HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2016-08-24 @6:00 MINUTES
° SPECIAL MEETING
, firr y
Jar O
�9L - CITY COUNCIL
OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, California 94083
Meeting to be held at:
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
33 ARROYO DRIVE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24, 2016
6:00 p.m.
Call to Order TIME: 6:04 p.m.
Roll Call PRESENT: Councilmembers Garbarino, Matsumoto and
Normandy, Vice Mayor Gupta and Mayor
Addiego.
ABSENT: None.
Agenda Review
None.
Public Comments—comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda.
None.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
1. Study Session regarding Proposed MidPen Workforce Housing at the Miller/Maple
Parking Lot. (Ron Gerber, Housing Manager)
Housing and Redevelopment Manager Gerber presented the staff report introducing the proposed MidPen
Workforce Housing Development at the Miller/Maple Parking Lot.He advised the purpose of the report
was to update the City Council on staff's findings through several months of research and to present some
development scenarios for City Council's consideration. He cautioned that several technical and policy
issues had affected the development approach that was previously discussed. Staff and the developer
would present these issues. Specifically, staff would seek the Council's feedback on the following two
items: 1. Financing and affordability; and 2. Unit sizes and site constraints. Staff would first provide
background,and then MidPen and the architect would update the Council on the work over the past few
months. Manager Gerber explained that site,unit size and financing option constraints had caused some
deviation from the Affordable Work Force Housing Plan discussed at previous special meetings of the
Joint Housing Standing Committee and City Council.
Manager Gerber explained that at a December 16,2015 Special Meeting of the City Council,the Council
unanimously selected MidPen for this public private partnership project that was to afford housing for
occupants of moderate income levels and families. It was hoped that some component of the City's
workforce would qualify. In contrast to that direction,the present proposal would provide housing for
occupants at 60% of area median income or less and consist of mostly single bedroom apartments and
studios.
Councilwoman Matsumoto paused Mr. Gerber's presentation and noted that before hearing anymore,she
wanted to note that the current proposal was far from what she believed the Council had expected based
on previous approvals and conversations.
Mayor Addiego stated he understood this frustration as both the Housing Standing Committee and the
City Council were hoping to maintain an income qualifying floor that would accommodate the City's
workforce and create an environment for families as well as singles. He advised that he had recently met
with MidPen about the new proposal and invited the MidPen representatives to share information about
the project constraints with the Council.
Rick Williams,the Architect from Van Meeter Williams Pollack LLP,addressed Council. He advised of
the thought process that went into designing a building to fit into the overall downtown area,which was
complicated by parking and building size concerns. He further noted the slope of the property ranging
from six (6) feet from the corner of the lot down to the next adjacent property presented challenges.
He observed that a taller building yielded more expensive construction. Smaller unit types,including one
bedrooms and studios maximize the number of units the building can hold while requiring fewer parking
spaces. The resulting building substantially fits into the neighborhood. When the architects looked into
dividing the building space into predominantly family units, six (6) stories were required as opposed to
four(4) or five(5), and two (2) full levels of subgrade parking were mandated. The expense associated
with this feature caused a tremendous financial strain on the project.
Mr. Williams then presented proposed design schemes 1- 2A. Option 1 included two (2) levels of
podium parking with 40 units and 29 parking spaces. Option 2 included one(1)level of podium parking
with 38 units and 27 parking spaces. Option 2A included one(1)level of podium parking with some two
(2) bedroom units for a total of 43 units and 27 parking spaces. The options presented maximized
potential for the site while maintaining the ability to attract required funding from sources other than the
City.
Jan Lindenthal of MidPen next addressed Council regarding financing. She reiterated MidPen's
statements at previous meetings that this site represents an important opportunity to offer affordable
workforce housing. MidPen's intention was to make the most of this opportunity and maximize the site's
potential. She recounted the unit size challenges related to acceptable building height and parking ratios.
She further stated that if money were no object then underground parking would offer a lot more
flexibility on building height. In light of cost constraints,the developer was making every effort to keep
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 24,2016
MINUTES PAGE 2
parking above grade. Option 2A and Option 2B presented in the staff report,sought to add several larger
units to accommodate families. However, she noted that as proposed, the buildings meet a substantial
demand for smaller units. She stated that MidPen was seeking Council's perspective with respect to unit
mix,building height and parking.
MidPen also recognized the need to provide moderate income housing. The challenge above 60%of area
median income is the inability to leverage all traditional financing incentive programs. The key is to
strike the right balance between leveraging these funds and programs and providing some units for those
that earn above 60% of area median income.
Ms.Lindenthal then reviewed a chart of financing options alongside corresponding unit mix and income
threshold possibilities. She noted that there were many more options than represented in the table. She
then focused discussion on the bottom three (3) mixed income versions, which allotted various
percentages of units at the 80%median income threshold.
Mayor Addiego noted the inclusion of Section 8 Housing in several of the scenarios. He spoke of
removing the stigma from Section 8 Housing, noting that many of its participants are working on their
education and are employed. He observed many Section 8 success stories.
Councilwoman Normandy stated she was disappointed that the original goal of 100%affordability with a
mix of one (1), two (2) and three (3) bedroom units was not possible. Unlike previous versions of the
plan,the current proposals were not vetted through the Housing Standing Committee. She would prefer
that the new proposals go back to the Housing Standing Committee for review. Regarding height, she
preferred that the structure mirror the height of the Miller Avenue Parking Garage.
Councilwoman Matsumoto stated support for Section 8 Housing,but noted that the original intent for the
project was to provide City employee housing. She observed that the Human Resources Department
provided employee salary data in connection with the original study of this project. Based on the data
provided, less than 20 employees would qualify for low or very low income housing.
Economic and Community Development Director Greenwood advised that based on the direction of the
discussion and time constraints, he believed it advisable to bring the project back before the Housing
Standing Committee and come back to Council at a later date.
Mayor Addiego agreed, but before closing, wanted Councilman Garbarino and Vice Mayor Gupta to
weigh in with their opinions.
Councilman Garbarino advised that he met with the development group yesterday. He had concerns
about height and how the structure would fit into the downtown. He was not a fan of studio apartments,
but would rather see more one (1) bedrooms. He thought bringing Section 8 into the mix was a good
idea. He was comfortable with having current options vetted by the Housing Standing Committee before
being brought back to Council at a later date.
Vice Mayor Gupta expressed the preference for developing affordable workforce housing,but understood
the financial constraints presented. He observed the conflict between the competing objectives of sound
financing and affordable units. He also preferred more affordable units and agreed with the direction to
send the proposals back to the Housing Standing Committee for review.
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 24,2016
MINUTES PAGE 3
Councilwoman Matsumoto advised Mr.Williams that she admired the building design and setback. She
appreciated that it was designed to fit into the overall downtown architecture.
Recess: 6:55
Meeting resumed: 9:52 p.m.
CLOSED SESSION
Time entered Closed Session: 9:52 p.m.
Open Session resumed: 10:55p.m.
2. Closed Session: Public Employee Performance Evaluation
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 45957)
Title: City Attorney.
Report out of Closed Session: No reportable action.
ADJOURNMENT
Being no further business, Mayor Addiego adjourned the meeting at 10:55 p.m.
Submitted: ) Approved:
few
Krista . inell Cit Y Clerk Mark Addiego, Mayor
City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 24,2016
MINUTES PAGE 4