Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1994-04-06 Mayor Joseph A. Fernekes Council: Jack Drago John R. Penna --'Roberta Cerri Teglia Robert Yee City Council City Council Conference Room City Hall April 6, 1994 ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER: (Cassette No. 1) ROLL CALL: 1. Closed Session for the evaluation of the City Manager pursuant to GC 54957. .5'/~ ~ la. To rescind the request to BART to consider a shift of the Tanforan station idea further north so it would be in our City limits, as well as San Bruno's. ,b"tgg,~ ACTIQN TAKEN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING 7:12 p.m. Mayor Fernekes presiding. Council Present: Drago, Penna, Yee and Fernekes. Council Absent: Teglia. City Clerk Battaya stated Councilwoman Teglia had notified her office that she was on vacation and would not return until after the Easter vacation. Mayor Fernekes stated that the Council had not held the Closed Session for the evaluation of the City Manager, due to the absence of Councilwoman Teglia, however, the item would be rescheduled. Mayor Fernekes asked for a Motion to add a BART item to the Agenda that arose after the Agenda was posted, because a decision had to be made before 4/8/94. M/S Penna/Yee - To add the BART item to the Agenda. Carried by unanimous voice vote. City Manager Wohlenberg stated that, at the last regular March meeting, the Council took a policy position to request BART, in the final stages of planning here, to consider a shift of the Tanforan station idea further north - so it would be in our City limits, as well as San Bruno's and possibly gain some benefits for both cities. He continued, the idea was to simultaneously consider that process to enable a rational design that would eliminate the station at Hickey, that information was presented to BART the following day and they agreed to do that and ask for more details on what the Council was going to do. 4/6/94 Page 1 A~ENDA To rescind the request - Continued. 4/6/94 Page 2 AC_TIQN TAKEN He stated staff spent time evaluating the possibilities, options, gains and trade offs and it was concluded that a lot of the things that pointed to shifting the Tanforan station north did not gain anything for the City and may well jeopardize one of the sites that could be an economic development for the commu- nity. He stated there was real concern that the Hickey station offered some benefits in having a stop there for use by the residents. He stated, this week the BART Committee met, dis- cussed this, raised issues and concerns and recom- mended to the full Council that this request be re- scinded - that is we no longer ask to evaluate shift- ing of the Tanforan station or deletion of the Hickey station. Mayor Fernekes stated he participated in that meet- ing and the Subcommittee recommendation is to rescind that action of Council. Interim City Attorney Nave stated that the new Brown Act requirements say that the public be al- lowed to speak on any issues. So, the Mayor should ask if there is any public comment and make a motion afterwards. Mayor Fernekes asked for public comment and no one responded. Councilman Penna wanted clarification, because this was the first he had heard about this. Mayor Fernekes related: Council took action at the last Council meeting to recommended to BART that we change the location of the BART station from the Hickey station to the Tanforan station - to make it a joint station; staff came back to us at a Subcom- mittee meeting at the beginning of this week, ex- plained the pros and cons of both and the possibility of future economic development; etc. M/S Yee/Drago - To rescind the request to BART to consider a shift of the Tanforan station idea further north so it would be in our City limits as well as San Bruno's. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Councilman Penna reiterated his opposition to BART and his support of Caltrain. A~ENDA Further discussion of the outstanding issues on the East of 101 Area Plan (Public Hearing was closed on 3/9/94) and Motion to direct preparation of the Final Area Plan incorporating the Council's and Commission's comments. .