Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2019-11-13 @7:00MINUTES o�So�Ta sAN�� SPECIAL MEETING F CITY COUNCIL U O - -- CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO LlFO�P Meeting held at: MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 33 ARROYO DRIVE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2019 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Addiego, Nagales, and Nicolas, Vice Mayor Garbarino and Mayor Matsumoto. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Matsumoto led the pledge of allegiance. AGENDA REVIEW No changes. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM STAFF None. PRESENTATIONS 1. Recitation of a proclamation observing November as Native American Heritage Month in South San Francisco. (Karyl Matsumoto, Mayor) Mayor Matsumoto read into the record a proclamation declaring November as Native American Heritage Month in South San Francisco. South San Francisco resident Betty Perin accepted the proclamation and shared brief history about the relocation of the American Indian in 1950's to South San Francisco. She encouraged Council to consider the impacts their decisions may have on future generations and thanked them for the recognition and their service. 2. Recognition of Peace Officer of the Year. (Karyl Matsumoto, Mayor) Mayor Matsumoto, on behalf of the City Council, congratulated Police Chief Azzopardi for his recognition as outstanding Peace Officer of the Year. Police Chief Azzopardi thanked Elaine Garbarino, Mike Brosnan, Mike Remedios, and the Mayor for attending the recognition event and for their continuous support. He thanked the Council and his staff for their support. Councilmember Addiego thanked Chief Azzopardi for his service and leadership. PUBLIC COMMENTS — Speakers were allotted two (2) minutes each, due to the large number of speakers. Mayor Matsumoto indicated that the speaker guidelines in order to the keep the order of business. Del Schembari, member of San Bruno Mountain Watch invited Council and the community to their Native Plant Sale on November 23, 2019 from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Patrick Rosenthal, member and past Commander of the South San Francisco Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 4103, thanked Council, the South San Francisco Fire and Police Department staff, and the community for their participation in the "100 -member -strong" Flag Line honoring South San Francisco resident Leo Benedetti, a World War II Veteran and VFW Post 4103. Mr. Benedetti's family was thankful for the support in honoring his memory and service. Mr. Rosenthal thanked Council for attending and volunteering their time at the Veteran of the Year event held at the Elk's Lodge. He recognized the South San Francisco Fire Department for hosting a pancake breakfast and donating all proceeds to the veterans. Mayor Matsumoto thanked Mr. Rosenthal for his service to the organization and the community. Dan Stegink, former Pacifica Planning Commissioner, addressed the Council to express his concern with the illegal signage at the 7 -Eleven on Westborough Boulevard and requested that staff and Council be more proactive in enforcing signage regulations. Dave Silva, resident of South San Francisco, addressed the Council to express his opposition of the proposed high-rise housing project and read into the record the names of a petition filed with the City Clerk's office in May 2018 of residents opposing the project. COUNCIL COMMENTS/REQUESTS Councilmember Addiego attended the Golden Gate National Cemetery Veterans Day event and recognized Congresswoman Jackie Speier for her participation. He requested to adjourn the meeting in memory of Mary Parenti, Don Reese, and Janet L. Arlie. Councilmember Nicolas requested adjourn in memory of Dolores Alvarez. Mayor Matsumoto requested to adjourn the meeting in memory of Commissioner Bernardo's mother, Dr. Bituin Bernardo. She recognized Alfred "Al" Banfield for his community involvement and his active participation in the San Mateo County Veterans Commission. Mayor Matsumoto invited the community to join Martin Elementary students in the "Ruby Bridges Walk to School" event on November 14, 2019 from 7:15 a.m. to 7:40 a.m., at the steps of City Hall. CONSENT CALENDAR The City Clerk duly read the Consent Calendar, after which Council voted and engaged in discussion of specific item as follows: 3. Motion to approve the Minutes for the meetings of October 2, 2019 and October 7, 2019. 4. Motion to cancel the Regular City Council meetings of November 27, 2019 and December 25, 2019. (Rosa Govea Acosta, City Clerk) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 13, 2019 MINUTES PAGE 2 Motion— Vice Mayor Garbarino/Second— Councilmember Nicolas: to approve Consent Calendar items #3 and 4. Unanimously approved by roll call vote. PUBLIC HEARING Public Hearing Opened 7:49 p.m. 5. Report regarding the proposed mixed-use development (Use Permit, Design Review, Transportation Demand Management Plan, Vesting Tentative Map, Development Agreement, Density Bonus, Waivers and Modification Request, Parking Management and Monitoring Plan, Affordable Housing Agreement, Purchase and Sale Agreement, Environmental Consistency Analysis, General Plan Consistency Determination, and First Amendment to the Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement (ENRA) on 5.9 acres of vacant land (PUC Site) at 1051 Mission Road. (Michael Lappen, Economic Development Coordinator and Tony Rozzi, Principal Planner) Economic Development Coordinator Lappen introduced the report and indicated that on June 13, 2019, SSF Housing Partners LLC (hereinafter "Developer" or "applicant") submitted an application for a mixed-use development on a vacant 5.9 -acre site, known generally as the "PUC Site". The proposed project was discussed and summarized as follows: • 800 residential units, of which 158 units will be affordable to households earning approximately 30%-80% of the San Mateo County's Area Median Income; • An 8,307 sq. ft. childcare center that can accommodate 70-110 children; • A 12,992 sq. ft. "market hall" that will provide incubator space for local retail and maker businesses; • 879 parking spaces (with capacity to add 25 additional spaces, if needed); • Approximately 1 acre of publically accessible open space that includes: a 38,850 sq. ft. public