Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2020.07.23 @600 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Meeting held at: Teleconference meeting Tuesday, July 23, 2020 6:00 p.m. Call to Order Meeting called to order at 6:02 p.m. Roll Call COMMITTEE PRESENT: Roderick Bovee, Kristy Camacho, Robert Cavalieri, Nicholas Maiden, Sophie Martin, Julie Ann Murphy, Sam Shihadeh, John Skerry, John Skerry, Steven Yee (6:28 pm), Bill Zemke, ALTERNATE PRESENT: Alan Wong ABSENT: Rehman Baig Public Comment None. Consent Calendar 1. Approval of the Meeting Minutes of June 23, 2020 Committee Member Bill Zemke moved and Committee Member Sam Shihadeh seconded a motion to approve the meeting minutes of June 23, 2020 as submitted. The motion passed. New Business 2. Review and Discuss Land Use Alternatives Eric Yurkovich reviewed the Community outreach meetings held to-date and meetings that are scheduled. He encouraged Committee members to reach out to colleagues to assist with outreach for the online surveys. Sophie Martin asked if they would be given a summary of the community input received to-date and asked what action will occur at the joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting. Eric Yurkovich responded that he can provide a report out on the community input received at the August 11, 2020 CAC meeting. The City Council and Planning Commission will be given information on community input received and will be asked to provide direction on the land use alternatives. Staff and the consultant team will take all this information and prepare a preferred land use scenario which will go back through a community review process. Eric Yurkovich reviewed the purpose and process of developing land use alternatives and testing of big ideas. Eric Yurkovich reviewed the East of 101 sub-area land use alternatives. Committee discussion:  Does the transit core area allow housing? Alternative 1 maintains high commercial floor area and allows for housing. The density and intensity has not been finalized.  What is the difference between transit core and high density mixed-use? Eric Yurkovich responded that transit core allows high residential density and high non-residential density. Urban mixed-use maintains high residential density with lower commercial floor area.  Public comment – what steps are we taking to avoid impacts of gentrification? Eric Yurkovich noted that there are different policy areas to look at including preservation of affordable housing, naturally occurring affordable housing and renter protection.  Are there height limits for the urban mixed use compared to the high-density mixed use. Eric Yurkovich responded that a specific height limit has not yet been determined (FAA height limit due to proximity to SFO), urban mixed use and transit core would be taller than residential focus mixed use. Billy Gross noted that the City has not typically limited height east of 101 and allowed up to FAA limits, but has limited floor area. In response to the vision statement for east of 101, Committee members provided the following comments:  Bill Zemeke feels it sums up position very well  Jennifer Garstang, (public comment), good statement and likes the commitment to sea level rise, would like to see more aggressive standards for sustainability (net zero emissions, etc.). Would like to see larger overarching environmental plan. Eric Yurkovich noted that this process includes update to the Climate Action plan  Steven Yee, what is considered innovation? Collaboration of new ideas constantly. Eric Yurkovich commented that it could include innovation districts, include diversity of uses coming together in different ways that are interesting in new. Use of smart technologies, etc.  Jennifer Garstang (public comment), when considering whether to put housing or commercial near transit, need to consider if we want people commuting in or out and determine what is better for the City moving forward.  Kristy Camacho would like to see a better job to housing balance.  Sophie Martin noted that we can’t control where people live and work. If you build housing near a job cluster, there is a chance that people will work at those jobs. Contributing overall to provide housing in conjunction with jobs for the region and enable residents to get to their jobs using transit and nearby services (Downtown).  Sam Shihadeh feels this is a good vision policy statement, concerned with separation between east of 101 and downtown and affordable housing. Also need to address corporate responsibility.  Alan Wong noted he would like to see balance of housing and commercial growth.  Roderick Bovee asked if floor area is the only tool for managing residential vs commercial development. Are there other ways to incentivize housing development in the urban core zone. Is there an opportunity to get a grocery store downtown and east of 101 to serve existing and new residents. Committee members discussed the opportunity of creating a transit oriented core area near Caltrain station:  Julie Ann Murphy likes the concept but concerned with ability for developers to execute.  Sophie Martin doesn’t want to detract from Downtown, but there could be some services.  Kristy Camacho asked if there is any way to have amenities and services East of 101 that are not able to fit in the downtown area. Opportunity for a large grocery store, open space, youth center, etc.  Eric Yurkovich noted that we would want to capture local service amenities so residents do not need to get in their car. Need to build enough housing to support these uses.  Alan Wong noted that the alternatives assume Caltrain will be a viable system.  Eddie Flores commented that we need to connect east of 101 so if feels a part of the city and residents enjoy the area.  