~O ~ ACI!QN TAKEN 225 Mayor Fernekes stated he had a potential conflict of interest and Vice Mayor Yee would conduct the meeting during this item. Planning Commissioners Present: DeZordo, Lucchesi and Warren. Planning Commissioners Absent: Mantegani, Romero, Padreddii and Zellmer. Mayor Fernekes stated that, due to the lack of a quorum of Planning Commissioners, those present could participate in the discussion but not in any- thing else. Vice Mayor Yee stated that this particular item was continued from two weeks ago and the public hear- ing was closed, but we have a lot of speaker cards and will allow the individuals to speak after the staff report is given. City Manager Wohlenberg spoke of the hundreds of hours of Council, staff and Planning Commission time expended in the last year on the East of 101 Area Plan. He stated that it was important to keep the process on track, because of deadlines with the Airport and the moratorium. He suggested the Council look at some policies that were raised as issues and not force this back into a rework, because it would circulate a whole new EIR and cause a delay of 90 to 120 days. He stated that the Consultant, David Early, and Chief Planner Solomon will assist with the issues and there are a whole table of lesser items that Council will be led through to reach a consensus. Mr. David Early, Brady & Assoc., stated the area plan is intended to be an amendment to the General Plan and is being prepared by the general laws of the State. He presented a slide show and spoke in depth on the Plan: overall land use goals; implementing mecha- nisms; listings of permitted uses; floor area ratios; traffic level of service standards; infrastructure improvements; design policies; big issue raised was eliminating use restrictions concentrating on business parks, research and development and other types of uses; infrastructure funding; reevaluation of econom- 4/6/94 Page 3 A~ENDA ...~2. East of 101 Area Plan - Continued. Planning Commissioner Zellmer Arrived at the Meeting: ACTION TAKEN ie implications; requests to allow trucking uses in the Genentech campus area; warehouse facilities in the industrial areas; air/freight transportation firms; grandfathering in current uses in areas and whether those uses could be expanded; non-con- forming uses; etc. Planning Commissioner Zellmer arrived at the meet- ing at 7:47 p.m. and established a quorum of Plan- ning Commissioners in attendance. Mr. Early continued: wetlands preservation; Haskins site; recycling/waste transfer; public access for BCDC; small concerns voiced by businesses; the three moderate issues were Santa Fe Realty Co., who submitted a letter raising the possibility of an oil pipeline and the Consultant recommended look- ing at that outside of this process; the Council could change this Plan, but not more frequently than four times a year, and this was the second change this year; this will amend the existing General Plan but there could be ten items in one amendment; etc. Mr. Richard Van Doran, See's Candies, 210 El Camino Real, stated he took exception to Policy LU- Sa, which was a life and death issue with his firm - it would bar their transport of 18,000,000 pounds of candy a year. He stated that it was imperative that the words "light delivery truck" be deleted from the Area Plan amendment, Policy LU-5a. He stated that the Company was in a growth mode, yet about six years ago the City rezoned their par- eel, without notification, to commercial from manu- facturing - when they do their main shipping and manufacturing at this address. He stated they cannot further grow in manufacturing with this restriction and, if there is no alternative, they will vacant the property and break their employees' hearts. He stated, if the policy passes and next month they want to go over two blocks and rent a building, they cannot manufacture their product nor can they in- crease their production on E1 Camino because of the rezoning. He felt this was not right when they had been in S.S.F. for twenty years, but the employees would be notified See's was moving. He stated that it was a beautiful plant and the "Industrial Ci~" would be gone, yet they had cooperated and sup- ported the City and schools but, how do they explain to their employees they must move. 4/6/94 Page 4 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN East of 101 Area Plan - Continued. 4/6/94 Page 5 230 He stated that he had just heard about the policy and lamented the fact that the City did not contact them nor get their views on the matter. Chief Planner Solomon, upon request of the Vice Mayor, stated it was a larger issue than notification, because they had provided notice to every property owner on the assessors property tax listing - at least seven times on the environmental documents. He stated they held two workshops, again with notifica- tion to property owners, notice of the meetings were published in the newspaper and staff distribut- ed a number of copies of the documents to major businesses. He stated the Consultant met with a hundred of the property owners during the early stages and felt they had gone beyond the law. Councilman Drago stated he would not vote for a plan that would put See's Candies out of our City. He stated he would make a motion to pull LU.5a out