courtyard, improvements to Centennial Trail, a pedestrian bridge connecting the Kaiser property to Centennial Trail and pedestrian trail connecting Mission Road to Centennial Trail, a series of linked open spaces (e.g., children's play area, sculpture lawn, adult fitness stations, etc.) that link into Centennial Trail, a picnic area, and a small plaza connected to the Market Hall; • Construction of Oak Avenue Extension Concept with pedestrian and bicycle access to El Camino Real; • A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan that requires 35% use of alternative transportation modes (e.g., transit, carpooling, etc.) during peak periods; • A parking monitoring and management plan to ensure parking compliance; and • Enhanced pedestrian and bicycle improvements. He indicated that the proposed project represented an opportunity for the City to achieve its long- standing General Plan and El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Plan planning goals for the area, and to comply with the State policies and regulations that require the site to be developed into high-density housing consistent with adopted zoning. The proposal by SSF Housing Partners LLC was presented to Council for review and consideration, subject to final action on the Purchase and Sale Agreement only by the San Mateo County Oversight Board. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 13, 2019 MINUTES PAGE 3 Economic Development Coordinator Lappen indicated that beginning with the 1999 General Plan, the City endorsed transit -oriented development for the area surrounding South San Francisco's Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station, including the PUC Site. In the past 20 years, the City has reaffirmed the vision of transit -oriented housing for the area, with the adoption of the 2001 Transit Village Plan, several Housing Elements, the Grand Boulevard Initiative, and the 2011 El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan. In particular, adopted zoning for the PUC Site permits high- density residential development, with a maximum density of 180 units per acre, and maximum height of 160 feet with provision of Transportation Demand Management measures, maximum provisions for pedestrian and bicycle use, and off-site improvements. In addition to those policy documents, the City pursued several projects to advance the vision of transit -oriented development, including the construction of Centennial Trail and planning for the Oak Avenue extension. Cumulatively, these City initiatives have positioned the PUC Site to become a vibrant mixed-use, transit -oriented center. The PUC Site is subject to State policies and regulations that significantly affect the City's local control over the ultimate development of the site, and that effectively requires the site to be developed for high-density housing consistent with the adopted planning documents. The PUC Site was assembled and purchased by the former South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (RDA). The RDA acquired the former PUC properties in 2007, in order to redevelop them into new mixed-use, transit -oriented development. In 2011, the State of California dissolved all Redevelopment Agencies in California, and provided a procedure for the disposition of all former -RDA properties. A new State directed agency - the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency - was created to dispose of all former RDA assets, subject to approval by a state directed Oversight Board and subject to review by the California Department of Finance. In 2015 the California Department of Finance approved the Long Range Property Management Plan (LRPMP), which governs all former -RDA properties in South San Francisco. The LRPMP requires the PUC Site to be redeveloped consistent with underlying zoning as high-density housing, and includes specific zoning and development standard assumptions for the site. In 2017, the California Legislature passed a package of 15 bills designed to streamline local government approvals of housing projects. In particular, the 2017 amendments to the Housing Accountability Act, combined with the "No Net Loss" statute, requires cities to comply with their existing general plans, zoning, and land use policies when considering residential project applications. In so doing, these two bills significantly limit a city's ability to deny a proposed residential project that is otherwise consistent with General Plan and Zoning standards. The 2017 legislation also strengthened the enforcement powers of the Housing Accountability Act, including mandates that judges award attorney's fees to successful petitioners under the Act, and giving judges the power to fine cities found in violation of the Act. Additionally, the legislation broadened legal standing so that individuals or groups interested in housing access (individuals or advocates for affordable housing, for example) could also sue an individual city for denying or downzoning a housing project. These new laws have been relied on by advocates for residential projects in other cities including San Bruno, Los Altos, Lafayette, Dublin, Berkeley, and Cupertino and in at least one instance has resulted in a lawsuit being filed against the city. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 13, 2019 MINUTES PAGE 4 Additionally, Senate Bill 35 (SB 35) was signed into law and requires that a city that has not met its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for housing production subject to significant streamlining for new developments. For example, in South San Francisco a project that proposes 50% of their units as affordable and complies with zoning standards, would be entitled to receive a 90 day review for projects with less than 150 units and no more than 180 days for larger projects. Such projects cannot go through discretionary design review or be subject to public hearings and there are also parking requirement limitations. SB 35 does not apply to the current application but could be used for future development applications for the property if the current proposed development is not approved or does not proceed. Amendments to the existing Surplus Lands Act adopted this year also apply the Surplus Lands Acts to property formerly owned by redevelopment agencies if the property is not subject to a purchase and sale agreement by December 