Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.01.97 Minutes MINUTES SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION May 1, 1997 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Romero, Vice-Chairman Padreddii, Commissioners Masuda, Barnett, Sim, Teglia, and Baldocchi ALSO PRESENT: Dir. OfE&C D: Planning Division: Chief Planner Senior Planner Act. Secretary II Assist. City Attorney Police Department: Marty Van Duyn Jim Harnish Steve Carlson Rosa Perez Wayne Snodgrass Sgt. Ron Petrocchi APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion-Masuda/Second-Barnett: To approve January 16, 1997 minutes as presented. It was unanimously approved, with abstentions from Commissioners Teglia, Sim and Baldocchi. Chairman Romero removed Minutes from February 20, and March 20, 1997 from the agenda. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS CONSENT CALENDAR - AGENDA ITEMS 119 So. Linden Ave., Asian American Charter/4C Contractors, Api. (Jon Mead, Owner) UP-97-012, and Miti2ated Ne2ative Declaration No. ND-97-012 Adoption of Findings for Denial related to a request for a Use Permit to allow a Charter Bus parking lot and vehicle washing area with associated landscaping in the M -1 Light Industrial Zone District. Motion-Teglia/Second-Barnett: To approve Consent Calendar Item #1 Adopting Findings for Denial for UP-97-012. It was unanimously approved by voice vote. PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEM 899 Airport Blvd., Shell Oil Co.lA&S Engineering, Applicant; Shell Oil Co., Owner UP-96-110, V-96-110 and Miti2ated Ne2ative Declaration No. ND-96-110 Use Permit to allow the conversion of automobile work bays to a 24-hour food mart and Variance to allow a reduction from fourteen (14) parking spaces to eleven (11) spaces situated in the P-C Planned Commercial Zone District. (Continued fronl March 20th, and April 17, 1997) Senior Planner Carlson reported that the Applicant is requesting a continuance to May 15th, Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Teglia was concerned that this item had been continued several times. He asked that when the application is scheduled for hearing, he would like the neighborhood re- noticed. Motion-Teglia/Second-Baldocchi: To approve continuance to May 15th, 1997, Planning Commission meeting. It was unanimously approved. 180 Kimball Way, Arris Pharmaceutical/K. Kolm Architects, Applicant Equitable Life Assurance Society, Owner UP-87-795/Modl and Miti2ated Ne2ative Declaration No. ND-96-129 Use Permit to allow the conversion of 12,000 sq. ft. of warehouse floor area to office area, a use generating in excess of 100 average daily vehicle trip ends, a use operating 24 hours/day, a parking ratio of 1.8 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area for the research & development uses, and to allow the construction of an off-site parking lot at 292 East Grand Avenue, in the Planned Industrial (P-I) Zone District. (Continued fronl April 17th , 1997) Chairman Romero open the public hearing. Commissioner Barnett stated he would abstained from Item 3 and stepped down from the dias. Senior Planner Carlson present staff report and noted that the City Attorney would like to revise Findings Nos. 1 and 2 to add tltat tlte project includes tlte design of tlte building, and Condition No. 8 be added to state: "Wltere tltere is offsite parking tltat tlte owner enter into an agreenlent witlt to restrict tlte use of tit at parking lot to tlte uses, pursuant to tit is Use Pernlit and tltat tlte fornl and content be subject to tlte review and approval oftlte City Attorney". This condition is to assure that the parking lot is not used for other uses, while the building is utilized for R & D. He further noted that the applicant has complied with the Commission's design direction and is available to answer any questions from the Commission. The Applicant stated he was available to answer any questions. Chairman Romero closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sim thanked the applicant for working closely with staff to come to this solution. Chairman Romero noted the application presented at this time was an improvement and thanked the applicant and staff. Motion-SimlSecond-Padreddii: To approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND-96-129. It was approved by unanimous voice vote, with Commissioner Barnett abstaining. Motion-SimlSecond-Teglia: To approve Use Permit Modification UP-87-795!Modl based on the amended findings and subject to the amended Conditions of Approval. It was approve by a unanimous voice vote, with Commissioner Barnett abstaining. Page 2 of 20 PC Mtg. 5/1/97 Commissioner Barnett returned to the dias. General Plan Amendment East of 101 Area, GP-97-030 & Ne2ative Declaration ND-97-030 The General Plan amendment deletes freight forwarding and related uses from the Planned Industrial land use category in the East of 101 Area Plan. Chairman Romero abstained due to a potential conflict of interest, turned the meeting over the Vice- Chairman Padreddii and left the dias. Vice-Chairman Padreddii was given the gavel to conduct the public hearing on this item and opened the public hearing. Chief Planner Harnish noted that the proposed General Plan amendment deletes freight forwarding and related uses from the Planned Industrial land use category in the East of 101 Area Plan (Plan) and that a Negative Declaration had been prepared analyzing the potential impacts. He described the background and history of this issue which came up during the adoption of the plan in 1994. The original proposed Planned Industrial land use category did not include freight forwarding. The City Council determined to include those uses within the land use category. Since that time there has been substantial change and the City Council has expressed some concerns which generated the proposed General Plan Amendment. In 1992 there were 120 transportation related land uses within this area, 111 specifically were freight forwarding. As of January 1997 research based on business license applications indicated that there are 223 freight forwarding uses throughout the City, 170 of which are located in the East of 101 Area. Sixty are new freight forwarder uses have located in the City in the past five years, 26 of those in this last year alone. The issues that have been raised are 1) there is a great demand for freight forwardering uses and they have been substantially accommodated within this City 2) today there is a concern for accommodating a variety of uses within the Planned Industrial Zone, particulary those uses that the zone was originally intended to accommodate, such as higher intensity office, high-tech and biotech uses. There is also a growing concern about land use conflicts in this area and concerns of truck traffic and parking. Mr. Harnish read the definition of freight forwarding as it applies to this action and discussion as follows: "Any warehouse distribution, freight forwarding, customs brokerage or other activity involving the transportation, transfer, or storage of raw materials, component parts, finished products, or other commodities; to and from overseas, or domestic destination; and which activity is not accessory to a primary use. A use is considered accessory if it represents 30% or less of the total activity or space of the business. " Mr. Harnish noted that a major issue of concern to local businesses in the area is, what happens to a freight forwarding or warehouse distribution businesses that is in the affected Planned Industrial land use category? He stated that all existing uses would be "grandfathered in" and would be considered legal non- conforming uses and could stay there as long as they choose. The City would take no action to try to move them out. In addition, he explained that if an existing freight forwarder were to leave the building another similar use could go in within one year (as indicated under the provisions of the Zoning Page 3 of 20 PC Mtg. 5/1/97 Ordinance in the Non-Conforming use provisions) and, ifnot occupied within the year, the non- conforming use could be extended for one more year. The City Council in passing those provisions were specifically concerned if a building was not rented within one year, that the owner not be penalized. The City Council clearly indicates their concern and that the intent is only to affect future development within this area, not the existing development and uses. The overall intent of this change is to preserve the existing businesses while supporting expansion of higher intensity uses in the remaining portion of the area. He stated that a Negative Declaration has been prepared indicating no potential significant impacts. Mr. Harnish then