of this plan and alleviate that concern. Councilman Penna stated he agreed and wanted all speakers to speak to the part of the plan that affects them, have a 30 day extension for implementation and then take action. Mr. Tim Blaney, Berkeley Farms at 561 Eeeles Ave., stated his firm did cream manufacturing in this City since 1970, employs 80 people and paid $185,000 in property tax. He stated they were concerned about the zoning change, because the nature of their business requires large trucks to deliver to the plant and their customers. He stated, if the zoning is changed from light industrial to planned industrial, then it will not allow them to use large trucks for delivery and, if they want to sell their property, they would have difficulty - which includes the non-conforming use as well as a hard- ship to his Company. Mr. Paul Shepherd, 401 E. Grand Ave., stated many people did not get the notices of meetings, however, he did receive some - but not seven notic- es. He stated he was the only property owner at the Planning Commission meeting and, in response to one telephone call asking if he was interested in buying property he said no, he couldn't because of the new zoning. Then, the word spread to all of these people here tonight about this meeting, which shows clearly a lack of communication. AGENDA East of 101 Area Plan - Continued. 4/6/94 Page 6 ACT!QN TAKEN 231 He stated that the planning phases are necessary but, if we can't get financing on our buildings because you have made them non-conforming uses and the bank says we can't fmance because of the designa- tion, then you are reducing the property taxes for this City. James T. Graeb, Esq., 400 Oyster Point Blvd., stated he was representing Dinesh Maniar, who is the owner of 570 Eccles Avenue. He related: property owners had only now learned about these changes; staff gave the minimum legal notice, yet there were $100,000,000 worth of property owners; there were publications in the Chronicle and the Times; some property owners were given notice; of the 440 parcel owners, only 25% live here; only 20 property owners attended the April meeting. He continued: the East of 101 Plan will spell fman- eial ruin, because of the non-conforming status of the buildings, the loss of pre-existing, responsible tenants and the prohibition of truck use; he read from his letter of 3/31/94 that said, by designating the existing warehouse and light industrial buildings as "non-conforming", the City of S.S.F. will make real estate financing of these buildings impossible; the Genentech Master Plan, combined with the pro- posed East of 101 Area Plan, would bring on finan- cial ruin for many existing property owners and severely injure the tax revenues of the City; the Plan gives Genentech almost unlimited growth potential north of East Grand Avenue, while rendering exist- ing warehouse and office use financially worthless; by destroying the property values for existing own- ers, the City would be aiding Genentech's acquisi- tions; he wanted a decision delayed for 30 days for all affected businessmen to air their concerns. Mr. John Monfredini, 551 Eccles Ave., stated the changes were monumental and, if enacted, the eco- nomic base will be exacerbated. He stated this will disallow distribution companies and air freight for- warders - all uses for which the properties located at 477 Forbes Blvd., 551 Eecles Ave., 371 Allerton Ave. and 429 Cabot Road were designed and built and their uses are in total compliance with current zoning regulations. He stated they favored the attraction of any biotech companies as is feasible - for it may add vitality to the community. However, our support of this in- AQENDA ACI!Q~ IAKE~ East of 101 Area Plan - Continued. 4/6/94 Page 7 232 dustry should not come at the expense of the current property owners. He stated that S.S.F. is currently envied for the diversity of their economic base. He stated that this was done in the mid-west for a par- tieular industry with a deleterious result and in Southern California for the aero space industry as a wave of the future - and look at the number of vacancies that resulted. He stated that Burlingame moved mountains for Sprint, only to see them move to Kansas City, and they have not recovered since. He believed there currently exists sufficient land and space for all users to co-exist compatibly and that a diversified economic base best serves the needs of all interested parties. He stated these buildings, with there docks and load- ing platforms, support these uses and they cannot be converted to other uses but, are necessary to support Airport related uses. He urged the Council to delay the implementation of the plan and asked that a task force be