31, 2020 and conveyed prior to December 31, 2022. The Surplus Lands Act requires a process of notice to and potential negotiations with housing providers, park and recreation agencies and school districts. Under the recently revised Surplus Lands Act there are additional restrictions that apply to surplus property that may be used for residential development. For example, residential use is presumed to be an acceptable use of land declared surplus. In addition, a city that is selling surplus land may not: (1) disallow residential use of the site as a condition of the selling the property; (2) reduce the allowable number of residential units or the maximum lot coverage below what may be allowed by zoning or general plan requirements, and (3) require as a condition of selling the property, any design standards or architectural requirements that would have a substantial adverse effect on the viability or affordability of a housing development for very low, low-, or moderate -income households, other than the minimum standards required by general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria. There are also limitations on the ability of a city to limit residential density on surplus land unless the residential density proposed would have a specific, adverse impact, supported by written findings, upon public health or safety or upon the operation or facilities of a local agency, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate the impact. The State's issued Regional Housing Needs Allocation for (RHNA) South San Francisco requires zoning in place to provide for 1,864 housing units for the cycle from 2015 to 2023 on various opportunity sites throughout the City. Through the 2018 reporting period, the City has issued building permits for 681 units. For the 2019 reporting period, staff expects up to 363 additional building permits would be issued. In total, the City may likely issue up to 1,044 units through 2019. This project site represents a significant contribution towards the City's satisfaction of its required RHNA units under the current cycle. Assistant City Attorney Mattas explained the changes to state law and indicated that changes in the law have had an impact on the City's ability to act on Redevelopment projects. He indicated that those changes were made to increase housing in California due to the current shortage; State legislature has made it a priority to promote housing, placing restrictions on the City's ability to deny projects. He provided an overview of the project and indicated that the project has a density bonus request tied with a 20% affordable housing component, the Housing Accountability Act applies to all residential development with mix use, project qualifies, and the City's review of the project is limited and may only require the project to comply with objective design standard consistent with REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 13, 2019 MINUTES PAGE 5 housing allocations. Every City receives an allocation of housing units they must allow to be built under current California law by City's adopting general plans with housing categories. For the City to deny the project, the City must make very specific objections to find that the project has an adverse impact on public health and safety with no feasible method to avoid impact other than denial, based on objective standards. Findings must be supported with the majority of the evidence. If the City is in violation and denies the project, the City may face a legal challenge. If the court finds that the City denied the project without objective standards, the court is allowed to impose sanctions against the City and the City would be required to pay the other parties' attorney's fees, must comply within 60 days, court can impose a $ l Ok per unit that is denied. Economic Development Coordinator Lappen indicated that in order to comply with State law and the LRPMP, staff followed a prescribed process to solicit qualified developers who would accomplish the City's development objectives. The yearlong process was described in depth in the Planning Commission Staff Report and resulted in the City selecting AGI/Kass Partners as developer in May 2018. The developer has since renamed to L37/Kasa Partners, and they have created a venture specific to the PUC Site known as SSF Housing Partners LLC. Since November 2018, the developer has gone through a series of public meetings designed to give community members the opportunity to learn about the project and provide input. These public meetings include three public workshops held by the developer, as well as review by the Housing Standing Committee (HSC), Design Review Board (DRB), Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission (BPAC), and the Planning Commission, which on October 17, 2019, voted 7-0 to recommend approval to the City Council. (Planning Commission Resolution 2845-2019). During this process, the developer worked to refine their project proposal in an attempt to address community input, adhere to the City's zoning and design standards, and comply with all applicable State regulations. The applicant proposed a phased concept for extending Oak Avenue, which is designed to coordinate with the Civic Community Center campus and other City planning initiatives. Phase I will extend Oak Avenue over Colma Creek so that it connects to Antoinette Way and terminates into a shared street with a wide staircase and accessible switchback path that traverses up the bank to El Camino Real. The improved pedestrian and bicycle circulation of the site will integrate connections between the new housing, commercial zones, the new Civic Center, SSF BART and Orange Memorial Park to the south. Phase 1 will be built as part of the initial housing project. Phase 2 will construct a complete road linking Arroyo Drive with Oak Avenue through the PUC Site. Phase 2 is not proposed for initial construction; however, the developer will be required to complete preliminary designs for Phase 2 as a part of the building permit submittal. The developer committed to a not -to -exceed amount of $10,850,000 for land acquisition and completion of Oak Avenue and is obligated to provide 35% engineering drawings for review during building permit submittal. The City would contribute up to $5.5 million to build Oak Avenue and repay the developer over 10 years