Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.13.2016 Joint SP & PCH Minutes @3:30 MINUTES C JOINT SPECIAL MEETING ��°�4iNf OF THE rr _y CITY COUNCIL AND ° PLANNING COMMISSION HOUSING SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, California 94083 Meeting will be held at: CITY MANAGER CONFERENCE ROOM 400 GRAND AVENUE SOi ITH SAN FRANCISCO, CA THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2016 3:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order. TIME: 3:36 p.m. 2. Roll Call. PRESENT: Councilmembers Addiego and Matsumoto, and Planning Commissioners Faria, Ruiz and Wong. ABSENT: None. 3. Public Comments. None. Matters for Consideration 1. Motion to approve the minutes from the meetings of July 25, 2016 and August 10, 2016. Motion—Planning Commissioner Faria/Second—Planning Commissioner Wong: to approve the Minutes for the meetings of July 25, 2016 and August 10, 2016. Unanimously approved by voice vote. 2. Miller/Maple Design and Funding Sources. (Ron Gerber, Economic Development and Housing Manager) Manager Gerber presented the item to the Standing Committee Members and advised the two (2) basic areas were 1) Design, how the project would fit in the community such as height,unit sizes and the types, and 2) Aspects that enable the project to get constructed. Councilwoman Matsumoto stated she was under the impression the City was looking at workforce housing. She advised she was committed for workforce employee housing. Mayor Addiego asked what it would take to do a workforce project of that size. Councilwoman Matsumoto added the original Request for Proposals (RFP) was for workforce housing and not for low and very low-income housing. She suggested the other bidders should have a chance to bid for low and very low-income housing. Jan Lindenthal, Vice-President of Real Estate Development MidPen Housing, stated the dialogue was important to have so everyone could be on the right track. Ms. Lindenthal introduced her team to the Standing Committee Members and City Staff, and went over design scenarios for the project. Ms. Lindenthal advised the mock ups were not set in stone and could be redesigned. She stated the project would have fewer studio units, with large units to serve families. She would be open to consider a taller building and a lower parking ratio to accommodate larger unit sizes as the project was on a small site. She offered a finance scenario where the City would consider underwriting the cost of moderate-income units by pursuing more project-based rental assistance units. Rick Williams, Architect for MidPen Housing, stated MidPen Housing had a detailed survey of the project site which entailed where the edges, the water table and utilities were located. Mr. Williams went over the different design scenarios via PowerPoint presentation. Mayor Addiego asked if a two (2)bedroom unit required two (2) parking spaces. Mr. Williams responded a two (2)bedroom unit only required one and one half(1 '/2)parking spaces. Councilwoman Matsumoto stated options one (1) and two (2) were off the table due to the studio units. She asked if there was a way to make the building look shorter architecturally. Mr. Williams replied the fourth floor could have a definitive edge and the fifth floor could have a different color or material palette. Planning Commissioner Ruiz suggested that using rounded corners might help. He followed and asked about the commercial space on the first floor. Mr. Williams explained the building would have management offices on the first floor to give the building a commercial appearance,but does not have commercial space. Ms. Lindenthal commented that retail space on the first floor would impact the size of the building for residential use. Planning Commissioner Wong stated that the benefit of having additional units outweighed the height limit. The building would blend in with other building projects in a few years given future development projects. JOINT HOUSING SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 13,2016 MINUTES PAGE 2 Ms. Lindenthal went over some ideas to help with the parking issue. She referenced a more aggressive parking management plan which included providing transit passes to all residents and implement a no car preference to manage onsite parking. Mayor Addiego inquired how MidPen would know if residents have a car. Ms. Lindenthal answered by pulling the applicant's credit report and see whether they have a car loan. The applicant would have to disclose their assets on the application. Planning Commissioner Wong inquired about an option for a parking lift to help with parking spaces. Sarah Brett, Project Manager for MidPen Housing, added that it would be best not to go any deeper