commented on the public response. He spoke with over 50 people in the past week. The Commission had received 37 letters one of which was signed by 36 people. All letters sent to the Commission received prior to 5 :00 PM Thursday, May 1 st have been submitted to the Commission. He indicated that the Planning Division also received copies of two letters that had been circulated with the intent of generating interest in this project. He pointed out to the Commission his concern about the misinformation in the letters. He clarified that the City does not want to destroy existing businesses. This amendment would not outlaw freight forwarders in this area, that they could stay there as long as they choose, and it is his opinion that the proposed amendment would not lower property values. He noted that he was available should the Commission have any questions. Commissioner Teglia commented on his concern about the letters because they contained misinformation. He noted that if a business owner/freight forwarder wishes to sell his business, because he is "grandfathered in", the new business could continue with no elimination of current jobs. He asked if property values would be lowered and therefore reassessment would effect the tax revenues to the city. Planner Harnish noted that it is his subjective opinion, having been in the field of planning and land use for nearly 3 0 years, that since we are not requiring any changes and alterations to the buildings or uses that are existing, the property value would not change. He noted that he has discussed the issue with people in the real estate business who feel if there is any kind of limitation on the type of clientele that can come into a business, that it will limit their ability to negotiate rents for their buildings. If there is limitation on who can purchase the building, then it would limit the negotiating position for purchase. However, since they are allowing the existing uses to continue in perpetuity, and are not going to make any changes, he finds it hard to understand how property values would be lowered. Commissioner Masuda noted his concern with the existing businesses and asked why the information that existing businesses which would be grandfathered were not included the staff report. He also noted that the letters contained misinformation specifically the misconception that the East of 101 area is only zoned for freight forwarding, which it is not. Planner Hamish explained that the grandfathering aspect of the amendment is related to the Zoning Ordinance and implementation aspects of the agency. He apologized for not including it in the discussion, but at the time the staff report was prepared it was not an issue since existing uses would be grandfathered in by operation of the ordinance. He noted that since they were dealing with the policy change and not the zoning change, staff wanted to make sure that the Commission and Council agreed with the policy change before they come back to the changes in the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that all concerned callers were informed that existing businesses were being grandfathered and of the non- conforming use provisions. Page 4 of 20 PC Mtg. 5/1/97 Commissioner Baldocchi noted that most of her questions were answered and she was aware of the notice in the paper on April 16. However, one letter noted that they were not notified of the intent, she asked how about the notice. She also wanted to know if renters were notified? Planner Harnish indicated that the item was advertised on a 1/8th page ad, twice in the newspaper and that all property owners in the area and 300 feet from that area were notified. Renters would have been notified through the newspaper. Notices are not mailed directly to tenants. Commissioner Sim asked if a current owner wanted to expand their business, would they be permitted? Planner Harnish noted they could expand their use within the footprint of the building. If they were a multi-tenant building, they could expand their use within the footprint of the building with a use permit. Vice-Chairman Padreddii briefly reiterated that the proposed amendment does not effect any existing businesses in that area. The uses would be grandfathered in, and no one will lose their job. Should any business sell their business or property, another freight forwarder can move in. Vice-Chairman Padreddii opened the public hearing, noted each speaker had five minutes for their presentation and asked for speaker cards. Speaking against Mr. Nickel stated that he came to speak on an issue that he thought was dead the aDolication: and buried years ago, for which they had fought hard to put to rest. He noted Mr. Jack Nickel he has property on Eccles and Forbes, Lawrence Avenue and Carl Court. He 530 Eccles Ave., SSF has been involved in business in South San Francisco for over 20 years. Mr. Nickel stated he made his objection known through his letter to City Council and Planning Commission which mostly spoke of economic issues. He further stated that when you reduce demand, you reduce value. He commented that well meaning people were seduced by the chasing of the pot of gold, with false promises from one industry called biotechnology. He felt that if this item goes through the City would be trading its hard working roots as the industrial city; and would substantially damage the businesses of the people who built the City over the years, and who are not late comers and opportunist. He believes biotechnology is a very risky business, financially and environmentally, as noted in trade and business journals; and not as profitable as people believe. He believes that this proposal will get rid of trucking by tilting the playing fields so that the biotech people can come in and snap up buildings at low prices and drive out trucking, which they don't find compatible. He noted that someday biotech will cure AIDS and cancer, etc., but most of these businesses are losing money, and most of them are going to build a lot of property and then go broke. He wondered if South San Francisco wanted to be known as the Industrial City or the city which created a virus that wiped out Northern California. Mr. Nickel noted that South San Francisco has a thriving vital industrial sector in the East of 101. It is thriving because of the warehousing, freight forwarding, and distribution. He stated that the property is designed specifically for storage, freight forwarding and distribution; as indicated in the CC&R's for the Utah Park, the Cabot Park, and it looks good now. Mr. Nickel indicated that the City should not ask the land owners to flip the bill for biotech people. Freight forwarders employ many people in South San Francisco and they are a big part of the community; if freight forwarding goes and the traditional economics goes, the people who have grown up here and Page 5 of 20 PC Mtg. 5/1/97 lived in South San Francisco will be out of jobs. He was concerned that the biotech people would come in with PHD's, MD's, MBA's, ABC's and XYZ's; and asked where those people would live and shop; he believed it would not be in South San Francisco and those taxes would not be coming into South San Francisco. He believes that this would drive out the industry that has a proven record of being healthy and growing. The City would be taking a huge chance with something that is unproven. He expressed concern that if biotech people wanted to come in, they can do it on a leveled playing field without taking away the core industry. They should compete with everyone else for the space. This would push land value up, and when they buy and pay more for a building then a trucker will pay, the tax base will go up, not down. He believed if the City forces people out through the banding of trucking, and another recession comes as in the early ninety's (Since Mr. Nickel had been speaking for fifteen minutes already, Vice-Chairman Padreddii respectfully asked Mr. Nickel how much longer he needed to conclude his presentation? Mr. Nickel, agitated, responded he was talking about millions of dollars and would be finished in just a few minutes. Mr. Nickel continued to express his concerns that the City was taking a very big gamble to please people like Genentech, who certainly don't need the City's money. He noted that the statement that the existing businesses will be grandfathered in, but he felt that they really would not be because for a business to be successful it has to have the ability to grow and change. He asked if they would be able to add more doors to their buildings, to put in more docks? He asked where are the freight forwarders going to go or are they to remain stagnant? He believes they will be pushed out. Mr. Nickel