consistent with the Development Agreement. Several new pedestrian and bicycle connections in form of paseo and linear plaza will be provided to connect Mission Road and Centennial Trail. Pedestrian and bicycle access is provided to the Project Site. Long term bicycle parking is provided within the residential garage at a 1:1 ratio. Centennial Trail will be improved with better lighting, new seating, interpretive signs and bike share station along the trail. Oak Avenue will also be extended across Colma Creek to Antoinette REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 13, 2019 MINUTES PAGE 6 Way and leading to a shared street that ends with a staircase and accessible pedestrian and bike path up the bank to El Camino Real. Developer is providing funds for pedestrian bridge concepts to potentially link with Kaiser Hospital and north of the site between Mission Road and Centennial Way. Fehr & Peers prepared a TDM Plan that reduces peak hour driving trips and promotes travel by alternative forms of transportation. SSF Housing Partners LLC would develop a final TDM Plan to reduce peak hour driving trips and promote travel by alternative forms of transportation in order to meet a minimum alternative mode use of 35% or greater during peak periods. The TDM Plan would be implemented by the developer and managed by the onsite property management staff, including annual monitoring and reporting of progress to the City of South San Francisco. A Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) is required to memorialize the terms of the land sale to L37/ Kasa Partners. The offer price from L37/ Kasa Partners is $11,000,000 (Eleven Million Dollars). Understanding that both Council and the Countywide Oversight Board will require an objective, third -party assessment of the value of the PUC Site prior to disposition, staff contracted with Watts Cohn and Partners, Inc. to perform an appraisal. The appraiser provided a land valuation based on a sales comparison approach factoring in extraordinary development costs. The final, appraised value is $11,000,000. The appraisal report was provided to Council. The former PUC property is set for redevelopment as a transit oriented development. The legal form in which the terms and procedures for developing the property are set forth in the Development Agreement (DA). The DA between the City of South San Francisco and L37/Kass Partners reflects the business terms of the project development. The applicant prepared an Enviromnental Consistency Analysis pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15158(c)(2) for the City's consideration that finds that no new impacts were identified and the project complies with the assumptions and findings of the adopted El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan EIR, Civic Campus SEIR and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and supplemental analysis as referenced and evaluated in the Environmental Consistency Analysis. The City hired Kimley Horn, Planning and Design Engineering Consultants, to evaluate the project proposal and evaluate the future traffic conditions for the area by the year 2030 - Kimley Horn's analysis determined that the designed project and related infrastructure improvements would not result in further traffic related impacts not evaluated under the already adopted EIR and SEIR. Furthermore, the project proposed improvements at two intersections: El Camino Real/McLellan Boulevard - lane restriping and signal retiming consistent with the 2011 and 2017 mitigations; and Mission Road/Oak Avenue - installation of a traffic signal. Both improvements, along with the implementation of the required mitigation measures identified under the adopted 2011 EIR and 2017 SEIR as a Condition of Approval, would maintain roadway vehicle traffic at assumed levels under the adopted 2011 EIR and 2017 SEIR analysis once the project is completed and in the modeled 2030 condition. Therefore, the project, as part of the adopted El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and associated environmental analysis, was consistent with assumed impacts, mitigation measures, and the adopted 2011 Statement of Overriding Considerations that determined the benefits of development under the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan outweighed known potential REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 13, 2019 MINUTES PAGE 7 traffic impacts to the circulation network. The mitigation measures previously identified and analyzed in the 2011 EIR and 2017 SEIR continue to apply to the proposed project and are incorporated therein. Council received a combination of public comment letters submitted before, during and after the Planning Commission including public comments provided during public comment at the Planning Commission hearing on October 17, 2019. Economic Development Coordinator Lappen indicated that on October 17, 2019, the Planning Commission reviewed the project and recommended approval to the City Council, by a vote of 7-0- 0. Staff summarized the proposed project, project area history, relevant legislation, community outreach process, and the preliminary architecture analysis and project level environmental review. The developer gave a presentation showing the detailed architecture and open space improvements. The Planning Commission reviewed the project for consistency with the adopted General Plan, Zoning standards, and El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Plan development standards and determined the project was consistent with the General Plan pursuant to Government Code section 65402 (which requires a city's planning agency to review disposal of real property for consistency with general plan standards). Approximately 35 interested individuals commented in support or opposition to the project. The land would be purchased by the developer for a total land sale price of $11,000,000. In 2007, the former Redevelopment Agency acquired the subject properties in order to develop them into a transit -oriented, mixed-use node. The Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency is tasked with overseeing the sale and disposition of the property on behalf of the various taxing agencies and assessment districts, including the County of San Mateo, the South San Francisco Unified School District, the San Mateo County Community