South San Francisco, CA August 12, 2019 Press Release
AGI/KASA PUC Project Public Meetings
*The public is encouraged to attend and fill out public comment cards*
Housing Standing Committee:
When: Monday, August 19, 2019 @ 6:00 p.m. (The Housing Standing Committee starts at 5:00 p.m. with a closed session to discuss price and terms. The public meeting will start at 6:00 p.m.)
Where: Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers, 33 Arroyo Drive
Why: The Housing Standing Subcommittee, which includes two City Council members and two Planning Commissioners, will listen to a staff presentation on the AGI-KASA project, including the site plan, architecture, affordable housing component, and other public amenities and community benefits. The purpose of the meeting is to receive feedback from the Housing Standing Committee.
Design Review Board (2nd meeting):
When: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 @ 6:30 p.m. (DRB starts at 4:00 p.m., but this topic will start at 6:30 p.m.)
Where: Municipal Services Building, Police Training Room, 33 Arroyo Drive
Why: The Design Review Board will review the architecture and landscaping plans for AGI/KASA’s proposed mixed-use project on the former PUC properties.
The purpose of the Design Review Board is to promote high-quality design, well-crafted and maintained buildings and landscaping, the use of high-quality building materials, and attention to the design and execution of building details and amenities in both public and private projects.
Design review shall be based on consideration of the requirements of Chapter 20.480 of the Municipal Code as they apply to the design of the site plan, structures, landscaping, and other physical features of a proposed project, including but not limited to building proportions, site design, parking arrangements, exterior colors and materials, fencing and screen plantings, landscaping, and signage elements.
About the proposed project: AGI/KASA proposes to redevelop 5.9 acres of vacant land to construct 800 residential units, an 8,300 square foot childcare facility, 13,000 square foot commercial retail space, approximately one acre of public open space, and related infrastructure at 1051 Mission Road and surrounding parcels.
WARNING! YOU ARE ABOUT TO READ A SHORT BOOK.
For those of you unable to attend the House Standing Committee meeting last evening, allow this feeble-minded South City resident of sixty-two years share his personal observations. Remember, these are my opinions. Don’t try this at home.
We had the usual stalwart handful of actual South San Francisco residents showing their support for their community by expressing their resistance to the PUC project by either speaking or showing their presence. What was unusual in this meeting was the mass influx of outsiders, non-residents of the city, speaking in support of this project in service of their own self-interests. Remember, these people do not live here and will not suffer the consequences of this out sized project. Who picked up the phone to mobilize these individuals?
There was discussion of massing and setbacks to address the impact of the architecture of the proposed buildings on the surrounding neighborhoods. No discussion of actually limiting the heights of the buildings was brought to the table.
As I continue to receive an education while immersed in this process, I was to learn non-profits can actually search for profits.
In yet another low point for your mayor, not mine, she admonished the attendees and threatened to clear the chamber after they applauded a speaker’s comments. This is not the first time she has done this. While I appreciate the fact that a certain decorum is required in the chamber, it seems that she exercises disparate treatment depending on whether or not she likes the speaker’s comments. The ultimate irony is that this individual feigns respect for the chamber and yet publicly disrespected this very chamber in an unprecedented manner when she attacked me, a resident addressing the council, in a profanity laced tirade some eight years ago. I have a pretty “thick skin” but am intolerant of liars, cowards and hypocrites. While I put this event behind me, her repeated actions have forced me to call out her hypocrisy. If you are curious and have time, check out the available video streaming for South San Francisco City Council meetings for May 25, 2011 approximately three hours and five minutes in. See the hypocrisy for yourself.
While I generally hesitate to credit politicians as a rule, I have to applaud (hope that’s okay we’re not in the chamber) our Councilman Addiego as he was a “rockstar” last evening. He called out one outside speaker for using inaccurate, if not falsified, statistics reflecting SSF’s efforts to do more than its fair share to provide housing. He also called out the developer when said developer attempted to put a spin on “bundling,” claiming that charging each unit for parking is a disincentive for owning a car. Councilman Addiego astutely pointed out that it would not necessarily be a disincentive for owning a car but an incentive for this project’s residents to park in surrounding neighborhoods. The multitude of “spins” this developer has subjected this community to in an effort to move this project forward can only be considered an insult to our intelligence. Back to Councilman Addiego, maybe the community actually has a council member who is listening and advocating for the community that elected him rather than capitulating to outside influences. We’ll see.