asked the Commission to imagine what would happen if the whole area of the East of 101 would to become like the Genentech campus, and to also imagine the traffic problems we would have then. He understands he has a lot of trucking tenants and they are not perfect, but expressed that they are a far cry from the mess created by the high density of biotech people in the area. He commented on the twelve month grace period for filling buildings, he stated that should be plenty of time, but noted that with the last recession there were lots of buildings that were vacant for longer than twelve months. He felt that with this proposal this would make a bad situation worse. It would be taking away a huge part of the market. He believes that those buildings would go into bankruptcy. He commented that some city officials noted what could be offered to biotech people, he felt why they should be offered anything, just go over to Emeryville. He commented on a biotech conference he attended recently where a biotech company told how they got an expansion in Emeryville 10 to 15 years ago by paying 20 million dollars in order to stay there. He asked why the City is not charging the biotech people, why are they taking it out on their core industry. He stated if the City wants to change something, change the parking ratio, give them some tax breaks, but don't take it out on the local businesses. He concluded that he urges the Planning Commission do not be fooled by fool's gold, and sacrifice your core industry to the false god of biotech, and vote this down. Vice-Chairman Padreddii reminded the audience that speakers have a five minute limit and he wants to give everyone the same amount of time. They would like to hear what everyone has to say tonight. Sueakin2 a2ainst the aoolication: Representing Gallo Glass Co. Mario Ricci 458 24th Avenue San Mateo, CA Mr. Ricci, representing himself and Gallo Family partnership, own several properties in the Cabot, Cabot and Forbes Industrial Park. He made two points: 1) The park is a convenient location for receiving, warehousing and distribution of products and 2) The City of SSF had zoned the Page 6 of 20 PC Mtg. 5/1/97 Industrial Park to permit those activities. Many of the existing buildings were designed for the warehousing and distributing the occupant's products. He commented that the proposed general plan amendment would reduce the value of those properties by diminishing the potential uses, which will ultimately result with a low tax base for the county and the city. He stated that the history land use of the property should be preserved and that changing the use at this time would be a taking away of some of their property rights. He concluded that they oppose the proposed amendment to the general plan. Soeakin2 a2ainst the aoolication: Mr. Blaney stated Roger Sabatte, one of the owners of Berkeley Tim Blaney Farms Dairy, was also present and read the letter dated 5/1/97 Berkeley Farms Inc. sent to Mayor Fernekes and Chairman Romero. He noted that 561 Eccles Ave., SSF they have been in South San Francisco since 1970 and employ 90 people with a payroll of $2.0 million. He commented that they depend solely on the use of large trucks. His concern is if freight forwarding, warehouse and distribution is deleted from Planned Industrial land use category, how would they distribute their products? His other concern is that they have been informed that the property value would be drastically reduced because of the zoning change. He concluded that Berkeley Farms strongly opposes any changes to the zoning regulations and would take legal action to protect their property value. Soeakin2 a2ainst the aoolication: Mr. Miller commented that it was difficult to get information on Garry Miller the proposed amendment until two days ago. He stated he has 573 Forbes Blvd., SSF been a licensed customs broker and freight forwarder since 1963 and land owner in South San Francisco since 1983. He buys his supplies from South San Francisco businesses, patronizes this city's restaurants, stores, fueling stations and hotels. He pays his taxes, is a good neighbor by keeping up his property and his yearly payroll is $1.8 million. Eighty percent of his employees and his family live within San Mateo County. He expressed concern that the City feels their businesses are similar to a disease. He commented they are the industry of the future, new expansion of airport is the future and it cannot work without freight forwarders and customs brokers. He believes the proposal is short sighted and ill conceived, and urges the Commission to vote not on the Negative Declaration. He stated he will support any legal action that is taken by the businesses in the event this amendment is passed. Soeakin2 a2ainst the aoolication: Mr. Hoffman stated they strongly oppose General Plan Representing Nickels and Miller Amendment and Negative Declaration. He presented the John Hoffman, Attorney Commission a letter dated 5/1/97, which was distributed at that Ellman Burke Hoffman & Johnson time. He noted that documents passed by the City in reference 1 Ecker, Ste. 200 to the E. of 101 Area should be made part of the record on this San Francisco, CA 94105 General Plan Amendment, such as the Market Study Report, Existing Conditions, and EIR prepared under CEQA. He stated that in time this action will strangle the freight forwarding businesses. The market study shows this area is a natural place for these businesses, with the proximity to the airport. If those businesses cannot grow, not even beyond the footprints of the building, they will be destroyed. He further noted there is no sound basis for doing this. The staff report indicates that somehow these businesses are preventing biotech and other office uses from locating in the East of 101 Area, but he finds no evidence that the lack of land for the other uses is the case. He feels that the proposal threatens the legal rights of the property owners, because they will be unable to expand Page 7 of 20 PC Mtg. 5/1/97 or modify their uses. They will not be able to accommodate the needs of their tenants. The tenants will relocate as part of this process of slow strangulation. In conclusion, he stated, the City is taking this action on the basis of a Negative Declaration, but that an EIR should instead be prepared. The staff report alleges that freight forwarding and these types of uses creates parking, traffic and circulation impacts. Again, he notes the tenants will be relocating, the growth in the airport will require new freight forwarding, including the global trade. He stated that the law requires that the impacts are clearly stated. The City cannot turn a blind eye on the impacts that relocations will effect. This may even invite new construction with land use and geological, and water quality impacts, and biological resources. The freight forwarding uses will have to be accommodated and there are no evidence that there are places in other facilities in existence that can accommodate them. On behalf of the owners and operators of the businesses, he urged the Planning Commission to reject the proposed general plan amendment and negative declaration. Soeakin2 a2ainst the aoolication: Mr. Monfredini noted his family owns several properties in the John Monfredini impacted area and was present to voice his opposition in the 477 Forbes Blvd., SSF proposed changes to the East of 101 plan. He stated they have 40 employees (not as many as Genentech, but the majority of his employees live in South San Francisco) and they were able to moved from Eccles to Forbes last year, and they were able to expand. With the proposed change, they would not have been able to expand to another location. He notes that the City's concern is the area being impacted with traffic. He invited Mr. Harnish to drive around the Cabot, Cabot & Forbes Industrial Park to see the great impaction and congestion. He felt this impaction was not correct and the facts were wrong. He believed that most of the property owners would agree with his statement. His concern is that banks will not refinance million dollar buildings when they are non-conforming. When buildings are sold, the buyers will have great difficulty trying to get a loan. He believes that buildings will remain vacant heading to deterioration in the area. He stated that the business and property owners who have been in the area for years are the people who developed the Cabot, Cabot & Forbes Industrial Park into the beautiful facility that it is. This is the reason Genentech came to this area. In conclusion, no one objects to expansion of biotech, there are plots which are vacant; i.e., former Shearwater site for 20 years. He noted that the proposed businesses for