding to public notices. Ms. Kahn suggested that changes to design review thresholds only be considered with respect to certain applications that currently go to the Planning Con1n1ission. In exchange for expanded notice procedures, such projects n1ight be n10re efficiently handled at the staff level than through Plmu1ing Con1mission review. Vice Chain11an Teglia suggested that zoning regulations should be tight enough to allow reasonable building. Anything above or otherwise outside the tlu'eshold of reasonability would be appropriate for discretionary review. Ms. IZalm next discussed regulation of non-corifonning situations. She observed that non- confonning uses vary and generally can't all be treated the san1e way. She advised that the consulting temn would be seeking input on categories of non-confonning uses. Ms. Kalu1 then addressed the issue of rethinking General Plan policies. She noted that while changing the General Plan is "not within the scope of the update, the City Inay decide it wants to mnend the plan in the near future. She suggested amendments related to the following might be appropriate: 1) allowing more retail and mixed uses East of 101; and 2) permitting housing East of 101. Councihnan Mullin questioned the forn1at of upcOlning workshops pertaining to the zoning code update. Ms. Kahn explained that the consulting tean1 would COlne back to the Planning COlnn1ission to propose the n10dules. After receipt of the Plmming Con1n1ission's feedback, the consultants would n1eet with staff and begin to draft the proposed zoning code modifications. Once a draft is created, it would be brought before Council. Vice Chairn1an Teglia questioned whether an outline of the Inodules would be presented. Ms. Kahn advised that the next step would be an am10tated outline of proposed n10difications to the code. City Manager Nagel suggested that the proposed study sessions consisting of neighborhood tours both within the City and throughout the Peninsula take place soon. Council, the Con1n1ission and the consulting temn agreed. Recess: 8:37 p.n1. SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 20,2008 PAGE 6 Meeting resun1ed: 8:47 p.111. 5. Presentation - Report on the status of The Biotechnology Cluster in South San Francisco, Assistant City Manager Van Duyn introduced Mr. Peter Pellerito of PMP Public Affairs Consulting. He explained that Mr. Pellerito would provide an update on Life Sciences activity in South San Francisco. Mr. Pellerito advised that he began assisting South San Francisco in 1995 with its very first look at the Biotec1u1010gy Cluster in the City. He further noted that through the years he had continued to provide consulting services to the City on the subj ect of what has now becon1e the Life Sciences Industry. Mr. Pellerito explained that to prepare the present update, he gathered info1111ation from a variety of sources including surveys sent to con1panies, n1eetings with con1pany representatives and industry reports. He then presented his update as follows: Mr. Pellerito advised that 50% of South San Frm1cisco's leading employer jobs come from the Life Sciences Industry. He opined that the City is the leading Life Sciences Industry location in the County; and further opined that the future of the Industry in the City looked promising based upon the number of South San Francisco Companies with phase 1 and phase 2 FDA trials in the pipeline. Mr. Pellerito further noted that over time, the industry's growth curve in the City had been steady, growing from 22 companies in 1995 to 68 companies in 2007. He observed that the industry has both direct and indirect economic impacts on the City, County and State. Mr. Pellerito explained that the companies presently located in South San Francisco identified the following as competitive advantages: (1) access to universities; (2) close proximity to the San Francisco International Airport; (3) the presence of industry leaders Genentech and Amgen; (4) good working relationships with City Administration; and (5) the establislunent of mixed-use housing developments near Caltrain and BART stations. Mr. Pellerito identified the competitive challenges ascertained in the study as follows: (1) slnall and mediuIn sized companies perceive din1inishing affordable space for research and testing in the East of 101 region; (2) traffic congestion; (3) high cost of local housing; (4) diminishing flexible space for small companies; and (5) lack of hannonization arnongst San Mateo County cities with respect to public policy suppoli for attraction and retention of companies in the industry. Mr. Pellerito specified the following 5 recommendations for the City to consider concerning the industry: (l) initiate a local industry advisory committee comprised of CEOs and key policy makers; (2) create a marketing and prOlnotion function that would re-double efforts to actively promote awareness of incumbent companies and city services to support theIn, including marketing the "94080" theme; (3) encourage placement of a UC extension service facility in the East of 101 area; (4) encourage companies with intemationallinkages to locate in South San Francisco; and (5) continue the focus on workforce housing affordability and increased access to modes of