The meeting drew to a close when your mayor launched into a seemingly never ending and confusing rant speaking of our city as if it were her own personal kingdom and not the entity she was elected to represent for its citizens. She made references to how we needed the millions of dollars this development would generate, actually “pocket change” compared to the magnitude of the project, for civic improvements because the city has no money. Any ideas why that might be the case? She rolled out the tiresome State “boogeyman” saying she would not let someone come in and dictate development in the city and yet she has gladly taken on the role of “dictator.” To paraphrase, she stated the city has gone through many changes, “get used to it.” Someone needs to take her keys away before she hurts herself or someone else.
In closing, this “old man” has seen it all and would like to share some lessons he learned in life. When we put someone under a microscope, you might be surprised at what you might find. Everyone loves a scandal. Stay tuned.
PLEASE NOTE: The above contribution reflects the opinion of this writer. Had you attended the meeting, your observations might differ from mine. I approve of this message.
This project is a disaster.
What this community needs is a grocery store. This would be a great location for that.
What this location (near BART) needs is parking.
A better solution would be a one or two story parking structure with one level of retail and possibly one level of residential. Not 800+ units, which will create massive gridlock. (Which combined with the current construction at Chestnut/El Camino may create a safety hazard.)
And all the while the city drags their feet on approving Spruce Safeway, in hopes the owner will give up and give in to the demands of the city for high density development.
Nothing the developer or the city says can be trusted.
Lawsuits or recalls are the only thing that will prevent this.
Agreed
Cheers to that! No more housing, instead refocus efforts to what is needed for the current community!!
AGREE!!!!
No waivers to the parking requirements should be given! The code already has “gray area” around fractions of parking places, but as intended 2 bedrooms = 2 parking places! Mixed use and day care also has required parking, loading and unloading space requirements – no waivers for favors! Stick to the zoning plan and keep open space areas secure. Residents want safe and clean areas to live.
This is crazy. You already tore down ssf car wash area for housing which is going to add more traffic congestion to a major traffic intersection. Now you want to add more housing. I have lived in sunshine gardens my whole life, attended all the schools and graduated from El Camino High School. This will ruin the neighborhood. I thought the new police, fire and 911 facility was going in this location That would be great Place for them! It’s definitely needed a modern updated facility, also right near kaiser hospital. The city council needs to re think this. The police and emergency service makes more sense all around and for traffic solutions as well. I vote NO!!! On the housing units in this parcel area. How about putting in a nice market too in place of Pacific Supermarket. For instance Whole Foods. The best thing to come to SSF was bringing in Trader Joe’s. We need upscale grocery stores
squishing 800 little apartments (and the rest of that stuff, too) on a small, very marginal parcel of land right next to a long-established residential neighborhood…. is indicative of folly, insanity, corruption, and maybe more than one of the above.
(as if there isn’t enough d+++ traffic in SSF with all the other big apartments the city council has squeezed in?!)
the city council needs to go into the book authoring business
here’s their first title:
‘how to destroy a nice town’ …
No more low income building!! We live in sunshine gardens and have to fight daily for the parking in front of our house. Building more high rises doesn’t fight the pricing market for low-income, it just puts more $ in the pockets of people not from this city. It also depreciates the housing this city already has. We already have tons!! low-income housing. You need to refocus these efforts into making it replicate the rest of the peninsula not the east bay! Where is the sense of community!?!? Let’s make this a place people want to live as opposed to simply a place people overcrowd to live.
All this development of new buildings for rent need to address the issue of affordable rent. The Cadence Bldg has the tiniest one bedroom – more like a studio starting at $3500 per month. To afford that rent, a person would have to be earning at least $10,000 per month. That is absolutely crazy. The old rule used to be that rent should be only 25% of your monthly income.