the Shearwater site are less consistent with developing corporate campus headquarters or biotech campuses. He commented on how Arris Pharmaceutical must have out-bidded some trucking company to get the site, and there is nothing to preclude biotech from expanding. The City is trying to legislate the people out, so that the favored industries can come in. He thanked the Commission for the time to speak. Soeakin2 a2ainst the aoolication: Mr. Bosque stated that he is an international freight forwarder. Dan Bosque He is interested in 510 Myrtle Avenue in South San Francisco K E Laden & Co. Int'l. for expansion. His is primarily an office use and the area looked 3670 Exeter Drive very good. His warehousing and trucking are done elsewhere. San Bruno, CA 94066 He would like a better definition of freight forwarder. He asked if UPS and Airfreight forwarders would be kicked out. He noted that on the business license he is identified as a freight forwarder, but does not have any trucks, therefore, the statistics may not be correct in assuming everyone is in trucking. He spoke of his concern with the negative declaration since all the items on the check list were marked "no". He asked how could everything be a "no". He suspected that checklist was not considered carefully. Page 8 of 20 PC Mtg. 5/1/97 Soeaking: ag:ainst the aoolication: Mr. Lopes noted Sanrio Inc. is a wholesale distributor of Frank Lopes children's gift items. They have been in South San Francisco Vice-President of Administration since 1980, and purchased a building in 1990 for $28 million. As Sanrio Inc. the City can see, they have a substantial financial commitment in 570 Eccles Avenue, SSF this City. He described the improvements over the years and noted that they occupy less than one third of the 350,000 sq. ft. building, the remainder of the building is leased to two brokers and a data storage company. He expressed concern that GP97-030 will have a serious economic effect on his company, leaving them at the mercy of his tenants, because they will be grandfathered in they would dictate any terms and conditions when renewal of their leases comes. Since his building is not conducive to the type of tenant that the planned industrial development would like to have, he urges a no vote. He further noted that as a property owner the company resented the manner in which the City Council and Planning Commission had once again shredded the notification process of this issue. He indicated that they were not notified, but did receive a phone call from another property owner in the City of the intent. He noted that they own properties in 35 other locations and in San Francisco, those notices are received by certified mail. He further noted his felt that the Planning Commission had put this issue to rest in 1994, he is not clear why this is coming up again. Card for Pat Lyman, the speaker decided not to speak. Soeaking: ag:ainst the aoolication: Mr. Wootten, Director of Office Services for Fritz Company Dennis Wootten which has three facilities in South San Francisco and in the area. 706 Mission St. 10th floor, He believes it is naive to think that this change will not have an San Francisco, CA impact. The Fritz Company has been considering a build to suit facility to bring down their administrative staff from downtown San Francisco into a combined office and industrial building in South San Francisco. With the proximity to the airport and the freeway they feel this is the best suited location for moving freight and still be able to keep the airline schedules. They have 116 employees and the new facility would have another 300. He believes that his company would not make an investment in real estate in South San Francisco, even if approved, because the climate would be clear that it was not wanted (once you say you want to cut freight forwarding and even with grandfathering). He noted that there is a consolidation going on in the industry and with less freight forwarding companies the City would have met their goal. He commented that many manufactures are going to a just-in-time process. Manufacturers and retail facilities will not store products on site. He noted that they have built a facility in Dallas and one Miami, both of which are 300,000 sq. ft.. Three years ago they did not have a facility over 50,000 sq. ft. in the country. Businesses such as Nike, Apple, IBM are asking them to do their warehousing and to distribute directly to retail stores. He believes that this process will not go away. South San Francisco is the area they want to be. He can assure the Commission that their company will not invest in South San Francisco if the business climate does not want them there. Soeaking: ag:ainst the aoolication: Mr. Samayoa is a member of the South San Francisco Chamber George Samayoa of Commerce, he was raised in South San Francisco and his 2076 Larchmont Circle family still lives here. He noted he was present because he cared. Fairfield, CA He commented that he reviewed the staff report and that the connotation of the term freight forwarding is used in a negative aspect. He noted that the word freight forwarding is crossed out in the notice of hearing, along with the other uses such as; distribution, Page 9 of 20 PC Mtg. 5/1/97 wholesale, warehouse uses, distribution centers and facilities, customs brokerages. He indicated that when freight forwarding is mentioned, it is not just dealing air freighters, but that it means anybody that is in a warehouse. He noted that the areas crossed out are all in the Cabot, Cabot and Forbes Parks, those not under a specific plans. Mr. Samayoa commented on his visit to the Planning Department with the goal to review the issue, talk to a Planner and then contact Mr. Harnish. To his surprise within two minutes, he received the staff report and the Planner he spoke to was Mr. Harnish. Mr. Samayoa continued to describe his conversation with Mr. Harnish who spoke of the hazardous truck traffic for pedestrians, trucks that create a problem to the many employees walking to and from work, or for those who walk to the restaurants, or shopping at lunch time. As Mr. Samayoa noted that Cabot, Cabot and Forbes had onsite parking, no street parking, only two restaurants (a deli and something by whistling tower), and no shopping. He told Mr. Harnish that Cabot, Cabot and Forbes was not designed for El Camino type traffic; and when Mr. Harnish was asked if he had driven by the area, Mr. Harnish told him he did not know, but that he had just been told about the traffic. Mr. Harnish told him complaints had been received about trucks lining the streets for days at a time. Mr. Samayoa stated that Cabot, Cabot and Forbes does not have street parking, and thought they must be referring to the south side of East Grand Avenue, Harbor and Utah, where trucks and trailers parked. Mr. Samayoa repeated that when he asked Mr. Harnish what streets he was referring to, Mr. Harnish responded he did not know and he would drive the area. Mr. Samayoa stated that Mr. Hamish said that freight forwarders are taking up all the available land and putting up buildings for their own use. Mr. Samayoa stated that when he asked Mr. Harnish if he had any examples, Mr. Harnish responded no, that he had just arrived here in South San Francisco three days ago, but that is what he heard. Mr. Samayoa noted he was a commercial real estate broker in South San Francisco for most of his activity, since 1978. He stated there are three air freighters that have built to suit in this area, in the past 20 years that he is aware of, not including the typical warehouse users. He noted that it was derogatorily described in the staff report. Mr. Samayoa continued to describe his conversation with Mr. Harnish alleging that Mr. Harnish spoke of complaints from Genentech that their visitors had to see all these trucks en route to their facilities. Mr. Samayoa reminisced when Genentech was only 5,000 sq. ft. at Point San Bruno and then they hit it big. He described how Genentech and Mr. Beardsley bought out all the surrounding properties. Mr. Samayoa stated that the Cabot, Cabot and Forbes Park was designed for what it is today, one of the most successful industrial parks in San Mateo County. He alleged that Mr. Harnish stated that it never was intended to be that way, that it was designed to be R & D. Mr. Samayoa read from the original Cabot, Cabot and Forbes Park CC&R's describing that it was the desire and intention of Cabot to develop the property as a garden type industrial center; he felt this said it all. Mr. Samayoa noted that the above definition is not freight forwarding, that is just one of many occupants of Cabot, Cabot and Forbes Park. He commented that some of those