College District, and the City of South San Francisco. Proceeds from the sale of this property will be split among these agencies with the South San Francisco School District receiving the largest percentage (nearly 44%). Additionally, the applicant is obligated to pay the City's adopted development impact fees for parkland acquisition and construction, sewer capacity needs, public safety, and bicycle and pedestrian enhancements. School fees are charged separately and go directly to the school district. Councilmember Nagales discussed the Housing Accountability Act and shared his concern with the City's inability to deny or downsize projects, if the project(s) comply with the City's General Plan and Zoning standards. He inquired about the legal ramifications for denying the proposed project and requested confirmation about a potential liability of $8 million dollars, based upon the number of units. Assistant City Attorney Mattas indicated that $8 million dollars would be the maximum fine and confirmed that the maximum allowed height for the project was 14 stories. Councilmember Nagales indicated that if Council denied the project, SB 35 and the Surplus Land Act allows the developer to come back to Council with a larger height project and different construction methodology, which the City Council would be obligated to accept. Assistant City Attorney Mattas indicated that the plan was consistent with zoning and the City's General Plan. He also indicated that SB 35 provides for an expedited process for the development projects that include 50% of affordable units. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 13, 2019 MINUTES PAGE 8 Mayor Matsumoto shared the City of San Bruno's recent experience in denying a 420 -unit housing project and as a result, the developer has now submitted a 700 -unit housing project for Council approval. She stated that if project was over 150 units, the City had 180 days to approve, this project and all other projects are within a year of approval. The state is superseding the City's current laws for ADU approvals and placement. Assistant City Attorney Mattas indicated that the City had a limited time to approve and if not acted upon new State laws would come into effect on January 1, 2020. Historically the City had more authority at the local policy level; however, the State has been preempting cities with their regulations. Vice Mayor Garbarino expressed his concern and disappointment with the restrictions placed to the City's housing projects. Councilmember Addiego expressed his disappointment with the state's current laws, fiscal implications and legal ramifications. Councilmember Nicolas requested clarification on the community benefits tied to the project. Assistant City Attorney Mattas stated that the project benefits include subsidized childcare and affordable housing, should Council deny the project; the developer would not be required to offer community benefits. SSF PUC Housing Partners consultant provided a presentation for Council and the community indicating that the Planning Commission approved the project for this location. The project is in line with the City's long term planning in the high-density housing corridor. He provided an overview of the project site, site limitations and proposed community benefits. The project has been through many phases of reviews with a variety of stakeholders with significant community involvement. The project was modified to address community concerns and built with Council's recommendation to use Kaiser Hospital as the projects height limit. The proposed project height is in line with Council's recommendation and rises at the west of El Camino Real with the highest level below Kaiser Hospital's building height. He addressed parking concerns and indicated that the parking garage would provide enough parking for all units. They proposed working with the City to finance a Parking Enforcement program exclusively for the housing development to ensure residents are not parking in adjacent neighborhoods. He indicated that the project does not create new significant traffic impacts. He presented an overview of landscaping and design including a new Pedestrian and Bike bridge from Mission Road to El Camino Real. The project includes 20% affordable (Bridge Housing) targeting very low and low-income residents, 158 units. Eric Tao of AGI stated that he has interacted with several community members and reiterated their commitment to be good neighbors. Councilmember Addiego expressed his satisfaction with the developer's willingness to engage the community and noted the community's disapproval. He congratulated Mr. Tao on his recent partnership with Group I and extended a welcome to Ms. Ou. Recess: 8:51 p.m. Meeting resumed: 9:02 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Pedro Gonzalez, former Mayor, addressed the Council to thank Councilmember Nicolas for her assistance with the Health Fair and expressed his concern with the number of uninsured residents. He expressed his opposition with the expedited process of construction and REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 13, 2019 MINUTES PAGE 9 suggested that Council consider a slower process. He also requested that Council address the maintenance and infrastructure needs citywide. He thanked Council for their dedication. 2. Veronica Espinoza addressed the Council to express her support of the project. 3. Aaron Adriano, a member of the Youth Advisory, expressed his concern with the future of the city and requested that Council consider the impacts of the proposed project. 4. Patti Wright, a resident, addressed Council to express her opposition and requested Council consider the impacts. 5. Margaret Baxter, a resident, addressed Council to express her opposition with the proposed 8 -story project, in favor of 3 to 5 stories as previously presented. She requested consideration of a park in the Sunshine Gardens neighborhood. 6. Cory David, a resident, addressed Council to express his opposition of the proposed 8 -story project, in favor of a maximum 5 -story development. He expressed his concern with the City's future given the accelerated growth. 7. Del Schembari addressed Council to express his support of the proposed project indicating that the project has great benefits to the community. 