due to the water table,but how there could be a potential to explore some lifts that do not go into the pit. Planning Commissioner Faria asked which unit size was the most requested in San Mateo County. Ms. Lindenthal answered for families it would be the two (2)bedroom units, and for singles or couples it would be the one (1)bedroom unit. Mayor Addiego asked if MidPen could incorporate lower rent for tenants who do not own a vehicle versus those owning one (1) or two (2) vehicles. Ms. Lindenthal explained there would not be a problem incorporating such terms if the project was financed using non-tax credit funds. Under tax credit financing guidelines there would be some limitations. Ms. Brett clarified the logistics of a no car preference, stating it alternates between people who do not own a vehicle and those who may own one or more. Applicants declaring they do not own a vehicle would have to certify to that. Planning Commissioner Wong asked if there was anything MidPen could do to help studio tenants with parking for their visitors. Ms. Lindenthal opened the discussion regarding financing options. She advised it would be a small site, therefore, it would be less efficient from a financial standpoint. The focus would be to minimize the City's contribution. She mentioned the project would serve the Downtown workforce. MidPen Housing's research showed 97% of people working in Downtown were commuting with 37% of those commuting more than ten (10)miles. Most were coming from San Francisco and Daly City. 70% of the Downtown workers commuting in were in service jobs with 66% of them making less than $40,000 a year. JOINT HOUSING SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 13,2016 MINUTES PAGE 3 Councilwoman Matsumoto was informed by the City Manager that he believed 18,000 new employees would be working in South San Francisco. Councilwoman Matsumoto also mentioned other Cities were poaching City of South San Francisco employees by offering them more money. She believed by providing workforce housing to City employees, it would help retain employees. Ms. Lindenthal explained in a scenario where the City wanted to set units aside for City employees, those units would need to be privately financed by the City with the City needing to retain ownership of said units. Mayor Addiego asked for the hourly pay of someone that makes $40,000 a year. Mr. Williams answered with $19 an hour. Mayor Addiego reminded everyone that the project would not solve all the ills and inequities in South San Francisco. Ms. Lindenthal presented the Mixed Income Scenarios Options 2A and 3A and stated MidPen tried to minimize the local gap. Planning Commissioner Faria asked the total annual income for 20% AMI. Mr. Williams responded approximately$20,000. Ms. Lindenthal stated MidPen structured the project to leverage all available sources to keep the local gap low. She advised the numbers could be tweaked further if necessary. Councilwoman Matsumoto asked for clarification if the amount included the City adding in the land. Ms. Lindenthal confirmed that was correct. Councilwoman Matsumoto asked if the value of the land was $2 million. Ms. Brett advised the appraisal of the land has not been completed but she believed that the land would be around $2 million. Mayor Addiego asked for additional information on an individual that qualified for 20% AMI. Ms. Lindenthal answered most individuals were seniors on a fixed income. She explained the 20%AMI requirement in the Cap and Trade Program would not be a good provision and that MidPen is against. She described a scenario where the City employee preference provided ten (10) units for City employees with the total gap being just over$5 million to finance the entire units with the City owning those ten (10) units. The City would set their own AMI level for those JOINT HOUSING SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 13,2016 MINUTES PAGE 4 units but units going over 80%AMI, the City would have to pay property taxes. She clarified the City would receive all the profits after expenses. Mayor Addiego suggested the City would be better off developing a down payment assistance program to help City employees. Ms. Lindenthal gave an example on how Stanford University helped their professors by providing a down payment assistance loan and for the City, as an employer, the loan could be structured for repayment as the individual no longer works for the City. Councilwoman Matsumoto suggested staff to open the project to the companies the City turned down now that they are traveling down a different road. Ms. Lindenthal stated MidPen's proposal reflected those options. Councilwoman Matsumoto stated she was focused on the employee