buildings were designed to accommodate 20% to 30% of office space, at the most and to convert this to R&D or high-tech there is not enough parking available to accommodate 60% to 80% of that use; which means (SOL) simply out of luck. He expressed concern that when a tenant moves out the owner will not be able to get another warehouse in there, not necessarily a freight forwarder, but someone like Sears who needs warehousing and they would not be able to lease the building under the general term as a freight forwarder. The owner Page 10 of20 PC Mtg. 5/1/97 will be stuck holding the short end of the negotiation with the existing tenant. This would ruin the value of the property. The high-tech and biotech company will level the properties, they will be paying land value less demolition costs; and would destroy the integrity of the area. Mr. Samayoa commented that Mr. Harnish's response is, that's ok don't worry, it would not take effect for a year. Mr. Samayoa noted a year from now the property would be worth nothing. Mr. Samayoa asked why choose one of the modern areas to be demolished, rather than the older area south of East Grand. He is not recommending an area, he would prefer not to do this in any area. Mr. Samayoa reiterated Mr. Monfredini's concern of banks not refinancing a non-conforming use. He noted that when a property is sold and the tenant leaves, it will be hard to do anything else with the property. The owners would not be able to lease it again to anyone else. He felt the building would be worth nothing. He has done deals with REO, bank repositions and that this would not take food offhis table, but he felt this was very wrong. He noted that Mr. Harnish prepared the initial report and reiterated Mr. Harnish's comments of not being sure, and that he had just arrived. Mr. Samayoa states that he submits that any report submitted by Mr. Harnish is without merit. Soeakin2 a2ainst the aoolication: Mr. Melbuy noted he is also in commercial real estate Mark Melbuy, BT Commercial and that in reading the staffreport he found He said: 1350 Bayshore Hwy, Burlingame inconsistencies. He referred to questions he asked his Card: 3131 Barney, Menlo Park, CA 94025 clients such as how much office space is needed. Many of the buildings in this area have minimal office space and a lot of warehouse. He said that by adding one sq. ft. to a building they do not meet the on-site parking requirements. He noted that the staff report states that several land use conflicts had been identified related to the mixing of freight forwarding uses with the research and development, and office uses. He comments how interesting that the mixing of freight forwarding (who has been here all the time) with research and development, and office uses which are not substantial yet and the staff report notes that the conflicts are traffic, parking and esthetics. He noted that esthetically, Cabot, Cabot and Forbes is one of the nicest parks in South San Francisco, but if the use changes, the conflicts with traffic will intensify with the intensified use. Soeakin2 a2ainst the aoulication: Mr. Andrews stated he had been shopping for 30 years in South Charles Andrews San Francisco. After being in business in San Francisco for 20 80 Loree Lane years, he moved to South San Francisco because his annual taxes were $60,000, compared to $12,000 here with a building that was three times as big. He noted that at the time of his move land value were $1.50 a sq. ft., and today they are $18 to $20 per sq. ft. He commented on the difficulties in manufacturing and the high overhead. He noted that at the present time he has 300,000 to 400,000 sq. ft. of warehouse space in South San Francisco; and his investment is about $20 to $60 per warehouse space, which is a very large investment. He noted that people are moving to the East Bay where land values are at $6 sq.ft. He explained that he employed 160 to 200 people in the heating and air conditioning business in South San Francisco at 161 Starlight Street. He articulated he has six freight forwarding companies. The airport is expanding and the City will need freight forwarding. He commented that big companies are moving out, because the rents are too high. In conclusion he expressed that the proposed amendment is not fair. Page 11 of20 PC Mtg. 5/1/97 Sueakin2 a2ainst the auulication: Mr. Ewing stated he owns Lotten and Ewing Foods, also Gail Ewing known as South City Cash and Carry, a wholesale, grocery and 285 East Grand Ave, SSF cigarette distributer. He said they have been in South San Francisco since 1976. They recently bought the building at 285 East Grand Avenue. He noted that he pays $11 million annually to the State of California, (which South San Francisco gets a good share) in cigarette taxes. He has 75 employees, many straight from South San Francisco High. As a new owner of the building as of October of 1996, he is nervous about what is proposed. His business is growing and he plans to move to a larger facility. He urged the Commission to vote no on this issue. Sueakin2 a2ainst the auulication: Mr. Baekboel stated he is a freight forwarder and is not directly Michael Baekboel involved, however, he is greatly disturbed. He looked for space 406 Littlefield Ave, SSF and found South San Francisco to be a very good location. He commented that the investments the airport is doing indicates that this type of business is growing. He noted that the proposal would force them out of the area into San Francisco, and would destroy the City of South San Francisco as an international distribution center. The Commission should consider building this area as a very strong international chain for the Pacific rim and overseas. He commented that South San Francisco has an edge as compared to LAX. This area can thrive and grow. He expressed amazement in the growth figures mentioned, and noted he was one of the new businesses. He noted that the most traffic he has encountered is trying to get into the industrial area because of all the employees from Genentech. He felt it was insane since cars are stuck in a three way block up and down the 101 corridor at Grand Avenue or Oyster Point. He noted that Cabot, Cabot and Forbes is beautiful, with plenty of parking no run-down cars. He hopes to move back there, he believes that airfreight could improve the rest of the area. He suggested a city do an airfreight plan of how to accommodate freight forwarding in the future and become a major player instead of pushing out this industry. He noted they were not notified because they are not owners, but they are in South San Francisco and plan to stay. He requested notification of future actions related to freight forwarding. Sueakin2 a2ainst the auulication: Mr. Halper states he is owns property at 475 Eccles. He has a Michael Halper 150,000 sq ft warehouse facility which he bought in 1995. He . 839 Mitten Rd. #208 has a substantial investment in rehabilitation including a seismic Burlingame, CA 94010 upgrade, parking lot, roof and tenant improvements as required by a Conditional Use Permit. He believes that if this proposal passes his investments would be a big mistake because one of his tenants have rights to go on for 12 years. Another would depart in one year, which would leave a substantial part of his building vacant for that time. He stated he strongly opposes this amendment, it would be detrimental to his business; and as an owner and investor would take necessary action to protect current investments. Sueakin2 a2ainst the auulication: Mr. Kline represents property owners of 400 to 438 Littlefield Charles Kline Avenue. He said that he has managed the property since 1978. Stark Investment Company He commented that after hearing about the meeting, he opposes 151 Callan Ave, Ste 213 the amendment. He asked how the City could mix the phrase "in San Leandro, CA 94577 perpetuity" with a one year limit, which means if you don't have a freight forwarder in a space within a year it would be lost. B~ljJ1Ig:::Q.w:m~p~:::1 Page 12 of20 PC Mtg. 5/1/97 (Vice-Chairman Padreddii clarified it was two years.) Mr. Kline said he had leased this property to several types of businesses in the last 20 years. He explained that one side of the building are all freight forwarders, and the other side is distribution, storage, a fabric importer, and a sheet metal company. He noted that over the years the uses have changed. With these proposed restrictions the City would be taking away their choices. His concerns are the proximity of his business from the effected area. He believes that biotech has a choice of where they go, and the owners should also have the choice of to whom they rent. The restriction on tenants would diminish the property