8. Lisa Kiesselbach, Executive Director of Palcare, addressed the Council to express her support of the project and the community benefits. 9. Matt Butler, a resident, addressed Council to express his opposition of the proposed project due to the sites proximity with the flood zone. He inquired about future upgrades to the City's sewer system due to the increase use. 10. Deborah Brusco, addressed Council to express her concern with the proposed site and contamination due to former gas station. 11. Sarah Funes, a resident, addressed Council to share her experience and desire to stay in SSF and the many challenges she faces due to the lack of affordable housing. She expressed her support of the project and thanked Council. 12. Sandra Bugler, a resident, addressed Council to express her opposition due to the potential impact. 13. John Baker, a resident, addressed Council to express his support of the project and shared his opinion about the community benefits. He indicated that project would allow him and many other families to make SSF their permanent home. He encouraged Council to approve the project. 14. Mareth Vedder, a resident, read into the record a 2018 petition of residents opposed to the PUC project. 15. Kathie Deleuw, a resident, addressed Council to express her support and encouraged Council to approve the project. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 13, 2019 MINUTES PAGE 10 16. Nannette Cole, a resident, addressed the Council, continued to read into the record a 2018 petition of residents opposed to the PUC project. 17. Cynthia Marcopulos, a resident, addressed the Council to express her opposition and continued to read into the record a 2018 petition of residents opposed to the PUC project. 18. Sandi Wong, a resident, addressed Council to express her support. 19. Patti Bajada, a resident, addressed the Council to express her support. 20. Marilynn Bugler, a resident, addressed the Council to express her concern with traffic impacts. 21. Alex Melendrez, representative of the Housing Leadership Council (HLC), addressed Council to express his support of affordable housing and encouraged Council to approve the project. 22. Dee Delorio, a resident, addressed Council to express her opposition of an 8 -story project and the future impacts. She encouraged Council to approve a 3 to 5 story project. 23. Jose Cornejo, a resident, addressed Council to express his support of the project and encouraged Council to approve. 24. Wendy Sinclair -Smith addressed Council to express her concerns with the community benefits i.e., childcare and the ingress and egress to El Camino Real. 25. Karen Hagen addressed Council to express her opposition. 26. Nico Nagle, Bay Area Housing Advocacy, addressed Council to express support of the proposed project and urged Council to approve. 27. Mike Sarrail, a resident, addressed Council to express his support of smart growth and urged Council to address infrastructure and safety concerns. 28. Xiomara Cisneros, Bay Area Council, addressed Council to express her support of the project. She urged Council to approve the project. 29. Michael Yoshida, a resident, addressed the Council to express his opposition. 30. Ethan Mizzi, a resident, addressed Council to express his support of the proposed project. 31. Gustavo Gomez, a resident, addressed Council to express his opposition of the proposed height and density of the project. 32. Christine Padilla, Director of Build Up San Mateo County, addressed Council to express her support of the project. 33. Pamela Campos, Child Care Coordinating Council of San Mateo County, addressed the Council to express her support of the proposed project. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 13, 2019 MINUTES PAGE 11 34. Ken Abreu addressed Council to express his support and encouraged Council to approve. 35. Frances Dunleavy, a resident, continued to read into the record a 2018 petition of residents opposed to the PUC project. 36. Cathy Rosaia, a resident, addressed Council to express her opposition and continued to read into the record a 2018 petition of residents opposed to the PUC project. 37. Melanie Olson, a resident, addressed Council to express her support of the proposed project. 38. John DeNardi, a resident, addressed Council to express his opposition. 39. Pat Murray, a resident, addressed Council to express her support of the proposed project. 40. Roxie Pianco, a resident, addressed Council to express her support of the proposed project. 41. Michael Allen, a resident, addressed Council to express his opposition. 42. Karen Tuzman addressed Council to express her support of the proposed project. 43. Noelle Langmack addressed Council to express support of the proposed project. 44. Jeffrey Chazer, a resident, addressed Council to express support of the proposed project. 45. Arnna Egan, a resident, addressed Council to express his concern of housing shortage and resident's eligibility. 46. Jordan Grimes addressed Council and shared former Councilmember Gus Nicolopoulos desire to improve the City citing the 3 Ps of housing policy protect tenants, preserve communities, and produce housing. He encouraged Council to approve the proposed project. 47. Kat Wortham, member of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, addressed Council to express her support. 48. Katie Stokes, a resident, addressed Council to express her opposition to the proposed project. Public Hearing Closed 10:48 p.m. Councilmember Addiego noted the generational divide, sympathetic to the individual stories shared, reasonable to request 3 to 5 stories with 400 units. He indicated that there would be many opportunities to continue to build housing with the suggestions presented. He assured the community that the Council has made a great effort to increase affordable housing as the housing leader. He indicated that it would be irresponsible to vote against the proposed project given the fiscal implications. He is disappointed with the City's restrictions on housing projects and the Council's inability to do more for the community. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 13, 2019 MINUTES PAGE 12 Councilmember Nagales expressed his concern with the traffic delays and requested clarification on the proposed traffic plan, alternative modes of transportation (last mile), impact to surrounding neighborhoods. The developer indicated that everyone will have a bundling space, participate in the Parking Management Plan however, they will not be policing surrounding neighborhoods. Ben Huey, of Trimac Transporation, the City's consultant provided an overview of the traffic mitigation plan. Councilmember Nagales stated the Council's concern with the proposed project height and indicated that due to the City's current zoning, the developer could have increased the project height and noted that the Housing Accountability Plan does not allow the City to deny the project. The City can face up to an $8 million dollar fine if the project is denied. Councilmember Addiego inquired about the maximum number of residents for the project. The consultant indicated that the maximum number of residents would be between 800 - 1600 residents. Mayor Matsumoto indicated that El Camino Real is a state owned facility and managed by Caltrans, the City cannot make any modifications without their consent. Vice Mayor Garbarino expressed his support of affordable housing and its amenities; he suggests that the project be reconfigured following state law and retain amenities. Councilmember Nicolas thanked the community for expressing their concern. As a longtime resident of the City, she understands the communities concerns related to traffic impacts and noted their concerns. She indicated that the development will improve the quality of life for many and will make a decision that is in the best interest of the City. Mayor Matsumoto responded to the comment of challenging the state and shared with Council the City of Half Moon Bay's lawsuit because they challenged state laws. She provided an overview of affordable housing and clarified that the Council's recommendation in 2018 was not a vote, it was a discussion. She read into the record a letter from a resident that supports the project. 5a. Resolution No. 151-2019 determining that the proposed construction of 800 residential units, an approximately 8,307 SF childcare facility, an approximately 12,992 SF commercial retail space, approximately one -acre of publicly accessible open space, and related infrastructure at the 5.9 -acre Former San Francisco Public Utilities Commission ("PUC") Opportunity Site, located at 1051 Mission Road, is consistent with an adopted Program Environmental Impact Report for the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan as updated by the Community Civic Campus Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and, based on an Environmental Consistency Analysis dated October 2019, would not necessitate the need for preparing a subsequent environmental document pursuant to the criteria of Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. Councilmember Addiego stated that the motion was for CEQA compliance Motion—Councilmember Nagales/Second—Councilmember Nicolas: to approve Resolution No. 151-2019. Approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Addiego, Nagales and Nicolas, Vice Mayor Garbarino and Mayor Matsumoto; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 13, 2019 MINUTES PAGE 13 5b. Resolution No. 152-2019 making findings to approve a Use Permit, Design Review, Transportation Demand Management Plan, Vesting Tentative Map, Density Bonus, Waivers and Modifications Request, and Parking Management and Monitoring Plan to construct 800 residential units, an approximately 8,307 square feet (SF) childcare facility, an approximately 12,992 SF commercial retail space, approximately one -acre of publicly accessible open space, and related infrastructure at the 5.9 -acre Former San Francisco Public Utilities Commission ("PUC") Opportunity Site, located at 1051 Mission Road; and making a General Plan consistency determination in accordance with Government Code section 65402. Assistant City Attorney Mattas provided clarification on the Errata Sheet and indicated that the difference relates to the description of affordable housing units, still 20% of units, with the designation of 7% for very low- income households. Councilmember Addiego inquired about the lack of transportation and infrastructure on Oak Avenue with connectivity to El Camino Real. He inquired if these concerns would be sufficient to deny the project. Assistant City Attorney Mattas indicated that the environmental report shows no traffic impacts that derive from the project and stated that no additional evidence presented that would warrant a denial of the project. Motion—Councilmember Nicolas/Second—Councilmember Nagales: to approve Resolution No. 152-2019, as amended by the City Attorney, making findings to approve a Use Permit, Design Review, Transportation Demand Management Plan, Vesting Tentative Map, Density Bonus, Waivers and Modifications Request, and Parking Management and Monitoring Plan to construct 800 residential units, an approximately 8,307 square feet (SF) childcare facility, an approximately 12,992 SF commercial retail space, approximately one -acre of publicly accessible open space, and related infrastructure at the 5.9 -acre Former San Francisco Public Utilities Commission ("PUC") Opportunity Site, located at 1051 Mission Road; and making a General Plan consistency determination in accordance with Government Code section 65402: Approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Addiego, Nagales and Nicolas, and Mayor Matsumoto; NAYS: Vice Mayor Garbarino; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None. 5c. Resolution No. 153-2019 approving a Purchase and Sale and Affordable Housing Agreement with SSF Housing Partners LLC, for the disposition of City -owned parcels at 1051 Mission Road (APNs 093-312-050 and 093-312-060) for $11,000,000. Councilmember Addiego requested Council's consideration to amend purchase price and terms with the developer. He indicated that the City is deficient in funding to provide a full extension of Oak Avenue and as member of the City's former Oversight Board; he indicated that the Civic Campus was given to the City with a price reduction due to the funding allocation of Oak Avenue extension. He indicated that the City overpaid for the civic campus and suggested that perhaps the developer was overpaying for the land. The City should consider increasing the funding contribution to the Oak Avenue extension project or allocate additional funding for Phase 2 of the Oak Avenue extension project. Councilmember Nagales requested clarification on