Eric Yurkovich responded that connection through Colma creek could improve access and more amenities along the bay trail. Adding housing will help ensure it is not an isolated business district.  Billy Gross noted that we are discussing these scenarios with all city departments including parks, police and fire for service needs, which will be included in the plan.  Nick Maiden asked about other transit connections at the Caltrain station.  Roderick Bovee asked if it’s possible to require builders to create ground floor space that could be converted to commercial, but doesn't have to be initially.  Sophie Martin noted that we can define development standards in the zoning ordinance for the ground floors that would allow that  Julie Ann Murphy suggested something in the same vein as the city of Minneapolis requires new parking garages to be able to be converted to housing later. So, it seems flexible solutions should be possible Committee discussed the preservation of industrial land uses:  Sophie Martin feels it would be a mistake to eliminate the industrial area. There is limited availability of industrial space  Bill Zemke noted the need to keep diversity of uses including industrial uses.  Alan Wong agreed with keeping diversity with an industrial zone  Sam Shihadeh noted the industrial area employs a lot of SSF residents.  Eric Yurkovich asked about more intensification of industrial uses in the future.  Kristy Camacho agreed to allowing higher intensity of industrial uses.  Bill Zemke asked what impact higher intensity industrial uses would have on transportation network. Eric Yurkovich noted that it depends on use and we will study the trip patterns in the CEQA analysis.  Billy Gross noted that industrial uses have lower trip generation and at different times.  Nick Maiden cautioned against heavy industrial uses near residential due to health impacts. Should be office space buffer between uses.  Eric Yurkovich noted that the plans includes buffer areas. Could also study truck routes to ensure not impactful on mixed us neighborhood. There could also be industrial uses that do not generate noxious fumes. Committee discussion - If maintain area as industrial and allow biotech to grow, should we allow higher intensity of uses (higher floor area):  Sophie Martin asked why business technology park includes two intensity areas. Asked about capacity and infrastructure, noting transportation network cannot handle existing uses.  Eric Yurkovich noted that there is ongoing work with the Genetech Master Plan (20 year planning document). This plan is consistent with that effort. Many different options to address east of 101 including transportation management plan, etc.  Billy Gross noted that the City received many inquiries about increasing floor area and wanted the opportunity to study and determine if feasible or requires mitigation.  Kristy Camacho noted that alternatives 2 and 3 help with jobs housing ratio, but if we increase commercial development, will have a higher imbalance.  Eric Yurkovich noted that alternative 2 maintains job housing balance and alternative 3 improves the ratio with more housing. Committee members noted preference for land use alternatives 2 and 3. Eric Yurkovich reviewed the downtown area land use alternatives. Committee discussion:  Sopie Martin asked about uses south of the creek. Eric Yurkovich noted this will be in the Lindenville sub-area.  Eddie Flores noted that at the Downtown sub-area meeting, many residents expressed concern with gentrification. He noted new infill development could cause displacement and gentrification of affordable housing. He would like to see a guiding policy the addresses this  Kristy Camacho feels the policy is somewhat problematic to maintain the culture that is already there.  Julie Ann Murphy suggested promoting infill development goal could be expanded to include existing community and cultures.  Nick Maiden suggested; promote equitable and diverse infill development, intensification, and reuse.  Julie Ann Murphy suggested including connection to creek as a policy.  Billy Gross noted that the downtown area land use plan mimics the Downtown Area Specific Plan as it was recently adopted.  Sophie Martin noted that this area presents a good opportunity for more housing near Colma Creek with buffer and transitions.  Eddie Flores feels this area needs an alternative four and we need to see the Lindenville area to understand how it all connects.  Jennifer Garstang (public comment) asked if the city has looked into the possibility of reclaiming the downtown portion of Grand for pedestrians only. That would help promote a transit-oriented community, and would also provide more space along the center of the road for lower-rent popup businesses, which would be easier for local residents to utilize.  Eric Yurkovich provided a description of the Lindenville land use alternatives.  Nick Maiden asked about the alternatives for each sub-area and the city as a whole.  Eric Yurkovich responded that each of the areas are being considered both independently and together with the adjacent areas.  Sam Shihadeh noted this area has seen more recent development than other areas.  Eddie Flores would like to hear from community members regarding the Lindinvelle sub area and understand the land use of that area in relation to the Downtown.  Committee members noted preference for alternative 1 with several members preferring alternative 2, 3 and other. Eric Yurkovich noted upcoming community meetings. Billy Gross noted the City sent a city-wide mailer announcing the community meetings as well as email announcements and social media updates. Also planning on hosting an additional Downtown community outreach meeting. Staff Comments - none CAC Member Comments - none Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.. The next meeting is scheduled for August 11, 2020.