value, particularly when an owner has a building that may not be suited for biotech. He considered it inverse condemnation. He agrees with Mr. Baekboel, that if you move the nucleus offreight forwarding and they go to LA eventually all that related business will be lost. He does not understand why uses which have been in for over 20 years in a 95% leased rate are being forced out. Soeakin2: a2:ainst the aoolication: Mr. Hannon resides across the bay but his business address is in Timothy Hannon South San Francisco. He represents himself: a freight forwarder 300 Swift Ave., SSF and customs broker, and the Customs Brokers and Freight Forwarders' Association of Northern California, of which he is President. He started with Pacific Airlines in 1959. Nineteen years ago he joined the South City group, started three businesses (German National, Dutch National and one for himself). He hired, trained and employed many customs brokers. He was disappointed in the manner that the profession was treated in the language of the proposal. He said that they are professionals, tested and trained by United States government, their ethics are checked by Customs Treasury Department and FBI. He noted they are not coming out of the sewer. He spoke of being raised in Berkeley and lives there now, is a liberal thinker and a Republican. His point being that he is a liberal thinker by looking things from all sides, carefully tossing it around and coming up the reasonable, sensible answer. He does not believe this amendment does that. Mr. Hannon explained that he is speaking for the Association because one of the members asked for help. He pointed that GP97 -030 is inconsistent with the original plan and against the historical use of the area. It is inconsistent with the historical marker on Sign Hill. He spoke of his personal sweat on the streets and warehouses in this town. He continued to note that the City's original plan encouraged the freight forwarders to lease, build or buy in this City. This is also inconsistent with the plan. He said that land use is best determined by market needs of the community and this plan is inconsistent with the natural development of the market. He notes that the plan does not give an expected time frame for removal of the "red-lined" industries. Removal by attrition without specificity does not allow for normal business decision making. The existing buildings in the "red-lined" area were done with the "red-lined" industry in mind. They are not physically consistent with the campus-like environment entertained by the plan. The plan does not indicate if or how many research and development uses are waiting in line for the facilities presently leased or owned by the "red-lined" industry. Without the basic information or proof of need GP97-030 is tantamount to blue skies, greener field, or pipe green economics. Mr. Hannon continued to comment that the staff report refers to the loss of space for freight forwarders from San Francisco Airport. He states it is not true. He noted that Airport land has not been available to freight forwarders since 1980 and then only sparsely. He believes the report is inconsistent with these statistics. The increase in the freight forwarding industry is a result of the natural and persistent need of the area's economy. The City should solidify its relationship with a true friend, rather than cause it to fold or force it to leave the area. He noted that the report does not specify which streets and trucks are the problem. Repeated drives over the area have not found the culprit trucks or crowded streets. Heo Page 13 of20 PC Mtg. 5/1/97 recommends that those few streets be improved by widening, lower speed limits. He states the high level of financial investments sought after by the Planning Commission in order to convert the red lined area into a campus like environment is inconsistent with the needs of the area as a stand-alone environment. He noted other communities, such as Los Angeles and Chicago, that have both types of businesses operating in the same area with success. He continues to note that the staff report states that the freight forwarding community threatens the success of the area. He feels that the opposite is true. He noted that San Francisco Airport will remain the strong economic force and major gateway for world commerce, tourism, and freight destination. The City should see the value for what it has and what positive economic and long standing support base it can be it the future. By this kind of sound and consistent thought process the City can remain a vital and necessary part of the airport cargo based economy which offers an increasing employment pool. Soeakin2: a2:ainst the aoulication: Mr. Hibdon with a Properties Management Group he represents Fred Hibdon the two groups in the operating offices. They have a computer 706 Mission St. center on Forbes Avenue. Their core business are brokers, San Francisco, CA freight forwarding. They have no trucks. They have 200 employees and have 150,000 sq. ft. and would like to grow. If the plan goes through, they would not be able to grow. They are in the Industrial Park in an Industrial City. He urges the Commission to vote no on the negative declaration. Sueakin2: a2:ainst the auolication: Mr. Eftimiou stated he is the owner of Stevens Bay Area Diesel Steve Eftimiou Service, on the corner of Littlefield and East Grand. He notes 105 April, SSF that Genentech is the traffic problem. He notes that he is the little guy. He has 10 employees and fixes the trucks that move the freight. If the trucks go, everything else goes. He asked why they want to remove the trucking from the airport. He suggested that the City look towards the future. He is trying to see how this will effect his business and believes his business will die, slowly but surely. He asked that the Commission think carefully because their decision will effect thousands of lives. He expressed his concern that it was the little guy with a family, who wants to put food on the table, who will be effected the most. He noted he is not a land owner and does not have millions of dollars, but he pays his taxes and puts food on the table. He again asked the Commission to think carefully because they affect a lot of people. Soeakin2: a2:ainst the aoulication: Mr. Sabbadini has interest in a property 480 Littlefield Ave. He Tom Sabbadini noted that as property owner he did not receive notification by 930 Tournament Drive mail. He heard about this issue and the library did not have a Hillsborough, CA 94010 copy of the Negative Declaration. He noted that he is in agreement with those who spoke in opposition of the amendment except the widening of Littlefield Avenue. He stated in defense of the Staff's Planner, they should not make it a personal indictment of the staff planner. He agreed with the comments of condemnation without just compensation, and the slow strangulation of business. He finds it sad and notes his family has been here since 1925, and they still own the property. He noted that that should mean something to the Commission, and that they should vote no, against the proposed lunacy. Page 14 of20 PC Mtg. 5/1/97 Soeakin2 a2ainst the aoolication: Mr. Diehl states he represents Bredford Properties Investors in Rod Diehl Lafayette. They own five projects in South San Francisco. They Bredford Property Investors have fifteen tenants occupying those buildings and nine are in 270 Lafayette Circle the freight forwarding business. All of their buildings are within Lafayette, CA the planned industrial area and all will suffer severe economic hardship if the general plan is amended as proposed. He noted he shared the views of those who spoke, and his points have been voiced already. He describes their portfolio as representative of most of the other buildings in the planned industrial area. They were designed to accommodate warehousing and distribution uses. He noted that they were not designed nor could they be readily adapted to accommodate office, biotech or high-tech uses. He explained that even if retrofitting the buildings was economically feasible, the parking restrictions would be impossible. He noted they are not opposed to biotech or high-tech development in the area. However, he opposes the promotion of such uses at their expense. If the demand for office, bio and high tech is go great, then over time market forces will take control and entice property owners to convert/accommodate these uses. He thinks it false for the City to think that they can legislate free market investment behavior. He believes that the proposed amendment is bad idea, if the City's goal is to attract new investment. The proposed amendment is sending a message to the