transportation. Mr. Pellerito also encouraged the City to identify new bioscience-related technology SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MTNT TTF~ FEBRUARY 20, 2008 PAGE 7 platfonns to drive industry growth in the area, including Bioinfonnatics, contract research and manufacturing and Nanotechnologies. Mr. Pellerito then concluded his presentation with the following Smnn131)' recOlnn1endations: (l) keep what you have and grow it; (2) balance industI)' needs with c0111n1unity priorities; (3) be active partners with incu111bent cOlnpanies; and (4) seek new sectors and con1panies. Councilman Mullin questioned the n1ethods used by other cities, including San Francisco, to lure Life Sciences companies away fron1 South San Francisco. Mr. Pellerito explained that the Life Sciences cOlnpanies presently in South San Francisco want to reInain because of the energy created by the East of 101 cluster. He en1phasized reinforcing relationships with existing cOlnpanies both through comlnunication and awareness of the p31inership as strategies for retaining current con1panies. He opined that con1panies generally are not seeking special considerations and/or tax incentives, but are looking for predictability and consistency. Counciln1an Mullin requested clarification of the impact of the lack of a coordinated County effort to attract and retain cOlnpanies in the industry. Mr. Pellerito responded that the clustering phenomenon is a concept fairly unique to the teclmology industry. He noted that while South San Francisco is clearly the leader in the area, the international life sciences community may want to see a more broad regional focus on the industry, such as the research triangle park in North Carolina, which incorporates three cities in the region. Councilman Mullin referenced his interest in developing partnerships among the South San Francisco School District, the City Council, the County, the Blue Ribbon Taskforce on the Workforce and the Workforce Investment Board to address workforce and associated issues, including housing. Mr. Pellerito responded that work force development is critical. He noted the Blue Ribbon Panel will not be so n1uch involved in developing PhD related jobs, but, rather would focus on manufacturing and QAQC related positions in Life Sciences cOlnpanies. He further opined that there is a comn1itInent by incumbent South San Francisco cOlnpanies to stay in the state, even where manufacturing is concerned. Mayor Pro Ten1 Matsulnoto noted the past difficulty of creating and scheduling a CEO forum with local companies. She recounted Council's efforts to meet with the leadership of local companies to determine how the entities could work together. Mr. Pellerito recommended that Council take a broad approach to n1eetihg with company leadership and reach out beyond the CEO level. He further encouraged identification of topics relevant to both the City and the companies, including housing and transportation. Mr. Pellerito further opined that a County-wide marketing effort discussion would also be attractive to executives. Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto questioned whether the cost of living would drive companies to SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 20,2008 TlAr'T;Q other regions. Mr. Pellerito responded that spectacular science is the biggest draw when cOlnpanies are determining where to locate. He noted that inter-CEO communication is the best Inarketing tool. Vice Chainnan Teglia observed that Mr. Pellerito's presentation did not touch on planning- related aspects. He questioned whether fledging companies had room to expand and occupy Inore space in the East of 101 area. He opined that marketing efforts n1ight be encumbered by space limitations. Vice Chairman Teglia further noted the significance of workforce housing and stated that restaurants and retail should be brought in to encourage East of 101 employees to spend their Inoney in South San Francisco. Due to the number of out of town residents employed by South San Francisco Life Sciences cOlnpanies, he questioned the econOlnic in1pact assumptions Mr. Pellerito reported. Mr. Pellerito opined that about 100/0 of East of 101 en1ployees live and work in South San Francisco. He further noted that the City reaps econOlnic benefits from a nun1ber of taxes related to the industry. I-Ie commented that enhancing mnenities in the East of 101 area would be a good idea, but opined that establislm1ent of housing in the area would require a patient resident. Vice Chairman Teglia observed that the East of 101 area offers a wonderful point out on the bay for campus housing. He further cornn1ented that the area was designed to be quiet at night. He emphasized the need for economic impact studies to facilitate the City; s ability to nurture the asset it has in the Life Sciences cluster while securing the best future for the community. Mayor Gonzalez COlTIl11ented on the significance of retention and marketing. He suggested annual and/or semiannual meetings with cOlnpany executives to facilitate better awareness of mutual goals. He cornn1ented that a university extension in the area would benefit marketing efforts. Commissioner Prouty observed that space would open up if the City began