assigned to determine how we can best serve the biotech industry and preserve our econom- ic base. Mr. Joseph Mock, Landsing Pacific Fund, Inc. at 410 Allerton, stated his company owned six indus- trial buildings and were concerned about the impact on trucks, as the gentleman from See's had cited, because, if this passes, the values of their buildings will be diminished. He asked for a continuation of this meeting to allow them to meet with staff and the Planning Commission for continued discussion and understanding. Mr. Robert Rouse, 1547 Grandview, stated he rep- resented owners of industrial property in S.S.F. and their main concern is the same as previously voiced tonight - the elimination of heavy trucks. He stated all their existing tenants ne.~l docks, hydraulics and doors and without that the owners would lose ten- ants. He stated he could not go out and refinance his property with a non-conforming use nor sell the property for what it is worth. He urged the Council to eliminate that policy. Mr. Jack Nicel, 526-534 Eccles Ave., stated he had five buildings in the park and in adjacent areas that would be affected by the East of 101 Plan and wanted the four words removed on Policy LU-Sa. A~ENDA East of 101 Area Plan - Continu~. 4/6/94 Page 8 ACTION TAKEN 233 Mr. Bud Mason, 400 Oyster Point Blvd., stated his finn had developed 1.3 million sq. ft. in the East of 101 in Cabot, Cabot & Forbes and had brought in Oenencor, however, there are not a lot of biotech companies coming into S.S.F. He owned a 7 acre parcel and had tried to market it to the R&D unsuc- cessfully, even though it was a $5.5 million proper- ty. He stated, if they had to go along with this Plan, the land was not worth it. He stated, George Avanessian told him this is a non- conforming use in the new Plan - and that is how he learned about it. The only thing the property would be good for in a foreseeable use is trucking for air freight - transport of parts for air freight or for airplanes, so don't let Genentech get rid of our trucks. He urged the Council not to encourage R&D uses at the expense of property owners with large invest- ments. Mr. Tom Robertson, 1601-1757 Grandview, stated he was the owner of two buildings, with docks and heavy truck use, and the site had been chosen be- cause of the Airport and wanted to keep that status indefinitely. He stated his Company did get the notice, he had called and was told it had to do with Airport homes and the Shearwater. He had told them he had trucks and was told it would not concern him. Mr. Jeffrey Johnson, Ellman, Burke, Hoffman & Johnson, stated he was a land use attorney and asked for a clarification on the elimination of the four words. Mr. Early stated that to eliminate the four words would allow any kind of warehousing in the area. Mr. Johnson expressed concern that solution 3 would not permit expansion, in the area, of the heavy truck use and questioned if this had benefit to the City or was a burden to the landowners - specifi- cally with that use. He stated he was not familiar with the idea of creating this land use category and urged the two Bodies to remove the four words. Mr. Bill Brown, 166-167 Grandview Ave., stated he wanted to reiterate what previous speakers said - AGENDA AC_TIQN TAKEN .2. East of 101 Area Plan - Continued. 4/6/94 Page 9 234 concerned with the trucks not being able to access Cabot Cabot & Forbes. Frank A. Copes, 570 Eccles Ave., expressed con- cern that he had just learned about this and felt the notification was unconscionable. He stated that voting on this Plan had to be postponed until the property owners can review the Plan - which he felt smacked of redevelopment. Mr. Naphtali Knox stated he represented the Haskins site, thanked the two Bodies for hearing them at the March meeting and felt they would be as caring tonight of the issues. He spoke in detail: the distinction between shall and should; on pages 17 and 54 of the Plan, Policy LU- 6a, should have a comma after the word "painting"; open air storage should be allowed in screened areas; he continued with technical and typographical Mr. David Baldwin, HD Delaware Properties (for- merly Homart), related: he was in support of the comments of the City Manager on the wetlands and not going beyond the guidelines of the State; there were concerns that the revised draft EIR had not been adequately revised by staff or public review; his last letter to staff addressed 6 or 7 issues and the last letter he wrote consisted of 3 pages. Chief Planner Solomon stated the Final EIR, with the comments and responses, has not be issued yet, however, both Bodies had to review the document. Mr. Baldwin stated they had written 5 letters that addressed the Draft EIR, as