investment community that the political environment at the City is unpredictable and inconsistent. In closing, he stated that the plan is too drastic and too damaging to the existing business and property owners in the area. Furthermore, the message it sends to the market place is that the City does not value the members of its existing business community. He urged the Commission, on behalf of Bredford Properties, not to approve the amendment. Mr. Black stated that he opposes the proposed amendment. He noted he does not own property in South San Francisco, but has been a broker here for the last 15 years. The only signs he is getting are from developer like Jack Nickel and warehouse developers that want to put up more development. The phones are not ringing off the hook from Genentech, CORE, or Athena Neurosciences. It is all from warehouse developers. He would like to see more of the same and he is dead set against this proposed amendment. Soeakin2 a2ainst the aoolication: David Black 518 Hurlingham Ave. San Mateo, CA Soeakin2 a2ainst the aoolication: Mr. Hydron stated he admired the Commission for having that Marshall Hydron dream for the area. He agrees with Mr. Diehl that the market B T Commercial can not be driven with legislation. He noted there are still some 1350 Bayshore #150 empty lots such as the Gateway, and Fuller O'Brien. As Mr. Burlingame, CA 94010 Black said no development is being done there. He commented on the fields of dreams but no one is coming. Soeakin2 a2ainst the aoolication: Ms. Bosque explained that she has been planner for 17 years, Rosemary Bosque also went to law school. One of the things she has been doing 510 Myrtle Ave., SSF is to write Negative Declarations that would stand up to legal scrutiny. She noted that the staff report and the initial study may not withstand it. She explained that when the office of planning and research realized that CEQA is a pretty difficult thing to interpret with respect to what is a significant impact when writing an initial study, they added a technical appendix to the guidelines ofCEQA. In looking at the appendix it notes that the negative declaration has to take into Page 15 of20 PC Mtg. 5/1/97 consideration issues such as displacing large amount of people, or affecting the physical environment of an established community. She noted they have heard a lot of the particulars on those issues, and submits that it is outrageous. She notes it is not a Mitigated Negative Declaration, nor is there reference to an EIR. No other environmental assessment have been done for corresponding or contiguous areas. Also, she wanted to know whether the Commission is an advisory body to the City Councilor whether the Commission would be taking action. She stated that it looks like it will be easy to get a mandate to overturn the negative declaration. Vice-Chairman Padreddii closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sim when asked for his comments stated he would hold his comments until other Commissioners had spoken. Commissioner Barnett thanked the people for coming to the Commission meeting and expressing their desires. He noted that Mr. Harnish did not prepare the staff report, it was the Director of Economic and Community Development; and noted Mr. Harnish had recently joined staff and it is unfortunate he was the apparent scape goat. He stated if he was a business owner he would be very concerned about the resolutions and negative declarations. He noted, however, that there are provisions in the City Code that allow for existing non-conforming uses to remain non-conforming uses under the adoption of the amendment. As Mr. Harnish pointed out, if the property changes hands the new property owners will have a year to renew the use permit. He asked for clarification of the non-conforming use issue. Planner Harnish clarified that if property changes hands, assuming the proposed amendment passes and these uses are excluded as a land use it will become a legal non-conforming use. The property will remain under the same operations and same ownership. The property can be sold and a new similar non- conforming use can come in. The change of ownership has nothing to do with the use of the property. The owners can change several times. Freight forwarding or warehouse uses can move in and out many times and the owner will continue to be entitled to lease the property to legal non-conforming use. The legal non-conforming use will be entitle to stay there, there are no provisions to run them out, there is no sunset provision. The two year period that is discussed only applies if the building is vacant and remains vacant for one or two years. He noted that the Council did extend the one year period to a two year period in response to the concerns expressed by the industry. He noted that the Council clearly has done something in response to making sure that the businesses in town are not adversely effected by any zoning or land use decision. Commissioner Barnett asked staff about the legal adequacy of the Negative Declaration. Assistant City Attorney stated that it is his opinion that the Negative Declaration does comply with CEQA. Planner Harnish stated he prepared the Negative Declaration. He has prepared numerous Negative Declarations and EIR's in his career. He further explained that the EIR that was prepared on the East of 101 Area Plan and analyzed the full development of this area. The EIR assumed development that did not include the freight forwarding and warehouse uses. As noted earlier, the original planned industrial land use category did not include these uses and they were re-included later. The analysis, however, was based on the assumption of floor area ratios and intensity development that was greater than if it would be Page 16 of20 PC Mtg. 5/1/97 developed under warehousing uses. Therefore, the analysis in the original EIR addressed all of the potential traffic, air quality, and development impacts that could have occurred at full build out. When he prepared the Negative Declaration those facts were taken into consideration and referenced where appropriate. He said that he did go back and to make sure that those issues were adequately analyzed, and concerns expressed by some the speakers were based on assumption that this action would move freight forwarders out. He clarifies that it is the City's position in preparing the Negative Declaration, the assumption that these uses will not be displaced, that they can continue as long as they choose to, and that was the basis in recommending the Negative Declaration with no mitigation measures. Commissioner Barnett clarified Planning Commission's action would be to recommend to Council. Assistant City Attorney agreed that the Planning Commission would be recommending adoption of the Negative Declaration and would be adopting a resolution which recommends that the Council adopt the proposed general plan amendment. Commissioner Teglia noted this issue originated with Council. Planner Harnish noted that the reason this was coming up to the Commission and to the Council is that the Council has previously discussed this issue. The Council has received some complaints, and had asked staff to prepare a report in January. As a result of that report and discussion, Council directed staff to bring forward. A recommendation for how to address this issue. The propose amendment is the end result of that request. Commissioner Baldocchi noted that she would hold off on commenting at this time. Commissioner Teglia noted his concern regarding notification. He asked if there had been a request from a group from the East of 101 Area Plan, would the City come and explain the report to them. Planner Harnish indicated they would. Planner Harnish noted that the people on Littlefield were not notified and suspects they may be on the outside of the noticed area which was the 300 feet radius from the effected area. There was an attempt to notify every property owner. Commissioner Teglia asked for clarification of the definition offreight forwarders. Planner Harnish clarified the definition. Commissioner Teglia asked for clarification of the grandfathering provisions. Mr. Harnish clarified the provisions. Commissioner Teglia commented that as noted by the first speaker, if you reduce demand, you will eliminate or reduce property value. However, he feels they are not reducing demand, they are reducing supply which should have the effect of increasing the property values. He believes it would be a tragedy to have only biotech or only freight forwarding. He would like to see a balance and a mix of biotech and freight forwarding. In response to the owner who felt his business had a virus, he noted that South San Francisco