requiring multi-story parking structures. He opined that the City had made substantial progress in terms of creating housing solutions. Mr. Pellerito reported that industry representatives acknowledge that the City has n1ade strides in n1eeting housing needs. Mayor Pro Ten1 Matsun1oto questioned whether Mr. Pellerito believed the Life Sciences companies would be willing to help alleviate the funding shortfall related to the ferry service. Mr. Pellerito opined that the companies lnay be interested given that an East of 101 company suggested the idea of establishing ferry service at Oyster Point. He expressed interest in assisting City leadership to engage cOlnpanies in this conversation. Vice Chairman Teglia opined that the time might be ripe to engage the companies in a discussion regarding TDM requireInents. SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 20, 2008 pl:1npQ 6. ADJOURNMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Being no further business, Chairwon1an Giusti adjourned the 111eeting at 9:49 p.n1. ADJOURNMENT OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING: Being no further business, Mayor Gonzalez adjourned the n1eeting at 9:49 p.ln. Pedro City of South San Francisco Mary Giusti, Chairwoman Planning COlnmission City of South San Francisco SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 2008 D^r:~:C 1(\ ATTACHMENT 1 Feb. 16,2008 Ref. concerns to: Planning Dept. Policy of approving additions to single family hOlnes and zoning changes. SSF is a very nice city of many single family homes. Nice big lots and neat three and four bedrooln hOlnes. Clean and safe looking neighborhoods. One won't see a lot of iron gates on the doors or windows and houses jamn1ed together like in S.F. You won't see streets full of cars that look like they don't belong there, lnaybe because of too lnany renters. All of the South San Francisco City services are the very best. They all work in the best interest of their City, for the present and for the future. Now to the point of this letter. Additions, the dalnaging effects to their Neighbors and the City. A single family homeowner will have put a lot of thought into it before they bought in this City. Thoughts about the house, the lot that it is built on, schools, good neighbors, parking and transportation, future value appreciation. The appearance of the surrounding houses is so important. So many things to consider. A big investment in a good way of life and the future potential value of their new home. Neighbors that can be friends is important. With all these thought's and good planning it all can be shot down by one happening after buying. The neighbor gets a building pennit and adds on, maybe a second story and that is the worst thing to happen. Really a nightmare for the neighbors on both sides of the house getting the permit. Think about this, would you want a monster house or a two story addition built on to the house next door to your house? Maybe the good views of San Bruno Mountain or the Bay or even the well kept backyards of their neighbors is gone. The sunny backyards could be gone most of the day because of the addition. Backyards could be flooded during rainy seasons because of the additions. No more friendly neighbors. The American dream can be canceled out by these additions. Quality of life and the lost value of their homes are the results of the few next door neighbors that are allowed to lnake outside two story additions to their already adequate single family home. Maybe additions could be limited to only the first floor in order not to block out views and the sunlight that the neighbors had bought into and had grown accustom to when they bought their home. Yards should remain sunny and bright the way that the expectations were when they bought their home. Open land doesn't have to be built on like they did in SF. Backyards are nice. They don't have to be built on and cemented over. If someone doesn't like the size of the house that they bought and want to add on then they should go some place else for their dream house and let their neighbors keep their dream hOlne. At least keep the addition to the first floor. This will help keep SOlne of the desirable original architect intact. It will suit lnost neighbors but probably not the owners that want to add on. Maybe it is for a rental unit. Owners applying for a pennit should relnelnber that this is a cOlnprolnise to help them get a permit in a single falnily hOlne for single story addition. Considerations should always be giving to the other neighbors during a permit addition application. They all bought what they were shown at the time. A nice single family home in a nice neighborhood. Plenty of parking on the street. Renters with old or even not running cars could lnake SSF look like another S.F. Maybe some did want bigger and better houses but couldn't afford it. This is not a good reason for the Planning Dept. to give them a permit for an eyesore annoying addition. Many additions do spoil the quality of life for their neighbors. Wouldn't you want to try to help others that might have this worry? Wouldn't you want to save the quality of life for the future Single Family Homeowner in SSF? I would. Sincerely, Mel Wolfe 3 72 Avalon Drive SSF CA 94080