well as the Plan, that have not been satisfied. He cited other concerns: the disputed wetlands were not designated as wetlands, yet it was in the document as designated as seasonal wetlands; why aren't all of the issues being covered; this process was not participation friendly; etc. Jim Panek, Genentech, stated his firm had been adequately informed of all meetings and staff had always been accessible to hear their concerns. He stated his Company was interested in its neighbors, didn't want to drive successful businesses out of S.S.F. and were surprised that such a comment was made. He stated they moved here 17 years ago AGENDA · 2. East of 101 Area Plan - Continued. RECESS: RECALL TO ORDER: (Cassette No. 2) 4/6/94 Page 10 ACI!QN TAKEN 235 and were aware of the major businesses operating in the City and this had not been a deterrent to locate in S.S.F. He stated that there are nuisances with heavy truck traffic and did not believe in co-existence, however, in operations of Genentech they are not inconsistent and can co-exist. Mr. Harvey Levine expressed concerns over the language in LU-5a: to generalized; it changed a should to a shall; these did not have to be called out in the General Plan; etc. Vice Mayor Yee asked the Consultant how he felt about removing the four words in LU-5a. Mr. Early stated he had no objections in removing the four words, in having the words warehousing al- lowed and he would recommend doing both. Interim City Attorney Nave stated it would be ap- propriate to do both and both Bodies could make a statement indicating they would approve warehous- ing, which would be direction to staff - to bring back that version. Consensus of the City Council and the Planning Commission - To remove the four words in Policy LU-5a and allow warehousing. Vice Mayor Yee declared a recess at 9:45 p.m. Vice Mayor Yee recalled the City Council/Planning Commission meeting to order at 9:55 p.m. and Mayor Fernekes was still not a participant. Mr. Early gave an in-depth description of F.A.R. (floor area ratio) and stated the Gateway Towers is .6 in floor area ratios. Mr. Baldwin took exception to the Gateway Towers being used, because the .60 does not include their entitlement - which is 1.25 F.A.R. and has not been built out. Planning Commissioner Warren stated it is easier to have a physical picture rather than an abstract and that was probably why the Gateway Towers was used. AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 236 East of 101 Area Plan - Continued. 4/6/94 Page 11 Discussion followed: the study only includes two projects with a F.A.R., and one is not built out; should delete the reference to the Gateway; the Trux property is 100% leased and that may not be .60; Oyster Point has a shuttle service for employees, which reduces traffic and the F.A.R.; the need to be able to identify infrastructure concerns in trip gener- ation with a F.A.R. and sewage generated; Vice Mayor Yee had a problem with that, because it is controlling growth, and he wanted to encourage growth, when the City was spending $40 million for the overpass; he stated the City could increase the sewage capacity; Councilman Penna wants to dis- courage vehicles in that area and encourage people to use public transit; Oyster Point fee formula; the F.A.R. precludes an owner from building a parking structure, which includes landscaping; footprints allowed; would look to an analysis in EIR, if over the F.A.R. guidelines, the City would need an anal- ysis; Chief Planner Solomon stated the City had received an extension of the Airport agreement for 90 days, which the Council has not taken action on and is not in effect; he recommended a meeting be called 30 days hence; he stated Council could meet again or ask staff to hold a session and maybe get a facilitator to get more information to business- es; City Manager Wohlenberg suggested the meeting be noticed and invite lpublic input; Councilman Drago suggested agendizing extension of the full Airport agreement with the Airport and, in 30 days, have another meeting to discuss other issues; Interim City Attorney Nave pointed out the Airport has not voted on the agreement and the moratorium expires on 4/25/94; Vice Mayor Yee directed staff to work with the Subcommittee and the public on the F.A.R. and any other issues and set a meet- ing in 30 days, which will be properly noticed; the information on the changes to be given to the public; staff had charged $46.00 for a copy of the EIR and $15.00 for the Plan; businessmen in the audience agreed to be a party to the Subcommittee meetings; all Subcommittee meetings will be plublicly noti- ced, pursuant to Brown Act requirements; the park- ing structure and the F.A.R. were the two issues to be resolved; on the Trux property, the applicants have a preliminary proposal for a parking structure that would exceed the floor ratios and, being that automobile parking and storage is allowed in the light industrial areas, so can a parking structure be built in that area; should a policy be discussed or a spot designation be made on the site, because it is 23'7' East of 101 Area Plan - Continued. 