has a reputation of being friendly to business. This is why the non-conforming use provisions were changed. He believes this shows that the City does not want to force people out of business. Instead, the City wants to protect them. However the City also wants to maintain a balance of uses. In response to market forces, he notes that in order to attract a certain standard development, it is necessary to protect and stimulate those factors that would attract certain types of businesses. He thinks the amendment will do that and also address the needs of the freight forwarders. Commissioner Masuda noted that most of his points have been addressed. He asked staff if Berkeley Farms, Sees Candies, and Sanyo are in the amendment, he also asked about expansion of these businesses. Planner Harnish responded that in his opinion, without knowing the specifics of the particular facilities, they would be able to expand because they are not included in the list of uses that would be effected by this change. The uses mentioned are manufacturing uses so they could expand as much as Page 17 of20 PC Mtg. 5/1/97 they want. Commissioner Masuda asked if a freight forwarder bought the adjoining building, could they expand their business into the new building? Planner Harnish responded that under the amendment provision, if the use is under the same roof, they can expand into the rest of the building. He noted that if, on the other hand, the proposed expansion was for a separate building which was occupied by a conforming use, they could not expand into that facility. If it had been previously occupied by a freight forwarding or a related use they could expand. Commissioner Masuda noted that people believe they are trying to eliminate freight forwarding, but he wants to clarify they they are not eliminating the existing businesses. Commissioner Sim expressed concerns and reiterated what Commissioner Barnett had expressed. He felt the Commission is trying to develop a constructive dialog and to render a decision based on fairness. He did not feel that finger pointing was appropriate and appreciated the speaker who mentioned this inappropriateness. He pointed that he wants to be fair, noting that nothing is perfect. He does see an opportunity, looking at matters constructively, for both the freighting industry and the biotech, industries to try to mitigate concerns through dialog. He noted the concerns expressed on Genentech clogging up the roads. He noted that everyone is important to this City's community. He indicated that he is not an expert on the market, but he as a Planning Commissioner, looked at what is in the best interest of the City's economic future. He noted that he did visit the industrial area and although he does not work out there on a daily basis, he is aware of some of the issues. He commented that the decisions would be made based on all the evidence. Again, he must look at what is the vision of the future for this City. He noted that others may come to different understanding on this matter, and believes that maybe the proposal is being rushed a little. As a Commissioner he noted that they do not want to get rid of freight forwarding business. There are areas that allow trading, freighting and warehousing. They are not trying to get rid of the businesses already in the area. He suggested continuance and to further discuss the issue. Commissioner Baldocchi asked for clarification on whether the goal was to eliminate future freight forwarding from coming in to South San Francisco? Planner Harnish explained that the proposal would only limit those uses in the planned industrial category and there are several other land use categories and zoning districts in the City that would continue to permit freight forwarding uses. She asked what were those areas? Planner Harnish noted all the areas south of East Grand, in the industrial area and around South Linden Avenue. Planner Harnish clarified that the proposed amendment would limit future development, not the existing uses. Commissioner Baldocchi noted that there was an overwhelming amount of information and asked if there was a way in which the City could not except any more permits for a period of 12 months. She thought this would allow time to work with the group of people, and limit the expansion of the uses instead of amending the General Plan. Planner Harnish noted that might constitute a moratorium and asked the Assistant City Attorney to respond. Attorney Snodgrass explained that there are things that a City can do in terms of a moratorium, but that is not an issue that can be discussed in any depth at all tonight, because that is not the item on the agenda. He notes that under the Brown Act all that could be discussed the item under the agenda. Commissioner Teglia commented about the history of the East of 101 Area Plan. He heard about concerns from businesses that he thinks are addressed in this amendment. He felt this is a fair and balanced approach, knowing this have been studied from one end to another, it has been reviewed and discussed at length and he does not see what more delays would accomplish. Commissioner Masuda noted that both sides have been given a fair chance. He would recommend approval of the resolution to allow the audience to go before Council. The City Council can then review Page 18 of20 PC Mtg. 5/1/97 and make the decision. Vice-Chairman Padreddii said that his main concern is the same as those in the audience. He understands the situation and he appreciated the presence of all who came. He noted that his main concern was that the existing businesses be protected, and that has been assured. He clarified that no one will be closed down and no lay-offs of employees will occur. The existing businesses can sell to other businesses with the same operation and even enlarge their operation if it is in the same building. He disagreed with people who said that they will be out of business. He assured them that the City wants businesses to stay here, and that the reason for this amendment is that there is an overabundance of freight forwarding businesses. In response to comments that the City is trying to run businesses out of the City, he knows it is not true because this council has brought in more businesses than any other Council. In conclusion, he noted that his concerns were answered with the speakers comments, and with staff's report and comments, and would favor the amendment. Commissioner Sim asked for clarification that they would not be making the decision; that they would only be making recommendation. Commissioner Baldocchi noted that the hearing with City Council will be on May 14th, at 7:30 PM at the same location as this meeting, and Council will discuss this at that time. Motion-Barnett/Second-Masuda: To approve Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration ND97-030. On the Motion Commissioner Sim received clarification that the motion was to recommend to City Council for approval and that Planning Commission was endorsing only. Commissioner Sim noted he did not have enough information and would be abstaining. The Motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Vice-Chairman Padreddii, Commissioners Barnett, Masuda, Teglia and Baldocchi; NOES: None; ABSTENTIONS: Chairman Romero and Commissioner Sim. Motion-Barnett/Second-Masuda: To approve Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the General Plan Amendment GP97-030 to the East of 101 Area Plan Policy 5a. It was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Vice-Chairman Padreddii, Commissioners Barnett, Masuda, Teglia and Baldocchi; NOES: None; ABSTENTIONS: Chairman Romero and Commissioner Sim. Chairman Romero returned to the dias. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Items from Staff: None Items from Commission: None Items from the Public: Mr. James Mats of the South San Francisco Chamber of Commerce asked Page 19 of20 PC Mtg. 5/1/97 to obtain a copy of all the names of the individuals who spoke. Chairman Romero responded that would be available through the Planning Commission's clerk. Chairman Romero congratulated the Commissioners, particularly the new Commissioners, and staff on conducting this controversial issue. Commissioner Teglia noted that the position of a commissioner can be a hot seat and after a review of an issue, decisions will need to be made. He believes that it is very important that all commissioners stand up to their decision. Adjournment: Motion-Barnett/Second-Sim to adjourn meeting at 10:50 PM to the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, of May 15, 1997. n . ~l ~~ ,;J~~""v William Romero, Chairman Planning Commission City of South San Francisco WR:JH:rp Page 20 of 20 PC Mtg. 5/1/97