housing and not on the 60- 80%AMI. Ms. Lindenthal replied she had not seen the other proposals but knows there were other affordable housing developers and guessed the other developers also proposed affordable developments. Ms. Brett went over Affordable Scenario Option 3A and advised the City could still place a preference on the units for those residents that live and work in South San Francisco. The City wouldn't be able to specifically preference City Employees but it could be a preference for residents working in South San Francisco. Councilwoman Matsumoto stated she was not sure if the City could legally preference for residents working in South San Francisco. Ms. Lindenthal advised there being a local preference at 636 El Camino. She stated a live/work preference would not be against fair housing law. Assistant City Attorney Lindsay D'Andrea clarified under HUD guidelines, the City could in fact place a live/work preference for people that work and live in the City. Councilwoman Matsumoto queried if in order to receive all the funding, would the City be mandated to have a certain number of AMI units. Ms. Brett mentioned two (2) different options to answer Councilwoman Matsumoto's question. One, if the City got rid of the cap and trade money completely, MidPen would not have to do the 20% AMI but the City's gap would be $2 million higher. Ms. Lindenthal added the City would need to keep a certain number of units at 60% AMI because that went along with the tax credit financing. JOINT HOUSING SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 13,2016 MINUTES PAGE 5 Ms. Brett advised the second option would be if the City kept the cap and trade dollars, with the City using the same scenario with three (3) units at 80% AMI with a total of 38 units, the remaining 35 units would be used to calculate the requirement to have 35%of the units at 20% AMI. Planning Commissioner Ruiz asked whether the ten (10) units for employee housing were mixed units. Ms. Brett confirmed there were seven (7) 1-bedroom and three (3) 2-bedroom units. Planning Commissioner Ruiz queried whether the employee housing units could be on any floor. Ms. Lindenthal replied the units would more than likely be on one (1) floor but could also be mixed on more than one (1) floor. Mayor Addiego asked Board Members for the right number of units at 20% AMI for the project. After discussion, Board Members agreed on the Mixed Income Scenarios Option 3A but with eight (8) units at 20%AMI, 22 units at 60% AMI and seven (7) units at 80% AMI. Ms. Lindenthal stated one scenario would be eight (8) units at 20%AMI and the other scenario at 14 units at 20% AMI to maximize the leverage on what the City would invest to the project to the maximum extent possible. Manager Gerber stated the City would continue to work in good faith efforts on the scenario presented to work towards the November 9th recommendation to Council. Councilwoman Matsumoto stated she wanted to make sure this project would be right for the City as the City does not own much land. She stated she would not mind sitting on the land to view other options. Director Greenwood suggested a more thoughtful date to target Council would be December 14th and asked MidPen whether that sabotages plans down the line. Ms. Lindenthal agreed with Councilwoman Matsumoto regarding getting the project right and are anxious to start the design process. She stated MidPen prefers to keep moving forward towards November 9th. Director Greenwood advised Staff would endeavor and try to meet Council on November 9th and through Council's discussions if it is advantageous to pursue at a more thoughtful pace and come back in December, staff would alert the Committee. Director Greenwood asked if that would work for the Committee. Councilwoman Matsumoto confirmed it would. JOINT HOUSING SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 13,2016 MINUTES PAGE 6 Closed Session 3. Closed Session: Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8) Properties: 201 Grand Avenue and 418 Linden Avenue Negotiating Parties: South San Francisco Successor Agency/City of South San Francisco and Curtis Development, ROEM Development, Palo Alto Partners and MidPen Housing Under Negotiation: Review Price and Terms (Ron Gerber, Housing Manager) Closed Session opened: 5:14 p.m. Open Session resumed: 5:40 p.m. Report out of Closed Session: Direction given. No reportable action. Adjournment Being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 5:41 p.m. Submitted by: Approved by: ii' Gabriel Rodriguez, Deputy City Clerk �• Cou lmember City of South San Francisco ity of South San Fr;, cisco JOINT HOUSING SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 13,2016 PAGE 7 MINUTES