the process. Assistant City Attorney Mattas provided clarification on the process and indicated that Council could increase funding for the Oak Avenue extension by increasing the developer's contribution with a reduction in sale price or set aside additional City funds. He deferred to staff for clarification on the cost differential between REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 13, 2019 MINUTES PAGE 14 Phase 1 and Phase 2. Councilmember Addiego inquired if the City had a final cost. City Manager Futrell stated that the final engineering agreements are not complete. Deputy Director of Economic Development and Housing indicated that estimates range between $22 to $23 million dollars. Mayor Matsumoto expressed her unwillingness to delay the project and stated her understanding of unintended consequences. City Manager Futrell indicated that the estimated cost for the Oak Avenue extension was $22 million; developer agreed to pay $11 million during negotiations. The City invested $5.5 million, the City has can reduce the purchase cost to $5.5 with the understanding that the Oversight Board must approve the monetary split, staff will build into the agreement the ability for the City to negotiate with the Oversight Board. Mayor Matsumoto suggested additional funding resources. City Manager Futrell indicated that the City would pursue outside funding. Assistant City Attorney Mattas requested confirmation from Council to proceed with re -negotiation of the purchase price, a consensus from the Council was given to decrease the purchase price and increase obligation under EDA; the sale price is subject to the Oversight Board's approval; $5.5 million dollar reduction in sales price with a $5.5 million dollar increase in the Development Agreement. Recess: 11:52 p.m. Meeting resumed: 12:09 a.m. Assistant City Attorney Mattas stated that staff and the applicant's team met and agreed to the change in purchase price from $11 million dollars to $5.5 million dollars. The development agreement obligations related to building Oak Avenue extension are listed in the in the development agreement, adding the following sentence to Section 3.4 (page 9) Development Agreement – "developer shall also pay to the city $5.5 million for final design and construction costs for Phase 2 of Oak Avenue extension connecting Phase 1 Oak Avenue extension and work with the city to review easements, not intended to impair development" The Developer's representative stated that the changes were acceptable. Assistant City Attorney Mattas requested direction on granting the City Manager authority to execute the agreements and adjust contributions accordingly should the Oversight Board not agree with the proposed modifications. Councilmember Addiego expressed his support and requested that the City Manager be in close conversations with Council should changes be required. Motion—Councilmember Addiego/Second—Councilmember Nicolas: to approve Resolution No. 153-2019, with City Attorney's verbal amendments, approving a Purchase and Sale and Affordable Housing Agreement with SSF Housing Partners LLC, for the disposition of City -owned parcels at 1051 Mission Road (APNs 093-312-050 and 093-312-060) for $5,500,000. Approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Addiego, Nagales and Nicolas, and Mayor Matsumoto; NAYS: Vice Mayor Garbarino; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None. 5d. Ordinance approving a Development Agreement with SSF Housing Partners LLC, for the development of City -owned parcels at 1051 Mission Road (APNs 093-312-050 and 093-312-060). REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 13, 2019 MINUTES PAGE 15 Assistant City Attorney Mattas read into the record a motion to modify purchase sale price, pending approval from the Oversight Board, directing the City Manager to execute the agreement at the time of final purchase price. Motion—Mayor Matsumoto/Second—Councilmember Nagales: to waive reading and introduce an Ordinance, with modifications as noted by Assistant City Attorney Mattas, approving a Development Agreement with SSF Housing Partners LLC, for the development of City -owned parcels at 1051 Mission Road (APNs 093-312-050 and 093-312-060): Approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Addiego, Nagales and Nicolas, and Mayor Matsumoto; NAYS: Vice Mayor Garbarino; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None. 5e. Resolution No. 154-2019 approving a First Amendment to the Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement ("ENRA") with SSF PUC Housing Partners, LLC, an affiliate of AGI Avant Group, Inc. (with a recent name change to L37) and KASA Partners, for the development of a former South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency property known as the former Public Utilities Commission Opportunity Site ("PUC Site") (APNs 093-312-050 and 011-312-060), and authorizing the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to the ENRA on behalf of the City. Motion—Councilmember Nagales/Second—Councilmember Nicolas: to approve Resolution No. 154-2019, with City Attorney amendments, approving a First Amendment to the Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement ("ENRA") with SSF PUC Housing Partners, LLC, an affiliate of AGI Avant Group, Inc. (with a recent name change to L37) and KASA Partners, for the development of a former South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency property known as the former Public Utilities Commission Opportunity Site ("PUC Site") (APNs 093-312-050 and 011-312-060), and authorizing the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to the ENRA on behalf of the City and modify purchase price. Approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Addiego, Nagales and Nicolas, Mayor Matsumoto; NAYS: Vice Mayor Garbarino; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL – COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS None ADJOURNMENT Being no further business Mayor Matsumoto adjourned the meeting at 12:24 a.m. in honor of Janet L. Arlie, Mary Parenti, Dolores Alvarez, Don Reese and Dr. Bituin Bernardo. ARestfully submitted by: A�� atx_ ovea Acosta, CMC, CPMC City Clerk Approved by: lv,u�j ich xd GarbaniirK Mayor Approved by the City Council: 01 / ZZ / 202o REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 13, 2019 MINUTES PAGE 16