4/6/94 Page 12 a policy plan for the whole area; staff suggested additional policy LU.6c be added to the Plan, which allows the City to make an exception to the floor ratios for the parking structure - with restrictions; why it was not being put under Airport related uses; it is not Airport controlled, it is private and we have a responsibility to the FAA; Airport related use is the United Airlines maintenance facility; Commis- sioners Warren and Zellmer agreed with the parking structure use, but it would have to be dealt with on a case by case basis; if the F.A.R. was changed, the parking structure use was permitted; they were discussing broad categories; what was the problem if we allow this particular use and this zoning, then you can deal with it on a case by case basis; Mr. Avanessian represented the property owner who had a problem with what the consultant was proposing in the F.A.R.; he stated the 380 off-ramp runs into his driveway and there will not be traffic generated on the streets; if they can meet the points - traffic, sewer, access and benefits of $500,000 to the City, then the F.A.R should not be enacted; he felt, if a parcel produces no traffic, the F.A.R. should not be applied to the whole area; the property is valuable for the Airport related use; staff had not really identified the zoning procedures for the General Plan; this use is a conditional use in the light indus- trial district; Vice Mayor Yee noted that at least two members are inclined to the use and zoning; Com- missioner Warren would not have a problem with some mechanism of a F.A.R.; Commissioner Lucchesi stated the question was the six story park- ing facility; Commissioner Zellmer felt there should be a maximum of stories allowed; etc. Vice Mayor Yee stated that it appeared to him there is a consensus that the use is okay. He now asked about the concept of F.A.R.s. Commissioner Lucchesi stated that he had been swayed by Mr. Avanessian's argument about the proximity to the Airport and that a seven story parking facility could occur and be a disaster. Discussion followed: almost across the street, the Airport is going to build a monstrous parking place; the F.A.R. is a device used by planners and is an abstract concept - a one story building is tho F.A.R. 1 and a two story, on all of the site, would be F.A.R. 2; it is used to tell, from the site, what is the maximum amount of building that can be built A~DA _AC_T!QN TAKEN 2. East of 101 Area Plan - Continued. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION CITY COUNCIL ACTION PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURN- iENT: Mayor Fernekes Returned to the Podium: Consideration of proposal to conduct an organization- al and program effectiveness survey of all City ser- vices (continued from 3/23/94 meeting. ADJOURNMENT: and then they can project the number of people, cars, sewage and water needed; there were different floor ratios in each of the land use categories of the Plan, with five in the Plan, and those are in the land use policies; etc. M/S Warren/Zellmer - To refer the item to staff, the Subcommittee and the public, continue the item for 30 days and notice the meeting. Carried by unanimous voice vote. M/S Drago/Penna - To refer the item to stuff, the Subcommittee and the public, continue the item for 30 days and notice the meeting. Carried by unanimous voice vote. M/S Zellmer/Warren - To adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Time of adjournment was 11:15 p.m. Mayor Fernekes returned to the podium at 11:15 p.m. Mayor Fernekes stated this item would be continued to the next regular Council meeting. M/S Perma/Yee - To adjourn the City Council meet- ing. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Time of adjournment was 11:16 p.m. 4/6/94 Page 13 A~ENDA _.~_,SPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Barbara A. Battaya, City Clerk (-./ City of South San Francisco AcI!Q_N APPROVED. TAKEN Josel~q A. F~rnekes, Mayor Citylof South San Francisco The entries of this Council meeting show the action taken by the City Council to dispose of an item. Oral communica- tions, arguments and comments are recorded on tape. The tape and documents related to the items are on file in the Office of the City Clerk and are available for inspection, review and copying. 4/6/94 Page 14